Are we playing a Dangerous Game? Freeware

[Guest]

Mr. Peter Sidoli,YOU ARE MY GOD!! I love your honesty and directness as well as your work.How is the Seneca V comming along?In all sincerity will you take me under your wing and show me the way of the FORCE! :-halo:-newbie lolCB

[Guest]

With all the DRAMA that has gone today. I have enjoyed myself tremendously. It is better then watching the season finaly of "AS THE WORLD TURNS!" :-xxrotflmaoAgain Peter, excellently put! I love your phrase PRIMA DONNNA I use it quite frequently myself. I think the phrased should be used more often in our everyday vocabulary. This will help suppress PRIMADONIC egos.. lol :-hang And no i'm not refering to you peter.Your previous post has given me more sense of direction here.Your hopeful protege of aircraft development,CB :-wave

[Guest]

If any of you have been following my sound packages (even since FS98) you will notice that the largest ones released have always gone through a second or even third revision. While the primary motivation for that was simply to improve my work (often a new great idea comes up after the product has already been released) for myself, I always take into account any criticism from others which could possibly improve it to their liking. Granted I have not heard anybody say flat out that my work sucks, but I've had my share of straightforward no praise critique such as "The engines sound different in real life" or "This and that sound aren't really that loud" or "This new effect you put in doesn't sound right" or "You don't really hear that on the real thing." While they certainly didn't boost my ego, they certainly gave me valuable feedback in my realm of add-ons that are more subjective than objective. This has led to some great (if a bit fleeting) partnerships that were started by their comments in the forums and through e-mail about my work:Almost right after I released a Sound Package for Mike Vidal's DC-9 which he endorsed, it went through a revision based mostly on some comments I had received from users via e-mail (Really useful stuff like "My father is a real DC-9 captain and he thinks you got the wind sound itself right, but the volume is a bit too soft" or "The engines are a bit too high pitched considering their distance from the cockpit.") Peter Sidoli himself gave some most interesting insights on how the real Seneca V sounds like after I released my sound package for it, thus prompting a revision. Sean Molony of the Fly! I Citabira fame objected to my use of a non-default engine sound that sounded too powerful for him, so I released a revision which could use the default engine sound but combined with my improvements in other areas. While dozens praised my Sound Enhancement Package for Fly! II, several responses in the forum wished that I should apply my skill to the only aircraft add-on available during that time with sound, the DC-9. Other responses discussed whether ancilliary sounds (flaps, gear, etc.) should be unrealistically loud to compensate for the lack of tactile feedback. Again, these responses prompted a revision. Soon after I released my Turboprop Sound Enhancement package for FS2K2, to quite my suprise a real King Air pilot uploaded a revision with what he claimed were 99% more realistic reverse prop sounds and posted his announcement on this forum. I worked with him on the final revision of that package.My experiences illustrate how criticism stated in a straightforward, no praise, and fairly blunt manner can be used to further one's work. Eversince that whole Falcon 50 debacle things have never been the same IMO.-Leon Medado

[Guest]

>I think there is a serious danger that any comments which >are not glowing praise of a freeware product will become >unacceptable in the forum and stifle the whole basis of what >a forum is about. >Some people (including some authors) do indeed take any negative comment or constructive criticism as a personal insult.The sad facts are that such people (and those who would aimlessly flame anything and anyone) are often far more vocal than the moderate majority.>The best only accept the best from themselves and >continually strive to improve what they do. >Many do, and will take constructive criticism to heart. The problem is those people who are not constructive but seem to take pleasure in vebally assaulting the authors and their products in completely unwarranted ways (then again, some authors don't accept any negative feedback at all, seeing it as a personal insult on their perceived perfection).>Commercial ware seems to be fair game, yet just because an >author decides to change overnight from freeware to >commercial ware doesnt mean that his pride or feeling change >too. >Sadly true. Personally I prefer to handle things in private with authors (both commercial and freeware). It prevents others from jumping in and using my problem as a basis for starting a flamewar.If the author cannot be reached or is unresponsive (it happens, sadly), only then comes the time to go public.>Yes Commercial developers are answerable because they take >money for their products but their feelings are no different >and they have equal pride in a job well done. >And they too like constructive criticism. Maybe even more as it makes it possible for them to make a better product for the future which will mean more income.>We should not tolerate negative criticism and hound that out >of the forums but to become intolerant of polite positive >criticism is playing a very dangerous game and one which >would harm the forum as a whole. >Even negative criticism doesn't have to be bad, as long as it is constructive and worded politely.Saying "the flapguide seems to be the wrong size, it should be slightly shorter" sounds a lot more frienly than "YOU DID IT ALL WRONG!!!!! THOSE FLAPGUIDES ARE COMPLETELY WRONG AND I DEMAND YOU CHANGE IT NOW!!!!!", don't you think?

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>>I have noticed an intolerance which seems to be growing >towards any freedom of speech where it involves Freeware. >>................>>It is getting to a point where posters are fearful to say >anything which isnt glowing about freeware and start by >saying "please dont take this the wroung way I think your >aircraft is great but......" and they still get jumped on as >if they have spoken a Blasphemy. >.................>So beware where this new attitude leads >>Peter Right, Peter. I saw it myself here recently. I welcome criticism myself. If it's from the peanut gallery I smile, and ignore it. If it's legitimate I'll try to do something to improve a flight model. One problem is that no one can do all of even a simple AC. I only do/did flight dynamics - that takes all my time. Ron

[Guest]

RonYou have hit on a very valid point and one which freeware developers should consider for the quality of the aircraft that they are building.Do you churn out visual models with substandard panels and iffy flight models as if off a production line or do you specialise in what you are good at and make these aircraft more of a combined effort.I know which path I support especially nowadays when the sims are becoming more complex,the standards are beecoming higher and peoples expectations are more demanding.There are very few top notch flight modellers (your one Ron) and that itself creates a problem :-)btw we may have cracked the true spin in MSFS ;-) Rob hit on something after nearly giving up so hopefully the SF260 will be the first spinner PeterPeter

[pracines 823]

Even criticizing pay ware is dangerous or even forbidden in many forums these days. 

[mikea76 184]

Wow, We went back in time 12 years! that may be a necro posting record.

[ZKOKQ 984]

Wow, We went back in time 12 years! that may be a necro posting record.

Loses the title by one day

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/100201-release-week-update-1/

 

12 year old threads Good grief!!

 

 

Even criticizing pay ware is dangerous

So is bringing 12 year old threads to life for no good reason

[N2056 33]

I'll make my true comment on this one in 12 years. Stay tuned!

[nam1394 10]

I'll make my true comment on this one in 12 years. Stay tuned!

Lol

[pete_auau 1,152]

So is bringing 12 year old threads to life for no good reason

 

Seems to be in the in thing now

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/100201-release-week-update-1/

[ZKOKQ 984]

 

Seems to be in the in thing now

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/100201-release-week-update-1/

Getting worse.

[anthony31 63]

The interesting thing here is that this thread from 2002 is in the fsx forum.

[AVSIM Admin 4]

This is an automatic message.

 

This topic has been moved from "MS FSX Forum" to "Hangar Chat". This move has been done for a number of possible reasons.

• The most likely reason is that the post was off topic.
• The topic could also have contained images or a video that were not appropriate to the original forum it was posted in.
• The images might not have been "illustrative" or "explanatory" in nature.
• The topic could have been moved because we deemed it to be more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Please ensure that your posts are "on topic" and contain illustrative images or videos as appropriate. Do not post videos or images just for entertainment purposes anywhere but in the screen shot or video forums. See our image posting rules here.

 

Members who continue to post off topic posts can be denied entry to specific forums in order to reduce and remove the practice. Your cooperation is appreciated.