Oh, I don't know. I just followed your example ;)

Mike:Good. These GA-realism guys are a pain in the ##### anyway. There are those of us who are still capable of engaging our imagination while enjoying this hobby, and we don't require every button, switch and gauge to be in the right place. The act of flight alone is ample stimulus, and enogh to keep us addicted for hours on end. For the rest, well, pay for it if you must. Keep up the good work, Mike, I love what you do, especially with the heavies....though I think I'll check out that Meridian! Watching and Waiting for More, Alex CN562ZMinneapolis

Mr Mike Stone.You will find critics everywhere, with few constructive criticism.Ignore them !!!I enjoy your planes, particularly The Meridian.I have not been a GA enthusiast til the arrival of planes like those from FSD-International,DF Archer II (all payware ) and freewares like your Meridian Malibu. Now I once in a while fly VFR and enjoying more my FS2002, and the light jet Falcon 50.Keep up your work. Lot of us appreciate it a LOT.Edmundo Cardenas van Grieken/SVMICaracas, Venezuela

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just to point out that there is a world of difference between most freeware and what we expect from up-to-date, top quality payware. People who design for free should please themselves, and nobody else. But people who prefer to fly the highest-quality, most full-featured models should be willing to pay for the privilege, as I am. It's unfair to freeware designers to compare their work to payware products that were the result of a more rigorous and intensive development process. At the same time, it unfairly diminishes the work of payware designers to compare their work to freeware. Of course, there is poor quality payware, along with oceans of poor quality freeware. And every now and then, a freeware product like the Falcon comes along and raises the bar for everyone.I am only talking about aircraft since I don't download freeware scenery and know nothing about it.

> It's unfair to freeware designers to >compare their work to payware products that were the result >of a more rigorous and intensive development process. Oh -- I don't know. As far as I can see, there are many freeware designers whose work is far superior to the default Microsoft payware that came with the Sim.Barry

LarryThe Avidyne has been modelled and I believe someone is working the Garmin 530/430 unit.Even the programme offered by Garmin as a training aid for the real unit is just a ghost of the actual unit only offering a few functions(I have it)No one can demand anything from people like Mike Stone who is a superb artist in his field.Where you get major projects like the Falcon 50(freeware) or the Dreamfleet warrior (paywhere)they are both projects where others with different skills have been involved.Whether they are freeware or payware is irrelevant other than to the fact that people can expect a certain standard from payware but cannot expect anything from something which is freely given.People should have the right to make constructive positive "observations" (not criticisms :-)and shouldnt feel threatened or embarassed by making them (we are all in this together)But they dont have a right to demand anything.Now if anyone wants to make a VC or a more detailed panel or better airfile or repaint the aircraft to their taste they can always ask Mikes permission.Part of the problem has to be that peoples expectations are growing as aircraft completeness grows.Maybe it is too much to expect everything from one guy and others should offer to take part in these projects in areas that they specialise in themselves.Peter

Barry agreedIf you take the Falcon 50 that was a long, long project and involved specialists in other areas of the aircraft.Not everyone wants to commit so much time to just a single aircraft and prefer to work a number of maybe not so complete designs.Most freeware designers are only too happy to give permission to others to tailor the aircraft to their own specification whether that is building a VC or whatever.Peter

Honestly, Mike, I pretty much download anything that you release and end up enjoying it. For somebody who dedicates their freetime as a labor of love, I thank you. Now to those who feel there are "glaring" errors in some of the freeware releases, fine, but rather than b*tch about it, do something to fix or improve the perceived problem. I am just now starting to play with some repaints and getting into the nuts and bolt of GMAX (when the wife and when the 4 month old daughter both allow mw time to) in hopes of creating some releases that I hope are half as good as releases by Mike and others. I don't think that Mike is such a prima donna that he would not allow you to release an update or patch on your own or through him. He seems to be in this for the enjoyment, and quite honestly, takes constructive criticism a lot better than some payware and freeware authors of late. Just my 2 cents, now lets get back to having some fun flying.MikeKOCF

It's an old chestnut of an issue but it always seems to produce long threads. I'd sum it all up by saying:1. However bad a freeware aircraft is, anyone who complains about it publicly is a dunce. They're free, dammit. There is nothing more exciting than downloading a new freeware aircraft to find that it matches or, in many cases, exceeds what is available in the payware world. It's like Christmas every day for me. And if it's not your cup of tea? Delete it.2. If something is sold to the simming community, it should be good. There are many excellent payware products available, but just as many "FS2002-compatible" commercial add-ons that fall well short of current design development. That, we have every right to complain about, in my view. 4. Many payware products are put together by teams of ex-freeware designers - particularly, it seems, since the introduction of FS2002 and the recent surge in popularity of simming. Seems many good names are jumping on the bandwagon - but don't forget where they all started. Support freeware, don't criticize it - ##### off great designers like Mike Stone to your own detriment - and let's keep all this wonderful variety in our flying. I, for one, will continue to download any GA aircraft that Mike or his peers produce.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv3.jpg

Barry, can you point me toward a few? I would love to try them out.On the whole, I'm fairly positive about the stock FS2002 aircraft. Some of the flight models could definitely be improved, see for example Steve Small's work for the Baron 58. But they looked pretty good and the panels were very functional. Maybe not photo-realistic, but legible and easy to use. And I believe a lot of work had gone into making those models framerate-friendly, something payware designers could learn from. It made a huge difference for me on my old P3 system (I'm happy to say that my new P4 system can handle anything I throw at it).

I agree with Mark (above). In addition, for paragraph #4, I believe you can substitute Mike Stone's name with any of the freeware designer names - the paragraph will be just as apropos.PS - Mark. Where is paragraph #3? Did you have a Dark (brain) Moment? :)

Dear Flying KathyI did, indeed, lose another brain cell today. I'm down to about three now ... I think it's the 'Sam Adams'. Sorry about the missing link. If I was going to put in another paragraph about the wonder of freeware, I would just shout "BILL LYONS, BILL LYONS, BILL LYONS!"Do me a favour. Would you please break all the regulations concerning the size of banners and post a MUCH larger picture of the pilot on the right in yours. Seems she's even better looking than Bill Lyon's Irina (in his Windrider) or Roger Long's "passenger" (in his C172), and there aren't many pretty pilots in flightsim.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv2.jpg

>Barry, can you point me toward a few? I would love to try >them out. All of Bill Lyons aircraft, the Falcon, the FS2000 Fokker 50, the ERJ-145 panel, the Junkers , the Zlin -- just to name a few. Barry

Dark Moment You bin it if you want but fraid thats not my style ;-)Having been involved in probably more freeware projects than you have had hot dinners and a large amount have been involvement without the glory I do feel qualified to say that.This is a flight sim forum to discuss all things flight sim freeware and commercial ware.Just because a guy is freeware one day then goes commercial the next doesnt mean he changes as a person.You cant slate him publically because he is commercial and expect his feelings, pride sensitivity etc to be any different to when he was freeware.Also remember that "commercial" is a big word which conjures up the big bad company living on the backs of poor Joe Public.Most of the small commercial outlets are hardly any better off than freeware generating no more than pocket money to cover some of their expenses.Yes, any one who takes money has to supply goods that are to a standard as advertised but please keep that in proportion.Freeware developers do not work their hearts out for you they do it for themselves first.For me the best freeware are where a number of individuals are involved in a project as a joint effort because at the end of the day we are supposed to be one big family in this together whether creating, giving opinions, encouragement or whatever.Just binning it doesnt do any one any good. What will we do next have a list of the most binned aircraft?Change the word criticism for Feedback. FEEDBACK is vital to freeware developers whether by E mail or in forums and is equally as Vital to the health of forums as well as to the freeware developers because it involves everyone.We all love to have glowing reports and puffed up chests but thats not life all the time.NB second you on the pic ;-)Peter

Kathy,Is your dad really Howard Hughes? Or is it my tiny monitor?