jeffyen

>Judged on the review and several forum messages if I

Although red outs can be found in some of the fighter planes for FS9, the issue here clearly isn't a technical one. It's one about aesthetics and 'good taste'.If deaths of passengers are simulated, I think the most basic advancement should be what a cockpit looks like when it crashes. I'm not sure what modern fighter flight sims portray this grim event. Was it in the old Wing Commander series where the pilot would move his hands over this face, look away, screams...and the whole screen goes white.I don't think a civilian flight sim should necessarity go that route... ;)

The lights issue I think is a known 'bug', and it also probably has to do with how FS inherently handles it. It's not a critical thing, though. There are ways to 'work around' it.

>>>With this I have to disagree strongly. Depends on your standards and what you mean by "excellent" resuts. Bob is extremely qualified pilot and he reported glaring (by order of 50%) disparity in takeof roll for example. 10,20 % may be tolerable but 50% sounds excessive even for an MSFS add-on. I suggest you find his original post and read it in its entirety.Thanks for the added info. :)

>>I also used Bob Scott's modified AIR file>>Sorry but this statement sounds like someone telling us the orginal PIC 767 is much better with the added Posky merge file or Captain Sim's 727 airfile tweaks. If it is great already then certainly a "user" edit would not be needed.I would have to disagree with this. Modeling is an art, not a science. It has to do with 'feeling' also rather with mere numbers per se. Most people have not even heard of 'Bob's air file', and I suspect that is not needed in the first place to get excellent results. Just because someone creates an air file doesn't mean the original is 'less right', it's just a difference in opinion, even among real pilots. Another thing is that I think the 'landing' paragraph is quite unnecessary/misleading. It's operator error/RTM as acknowledged by the reviewer. And the ILS thing is a known FS quirk.The main thing the thread starter points out is a low score, and when viewed with the criteria given by the scoring scheme, probably makes sense. It's just that if the same criteria is applied to all reviews, the PMDG planes might have gotten less than 4 stars as well. But there are no easy solutions to this sort of thing, naturally... :)

>Thanks guys for the "pat on the back" must have done>something right to actually get a thread on the topic. Been>getting emails from all over the world so it musta touched>some universal theme.>>Have more in the works...Thank you so much, the movie's beautiful!

I dont attack until attacked...comprehend what you read please.Well, it seems that you got the whole thing started by calling them 'pirates' first. :)

1) Aeroworx King Air B2002) Fanda Dash 83) Default Cessna C2084) Slot Unfilled5) Slot Unfilled6) Slot Unfilled

>>>All the people who so bitterly complain about payware should start to put their money where their mouth is: Learn visual basic, C++, GMax, PSP or Photoshop and whatever else they need, get down to some serious coding for a few hundred (or thousand)hours, and then give it away to anyone who wants it!I think this suggestion is a little too easy for these guys. They probably would balk at the idea of needing to buy a 'Learn VisualC in 24 Hours' manual. Make them forgo their salaries from their regular day jobs and see how it feels like... :)Somehow or rather, people seem to forget that freeware is undeserved gifts... there's nothing wrong with developers charging for these gifts later.

>>>It is very impresive to see a FS mannual using real AC photographs to show systems and gauges...This might be a little surprising, but in the manual, apart from those serving as chapter headers, the photos of systems and guages are actually all actual screenshots (produced from real photos obviously.) Pretty amazing, isn't it? :)

Bruce, please email henning@aeroworx.com and he'll sort things out.For the forum, you've inadventedly stated that you're 13 years or younger (happened to me once too!). Just register with another user name.

No worries, I'm not frustrated with you (nor do I have any reason to). I think you might be confused by the FFS/Aeroworx naming thing. It's the same aircraft, the 2 developed it together. It used to be sold at FFS' website, but now it's only sold at the Aeroworx website. I believe you're a fan of the default King Air 350? Can't go wrong with this B200. :)

>>>In other words several people (PMDG logo post) seem to have flown the other B200. My point is I will pay for ad-ons now and then, (ie...FSGen, Plat membership)but as a consumer I would really have to push had to get myself to pay for to planes that are of the same typeUh...they are not 'the same type'. The folks who have the PMDG planes are flying the Boeing 737 (except the 'propeller head' B1900D) which has turbofan jet engines. The Beech B200, however, is a turboprop and you can see the spinning propellers from the cockpit. There is only one payware B200 at this point in time as far as I know.

You're going to LOVE this serious plane. And yes, you can fly totally in VC (at least I do.)

The difference between payware and freeware consists of one thing: the former requires the customer to pay, the latter does not. That's it. And there's nothing wrong with either perspective. If a developer wants to produce an awesome aircraft, and yet for whatever reason does not want to be paid, more power to him. If a developer wants to produce an awesome aircraft and wishes to be compensated for his time, more power to him too.It doesn't really say anything about quality. I think that's not the job description of the term 'payware' or 'freeware'. Yes, normally, we assume payware to be 'better' than freeware because the developer can afford to spend more/full time on the product, but sometimes we are surprised by the quality of freeware. That's probably not a surprise, if we think about it more; people who work for free often produces fantastic work, and not only in the realm of flightsim products (Linux/opensource community, for e.g.)I now only fly 2 aircraft; the freeware Fanda Dash 8, and the payware Aeroworx B200; who cares whether they're payware or freeway, those terms are just dummy variables. And it's quite meaningless to say that the Fanda is 'catching up' with the Aeroworx since there's really no such thing. Both of them are awesome in their own right! :)

>>i would like all the software produced had to go through a code review but in that case we would be still in the 80's. I sincerely think there are a lot of other means of securing the network that will benefit all.I agree with you that in most cases, it might not be necessary to go through a thorough code review. However, this is not something that we have any right to decide. The reason is that vatsim is not obligated whatsoever to provide us with this service. They don't have to do it, period. It is simply a gift. It's freeware. Yes, people can suggest things and so on, but the service does not owe the users anything, and vice versa. So they have a right to their own rules and whatever measures necessary to ensure the network's integrity.Since there is some (very justified) suspicion with the new client, surely any responsible administrator would want to tear the source code apart (with the necessary NDA agreed) to see if everything is working as it should (much like how a antivirus person working at Symantec pours through a suspected new virus they've received). Any less would really be irresponsible on their part, I feel. They have a responsibility to those who've placed their trust in their network and would guard that trust to the best of their ability. I think that's a very reasonable thing to do. And if I were supernova team, and if I know that this is just an unfortunate mistake, obviously I don't mind submitting it for review, it's the least I could do after inconveniencing so many people already. And yes, at least I'll reveal who I am, and explain myself. :)

Jaime, you seem to be a reasonable person, but I think you're missing the point here. The point is not whether the current system is good or bad, or whether it can be improved, or whether open source is good or not. These are all important points, but they are peripheral issues.What matters is that here we have a team who already are highly suspicious, whose intentions are not known. This has got nothing to do with the points in the previous paragraph; they are 2 different matters altogether.I'm also very interested in how come you're not more wary; imagine a person going into your house to take something (by mistake or not), surely you'll want to be more wary instead of thinking no more bad things can happen and inviting the person back for some coffee? >>Why? I dont know.I don't know too. I'm not sure whether your suggestions are good or bad either. But that's another story for another day...

>>Do you think programmers will resort to developing such a detailed programme just to take your CID/VID and associated password??There are far simpler ways to do it.You're right, probably not. Then again, it'll indeed be a very simple way if the malicious intent is present and the detective work didn't manage to catch anything. And them suddenly one day, boom! something bad happens, security's been compromised, and no one will know what actually causes it. That question is equal to "Do you think programmers will spend all their time hunched at their desktops to come out with a virus that doesn't do anything really bad but just spams people and shuts down networks?" The answer is clearly yes, happens all the time, and it's illegal. For example, virus catchers spend their time pouring over source code to determine the payload of viruses; they are truly detailed programs. I'm not saying that's exactly what's happening, but that is a distinct possibility.>>Carelessness is not equal to maliciousnessSure. But initial carelessness followed by hittingback/evation strongly suggests the latter, you think not? At the very least, due diligence requires us to have that at the back of our minds.

>>I'm asking you: WHY in the name of God would any of us EVER trust ANYTHING coming from them in the future?I've puzzled over this myself too. There are those who seem fanatical about their business practices. At first I thought those who're on the other side of the fence are actually people from their own team creating multiple usernames and saying the same illogical things.The other more likely reason is the notion of playing the role of the martyr. Here we have popular network pointing out obvious problems, and we have the underdog appearing to be 'bullied' (far from the truth, but an easy thing to subscribe to). It is a very, very attractive notion for a small minority of folks, especially those who think others owe them, to come to their defence and adopt the 'stick it to THE MAN!' mode of operation, and that's what I believe is happening.

Not a film per se, but Microsoft's new "Your Potential. Our Passion." flash presentation has some very cool theme music!http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/

...and their answers are truly disappointing. Hardly seen that sort of audacity from a developer/s before (apart from the infamous few).And obvious indications on intent to mislead their users. More like high school computer whizs rather than computer science PhD holders like they claimed their team consist of...

If I were you, I'd reformat and install XP from scratch. And also using the latest drivers (bios, video, NSS etc.) from the Dell website.It certainly shouldn't happen with a new computer. Do you have antivirus/adaware?

>Really, I'll bet your using WinXp and correct me if I'm>wrong but I could swear I removed some spyware [Alexa] from>it before I even installed anything else onto it. And it's not>likely that most people have only programs that contained no>adware, or spyware on their computers, that they didnt have to>remove. According to your line of reasoning you dont have much>on your computerThe stuff that sqwkanwin does (honest mistake or not) cannot be lumped together with 'common spyware' such as Alexa (which I don't think comes with XP preinstalled!) As 'undesirable' as stuff like Alexa is, it only reports aggregated statistics; it does not identify individuals. (Even so, for stuff like Alexa, as long as people understand what they're getting into, that's fine.)Sqwackwin does something that is quite different, and possibly even illegal. It retrieves passwords and moves it somewhere else. If FS' multiplayer facility were a online bank account transaction facility instead, you can see the implications. It's really very serious (the principal, and not really the actual harm done to people in this particular instance.)

So the answer to the 'why' question is "We have transferred the datas plane/pilot/squawkwin/FS in order to study the evolution of the software in real time... What is the interest to get your personal data of IVAO or VATSIM? Absolutely nothing! It acted of a follow-up to see at which point our software is popular. And it was!"Can any software developer comment on the relevancy of obtaining id's/passwords to 'study the evolution of...' in the developmental process? And how does that tie in with the ability to 'see at which point our software is popular." Quite a weird answer?

What an interesting and thorough analysis...I guess the only thing that the sun team needs to do now is to answer a very simple question: Why?Why encrypt the person's id and password and pass it back to their server? Does it serve any 'beta testing' purpose? I really can't think of any good reason, but I'm keeping an open mind...