Binnman

Geoff,If folks are (or have been) complaining about the comments made by Megaslop81, would it not be a better idea to remove his post from this thread and fire off a warning to the fella?

Some folks do in fact make donations to Avsim which is why I used the loose term "users/customers" Perhaps if you had posted; instead of; it would have been far better.As another member stated, just because someone hasn't got a large post count, it does not mean that their opinion is any less valid. For sure he could have posted his opinion a lot better. However the points made by Kiwiflyer are valid and they should not be overshadowed because another member went a tad too far.Nothing that Kiwiflyer had said warranted his presence being questionned, nor does anything posted warrant the rather threatening "Take the hint" nonsense

Is it really? Are the customers/users not entitled to an opinion? Do you (the admins) reckon that there is nothing that can be improved?

Couple of years back, started up FS9, only to discover no sounds.Went through all the settings and was just about to go down the reinstall route, when I discovered that at some point I had hit the "master mute" button on my keyboard!:(

I think you're getting a wee bit confused Chock.The CPS are not the first port of call for the victims of a crime........................that's the Police function. In receipt of a complaint, the Police do not immediately contact the CPS and ask what they should do (as it were). The Police will investigate an allegation and report the facts to the CPS. It is at that point that the CPS may request further enquiries to ascertain specific facts that they (the CPS) feel are necessary for a case to proceed.Once Police investigations are completed the CPS will then decide if there is a prima facie case. If there is, they will then consider whether there is a reasonable expectation of a prosecution and finally consider whether it is the public interest to pursue the matter. Part of this "public interest" will include the costs of bringing the case to court and whether there is any chance of recovery of costs on conviction.Will it be in the public interest for the UK to spend thousands taking the accused to court? Given the current financial climate, I have my doubts.

Al, the rules governing evidence are many and varied, however when available "best evidence" should be lead. It's all well and good using documentary evidence, however (unless agreed to) you still need a witness to verify the authenticity of the documents. Not sure about England, but in Scotland, you also need evidence from the complainer, which in this case would be the owner of Avsim........................his evidence would cover 1. that a crime had been committed, 2. that a loss had been incurred.Whilst there is indeed a great interest in prosecuting computer fraud, this incident is not fraud as such. It relates to denial of service and;"The main anti-hacking laws of the UK are contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but the wording of that Act is such that it could be difficult to use it to prosecute someone for a denial of service attack. Instead, in England, a denial of service attack might be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act; in Scotland, such an attack could be prosecuted as malicious mischief."http://www.out-law.com/page-1409

Hi John,I had the same problem when I tried to putchase via the Simscape website.If you go through Eric's own site, you'll get it no problem;http://emarciano.free.fr/En/index.htm

Eric,I purchased toolbox yesterday and I can recommend it to everyone! Fantastic work, I particularly like the mouse control of the VC.Keep up the great work.

Of course it is, but it's based on more than 20 years experience of court matters.

Yes, that's all very well in theory. In practice, however, the costs of the trial must be weighed against any realistic possibility of not only getting a conviction, but also recovering costs from the accused.In this instance, the prosecution would have to call Tom Allensworth and any of the website "gurus" to testify as to the "how, when and by whom" which would entail paying expenses for a. Loss of earnings, b. Travel and c. Accomodation to all the witnesses from the USA. The defence may stipulate that the site was hacked, but the prosecution needs to prove how it was hacked and most importantly by whom. That cannot be done without witnesses being called.Given the current court lists, the current financial climate etc., it is more than a possibility that the CPS will "no-pro" the case and suggest a civil prosecution to recover costs and damages from the accused.

You may well find that the CPS do not prosecute, given that the "complainer" and witnesses to the alleged offence reside outwith the UK. Any trial resulting from a prosecution would be too expensive, given the nature of the offence.

Think you'll find that what you are asking is a breach of the Project AI End User Licence mate.As far as I recall, they do not give permission for inclusion of their models in AI packs other PAI and WOAI and I pretty sure they'll not be too keen on someone decoding their stuff.Cheers

Personally, I'd stick with World of AI packages (civilian) and Military AI Works packages (military) for your AI needs.Commercial packages will become somewhat out of date (aircraft and operations wise) whereas the groups mentioned do tend to update on a regular basis. Speaking as a member of MAIW, the packages are as realistic as we can make them, given the nature of military operations.Cheers