Jump to content

Ted_Striker

Members
  • Content Count

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ted_Striker

  • Rank
    Commercial Pilot
  • Birthday 08/01/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Ted_Striker

    Piracy

    I won't dispute your statement, but at the same time, anything created in Flight Sim that has a corporate identity could be at risk of infringement so with that said, the question of whether the devs get the required permission prior to selling a product with that particular identity attached may be an issue. I an currently check this out with an airline to see what the legal standpoint is, for one out of curiosity and two, because I have created repaints in the past (but not for monetary gain) and would like to know the legalities. i realized that the heart of the argument is dealing with piracy of add-on creators' stuff, and again, can spill over to the corporate identity. PMDG is a great example of a dev who has not only done extensive research on established designs from a manufacturer, but has also taken the appropriate legal steps to cover themselves releasing a commercial product that has the backing of the manufacturer (ex. Boeing). While the above post does not make the distinction, it really doesn't matter when the issue of piracy comes about. PMDG, ORBX, FlyTampa, etc. all weather the piracy storm. They know it exists, they know it cannot be stopped, but there are technologies in place to combat it. For example, PMDG now has a manager that is used for downloading their products and registration is done within the flight sim to identify the product and who it is licensed to, which if the product becomes pirated, precautions are in place to deter piracy as the owner would run out of activations or red flags would be in place to question who owns what. I know Flightbeam uses a third-party utility to register and initialize their products as well, so the question goes back to the devs who are crying foul if they can afford to put protective measures in place to combat the problem of piracy. I'd be curious to see what their response would be on that.
  2. Ted_Striker

    Piracy

    I know this is a touchy subject, but reading a rather lengthy thread off of AirDailyX, I wanted to post something that made a lot of sense and it's something to ponder. Here is a reply made by a member named T.J. Streak ( giving credit where due) made on the subject and I encourage you to read it as it makes a lot of sense: Back to this again? But let's be honest. "Piracy" is pretty rampant and it is far more widespread than most people in the hobby are willing to acknowledge. Have you ever downloaded a livery or an aircraft from AVSIM or a similar site? Because, if you have, you are a "pirate." Because, AVSIM and similar sites are pirate sites, little different from the Pirate Bay. Let me explain. Airlines, at the very least, have a trademark in their liveries. They may even have a copyright on their liveries. Aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed have copyrights on their aircraft designs under current law. This is the reason Microsoft did not include real world liveries in flight simulator and why we have fictional airlines like World Travel and Sucuba. Microsoft and its lawyers simply did not want to negotiate licenses with every airline to use their liveries. Similarly, the rights to an aircraft design are owned by the manufacturer, so Microsoft had to negotiate licenses for each aircraft it included in Flight Simulator. For a large company like Microsoft, birddogging the actual owners of a copyright and licensing the rights to use that material is both time consuming and expensive. This is not only true for digital models, but for plastic ones as well. Most plastic aircraft models are made outside of the United States because aircraft manufacturers demand steep royalties. It just is not possible to price the product at a level to cover the licensing costs -- so the manufacturers cheat. Likewise, with railroads, model railroad manufacturers pay a royalty to a railroad for using its livery. Some railroads, like the Union Pacific, derive considerable revenues from these royalties. I suspect if you check around, you will discover that many of the developers of aircraft, liveries, and yes scenery (after all the plans to an airport are going to be owned by the architects or the operating authority), have secured licenses to make their products. But I suspect many have not; which means that those developers are pirates as well. Sometimes, the piracy committed by developers is unintentional. For example, the developer of X-Plane is being sued for pirating a copy protection scheme. While his pirating of the copy protection scheme was innocent, he still failed to secure the rights to use it. He had a duty to investigate whether he actually could use the product without first paying for it. Like it or not, this means Laminar Research is a pirate. Most hobbyists feel that they can make models of any plane they want, or make liveries for any aircraft, or afcads of any airport and simply upload them to a site like AVSIM. But they do not. Downloading a livery from AVSIM is no different than downloading a Britney Spears song from the Pirate Bay. People ranting about "piracy" (which is an inaccurate and misleading term, by the way) really need to look at their own behavior and ask whether they have committed acts of "piracy" before they accuse their fellow hobbyists of being thieves. Sometimes it just sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle "black." So it's all about licensing and permission. Good point and at the same time, you have to think about what you support, who you support and most importantly, are you exacerbating the issue by committing the same wrong doings? I know I am guilty of using company logos in my work, but I never made one red cent from it, so is it still harmful to do so? I'd have no problem providing credit to a corporation if I knew it wouldn't take so much red tape, but I do believe the answer provided by said company would be " go ahead and use it as long as you are not profiting"...the operative word here is "believe". I think many do what they do in fear of hearing the answer "no". We grew up from our small beginnings knowing that the word 'no' is bad and usually hearing the word 'no' was something we didn't want to hear ("time for your bath!"..."no!", "eat your vegetables!"..."no!") I also think many don't take the disclaimers seriously enough. T.J. made a statement about Microsoft using fake airline names to avoid the legal issues involved with using real world airlines. I am sure they spent a ton of money in licensing fees for the aircraft manufacturers alone. A final thought: think about it next time when you download anything from a website that isn't vetted, sanctioned and/or licensed from the source for the wares they provide, such as AVSIM, since it is so popular and the pre-eminent flight sim resource (no opinion there, just statistical). I believe that even sites that provide everything free has already broken a law at some point, right? Bottom line to all of this: Who is willing to band the torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding mob together and attack a site over copyright? It may be a ticking timebomb waiting to explode. Just my two cents, as usual.
  3. Ted_Striker

    At a loss what to do, FSX "Missions"

    Sounds like you have latent files still around after uninstalling. To take full advantage of a clean re-install of flight simulator, follow PMDG's recommendations here: http://support.precisionmanuals.com/KB/a87/how-to-uninstall-and-reinstall-fsx.aspx
  4. Ted_Striker

    FSX in Windowed or Fullscreen?!?

    With the way my rig handles FSX, I have noticed a difference running in full-screen mode over windowed. Sometimes, if I have to activate an add-on product, I have to run in windowed, in which case, I do what needs done to activate, quit the flight sim, reboot to a fresh state and run flight sim in full-screen, just to take advantage of every resource possible. Just my two cents.
  5. Ted_Striker

    Air France B777-300ER

    I kind of figured that was the case, but I also assumed for the 300ER model, they had already updated the livery...no biggie.
  6. Ted_Striker

    Air France B777-300ER

    perhaps I was misunderstood. When I said that I thought Air France was using their "new" livery, I meant the updated font and red "swoop" along the fuselage...like this:
  7. Ted_Striker

    Air France B777-300ER

    I thought the new Livery was used for the AF B777-300ER?
  8. What are we REALLY trying to achieve in Flight Simulator? Some of us want immersive realism, while others want to fly the sim for the aircraft experience and then that splits off into two categories, with one being those who want to fire up a plane, fly, land, accomplish and then the other being procedural flyers. All in all, mileage will vary and THAT is dependent on what we all want as individuals. I think my first statement needs to be thought about by every user before they set up their sim. When you know what you really want, ignore the rest and concentrate on that goal. For me personally, immersive flying helps maintain the sense of realism you can have in Flight Sim as well as setting up procedurals so the realism is maintained. It can be difficult to achieve if you don't have a screaming machine, but making sacrifices and settling for what you can get can ease the mind and overall, you can still maintain a decent amount of realism for your flight. These discussions about FPS, setups and "who does what" almost seem pointless these days since there is plenty of information online to help each and every one of us. Nowadays, it almost seems like a competition to see who has the perfect setup, which we all know doesn't exist. Again, when it comes to setting up Flight Simulator, there are so many other variables outside of just the sim itself, that no two machines will run the same, regardless of how hard we try. For a lot of those out there who whine and complain about not being able to get one thing to work right, or having so many issues with a sim not functioning the way they want (and yet they still seem to not know what the want from the beginning), it can be funny at times when they reply to the question of "what are you running?"...usually they come back with "well I have this add-on and that add-on, blah, blah, blah"...which equates to about 15 different things and all the while their hardware can really only run internet and email. Of course, it also doesn't help with all the deceptive advertising that goes on with devs showing off screenshots that you will never achieve, but somehow we are so drawn in that we make the purchase and then what happens? We all become those whiny people complaining that they can't get add-on X to run...funny. Let me leave you with one final thought and it has to do with my rig vs. what i run and the end result. I KNOW I don't have the screaming machines that everyone else has here. I have a gaming laptop, and as such, the hardware is pretty good. I say that because I can run FSX with minor tweaks from Kosta plus a good setup through nvidia inspector and then run some ORBX scenery with Traffic 360 (at about 40% traffic settings). My FPS hovers between 25-30 while flying a Carenado aircraft and my weather being set to an ORBX preset through FSX, not a third party. A scenario I flew last night was Bozeman to Jackson Hole, smack dab in the middle of the Rockies. The weather was rough (about 16kt cross winds) flying at dusk. The flight was about 2 hours in my CT206. With everything I mentioned above, my laptop held it's own with the 25-30fps which was smooth enough and clean enough to grab some amazing shots in flight. Btw, i finally figured out my stutters were actually the result of gpu throttling due to heat. I bought a cheap $9 stand for the laptop and I resolved that issue and the sim runs much better, but the key here is that my minimal tweaks, like the ones Kosta recommends are tried and true tweaks. Trust me, he KNOWS what he is talking about folks! Setting up the inspector settings were a piece of cake too, so with both of those sets of options taken care of, FSX runs very well. I don't have my settings maxed out because I already know what my rig will do and I can live with that. Yep, if you can live with what you have and if what you have runs fine, leave it be and enjoy the flight. Ok, off my soapbox now.
  9. Ted_Striker

    Flying the A2A Cessna

    So, how does she fly? She looks great on the outside, but so does the Carenado version. I know the A2A version is packed with real-world functionality and a good review would be nice.
  10. Ted_Striker

    Simple tweak for better FPS in a complex plane

    So basically, you are saying that when you fly the PMDG 737 in VC, the system is still processing the external model while you fly, eating up memory and causing fps to drop? Sounds plausible and your tweak sounds like a winner...now all I need is the PMDG 737NGX. lol
  11. Ted_Striker

    Autogen Settings

    Just turning off unused scenery in general helps a lot. I don't mess with the default scenery in FSX, just add-ons. My T7 flies much better...now if only I can get the hang of programming my FMC correctly, I wouldn't have any more issues.
  12. Ted_Striker

    Humorous Comic

    Ok, maybe humorous in a way.
  13. Ted_Striker

    Boeing 777 Training Online

    Since this forum does not have a dedicated PMDG 777 section, I thought I would throw my hat into the ring and provide a link to a website which has dedicated flight simulator training, called Angle of Attack. I received an email this morning that their 777 training package is now online and ready to go. Click the link below for details: http://www.flyaoamedia.com/777-training/ From what I have seen so far of what they provide, as they have sample videos on their site to give you an idea of what to expect, their tutorials are rather detailed and well put together. For about $55 USD, you get quite a bit, so if you really want to learn more about the aircraft as well as how to fly her, this may be an excellent choice. I don't know if they are sanctioned by PMDG at all, but judging by their other training packages, they seem to be people who are committed to providing the best training without having to go to school.
  14. Ted_Striker

    Global AI Traffic

    Well I think iFlySimX pretty much put this to bed...
  15. Ted_Striker

    Global AI Traffic

    I seriously doubt that our gracious host would allow a business such as GAIT to post their wares here and advertise if they were part of some group of people who are illegally developing programs that steal from others. If this is the case, then cold hard facts should be at the forefront of discussion. Jason, if you have a personal beef with Atco about his argument concerning the legal practices of GAIT, then perhaps both of you could put your heads together and get to the bottom of it. Petty bickering never solves anything and all the while the problem still exists. When I posed questions about the validity and integrity of the GAIT software, I wanted to know more about it considering the hype behind it, but at the same time, their site isn't very multi-lingual friendly and was difficult to navigate. i had downloaded a version of GAIT and installed it but when I got less than favorable results, my first thought was either they didn't test it enough or perhaps there was something wrong, like a version conflict with the software I had. In short, I was unimpressed as I had some expectation that GAIT could compete with other AI devs, like UT2 or TrafficX. Ultimately, I went with a company that has been in the AI business a while and I knew that their software wouldn't cause an issue. I cannot stress enough that even petty debates will leave a lasting impression upon new (and even old) members so if you want to maintain good credibility, hold the tongue, take it outside and settle it all in a calm and mature manner...tips from a more wise and astute member who learned that hard lesson long ago.
×