Posts by aarneson

    FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE USA NOW AVAILABLE..... https://flight-sim.org/filebas…ville-usa-by-iz0jub-2020/


    This now completes my experimentation using satellite images courtesy of USGS.

    Michael, please head a little west to include the Pensacola area as well. Florida without Pensacola Beach and the famous Naval Air Station (the home of the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels) isn’t...well, Florida!


    Thanks for all you do, hope you can fit this in...


    Arne

    I would love to install this beautiful scenery but am still puzzled as to how it does or does not fit with IPACs Florida scenery? Can anyone tell me which of Michael’s tiles should NOT be installed in order to avoid conflict? I am assuming all of Key West and the Southeast coastal areas.


    Thanks

    Arne

    The link has been here for a week or so.


    Ray

    I guess I would say you need to spend a few minutes reading this forum about the new R-22.


    Regards,

    Ray

    Sorry that I missed the original thread on this, my bad... But might I add that my thread will probably call as much if not more attention to the fact that a new aircraft is on the horizon than the obscure references buried in a now 3-screen thread started in early March. Ray, all I want to do is celebrate what IPACS is up to.

    Can’t believe all you helicopter enthusiasts have missed this! I saw it via the Orbx forums and apparently it also is talked about on the Steam and Avsim sites as well. All I can say is, great news if true, and shame on the IPACS forum for not noticing.

    I downloaded the C172 mod a few minutes ago, hadn't had a chance to update this wonderful addition for a few weeks... To my great disappointment, no opening doors or windows! Everything else works and looks like a charm (repaints all show up, etc.), so I must have done something wrong. Won't be the first time! 😉


    HELP! 🤷🏻‍♂️


    Arne

    I am amazed that more folks aren't chiming in on this! I thought I was going blind or nuts until Antoine's message. My DR400 and my C172 Cold and Dark Mod have both fallen victim to this. Does this mean that a whole new C172 will have to be built as well? And what does this bode for future user created content, aircraft and scenery? Every time a major update occurs will the good people who create these gems have to go back to the drawing board? That will sure put a damper on things.


    Every time I think that FS2 is "the one," I realize how far it has to go to become really competitive. And that is a shame, because it really is---shortcomings aside---a beautiful sim!


    In any case, hope you can solve this current issue so that I can fly my two favorite (not stock aircraft!) planes again.


    Arne

    Folks, thanks for the honest response here. I didn't mean for my message to be negative, but I am concerned that you really do appear to be shutting off or discouraging a goldmine of opportunities for the Aerofly user community. When you do your research on this, you should discover that there is little liability danger in simply linking to another site. Most infringement concerns are related to commercial products such as videos and music recordings, not at all the kinds of things that you already have on your site, or those on the mega flight simulation library file sites like Avsim or Flightsim. And has anyone approached those very well regulated organizations to see if they would include Aerofly creations? They have been in this biz for a long time, and you could learn a lot just looking at their extensive posting requirements.


    In any case, please check out the opinions of Harvard University's Digital Media Law Project, one of the oldest and most respected Internet think tanks at:


    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid…ing-copyrighted-materials


    I wish the IPACS team nothing but the best, because you folks ARE the best!

    Please, please rethink this! See quote below. IPAC's blanket refusal to provide even a simple link to a potential warehouse site hosting hobbyist-user created non-commercial add-ons is not reasonable. For years the flight simming community has thrived on such add-ons, allowing users to create sceneries, objects, and aircraft that greatly enhance the myriads of currently available and even no longer produced sims. The big boy sims all have users dedicated to enhancing their enjoyment of the hobby, and if Aerofly is to join their ranks, they need to get on the ball here. Currently, there are only a paltry 54 aircraft repaint and scenery models available, compared to the thousands of goodies available for those other sims. In fact IPACS is aggressively encouraging user created add-ons by producing wonderful software such as GeoConvert and the many default aircraft Repaint Kits. Why refuse to provide a simple link to potential sites where those users can share their hard work? And expand the user base for Aerofly?

    With this all said, we will not be able to allow for you to host or link to any content that violates copyright laws. Due to some question of this related to imagery derived from FSET we don't think that you should proceed with this through our forums. We aren't stating that you can't do whatever you wish on your own private websites and/or servers, we just can't run the risk of allowing this further from this forum.


    I fully understand the desire to avoid copyright and trademark conflicts involved in using third party earth images or airline logos. However, in most cases hobbyist created aircraft using commercial logos are considered to be no more than artistic renditions of simulated aircraft. And the USGS images often used to create higher res terrain are by and large infringement free. There is little chance that the commercial creators of such images or logos will see these non-commercial creations as little more than good advertising for their airline, etc. And in the worst case scenario all they might require is to remove the content from whatever site.


    Has IPACS or any of our users considered putting Aerofly user creations on the mega sim file sites such as Avsim or Flightsim? Those sites have tons of user created add-ons for all of the big players. Both of those sites have detailed, robust requirements for uploading software, and have handled most of the infringement concerns that need to be addressed. IPACS doesn't have to host their own site, but they need to have some way to let users know that such things exist, and that would be a simple link to another site. Providing this address or link to a users web browser should be no more an infringement than providing that web address in written form (as would appear in a newspaper article). The provision of this type of information is similar to providing a library user with the Library of Congress location for a book already in the library. The address or link itself is pure information, and is not protected by copyright or by any other intellectual property regime.

    Please, please rethink this! IPAC's blanket refusal to provide even a simple link to a potential warehouse site hosting hobbyist-user created non-commercial add-ons is not reasonable. For years the flight simming community has thrived on such add-ons, allowing users to create sceneries, objects, and aircraft that greatly enhance the myriads of currently available and even no longer produced sims. The big boy sims all have users dedicated to enhancing their enjoyment of the hobby, and if Aerofly is to join their ranks, they need to get on the ball here. Currently, there are only a paltry 54 aircraft repaint and scenery models available, compared to the thousands of goodies available for those other sims. In fact IPACS is aggressively encouraging user created add-ons by producing wonderful software such as GeoConvert and the many default aircraft Repaint Kits. Why refuse to provide a simple link to potential sites where those users can share their hard work? And expand the user base for Aerofly?


    I fully understand the desire to avoid copyright and trademark conflicts involved in using third party earth images or airline logos. However, in most cases hobbyist created aircraft using commercial logos are considered to be no more than artistic renditions of simulated aircraft. And the USGS images often used to create higher res terrain are by and large infringement free. There is little chance that the commercial creators of such images or logos will see these non-commercial creations as little more than good advertising for their airline, etc. And in the worst case scenario all they might require is to remove the content from whatever site.


    Has IPACS or any of our users considered putting Aerofly user creations on the mega sim file sites such as Avsim or Flightsim? Those sites have tons of user created add-ons for all of the big players. Both of those sites have detailed, robust requirements for uploading software, and have handled most of the infringement concerns that need to be addressed. IPACS doesn't have to host their own site, but they need to have some way to let users know that such things exist, and that would be a simple link to another site. Providing this address or link to a users web browser should be no more an infringement than providing that web address in written form (as would appear in a newspaper article). The provision of this type of information is similar to providing a library user with the Library of Congress location for a book already in the library. The address or link itself is pure information, and is not protected by copyright or by any other intellectual property regime.

    Indeed, after eagerly downloading the SDK a few hours ago, anticipating that I would soon be flying the dr400, and fruitlessly trying to follow the various SDK instructions, I discovered that there was no "aircraft_workshop." Nada. Nyet. Did a search on my hard drive. Still nothing. Then I went to the forum, and discovered HiFlyer's wonderful and timely post!


    And then I read the above post from Admin: "The aircraft SDK will be published again, once the Q400 is out as there are some small changes that would prevent the DR400 from working."


    I just have to ask Admin, exactly when and how are you going to tell the rest of us about this? Or take down the links to the flawed SDK to prevent other sorry users from wasting their time? And why is it that we have to blindly ask what is wrong for problems that are clearly by design? I understand the problem and will greatly appreciate the solution, but IPACS has got to stop leaving us in the dark!

    Really? If you are trying to make things better by providing feedback, do you think you could be a bit more positive. Give 'em a break.


    I stand by my statement. You mean to say that in 13 months they couldn't spare someone to spread the good news? Updating a web page is an incredibly simple task that should take little or no time at all. I have been very consistentl in my praise of FS2, and am really worried that this casual attitude towards promoting the product could lead to complete failure. Flight simulation is my hobby, but it has to be a business for Aerofly.

    Nicely done! I am the original thread author of the now closed thread titled "Is Aerofly a sinking ship?" in which I urged Aerofly to at the very least update their web site to indicate developments that have occurred since the May 2016 launch date of FS2. I took a quick peek a minute ago and nada, nothing more than the original launch data, no mention of Utah, New York, or the freshly released Meigs and Innsbruck. Shame on them, that they continue to depend on users or other providers such as Orbx to hawk their wares for them. FS2 is an incredible simulator and they should be so proud that they can't wait to shout the news, yet they can't even bother to put some new graphics, screenshots and text in a web page or two. I remain very worried that newbies stumbling on the Aerofly site will never know what they are missing...