Simviation Forums

Why the hell, are there AI Dash 8s, MD 83 and other planes that we have to download

Are microsoft a bunch of AR$EHOLE$

I wonder

Budd this is a legacy from earlier models of FS. It was just quicker and easier for M$ to add the same planes to the next model, and thus get it out to us the customers quicker.
Fortunately for the more fussy there are simply tonnes of great AI being made by talented designers. I've just added a load of Il-18s for my Russian flights, and I'm doing some Spitfire AI for something else I've got planned. Don't lament the system, M$ have made it superbly expandable, and there is a wealth of talented designers out there making the FS world more real for all of us.
If you want to complain about something, then I'd say that the non-US scenery and airports was an excellent place to bitch about

Ozzy

Yeah and non existant Euro world

Aye, you try flying in Africa, India or anywhere like that. Its pathetic when compared to the detail of the W.Coast of the US....
I suppose that is why most of the top scenery designers are coming out of Europe and fixing stuff. Wonderful bunch of chaps (and chapesses)

Ozzy

Why the hell, are there AI Dash 8s, MD 83 and other planes that we have to download

Are microsoft a bunch of AR$EHOLE$

I wonder

.. what does it matter? Surely the 'add-on-ability' of FS is it's greatest singular asset?

Baring that in mind I can't see what you are complaining about ...


As for US scenery .. well it has to be said - judging from this site & I suspect others - the majority of FS users are from the US. Our stats say 67% US.... So ... Given Rome wasn't built in a day ..... & the globe is a massive task - ongoing  - but appropriately aimed I would say ..

Why the hell, are there AI Dash 8s, MD 83 and other planes that we have to download

Are microsoft a bunch of AR$EHOLE$

I wonder

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The 3 aircraft you mention are included with FS9 (& FS2002) - as AI Only drones for use as AI traffic. These are basic models without a 2d panel or DVC. They're not listed as flyable types on the M$ site. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/aircraft_modern.asp

The idea of AI Only drones was first used in CFS1. This worked very well so it's not surprising they used it when AI traffic was introduced with FS2002. Although it's possible to modify these aircraft to be flyable they were never intended for this purpose. You're not forced to download anything for the sim to work as advertised.

The Gmax source files for these aircraft are included with FS2002 (& possibly the FS9 SDK) for developers to experiment with & update them if they wish. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Since it seems we're on the topic of "add-on" ability. Yeah, it's great, but it could be a whole lot better.

Skittles:
That would be nice but I'm wondering the place all this "downloaded info" will be stored.
I'm sure there are many more people using FS9 than the train sim, so if you took all the FS9 users and tried to store every file they downloaded you would need a massive amount of space to keep all that data. I would almost think it would end up being located at a site with a fee to cover the storage space.

Skittles:
That would be nice but I'm wondering the place all this "downloaded info" will be stored.
I'm sure there are many more people using FS9 than the train sim, so if you took all the FS9 users and tried to store every file they downloaded you would need a massive amount of space to keep all that data. I would almost think it would end up being located at a site with a fee to cover the storage space.

You are so correct. The proposal I made to Microsoft was a little more detailed.  The idea I have is to unite all the websites. NOT onto the same server, but into the same service. There are a lot of details that would have to go into an idea like this, but we would not need a single source. Many site offer many things. Everone has their own preference.

There is no reason why the shopping cart must be dedicated to a single site. If someone was to produce a single program for downloading and everyone who creates content for FS, constructed their packages in a formatted structure, this one program could go to all sources for download.

The BIG problem with this idea is all of the content already created outside of a standard, orderly format.

Should I continue to explain or just let it go?

Joe

....... and everyone who creates content for FS, constructed their packages in a formatted structure.......

Ahhh, therein lies the rub. Over a year ago, Manfred Muerer (FS-AOM developer) suggested doing that very same thing so people could significiantly ease the install process.

He was damn near laughed off the forums for such a "stupid idea." The most common response was "NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL ME HOW TO DESIGN AND PACKAGE MY WORK!!!"

Hope you have better luck.

It's just an idea. People designing stuff for Trainz are not so stubborn to have it their way. It's not that they are limited in design, it's mostly file structure. But that has to start at MS.

The people here, can take it or leave it. No skin off my nose.

It's just an idea. People designing stuff for Trainz are not so stubborn to have it their way. It's not that they are limited in design, it's mostly file structure. But that has to start at MS.

The people here, can take it or leave it. No skin off my nose.

I think it is a good idea but is obviously one that will probably never happen, just too many things would need to be done in order for it to work. And yes stubborness would play a big part.
And if M$ were to try something like this with FS they would have to do it by the hopes that designers would follow through and follow the proper procedures, in which case most wouldn't, meaning less stuff for access to the general public, meaning loss of sales and bigger complaints.
So in my opinion M$ has one good thing going for them (FS9) lets not give them the idea of "complete" control over it!
Not to mention whenever I download a add-on I imediately copy the file to a disc, just in case a reinstall is needed. I think I would prefer it this way instead of leaving trust in a server to "save" everything I want, if something happens to my stuff I only have one person too blame and that is myself

It's just an idea. People designing stuff for Trainz are not so stubborn to have it their way. It's not that they are limited in design, it's mostly file structure. But that has to start at MS.

The people here, can take it or leave it. No skin off my nose.

Hmmm, the people at Auran did something which is, IMHO, absolutely brilliant. First, if you want to upload to the Auran library (which is the largest by far) you do it their way, and their way only. This allows them to check the file for correctness and install on demand to individual people.

When one DLs a route and then starts Trainz one has an option to DL the extra content to run it, right from the program.

Yes, at first, and even later when noobs first get active with content creation, there is/are some whinging thoughts about "their way". But it's an established system now and works just fine. You can DL for free from Auran but it only costs about $10 per year for a "guaranteed" first class connection which takes the brakes off DL speed. Sort of like; you get a 56k modem speed if you DL for free and Avsim DSL speed if you pay. I pay! It's such a small sum and helps assure that Auran DL is available into the future.

This is the basic difference between a smaller company and MSoft; smaller companies value their customers and MSoft could give a d**n about them. "We've got your money, why should we help you?", is their demonstrated motto. "Course, if you send money we'll TRY to help you."

With all the great freeware and payware models, why would you want to convert the AI models to flyable?
Dash 8 has a great payware and freeware model that far out shine the MS version.