Definition of a letdown

[DennyA]

Definition of a letdown:

You see a really nice-looking rendition of a cool plane in the FSX download section at FlightSim.com.

Then you see the text at the end of the download: "[SIZE=-1]Modifications and textures by Mark Rooks of RDG Aircraft."

In other words, FS9 plane with texture conversion and airfile tweaks. I wish these guys would just make a separate library for converted FS9 planes to spare us the disappointment.

[/SIZE]

 

[N2056]

Yep...Never have agreed with how that stuff gets sorted on all the sites :isadizzy:

 

[RyanJames170]

i am with you guys sucks so much
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Wozza]

Hi
One good thing about flightsim.com is you can click on the view button and see what files are in the zip.You can check out the readme and if there i only 1 mdl 99% chance its a portover
Wozza

 

[fsafranek]

At least the price is right.
:ernae:

 

[tigisfat]

Definition of a letdown:

You see a really nice-looking rendition of a cool plane in the FSX download section at FlightSim.com.

Then you see the text at the end of the download: "[SIZE=-1]Modifications and textures by Mark Rooks of RDG Aircraft."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In other words, FS9 plane with texture conversion and airfile tweaks. I wish these guys would just make a separate library for converted FS9 planes to spare us the disappointment.[/SIZE]

 

[dswo]

I know the feeling. On the other hand, I'm grateful for the truth in labeling.

 

[Lateral-G]

Definition of a letdown:

You see a really nice-looking rendition of a cool plane in the FSX download section at FlightSim.com.

Then you see the text at the end of the download: "[SIZE=-1]Modifications and textures by Mark Rooks of RDG Aircraft."

In other words, FS9 plane with texture conversion and airfile tweaks. I wish these guys would just make a separate library for converted FS9 planes to spare us the disappointment.

[/SIZE]

I get tired of this as well as that D Garnier fellow and his hacks.....

-G-

 

[guzler]

If he was getting rich from it, fair comment. If he's not, how about being grateful for him putting his own time into making some great planes as good as they can be in FSX ?

I for one have many port overs and enjoy them. No body forces me to use them, I use them by my own free will just as I decide not to use many that I don't like. I just don't come on here complaining about them.

 

[IanP]

Huge amounts of time? Creating a thumbnail image? That's what many (the majority?) of "FSX conversions" comprise.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. An FS9 aircraft is an FS9 aircraft is an FS9 aircraft. Changing some text fields (at best) and adding a thumbnail (most commonly) to an FS9 aircraft does not make it FSX.

I also happily use ports. But I deliberately don't download "FSX converted" packages - usually uploaded without even requesting permission from the copyright holder.

 

[MCDesigns]

If he was getting rich from it, fair comment. If he's not, how about being grateful for him putting his own time into making some great planes as good as they can be in FSX ?

If that was the case, it would be fine, BUT it usually comes across like a lowlife that used someone else's hard work to get their 2 minutes of FS D/L fame. Many times the description leaves out the original author and many times there are still plenty of issues, of which the original author now has to deal with. Not to mention that these "tweaked" files usually end up in the FSX aircraft section and most users have no clue that it's NOT an FXS aircraft and wonder why the glass is black, it's lacking FSX features, the rotors don't play well with clouds or trees or they have a huge performance hit.

freeware authors tend to put alot of work into original projects and all they usually ask for is some recognition and these types take away from that by hacking their work and re-uploading it to sites that don't care about the lack of morality behind it as long as they have the files for users to D/L and make them look like a legit FS site.

 

[Lateral-G]

If he was getting rich from it, fair comment. If he's not, how about being grateful for him putting his own time into making some great planes as good as they can be in FSX ?

I for one have many port overs and enjoy them. No body forces me to use them, I use them by my own free will just as I decide not to use many that I don't like. I just don't come on here complaining about them.

These guys that put up FS9 models other guys have developed and created and pass them off as FSX models (with veiled implications they made the model themselves) are hacks in my opinion. Add to the fact they rarely (if ever) get permission from the original author. Just ask Piglet about this........

I purposely avoid any downloads put up by Rooks or Garnier. If I want a FS9 model in FSX I'll do the mods myself.

-G-

 

[Roger]

What is laughable is when you see a hack of an aircraft that is already updated by the original author to FsX native. Seen quite a few of Tim's offered up in this way.

 

[Rich]

Good enough for me the messing around on the MB 5 is my last bodge

 

[Roger]

Good enough for me the messing around on the MB 5 is my last bodge

No Rich,
Port-overs are fine if it's an informed decision. I wanted Oliver Fischer's Ju-52 and Buecker as well as the Fs9 Tri-motor and a few others, so I worked the texture problems and they are in my FsX install. I always put Fs9 gauges in the port-over's panel folder, rather than the main FsX gauge folder and I'm very careful with Fs9 fx files, usually rejecting their install in FsX

 

[Henry]

Good enough for me the messing around on the MB 5 is my last bodge

there is a large difference
here we help each other
to get some fs9 aircraft into fsx
i have had a few that i like, yourself and others have helped
make them acceptable
thats one thing
another is just doing some thing uploading it
i have not seen you upload to a major site
i have seen you help others
theres the difference
and i for one appreciate it
H

 

[modelr]

Hmm, not taking up sides here, but looking at the first 120 of the files on Flightsim.com with Mark Rooks name on them, every one of them very clearly state the name of the original author's name, model and that the file is modified for FSX. Inside, in the readme, (in the couple I went in and read) he lists the original author's name and excerpts from the original readme, (if not the whole readme.)

Since this thread starts out complaining that the file is done by Mark Rooks, as if it does not, up front, mention it's a port over, I must respectfully disagree.

Not ALL the FS9 aircraft we have come to love have been done as native FSX aircraft, yet, so the port overs that work, even tho not in all FSX's glory, are appreciated by some, myself included.

Probably the main reason FS9 remains on my hard drive.

I do try to check and make sure that the port overs done by someone other than the original authors do have permission in one way or another for the modifiers modifications. And, when one without that permission is brought up here, I immediately remove it from my computer.

 

[PutPut]

This problem will probably never go away unless the sites change their labeling. They can label stuff any way they want as long as there is a section that is "for real" FSX native. Having said that, I run several port overs just because they are what's available. Some work very well and some don't, they get deleted.

Paul

 

[euroastar350]

Thats why with the recent Bell 212 release, I mentioned no FSX modifications as I have one planned later in the future. No fuss, no hassle.

 

[DennyA]

Let me clarify:

There's nothing wrong with doing a portover. Nice that people spend the time to do it.

What's wrong is labeling the result an "FSX aircraft," wasting the time of people who download it to find it's not.

If they'd just label the planes "FS9 edited for FSX" right at the top of the description, it'd make everyone happy.