PAD Sherpa is out!!!

[Joe P]

Go get it FSX and FS9 versions

http://www.premaircraft.com/shorts330_FSX/index.html

[Panther_99FS]

'Saw quite a few of those on a deployment of mine....

[tigisfat]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are experiencing a whole new level of boring.

[Kiwikat]

Not to mention it is a portover like everything else they do -_-zZ

[HenryW]

Not to mention it is a portover like everything else they do -_-zZ

And what so? Its freeware for gods sake :sheep: No one in the whole earth is going to force you to download it.

[SolarEagle]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are experiencing a whole new level of boring.

What is that thang!? lol A generator? Uranium enrichment? lol

[tigisfat]

What is that thang!? lol A generator? Uranium enrichment? lol

it bores tunnels, hence the joke. :kiss:

[tigisfat]

congrats to these guys though, I'm glad they're making good FS9 freeware.

[SolarEagle]

it bores tunnels, hence the joke. :kiss:

Ok I got it, cutter in the front and extracting equipment behind. My mind made the connection to your words by seeing two guys in a loud room with a piece of equipment that just sits there and does what it does, like a generator or some such thing. lol

[Kiwikat]

congrats to these guys though, I'm glad they're making good FS9 freeware.

Yep and that's all... sadly :\

I'd love a FSX Turbo Beaver.:friday:

[gera]

Not to mention it is a portover like everything else they do -_-zZ

Make one yourself maybe I can be your free critic........great show man!!!!nice to know ya!!!!

[IanP]

I'm afraid I'm going to join the crowd of people saying "I won't be getting it and this is why..."

All credit to them for the FS9 freeware, but as has already been said, that's what it is. I'm playing with Gmax to reduce my limitation of using other peoples' models for the stuff that I release FREE. However, it will be using FSX tools, not FS9. Releasing an FS9 model and saying it's for FSX does not make it an FSX model.

Payware or freeware, doesn't matter. It's an FS9 model.

[Henry]

Sometimes i really wonder:sheep::sheep:,
why people just dont learn basic manners
I guess we should make all freeware for compulsory
down loads then people can really bitch
Jeees!
PAD makes some great aircraft for what i pay for
and i fly a few of them in FSX
This particular model
is not really my style of airplane
so i probably will not get it
but thats my personal choice
thanks for the HU Joe
H

[MCDesigns]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are experiencing a whole new level of boring.

Seems we are also experiencing a whole new level of being inconsiderate.

While I can truly appreciate that guys like you and kiwikat (and myself) prefer a fully native FSX model, let's try to keep inappropriate, nonconstructive and even rude comments left unsaid as they benefit no one and can actually hurt some

PAD has already expressed their stance on not using the FSX compiler for their FSX compatible models

Let's try and think before we type from now on guys.

[IanP]

I'm sorry, but I did think and I was not impolite. I'm also not getting into an argument so this is my position and if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's not my problem.

The fact is that FSX is not new, it is not an "unstable platform", it is not "impossible to develop for", as many developers, freeware and commercially, have shown. It is, however, disingenuous to release anything, however much it costs, and to state that it is for a simulator that it is not. I had a problem with that when Peter Tishma did it for years, I have a problem when Abacus do it now, I have a problem with it when freeware developers do it - particularly those who do it without the permission of the author whose package they are "upgrading" (you all know who they are).

Is that a complaint? Yes. Is it a valid complaint? In my opinion, yes. I have no problem using ports in FSX, although with two installs (one on XP32, one on Vista64), I keep them on the XP installation. Have I developed models for FSX? Very simple ones, yes. However the techniques I used apply whether they were for an aircraft, a boat or a crate.

I'm getting more than a little fed up of the constant cries of "it's free, therefore beyond reproach" from certain quarters. I also dislike some of the posts above from people whose comments have no real point to them at all (you know who you are as well) denegrating this release. Had it been released as "FS9 (works in FSX)" I would have no objection, but these are not - and should not be advertised as at any price - FSX models.

It's that simple.

Edit: I should add that I *expect* criticism of the stuff that I provide to people. The fact that I get very little, I put down to exactly the same reason that I have never received an e-mail thanking me for it. Most people don't care enough to comment. I do. Hence I am trying to improve and build on what I do as well.

[Henry]

Ian
Actually i was not referring to your post
and in general i agree with it
its the you now who you are posts that i disagree with
H

[tigisfat]

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it, or that it showed shoddy craftsmanship. I said it was a nice freeware FS9 setup, and I said Sherpas were boring. Not PAD, not specifically the model, Sherpas in general. I was attempting to be funny. I highly doubt anyone at PAD would get their feelings hurt by my saying that. When a C-5 lands here, and I lose my mind, There's more than one person who calls it boring.

[Kiwikat]

Very well said Ian!!! :ernae:

I've been against the false use of "FSX" in any product description since FSX came out. The worst part is when payware companies do it and KNOW they are doing it but won't change it.

[Kiwikat]

Make one yourself maybe I can be your free critic........great show man!!!!nice to know ya!!!!

I've spent MANY hundreds of hours beta testing and doing repaints. I know what it takes to do a project and I know what goes into it. Go ahead and criticize my paints. They are waiting for you on AVSIM. You won't get a response, but maybe it'll make you feel better anyways.

Or perhaps maybe I'll even listen to your criticisms and become better at what I do. There's an idea!

PAD stuff has been a favorite in the past (like when I used fs9). If they ever decided to make real FSX models I would be very pleased. I'm sure others would be too.

[gera]

I've spent MANY hundreds of hours beta testing and doing repaints. I know what it takes to do a project and I know what goes into it. Go ahead and criticize my paints. They are waiting for you on AVSIM. You won't get a response, but maybe it'll make you feel better anyways.

Or perhaps maybe I'll even listen to your criticisms and become better at what I do. There's an idea!

PAD stuff has been a favorite in the past (like when I used fs9). If they ever decided to make real FSX models I would be very pleased. I'm sure others would be too.

Yes,,,, I´ll check your great paints and give you ..your due criticism, I hope my manner of giving it will be constructive and never denigrating or offensive as I thing you have given others that do freeware for all......:amen:

[d0mokun]

Come on guys, don't get petty. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion, whether it is agreeable with one's own or not. Nobody should have to hide what they want to say.

There's no such thing as 'constructive' criticism, it's just criticism at the end of the day and it's up to the artist or parties involved to be constructive with peoples ideas and views. If they don't want to be, well that's fine. If they do, well that's fine too. Freeware or Payware.

Alternatively if you've got nothing pleasant to say, don't say it at all..

[IanP]

I disagree, Dan. There is a substantial difference between constructive and non-constructive criticism. Constructive criticism offers advice, or a recommendation on how to improve. It says "can you do something about this? I recommend trying such and such." or "This looks wrong to me, based on this evidence."

Non-constructive criticism is "that's a pile of [censored]" without any supporting evidence, without any basis or credibility. And there's a heck of a lot of that on the internet.

Nothing will always be to everyones' tastes and the developer/artist can always decide what to and what not to take on board. Nothing, however, is ever going to be "above" criticism. The trick, which I know no-one who always gets right, is to give and take that criticism in a constructive manner.

The term "If you don't have anything pleasant to say, don't say anything" is very counter productive. Are we supposed to tell the Police that the serial killer is "...a really nice person, but they have this little problem..."? Seriously?

[d0mokun]

Ian,

You know which side of the argument I fall on, hence I made the very point you do above weeks ago when this same topic came up.

Not saying something nice- that's your "it's crap" response. Not criticism.

Of course you can be 'constructive' but your idea of constructive might not be the same as mine, so where do you lay the guidelines? It takes as much effort from the receiving party to be constructive with the comments as it does to actually give a helpful opinion on something. Perfect example is above. I don't believe that KK's comments were derogatory or anything like that. Other users do.

I can sit around in my arm chair giving out critique all day every day, but if the people I'm giving it to aren't going to listen, it's not constructive. Takes two to tango.

Like I said, whether someone agrees with an opinion or not, it's still an opinion and it can still be voiced.

[N2056]

These guys release free planes...which I would think they work on in their spare time. Perhaps in the future they will transition to FSX, but then again perhaps they will get fed up with people complaining about the fact that the model is not true FSX and find something more enjoyable to do. My observation has been that freeware releases are either new planes that are FS9 models, or that are FSX models that don't work at all in FS9. Anyone seen a freeware release yet that features true models for both versions in one package? I ask this as a true question, as I am unaware of any myself...and knowing the different rules that each version forces the model maker to follow I highly doubt that you will see many. Piglet is the only guy I know of that has converted some of his FS9 models to FSX.

When it comes to freeware my thought is that if it isn't what you want then you delete it and move on. If it turns out to be a port, and you don't do ports...same process. I think that while it can be frustrating when the author 'mis-labels' a model in terms of FSX, knowing what making that model involved to begin with allows me to be forgiving on that point.

If some of you guys out there really feel that you should be able to get worked up about the quality of freeware developers offerings up to and including whether or not they understand what a true FSX model is, then I would think that you will not find very many true FSX freeware planes being released.

[Kiwikat]

I don't believe my criticism is "non-constructive". I gave them a clear suggestion, nor did I bash the work they DID do. I'm sure it is a decent FS9 freeware.

I don't even much care about the quality of the freeware, just that it is native.

However there are freeware authors like piglet that accomplish both quality and native-ness. It would be great to have some more like him. :ernae:


I would think that you will not find very many true FSX freeware planes being released.

That is correct. There ARE very few FSX freeware planes being released.

[gera]

These guys release free planes...which I would think they work on in their spare time. Perhaps in the future they will transition to FSX, but then again perhaps they will get fed up with people complaining about the fact that the model is not true FSX and find something more enjoyable to do. My observation has been that freeware releases are either new planes that are FS9 models, or that are FSX models that don't work at all in FS9. Anyone seen a freeware release yet that features true models for both versions in one package? I ask this as a true question, as I am unaware of any myself...and knowing the different rules that each version forces the model maker to follow I highly doubt that you will see many. Piglet is the only guy I know of that has converted some of his FS9 models to FSX.

When it comes to freeware my thought is that if it isn't what you want then you delete it and move on. If it turns out to be a port, and you don't do ports...same process. I think that while it can be frustrating when the author 'mis-labels' a model in terms of FSX, knowing what making that model involved to begin with allows me to be forgiving on that point.

If some of you guys out there really feel that you should be able to get worked up about the quality of freeware developers offerings up to and including whether or not they understand what a true FSX model is, then I would think that you will not find very many true FSX freeware planes being released.

Absolutly right amigo....how many hobbyists in other hobbys receive Free Stuff from other fellow hobbyists...?????___complaining about their freeware work is really a sign of totally upside down morals to say the least......This world is Topsy Turby!!!

[An-225]

If I can add my two cents, I have to say, its the fact that portovers are being placed in the FSX section that is irritating everyone, when they truly belong in the FS9 section. They just raise hopes, and when people find out that they are FS9 SDK, they are irritated and annoyed.

Should they not be placed in the FS9 section, if that is what they are?

[tigisfat]

The bandwagon strikes again. Noone here said anyhting about the quality of this product, and yet we're told to not be rude, and so on. I said SHERPAs are boring, not PAD or their products. Kiwikat merely mentioned that this is an FS9 aircraft.


Dan is right: criticism, and the meaning behind it, are relative. Most people here, such as myself, aren't qualified to offer constructive criticism anyway. Most of the time, if someone like me offers a suggestion, it's just "this doesn't looke right to me."

[IanP]

Absolutly right amigo....how many hobbyists in other hobbys receive Free Stuff from other fellow hobbyists...?????___complaining about their freeware work is really a sign of totally upside down morals to say the least......This world is Topsy Turby!!!

FS/TS are two of very few computer based hobbies where you are actually allowed to attach any price at all to add-ons.

I've been involved in a lot of gaming circles over time, many of which come with SDKs or development tools, tied to a statement that anything developed with them may not be sold in any way, shape or form. I've seen FPS and RTS games totally converted from their base package into totally different genres and eras. I've seen some fantastic add-ons bringing entirely new races, classes and unit types to games - all free. Where people have issues with them, they will voice those criticisms. You cannot legally charge for this stuff. It is still not above comment or criticism and never should it be. I assume that those here who believe that you should not be able to say where a product or service has faults also never read a review or user comments before paying for something - you always buy blind and trust that what you are getting will be perfect, right?

One thing that I will say about the FS community compared to others is that we get a lot fewer simple "it's crap" comments. Yes, we do get some, but they are usually counterbalanced by people coming out and saying "this is why it's not right" and that's the way it should be.

I have no problem with the state of my morals - I believe that false advertising is wrong, regardless of how much you are charging for the product or service. You should never mislead someone into believing they are getting something they aren't.

[N332DW]

I have the Shorts Sherpa and enjoy it as well as a few othe PAD Products - i'm fine with port-overs especially nice ones
--------
i used to be quilty of using the FS9 SDK and releasing for FSX , i've since gone exclusively to the FSX SDK after reading the derisive comments of the purists out there,,, it was a difficult climb up the learning curve but now i know they are not talking about me :gossip:

[bobmay]

Since the original subject of this thread is our Sherpa model maybe I can add my 2 cents worth to clarify our position.

1. We have never claimed that the FSX versions of our models are made using the FSX SDK. We make FS9 models and then take out the gauges that won't work in FSX and replace them with ones that will. In the download lists FS9 and FSX versions have to be identified and separated because neither will work in the other sim. If in the future the major download sites introduce 'Converted to FSX' and ' SDK FSX' categories we will proudly place our models in the former category.

2. We don't "port over" anything, we simply modify the panel so that FSX users can fly them if they want to. The fact that more of our FSX versions are downloaded than FS9 tells us that thousands of FSX users do want to.

3. Our "target audience" is newbies and casual fun simmers who don't yet want to, or can't afford to, take the plunge into the payware sharkpool. We do not make models with space cadets, rivet counters, hard core realists or native FSX snobs in mind.

'Nuff said, except to say a big thank you to all the hundreds of simmers who send emails of appreciation or leave encouraging messages in our web site guest book.

Bob
PAD

[IanP]

It's not about "snobbishness", Bob, and you are entirely correct that the big problem here is that the download sites don't differentiate between ported software (which is exactly what you are doing when you do what you convert a package, it means the same thing! :))

As I said earlier in the thread, I have no problems at all using ported aircraft in FSX - I still use a number, some of them regularly. I do know, however, that they cause a significant and obvious slow down in the sim so I avoid them where possible.

This discussion has started because of a PAD aircraft, but the problem is caused by the download sites and, most of all, the mess that was made of the FSX release because the download sites, when they set up their categories for the new sim, had no idea at all that these issues were going to happen!

[CG_1976]

I'm loving the Buffalo and md-11 in FSX. PAD is a mainstay in both my FSX and Fs9 hangers and im proud to have PAD Ac's in my hangers.

[tigisfat]

3. Our "target audience" is newbies and casual fun simmers who don't yet want to, or can't afford to, take the plunge into the payware sharkpool. We do not make models with space cadets, rivet counters, hard core realists or native FSX snobs in mind.

Good show, and well said. When noone makes aircraft for that audience, then flight simming is dead.

[gera]

Bob......Thanks for all the wonderful models you guys bring to this community.:ernae:

[airfighterjohn]

Several of the PAD portovers have way better performance than similar fsx native aircraft on my system. There are payware developers out there that have some real problems with making a less resource intensive aircraft--Digital Aviation and Captain Sim just to name a couple (ever tried to do the CS 757, an FSX native model?) As long as it works on my system and gives decent performance I personally do not care whether it is a portover or not. A couple of good examples of this are the Connie portover, and the Section 8 F-86. Both perform very well on my system. This is just to name a couple--I am not picky--if it looks good and flies well, then I'll get it. Granted, if I am going to pay for it, then I expect it to be native FSX. But for free--get real folks!!!!!:ernae: