Durk Talsma wrote: > Folks, > > Just following up on this old thread, we now have some new insights into FPS, > as recently posted in the forum: > > On Sunday 25 October 2009 04:39:48 pm I wrote: > > ...to think of it from an advertising point of view: What does every company > > in the world do to advertise their product? Emphasize how, and why their > > product is better than their competitor's. In this light, the fact that > > we're only being offered vague statements should be indicative enough. > > Adding to that, the vague description of the ProFlightSim launcher in one > > of the “reviews” at Mr George Cayley's website > > (http://www.flightprosim.net) suggest that their advanced > > installer/launcher is in fact nothing more than Fred's fgrun. > > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6500 > > Thanks to some clever detective work, we managed to download a copy of the > "enhanced FPS launcher, and obtain an up-close-and-personal look at their > enhancements. Please have a look at the screen by screen comparison of fgfs > fgrun vs. fps fgrun. Funnily enough, the most significant change appears > consist of the fact that the address to report bugs, now consists of a URL to > an online book-on-tape store that is actually not selling anything. Seems > like > a nice Pythonesque twist... :-) > > > Personally, I think that we have a moral obligation to > > do what is in our power to prevent that. In particular because people > > falling for these kinds of traps may not necessarily be the ones with the > > highest socio-economic status, and therefore not the ones who have a lot of > > money to spare. > > > > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=11 >
There have now been a number of posts regarding the FG view on FPS. Gijs has put together a wiki article (http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Flight_Pro_Sim) and I have commented on a forum question on the Flight Sim Network http://www.flightsimulatornetwork.com/forum/topics/fsx-verses-flight-pro-sim?commentId=861558%3AComment%3A41641&xg_source=msg_com_forum There are a varieties of opinions on the importance, relevance, morality of FPS and what action FG developers can and/or should take to discourage this behaviour. However, I don't think any active FG deveoper is particularly in favour of what they have done. I think we should have some sort of statement displayed prominently on the website setting out in clear terms the relationship between FG and FPS. As Durk has pointed out, there has already been significant confusion and some hurt caused. I'm becoming concerned that this is beginning to affect our "brand", which may worry some people more than others. A clear statement would a) provide a good reference point for any further discussion outside of the community, rather than various people making different comments. b) be visible enough to Google so that anyone doing cursory research would have more chance of coming across FG if investigating FPS. As someone who has in the past done professional work with FG, I'd be happy to draft a factual statement. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
