Plagiarism? Flight Gear sim ripoff?

If you got an email for the creator, shoot him one! Maybe he does not know someone is filching his hard work and profiting from it, and that is not right!

I'd be upset if it was mine.

Anybody can use it, modify it, do whatever, but the rules of open source, as I understand it, specifically call for attribution and some other things.

So I guess I'm sorta taking your suggestion by posting this in plain sight and hoping the word gets around to those whose efforts produced it.

It's one of the things that confirmed for me my interest in flight simming.
I downloaded it to this general purpose dell that I'm on at present, with no video to speak of, and it did stiffen me up a bit trying to land a plane with the mouse and the rendering so bad that you could fly directly away from the airport for ten minutes and then try to fly a descending leg into the pattern but the airport would be right under the wing.
I'm looking forward with eager anticipation to trying it on the new box that will be making its debut next week.

Thanks for replying.
CJ

Do yourself a favor... when you get your new rig... go out and buy a Saitek X52 joystick... you can thank me later.

My heart is breaking.
I have read and read and read, studied and analyzed, trying to make the best investment and choices in setting this up and it looks like I'm going to wind up with buyer's remorse, no matter what.

I bought Saitek pedals but persuaded myself that I deserved to own a cougar, at least for a season, since it's likely I could still get a fair price for it if I didn't like it. The choice was hard and I also got a companion joystick both as an alternate for other games and as a backup if the kitty proves ultimately unreliable.

I was that close. Maybe I'll be so disgusted with the performance of the hotas cougar that I'll throw it out on my road and run over it, thus creating a need for a new controller.

Thanks for the advice. I had a few extra bucks so invested in both FSX and 2004, as well as plan to dual boot into XP as well as 64 bit Vista.

I'm scared to death I'm gonna make a lousy choice or two and either spoil the whole experience or waste so much coin that I back off in disgust.

Ah, well, thanks for letting be bare my ground-bound soul!

Wait... you have a cougar????

That is what all the virtual fighter jocks swear by!!!!!

NOT A BAD MOVE AT ALL!!!

I had the same hard choice between cougar or saitek... in retrospect I love my saitek... but it is apples to oranges... and both taste great.

My 2 cents, I go with XP... As far as I am concerned Vista does not have all the bugs out... especially if you plan on using FS9, or even FSX.

As for which is better, FS9 or FSX... I go FS9 all the way, there is WAY more support for it in the community and downloads are a dime a dozen!

Vista has been out for a year now and I was initially convinced that it was a poison toad--to touchie!

However, my research now leads me to believe otherwise.
In the ensuing months from January 2007 'til now, many, many drivers have been written, re-written or modified to accommodate sixty-four bit data paths and to take advantage of them. The world has to go with sixty four bit capability-with half a terabyte commonly available in home computer storage devices. It strikes me that it's the 64-bit XP that will become the odd man out.
There is also the odd report I have read that Vista's sp-1, which is pretty much the same as the acceleration dvd, coupled with the latest in FSX have combined for some rather startling frame rates, especially compared to historic numbers.

Maybe I shouldn't have lost my virginity to Pollyanna, but I tend to view microsoft as a partner in a great common enterprise, rather than--as so often seems to be the prevailing opinion--as a money grubbing uncomfortable enemy.

If I understand it right, FSX is capable of running on however many processors are available. If you are running dual core you get two or, as I chose, quad core and he can just spread himself all over the place.

I have obtained a new XP home with sp1 and sp2, as well as vista-64 home premium and will partition the hard drive to dual boot either one and take advantage of whatever sim offers a particular challenge. I'm sure it won't be dull.

Back to the thing that started this thread: I am excited at the prospect of firing up FlightGear with a real system--or at least a half-fast one.

Since this thread has wandered far afield anyhow, what do you think of the notion that we use the available sig-lines of posts as a brief descriphion of what gear we are running, cpu, video card(s), OS, sim, memory size, speed, and type, whether overclocked or not, and maybe hard disk setup. Some of the gurus around seem to be doing something like this already.

I think this sharing of stats could be a huge benefit for newbies and could well answer a lot of those questions that you old hands have probably had to answer over and over until your eyebrows turn blue.

It could also serve as a kind of data badge, just as such data does, to determine who is serious and who is a time waster, wanting you to pull nickels out of nowhere and do all their learning and experiencing for them.

My signature is a one trick pony, but I can tell you I built my own Shuttle XPC.

It's got an AMD 2.2 ghz dual core, 2 gig kingston RAM, Nvidia 7800 pci express card, and a 250 gig raid HD which I have split in two. That plus the Saitek X52 stick and throttle makes for some really smooth al weather Airbus flying, or tomcat flying when the mood strikes me. This is all viewed on a Samsung flat screen 22 inch monitor. For internet I have FiOS... Fiberoptic provided by my company, Verizon.... 15 megs down 2 megs up.

I have XP pro and run FS9 exclusively. I figure it has more support so I will go with that... besides I want maximum exposure and max settings as needed for the pix I post in the screenshot forum (US Air Tales... the stories of my participation in the US Airways Virtual Airline).