Jump to content

About the flightsim.to copyright issues, If you want to comment, here is the place!


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, mopperle said:

OK, when you think it is ok, to open 3 accounts and this person uses Putin as avatar picture and calls Aerosoft a ¬†Nazi company in this current situation we see in the world, you missed some important things. Maybe you better choose another playground. ūüė°

 

I think you read my post the other way around. Read it again. - The way I had meant it, I was agreeing with you.

 

We're here to try and sort out a way that everyone gets what they want.  Trying such shenanigans as fake accounts doesn't help anybody, it just muddles the issue and makes things worse all around. "Peace Talks", I said, remember? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

You dont get it. I banned three accounts for an obivious reason and you called this a ‚Äědick move‚Äú. There¬†is nothing more to add.¬†

Keep on posting your elaborations about copyright and do not downplay certain kind of posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mopperle said:

You dont get it. I banned three accounts for an obivious reason and you called this a ‚Äědick move‚Äú. There¬†is nothing more to add.¬†

Keep on posting your elaborations about copyright and do not downplay certain kind of posts.

 

Read it again, again.  Your bans were not  the thing I called a dick move.  I thought you did the right thing. 

Semantics...

 

 

There seems to be a minute or more of lag time between different ppl getting refreshes on the forum.  That's a good thing to keep in mind in situations like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay maybe I shouldn't have compared the company to germany, they are more like russia or china

why the are hell your mods banning people from here just for downvoting? I downvoted 5 comments that i strongly disagree with, btw i also upvoted a lot of comments. i was not here to solely downvote posts

I am using a god damned feature of the website, why would a person get banned for that?

just because you are an Aerosoft simp and mad that i downvote comments you think are valid is not a reason to ban someone 


what is this? russia???

at least people know what this company is about now.
Vdg7MWx.png

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, try to at least pay some attention to what people are saying before you start blasting at them. I think I need a hazmat suit, this place is so toxic....

Hats off to the moderators for allowing this thread to continue despite it all. It is very important that we figure this stuff out and I'm glad to see both sides agreeing on at least the fact that this is a very important discussion.

 

 

So play it fair, kids.  We're all disgruntled, angry, and possibly not entirely sober people trying to communicate through a format that makes ambiguity as commonplace as stubbing your toe when drunk.

 

Nobody here is endorsing/condemning any specific type of government with their words or actions (I'd hope not, at least)

We're talking about a problem which just might have been a ridiculously monstrous case of poorly informed people making proportionally poor judgement calls - on BOTH sides of the argument.

 

Notice how the Deputy Sheriff just misread my post from before and told me off twice before actually trying to read it again. 

I did not downvote or yell at him, he made a mistake in interpretation and no doubts will feel very silly all by himself when he realizes it.  That's ok.  We're humans, and humans are terrible at understanding each other. (see "World History", any part of it, really)

 

THAT is what I mean by "Mother of all misunderstandings" - Everyone seems to be up in arms and it's "Us vs. Them" right now - That's gotta stop if we're gonna convey any ideas either way across this No-Man's-Land of a debate...

 

 Breathe, people. Air is nice and free. It's also good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

It is unbelievable how stupid people are and opening one a account after the other and using onetime email adress. ;)

And comparing with Russia or China is more then offending.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, remember back before the internet, when some people used to say, how global access to free information would someday be a cure for all ignorance and bickering?

As it turns out, that wasn't it....

 

 

I've also noted I'm not the only one who edits his posts multiple times afterwards to clarify things and add more information.  

That means, anyone who makes a habit of reading only the latest post or two, is probably missing about half the conversation by now.

 

So everyone, please do yourself and everyone here a big favor, and read the thread again.  From the top.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, back to the original subject. I had thoughts of my own, and the more I think about it, the more I think of a better way forward than Aerosoft and the community telling each other to go themselves.

 

Aerosoft has always been adamant about not providing roadmaps for their products, in order to ‚Äúnot mislead‚ÄĚ their customers or set ‚Äúburdensome expectations‚ÄĚ for their developers. However, we‚Äôre starting to see that model working well for certain developers (in fact, even Asobo provides a moderately detailed roadmap of Flight Simulator). Asobo provides a detail feedback overview (wishlists and bugs) and for top hitters, they identify general plans for incorporating the fixes described. For the top 10, they go into a lot more detail and describe their goals to address the issue.

 

I think this level of communication needs to happen to put everyone‚Äôs mind at ease. For everyone in the community to be able to see the full list of bugs/issues that Aerosoft acknowledges, and what they‚Äôre planning to address for the next update and defer to the following one, would be of huge value to the community. It would help people be at ease knowing Aerosoft is working on a solution for issues that are known, and minimizes the need for someone to ‚Äútake matters into their own hands‚ÄĚ and fix the aircraft themselves. To me, it would be comforting if I could see the full list of bugs and issues on the CRJ that Aerosoft is aware of, and when they plan to address it (v1.0.5.0? 1.0.6.0?), even if the plan doesn‚Äôt always work and done things have to get deferred last second because it couldn‚Äôt work through QA.

 

To summarize, Aerosoft needs to improve their transparency and actively show the community what they‚Äôre doing next. This need-to-know and ‚Äúsearch the forums first to see if we know or care about it‚ÄĚ attitude needs to stop. The community wants to know what Aerosoft is thinking, what they know, and what they‚Äôre planning, not what Matthijs Kok read, responded to, and promised to forward to the appropriate individual.

 

I‚Äôm a project engineer at work. My mandate is to deliver projects from beginning to end, and manage stakeholder expectations from beginning to end. If all my projects started with me saying ‚ÄúI‚Äôll look into it‚ÄĚ to the customer, not tell them what I‚Äôm working on or what features I‚Äôm incorporating, and then only deliver a solution at the end and only then tell the customer what I created, I‚Äôd be fired on the spot for leaving customers in the dark and not offering them the opportunity to provide feedback on the design, roadmap, schedule, or project requirements (in Aerosoft‚Äôs case, the Sprint Requirements Baseline).¬†
 

EDIT: When I say ‚Äútransparency on full list of bugs‚ÄĚ: I don‚Äôt mean having a forum full of user-created topics and having to find the one where Matthijs or a dev responded saying ‚Äúyup we‚Äôll look into it‚ÄĚ. This isn‚Äôt user friendly, and I can think of a ton of those threads which never went anywhere. I mean there should be one thread, one table, one post, which has all ‚Äúknown issues‚ÄĚ in one place, as well as plans to rectify them (or not). Prove that Aerosoft is working on it, and not just telling us ‚Äúwe‚Äôll see improvements inshallah‚ÄĚ

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To keep on topic, just a quick follow-up to my original comment and the main points amahran is making above, I really, really want to hammer home the fact to whomever is listening at Aerosoft, there needs to be more transparency and communication with the customers. Its fine if you release something not fully baked, just be honest and address it. Acknowledge the known issues and improvements you're working on. Provide us with updates on whats in progress, whats not possible etc. With this specifically, there are more problems other than the sound pack, which we know you're working on... but what about the stuff from this mod? CCM fixed those problems, very quickly, in a very stable package. He has said that Aerosoft hasn't taken any of his suggestions with any serious consideration, or straight up shuts them down.

 

And before Mathijs or someone from Aerosoft gives me the "testing, testing, testing, blah blah blah" answer, it was a mod thats been active for over a month, with however many hundreds/thousands users, and 5-star rating with reviews and feedback from CCM I might add. <- There's your testing demographic. This whole situation would go a hell of a lot differently if you took down the mod but also put out a statement being like "Hey we're going to be working with CCM to integrate these changes in the next build"... Instead its a blame game of who's right and wrong, airing to the world what's clearly a communication breakdown. I don't know why that concept of "hey look someone improved our product, lets work with them" is so hard for Aerosoft to understand. To be brutally blunt, the impression you're sending is as such: "Our products are the best, we're always right and our experts are always right, don't listen to the customers they're all idiots". I think we'd all be less pissed about this whole thing and could've accepted the fact that Aerosoft needs special privileges to remove their copyrighted material if they were pro-actively implementing meaningful changes to their products with quicker updates and a more substantial list of changes. Not just changes Aerosoft and their experts think are important, but take a good hard look at what the community says, and address them in a two-way dialogue. Not a one-way question and a yes or no one-way answer.

 

Case in point, I've bought into another project, much higher $$ than the Twin Otter, and clearly in early stages still. However, they made that point very clear to me when I bought it. So:

  1. Do I feel I got my full value? Nope.
  2. Do I want a refund? Nope.
  3. Do I want/need a mod for it? Nope.
  4. Do I feel scammed? Nope.
  5. Am I pissed at their support? Nope.

Why did I say no to all of the above? Because they have been fully transparent and actively taking suggestions from the community to improve their product. They clearly state whats broken, whats been fixed, and the future plan, and there's a two-way dialogue about it. I don't want a refund because of that, I don't want a mod for it, I don't feel scammed and I'm not pissed about their support (very much the opposite in fact). Again, because transparency matters.

 

Obviously this goes beyond the core copyright issue. I think going over copyright law is beating a dead horse at this point. Aerosoft you protected your copyright, good job, you win. But where does this go? Stay the course, keep releasing half-finished stuff like the Twin Otter? Or actually change up business practices to listen to the community for better meaningful updates?

 

I honestly would not be surprised if Aerosoft "stays the course" and nothing notable get accomplished. I'm betting the portion of the customer base who used this mod, making a big stink about this or comes to the forum, is a very tiny slice of the pie. The in-sim marketplace is a Goliath, with many who buy things and take it all at face value, regardless of quality. Easy to control copyright, keep (the majority of) customers in the dark, and only update what Aerosoft thinks is important, on their own terms. Just my two cents...

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above - But I'd like also to point out that this thread has never been about the quality of AS's releases and the need or not of mods to "fix their mistakes"

 

There is a lot of that kind of talk around as it is, and while a valid point, it is not really the same point of this particular discussion right here in this thread.

 

Also; Yes, we all agree that AS does need to work a lot on their "people skills" as the whole matter might have been handled much more smoothly.  But I'm afraid it might still have been a matter either way, them being as agreeable as anyone can be about it or not.  So instead, let's try and get to the bottom of things. 

 

 

The problem in it's deepmost, is a consequence of either:

 

A :   AS is evil and seeking global conquest by very convoluted means.

B :   AS has someone in there who's so petty and or insecure he deliberately chooses to ruin the company over a personal grudge against a modder. (for "showing him wrong")

C :   AS has gotten some poor/incomplete legal advice and is thus conflating copyright and trademark terms, leading to a misunderstanding of epic proportions.

 

While all of the options above have been brought up by folks in various ways over the weekend, I am growingly confident that "C" is the one that makes for the best approximation of the true fundamental problem.

 

The evidence for "C" is verifiably present, given how:

 

*  The disputed copyright files are of a very technical nature which cannot be protected under the same definitions of "originality" as imagery, models, written prose, or even instructional texts.  AS seems generally unaware there's a difference, however.

*  Most other publishers do not appear to have issues with similar files being modified and published again. They can't all just be so unusually generous as that.

*  Most commercial products such as these, have copyright notices attached to every file that could end up being redistributed.  AS however, has for some reason, not included them.

*  AS can be (and was) quoted multiple times making statements about copyright terms which were exceedingly vague, or even outright contradictory to advice given by a specialized lawyer*  e.g: It is Trademark law that requires enforcement to be maintained. Copyrights are implicitly assigned by the simple act of publication.

 

* see my previous posts as of the last page

 

 

So it all points out that the whole case here can be narrowed down, with all the fat trimmed out, to the simple omission of something so simple as this:

 

image.png

This is just an example of what's missing, I expect AS should rephrase it to their own specific needs, and maybe take out the bits about The Dragon

 

Including such a notice header is common practice everywhere in the gaming industry.

I myself didn't fully appreciate just why these notices are so important until the last few days, when we got to experience all the "joys" of a disaster caused by the lack of them.

 

I had previously regarded these things as being rather overzealous legalisms, given how what they say is such obviously common sense. 

But there is another purpose they serve, which is now absolutely clear:

 

These notices are meant to preserve copyright attributions and rights for the original authors in any case where files may require redistribution outside of the original purchase package.

That is:  These notices allow modders to mod without breaching an authors rights, simply by not erasing the information they convey.

A modder may even append his own name to the notice, so that future modded versions of his mod might carry on the whole unbroken chain of authorship inheritance. 

 

 

And here lies the solution to all of our problems.

It has nothing to do with the quality of AS's released products or the need for mods to "cover their blunders" - It has also nothing to do with AS being "anti-modder" and out on a witch hunt full of jealousy and spite.  It is a case of misinformation, with consequences vastly out of all proportions to the simplicity of the underlying cause.

 

In my 20 years of experience with software development, I've grown to expect nothing less:

Any bug or problem is likely to have consequences and symptoms of a severity that is quadratically proportional to the silliness of its cause.

 

In short:   mayhem = sillyness²

 

 

So really, AS, do yourselves and everyone a favor and get some legal advice from a gaming industry specialized lawyer.  Then go and add a copyright notice to these likely-to-be redistributed script files so that rights can be preserved and we can have our mods made without cause for problems.

 

That way, everyone can have their cake and eat it too.  And then guess who'll be flying all over on a legally modded CRJ tonight?  That's right! The Dragon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all the jailhouse lawyers. They should put their money where their mouth is.   As a publisher AS knows the steps to take a copyright issue down.  1. Ask to take down nicely.  Never mention legal. AS has done that and bent over backwards to help.   One secret with legal is you never play that card. You hold it. Never tip your hand.  However, if it comes back at .to.....    I like that AS has a company policy on copyright.   The ball is in the modders court.   1. They can get a clique going to badmouth AS(that is being done)  . But AS  products are selling well and most of their customers like them. or 2. Hire a lawyer .  Pretty good chance NOBODY will do that cause of $2000 retainer fee. lol   The one telling AS to get legal advice is joke. All successful pub biz have a Law Firm  they can use if need be for copyright.    The idea of a class action lawsuit is hysterical .  Good example of some talking out their backside.   lmfao     

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Monsoon said:

I love all the jailhouse lawyers. They should put their money where their mouth is.   As a publisher AS knows the steps to take a copyright issue down.  1. Ask to take down nicely.  Never mention legal. AS has done that and bent over backwards to help.   One secret with legal is you never play that card. You hold it. Never tip your hand.  However, if it comes back at .to.....    I like that AS has a company policy on copyright.   The ball is in the modders court.   1. They can get a clique going to badmouth AS(that is being done)  . But AS  products are selling well and most of their customers like them. or 2. Hire a lawyer .  Pretty good chance NOBODY will do that cause of $2000 retainer fee. lol   The one telling AS to get legal advice is joke. All successful pub biz have a Law Firm  they can use if need be for copyright.    The idea of a class action lawsuit is hysterical .  Good example of some talking out their backside.   lmfao     

 

Please refrain from belittling another's sound advice out of... I actually don't know what you're even trying to suggest with that blurb.  

 

Nobody here is talking about anything related to someone suing anybody (not that I can tell, having read through it all a few times) -- That's not the point at all.

 

 

On the previous post, I mentioned "legal advice" only as it relates to the source of information used by AS in their decision-making process.  It didn't even hint towards anyone "getting a lawyer to sue somebody" - Please pay attention to what's being discussed before aggressively replying against something that nobody actually suggested.  That would help a lot with keeping the conversation at a level of civility where anything at all can be understood from it.

 

Thank you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand behind every word I said. If you felt "belittled" that is your problem.  Just a dose of reality for you. Not going to refrain from putting the hammer on your agenda.  From getting your hacks to post here and demand getting a refund because some copyright hack will make the product better to trying in vain to get potential buyers to "refrain" from buying AS products. In addition, your posts stink of a "jailhouse lawyer " that I find reprehensible.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is the next update? is it going to fix the otter being so obese heavy? Cant incorporate a few lines of flight model CFG amendment and upload it on a weekly basis as a temporary measure? v1.0.4 was a 3 week wait do we have to wait 3 weeks for a very small visual fix? There's gonna be more mods being shared out around the flight sim community around the net in that case. At least you guys can try to come up with a statement with a lit on what is being worked on and what is not so that most of us would understand.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let me state it once again:  We are NOT asking for access or the right to share anything in any way that isn't authorized.

 

 

 

Now, back on the topic, what we do have here is a case of unclear permissions (no copyright notice on script files) and a possibly mistaken assumption by AS that such script files should be treated as though they were literary works.   This is a most unfortunate situation which will not get better or go away on its own.  - But do not despair! Read on.

 

What we need, is a solution that works for everyone.  And I believe it is quite simple, see:

 

I have looked into the Twotter's scripts and found that they are indeed lacking any kind of copyright statements on them.   This does not mean they are not covered by rights, but it does make things a lot less clear and leads to, well... It leads to all this. 

 

 

What also happens, is that without any such statements inside those specific files, it has been impossible to redistribute them in mods without stepping on anyone's toes.  The author's name not being mentioned means that, once a file is removed from the context of it's original format, (i.e:  put in a zip for a mod release) the authorship data is lost. 

That is what gives cause to our problems.

 

 

 

So here's a thing Aerosoft can do, so that it would then become possible for modders to receive permission to publish modded files.  For they would do so without breaking copyright ties to their original authors. 

 

The solution is:    Add a copyright notice header to each of those files, detailing the author's name and rights attributed, plus instructions that said notice must not be removed.

 

 

This isn't a "life hack" or anything of the sort.  It is quite reasonable, legally valid, and what every developer out there does.

 

 

With such information in the files themselves, next time a modder asks for permission to include them in his mod, AS will have the means to say "Yes" without worry, because:

 

 

Given that the files are useless for anyone without prior purchase of the complete product, there is nothing else besides intellectual ownership that could be lost from redistributing them.  However:  By adding a copyright notice on each file as I have explained, we can make sure this ownership will NOT be lost.

 

Then,  with that finally sorted out, there should be no further reason why authorization to publish a mod might not be safely granted.

 

 

 

And that, is really all we ask for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that this may be a copyright violation but it seems to me that the purpose of copyright is to protect the author from somebody who is trying to make money from their original work - i.e stealing from the author. If this person was selling the mod I could understand making an issue of it. But if the person is just helping the community and making it available for free, what's the harm?

John

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John2 said:

I understand that this may be a copyright violation but it seems to me that the purpose of copyright is to protect the author from somebody who is trying to make money from their original work - i.e stealing from the author. If this person was selling the mod I could understand making an issue of it. But if the person is just helping the community and making it available for free, what's the harm?

John

There are unfortunately times when you have to exercise your rights under copyright law even if you don't want to - IANAL but been around a similar case in the past. Not saying that is anything related to this case as I have no idea, but it is something to be aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Richard Dastardly said:

There are unfortunately times when you have to exercise your rights under copyright law even if you don't want to - IANAL but been around a similar case in the past. Not saying that is anything related to this case as I have no idea, but it is something to be aware of.

Well maybe but makes no sense to me. Seems like a no brainer win win win situation to me. What is the difference between this situation and the free Fly By Wire A320 neo mod? Win win win.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John2 said:

I understand that this may be a copyright violation but it seems to me that the purpose of copyright is to protect the author from somebody who is trying to make money from their original work - i.e stealing from the author. If this person was selling the mod I could understand making an issue of it. But if the person is just helping the community and making it available for free, what's the harm?

John

 

AFAIK, the only "harm" is the loss of authorship attribution over redistribution. 

In other words, basically, when published with a mod, the scripts loses connection to the name of their creators. (i.e:  "credits")  -- See my previous post for a practical solution to this.

 

Besides that, there is really nothing else they might conceivably lose from it. On the contrary, this matter right now has already cost them far more in lost future revenue and reputation damages than those files could possibly be worth.  They have only to gain by permitting said mods to release, it is in their best interest to do so, really.

 

Again I say:  Every mod posted is a free ad banner for their products.

Mods act to increase sales, and even review ratings benefit from the existence of a simple mod which makes a bug or two go away.  

 

From the end user's point of view, a mod counts as added value to the product itself as a whole. 

 

It's impossible to overstate how self-destructive it is to deny such a thing.   It's a win-win-win-then-win-some-more situation - being spit in the face....  

 

 

Moreover, one might still raise another much valid point, by comparing the redistribution of a slightly modded cfg file, with the equally derivative act of using a paint kit, to create a new livery that uses multiple layers.

Usually only one or two of these layers are actually changed  to compose the new livery, and 90% of the artwork is copied directly from the Aerosoft original with no rights attribution whatsoever.

 

Then, how come it's ok to make new liveries that way, when the exact same thing, done with cfg and xml files isn't?    That's a very good point to consider, and does bring the absurd inconsistency of this matter into stark relief.

 

So let me ask it again:

 

Why is a livery mod permitted, though it's possibly 90% made up of layers from the original paint kit;  While a cfg/xml mod, comprised of the same mix or original and altered work is not allowed?

 

 

If you're gonna shoot yourself in the foot, at least try to do it consistently, right?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little something I noticed in a Discord straight from JustFlight about their approach to mods (maybe in light of this mess). Further confirms Aerosoft seems to be on an island in regards to copyright and customer relations.

 

Quote

JF: We love mods and any involvement by the community in our products, either through feedback like this or creating mod content for them. There are obviously some rare exceptions involving copyright and the need for us to protect our work but otherwise we will do all we can to support mod creators. The PA28s and Hawk T1 now include content provided originally by mod creators!

 

*HINT HINT* Aerosoft...

 

Furthermore, the discussion continued:

 

Quote

Discord member: Obviously if we ever step across the line, please do help us understand exactly what we did wrong. We all appreciate collaboration.


JF: It's highly unlikely if you are creating freeware mods which are only for use by owners of the aircraft, and we'd get in touch directly if there was ever an issue.

 

Sounds like a company who knows the copyright legalities of their products and how it effects customer involvement.

 

*HINT. HINT.*

Screenshot 2022-03-08 100536.png

Screenshot 2022-03-08 102052.png

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, JF might even have a bone to pick with AS now, because as a result of the disastrous decision to pull his mods down, CCM has gone and removed ALL his mods from flightsim.to - This included mods made for their PA28 series and others.

 

So see:  With this, AS has done considerably more than just critically reduce the value of their own products and irreparably nuke their reputation. 

 

There's enough "splash damage" going around so that detrimental effects that can be felt even by other developers.   AS has done the entire FS industry a disfavor, with their inexplicable acts of what can only be called insanity.

 

If I were a developer, and a modder decided to pull down his mods for my products because of a situation like this, I'd be very displeased with those causing the situation.  Their actions have, even if in a small way, reduced the overall value of my products. 

 

Also, this much attrition inevitably fosters the growth of a "FS underground" movement, (similar to the 1930s prohibition laws and the growth of bootlegging that resulted) where people act by "other means" to circumvent the unacceptable restrictions.  While condemnable, that's simply how people react to having something they really want taken away from them.   And that, is something that really hurts us ALL.   

 

 

There is still time to reverse the infamous decision.  I have put forth means to resolve everyone's problems and explained them in multiple ways already

 

The sheer wrongness of continuing down this road cannot be overstated.

 

 

I have already added the CRJ and Twin Otter series as items on the big "wish list" thread in the main MSFS boards.  There is a growing demand for their remake in light of this, and I would gladly buy such products if offered by another developer.  Suppose it's safe to say, that if such replacements were ready at hand, none of us would still be here trying to talk sense into these mad people.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 8:20 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

So how do I share tweaks without violating copyrights?

Basically, start with not sharing what you did not type. If you have a tweak to a file, do not share the file (as we have copyrights on that); share what you changed. Every person who makes these changes knows the diff command; it shows you the difference between two files.  Say you found a bug in this code:

image.png

And think it should not be circuit 2, but circuit 1. Simply tell people to edit line 10 and change 2 to 1.  

 

That appears to be an excerpt from the "panel.xml".

 

You realise that this code also exists in other planes?  In fact, any plane with a 530.

 

So here is a section that shows just what you have above, but its from the BN2 Islander:

 

<PlaneHTMLConfig>
  
    <Instrument>
        <Name>AS530</Name>
        <NavIndex>1</NavIndex>
        <ComIndex>1</ComIndex>
        <Electric>
          <Simvar name="CIRCUIT AVIONICS ON" unit="Boolean"/>
        </Electric>
    </Instrument>     
    <Instrument>
        <Name>KX155A_2</Name>
        <Electric>
            <Simvar name="CIRCUIT ON:18" unit="Boolean"/>
        </Electric>
    </Instrument>
    
</PlaneHTMLConfig>

 

These values also exist in the SDK I believe.

 

Here is some similar code, from the IRIS Tutor:

 

  

 <Instrument>
        <Name>AS430</Name>
        <NavIndex>1</NavIndex>
        <ComIndex>1</ComIndex>
        <Electric>
          <Simvar name="CIRCUIT ON:37" unit="Boolean"/>
        </Electric>
    </Instrument> 

 

So which bit exactly do you hold copyright to?  The value???

 

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Additional_Information/File_Formats/XML_Files.htm?rhhlterm=panel.xml&rhsearch=panel.xml

 

I'd like to see this play out in court as a test case, personally.

 

It seems to me the perfect way to circumvent this ludicrous interpretation is to distribute the mod for a different plane entirely.  It just happens to work for the Twin Otter...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd kinda like to see that too, you know... Kind of a morbid fascination, like a horrible car wreck you can't look away from.

 

The whole thing is very clearly a non-problem to everyone else, so the whole "against the law" point is clearly nonsense. 

 

 

AS has a poor grasp of how copyright applies to technical sub-components of a software release, as they have demonstrated time and again with their debatable statements on the matter.

They seem to regard those things as though they were literary texts, though the format restrictions of these files makes it impossible to treat them as such to any effect.

 

This much I have determined for a fact, based on advice given by a lawyer specialized in the gaming industry I've managed to consult via proxy.  

 

 

They're not only doing it wrong.  But they're also wrong about why they're doing it wrong.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it another way, and since they claimed that the mod contains 95% of "copyrighted" material, I've just opened one of my Twotter "panel.xml" files, and extracted the XML code that defines the 530.

 

I have then stripped away all the text that Aerosoft do not own.  That includes all XML tags, as they cannot claim ownership of those, as that would be these folks:

 

https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/

 

So what are we left with, then?

 

CIRCUIT ON:2

 

That's it.  That's what they claim ownership of???  That "code" is just defining a circuit.  For example, if you look at the Kodiak files, Circuit 2 is actually "Type:CIRCUIT_LIGHT_NAV", rather than avionics.

 

But hang on!  Blackbox Simulation also use that in their "panel.xml"!  That means they are using copyright material without permission?  Oh no!  I'd better let Graham know.

 

So I knocked up a quick bit of code:

 

cd 'D:\Flight Simulator\'
$panel_files = Get-ChildItem -Recurse panel.xml
foreach ($file in $panel_files) {
If (($file_content = Get-Content $file.FullName) | select-string "CIRCUIT ON:2") {
Write-Host $file.FullName
}
}

 

There were multiple hits, as that text appears in several locations, even in the same file, but this was the result:

 

Quote

D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\orbx-aircraft-optica\SimObjects\Airplanes\orbx_optica\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft Mods\C208B-mod\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_208B_GRAND_CARAVAN_EX\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-208b-grand-caravan-ex\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_208B_GRAND_CARAVAN_EX\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-b7478i\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_B747_8i\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-bonanza-g36\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_Bonanza_G36\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000_Floaters\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000_Skis\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000bak\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-da62\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_DA62\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-e330\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_E330\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-generic-piston-multiengines\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_Generic_Piston_MultiEngines\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-generic-privatejet\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_Generic_PrivateJet\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-generic-turbo-multiengines\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_Generic_Turbo_MultiEngines\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-kingair350\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_KingAir350\panel\panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\microsoft-aircraft-pilatus-pc6\SimObjects\Airplanes\Microsoft_Pilatus_PC6_G950_Floats\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\microsoft-aircraft-pilatus-pc6\SimObjects\Airplanes\Microsoft_Pilatus_PC6_G950_Wheels\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\microsoft-aircraft-pilatus-pc6\SimObjects\Airplanes\Microsoft_Pilatus_PC6_Gauge_Skis\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Official\OneStore\microsoft-aircraft-pilatus-pc6\SimObjects\Airplanes\Microsoft_Pilatus_PC6_Gauge_Wheels\panel\Panel.xml

 

So we know they cannot copyright the XML layout, so good luck if they want to die on that particular hill.  So we are left with a value, and it looks like others are using that too, including Asobo themselves.

 

Actually I just refined my code a bit, as it was catching other lines that "contained" their so-called copyrighted code.  I changed this line, as it was catching things like "CIRCUIT ON:24" etc.

 

If (($file_content = Get-Content $file.FullName) | select-string '"CIRCUIT ON:2"') {

 

Quote

D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1010\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Addons\Aircraft\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter1030\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-100_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Amphibian_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Floats_Pax_Short_Nose\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Ski_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Cargo\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Tundra_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_3-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Cargo_4-Blade\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Pax\panel\Panel.xml
D:\Flight Simulator\Community\aerosoft-aircraft-twin-otter\SimObjects\Airplanes\AS_Aircraft_DHC6-300_Wheels_Skydiver\panel\Panel.xml

 

So of all the planes I have, they appear to be the only ones using circuit 2.  That's really what this is about!?  You couldn't make it up.

 

That's because they have defined circuit 2 to be for avionics, as defined in "systems.cfg".  So another way around this might be to redefine the actual circuit in use, in both "panel.xml" as well as "systems.cfg" so that it no longer matches the original file, but still works.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...