Mike Stone............

[Jonbouy]

I guess its all down to progress.

Expectations increase as sims get more sophisticated, now everyone wants a fully functional VC, bells, whistles and rivets. I can't see anything wrong with that. Isn't 'as real as it gets' what were after?

I don't want to disrespect Mike because he has been creating models as long as I've been flying them, but if you are truly developing for your own use and releasing just so everyone can share your fruits you surely wouldn't give a monkey's what anyone thinks, and just go about enjoying yer hobby. Folk have enough sense to delete what they don't like and it doesn't really take a wounded sounding readme file to remind people of that choice. Perhaps Mike has a deluded sense of self-importance that anyone really cares what he thinks, having read his monologue on FSX and the grandiose 'retirement' post reproduced above. If one of my kids was attention seeking to that extent I'd get 'em to snap out of it.

I'm probably not going to be popular for airing this view around the revered Mike Stone especially as I myself have enjoyed many of his models over the years and still love his 'Goose'. Many designers have stopped production since the advent of FSX and the extra level of complication involved in creating anything convincing, on the plus side of that there are some great new designs coming out with teams of specialist folk who want to push the envelope, I don't think the freeware community looks in any danger of dying off.

Maybe some bleeding deacons of yore won't be around anymore, but personally I'm more respectful and in awe of folk like Milton Shupe who with grace and immense stored knowledge quietly pass the mantle on to the many showing interest in taking up the hobby with keen enthusiasm, and don't feel the need to issue a press style release which smacks of 'you'll be sorry when I'm gone'. Like the models I guess its about choice and perhaps I don't need a readme to tell me where my preferences lie

So to those that have given me fond memories of the flight sim community and provided me with so many endless hours of enjoyment, and continue to do so I say THANK YOU

To the others perhaps I should have said nothing about....you aren't worth the effort.

Just my tuppence worth.

There. See? That wasn't so bad, was it?

[ronindanbo]

but if you are truly developing for your own use and releasing just so everyone can share your fruits you surely wouldn't give a monkey's what anyone thinks, and just go about enjoying yer hobby.

Yes but you (the developer) put so much effort and soul into it that you dont want to hear unreasonable complaints (not constructive critisism, lets face it we have all seen what some tossers say about Mikes stuff and it is grossly unfair). I have gone through the hell of producing something for freeware, I love modelling and painting and the process of delivering something its just the experience ends when you start getting the "I hate BSMP" mails out of jealosey or malice or just plain trying to get a rise. This happens way too much in the FS world well we have all paid the price for such ignorant and lowest comon denominator users of our wears. Mike has left us and like his stuff or not he put in the hard yards and should have earned EVERYONES respect.

[Chris Trott]

I've said this for the better part of 10 years now, the time I've been actively involved in FlightSim online -

There will *ALWAYS* be those who think that what you do is not enough. When a thousand people a day are visiting your site, there will always be 10-20 of them that "hate" your design to varying degrees or send an e-mail thinking that they're helping when they really aren't.

It's not unique to FlightSim, so I don't know why people seem to think it is. EVERY program out there that has mods for it has these people. Every hobby out there has these people (I've run into many of them over the years in Model Railroading, R/C Modeling, and even in Warbird restoration). You'd be surprised how stupid some of these people can be in their complaints.

On the other side of the coin, there's those like Mike who tend to be quite hypocritical. They give scathing criticism to others for their failures or their attempts to help but yet when you try to help them, they get heavily offended, even if they actually asked for your help. I watched Mike's posts on his own forum and others. His attitude was not "I made these for me and let others use them if they like them". It was "I make these for myself and ask for suggestions for improvement or future models, but if I don't like your ideas, no matter how nicely stated, I'll string you up by your ankles."

I tried to help him several years ago when he said he wanted info on one of his projects (I think it was the Learjet) and I offered it to him in the form of research, pictures, and even a revised CFG and AIR file. What do I get in return? NOTHING. Not even a "thanks for the info." The guy goes and does nothing about the project after he'd asked for help and been given it. After that, I stopped downloading his projects because I couldn't support someone who was that ungrateful to those who freely gave their time to him at his request.

[bigred1970]

I have tried quite a few MS planes. but with very few exeptions, they all have the same issue in my book. (I know that this is kind of hippicritical coming from sombody that has never designed a whole plane.) they were great back in the fs5 days. but WAY to simplistic for now. I think that both him and Lionheart Creations (another designer, this is for his free ware I never have tried his payware) suffer from the same issue. they look better than they fly. I think that if I ever got the time to design a plane I would get the flight model down pat before I ever worked on the visual model...

though I think in general, the planes are complicated enough now that the best route is for several people that like doing diferent parts of the design, (like sound, visual model, flight model, panel) to colaborate on a plane. I think that going it alone probably takes too much time. unless you are very good at all aspects.

[Chris Harrington]

Mr. Stone did develop several variants of the Super Constellation and an L-1011, so he has my respect, period. Without him, I wouldn't have an L-1049G.

[AndyG]

I have tried quite a few MS planes. but with very few exeptions, they all have the same issue in my book. (I know that this is kind of hippicritical coming from sombody that has never designed a whole plane.) they were great back in the fs5 days. but WAY to simplistic for now. I think that both him and Lionheart Creations (another designer, this is for his free ware I never have tried his payware) suffer from the same issue. they look better than they fly. I think that if I ever got the time to design a plane I would get the flight model down pat before I ever worked on the visual model...

though I think in general, the planes are complicated enough now that the best route is for several people that like doing diferent parts of the design, (like sound, visual model, flight model, panel) to colaborate on a plane. I think that going it alone probably takes too much time. unless you are very good at all aspects.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head. People apply their own expectations of what they want from a 'product' and to meet most people's expectations you HAVE to have a team of people working - even then there will always be an unsatisfied element, as I'm sure Rick can testify!

Mike Stone, Ito etc are not in that market. They are not making a sophisticated all singing all dancing product; they are making something that, as you pointed out, look right but may be deficient in other areas. So how bad is that, Mike/Ito/Whoever gives us the basic canvas which we can then embellish as much (or as little) as we want. Bob Chicilo has done some sterling work on FDEs for some of Mike's stuff, Ken Mitchell did some sweet panel work and (as I mentioned before) numerous people who frequent this forum have provided improved sound, panels, FDE, paint schemes etc for Mike and others work - that's why we 'employ' a Happy Otter!

I'm currently working on my first project and, although I will probably seek assistance from some of my colleagues, it will largely be a solo effort. So I can tell you now that the initial version will NOT have a VC, may well have some deficiencies in the dynamics, will not come with multi-texture packs and is unlikely to have it's own installer. I'll take advice, I'll take critique and I'll work to improve. But if anybody doesn't like what I produce, that there will be their problem, not mine!

AndyG

[bigred1970]

I have tried quite a few MS planes. but with very few exeptions, they all have the same issue in my book. (I know that this is kind of hippicritical coming from sombody that has never designed a whole plane.) they were great back in the fs5 days. but WAY to simplistic for now. I think that both him and Lionheart Creations (another designer, this is for his free ware I never have tried his payware) suffer from the same issue. they look better than they fly. I think that if I ever got the time to design a plane I would get the flight model down pat before I ever worked on the visual model...

though I think in general, the planes are complicated enough now that the best route is for several people that like doing diferent parts of the design, (like sound, visual model, flight model, panel) to colaborate on a plane. I think that going it alone probably takes too much time. unless you are very good at all aspects.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head. People apply their own expectations of what they want from a 'product' and to meet most people's expectations you HAVE to have a team of people working - even then there will always be an unsatisfied element, as I'm sure Rick can testify!

Mike Stone, Ito etc are not in that market. They are not making a sophisticated all singing all dancing product; they are making something that, as you pointed out, look right but may be deficient in other areas. So how bad is that, Mike/Ito/Whoever gives us the basic canvas which we can then embellish as much (or as little) as we want. Bob Chicilo has done some sterling work on FDEs for some of Mike's stuff, Ken Mitchell did some sweet panel work and (as I mentioned before) numerous people who frequent this forum have provided improved sound, panels, FDE, paint schemes etc for Mike and others work - that's why we 'employ' a Happy Otter!

I'm currently working on my first project and, although I will probably seek assistance from some of my colleagues, it will largely be a solo effort. So I can tell you now that the initial version will NOT have a VC, may well have some deficiencies in the dynamics, will not come with multi-texture packs and is unlikely to have it's own installer. I'll take advice, I'll take critique and I'll work to improve. But if anybody doesn't like what I produce, that there will be their problem, not mine!

AndyG

for me I would rather have sombody that designs a plane, put time in the flight model. I think that a log of designers will spend a huge amount of time on getting the visual model to look perfect, and then at the last moment realize that "oh need to work on the fde now. " the results of this are that they just change some things in the config file and call it good."

I don't need a profesional level product to be happy with a plane. one of the best examples of how do a modest project right are J. Kristen's (sorry for the sp.) planes. sure they are not as polished as commercial projects, but for me at least they fly accurately (as far as I can tell as a non pilot) and have good looking panels and VC for using a lot of default gauges. and he doses a great job of recomending what to add to them to make them better, (sound makes the biggest diffence to me after the flight model.) and when I talk about fde's what I want is acuracy, some of those old planes fly like pigs with wings, I don't want to get into a 1930's flying boat and have it handle like the extra 300. or even the c172. the fact that I have almost every one of his planes is no accident.

[Chris Trott]

Mr. Stone did develop several variants of the Super Constellation and an L-1011, so he has my respect, period. Without him, I wouldn't have an L-1049G.

Yes we would. Rey Lopez, Lou Betti, and Laurie Doering released their L-1049G for FS2004 several months before Mike made the decision to update his to work in FS2004. It's on Flightsim.com as ADSMATS1.zip and ADSMATS2.zip. Theirs also includes a panel and sound set.

[johnhinson]

I have every respect for Mike, and found him (on the few occasions I
had cause to contact him) very amenable but as others have said he
has come across in his public comments very much as if he feels
heavily got at.

I find this a little odd, for I have always made it clear that all the work
I do is done on the same principle as his - I do it for myself, but make
it available for others to use too. I have received very little criticism
yet my work is undoubtedly far less professional than his. The
only difference I can think of is that he has actually made aircraft which
is the one area I haven't dabbled in. So is it specifically aircraft
that people criticise and not other kinds of work in the freeware
world?

Regardless, I wish Mike well because I think he should be doing
whatever he wants to do, and not what we want him to do.

John

[blanston12]

Mike did what he wanted the way he wanted, very much a quantity over quality approach. I never really kept any of his products but he did do the only Britannia I have seen so far, hopefully some day we will have an alternative to it.