Cameron

Assuming you are on Windows, it sounds as though you are missing a necessary module. My guess would be an improper install of OpenAL. Please download and install the following, then try loading the CRJ again: http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/Downloads/oalinst.zip

Arno, et all, The point of this is everyone is right. I am right, Joe is right, Ben is right, and even Ed is right. We all have our OWN opinions. The REALITY is acceptance. What is truly "right" and fact is that Gizmo is currently deployed in the fashion it is, and we must accept that. The reality is also that suggested methods in this thread have been tried...they did not work. The reality is also that the return of investment to do what some would suggest is "right" is not there, and should you want that method X-Aviation has that solution for your customers all while Ben gets a slice of the pie. It is also reality that majority of funding or existence from the beginning of Gizmo's entrance of the commercial market was due to X-Aviation products. Ben has had the idea of Gizmo for ages (and thank God for it!). X-Aviation products (be it publicly seen or not) were the push to get it done. What we must face is that Gizmo is distributed how it is, it IS a small fee, it IS a tried and true model that does work to bring Ben cash (like it or not!), and Gizmo DOES give power to developers to get things done. Those are the facts, those are the pre-requisites to know as developers, and those are the realizations developers must face. With those realizations comes responsibility of alerting customers by informing them of how Gizmo works. I view the problem here not so much to do with the fact a customer can (not has to) purchase a license to rid of the nag screen, but to alert customers that Gizmo is in use, the conditions in which it is used, and why it is so valuable to the customer (not only for one said project, but for many in the future). With these things in mind, I do firmly believe customers will realize Gizmo's existence and importance. For now, it's just a name to those that don't develop. However, getting the word out there to non-developers and why Gizmo is important will also help others "see the light." It is how it is. X-Aviation has an edge through not only contract, but also infrastructure. Years of it. Such an infrastructure to duplicate would not be economical, nor is it within scope of any agreement in place. Facts. We must face them. Spreading the word of how important Gizmo is to our future will also help. That is and should be the responsibility of all developers, myself included. I am forever grateful for Ben's drive and efforts put into this fantastic project. Thanks, Ben!

Somewhere along the line it looks like you have somehow removed some files. I would highly suggest running the installer for the CRJ. It will uninstall and re-install for you all the necessary files.

Not sure what's going on with you today, Dozer. YYZ never changed his name, and was not the same person you are talking about. You're thinking of David Rogers, he changed his name to "He who is not welcome here" and last I checked still has it that way. Thread here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=2675.0 Not the same people. Not the same situation.

Wouldn't it just be easier if you cared only about what matters to you, and not made a stink about what doesn't? Some people like it, others (like you) see no benefit. Use what you care about in this forum. Block everything else out.

Did they? Last I heard straight from his mouth he liked them.

Ed, get serious. Just because we have differing opinions on Gizmo's model doesn't mean I don't like you expressing yourself. What I DON'T like is you starting topics and then feeling that you can get them closed when it only satisfies you. If you feel that's how it should be then you're definitely wrong there, and in such instances you need to take it up in PM. I am not the one throwing a temper tantrum here about never buying products if certain demands aren't meant. This is the same temperament we experienced from you in the RealScenery thread. It's really not necessary.

Way to take it to the extreme.

No, Ed. And you have a tendency to do this. You create threads and regret doing so later on with a request to do so because you feel attacked...or something. Last recollection of this was with the $5 fee for a download key for RealScenery. My comments are not necessarily directed at just you in this topic. Like you, they are directed to you AND consumers. I am not just trying to solve "your" problem. FSUIPC is necessary for MANY apps out there. There are some that don't require it. There are many others that do, and I have them as well. My stance and view on this subject has not changed.

The way Ben is approaching this is also done in the FS world all the time. First thing that comes to mind is FSUIPC or WideFS. These products run the same "model" as Gizmo and are highly successful. As the market evolves you will NEED to come to expect this, Ed. I'm sorry, but it can't always be tailored to you, and while you're not alone in your assessment (I'm sure of that), it is part of the "growing up" process for X-Plane and IS healthy. Perhaps in time you'll see why. Quite simply: If you purchase a $10 Gizmo license you will have your nag screen disappear for EVERY aircraft that EVER uses Gizmo from that one-time, simple $10 purchase. It's really as easy going as that. This is NOT an every aircraft affair. Yes, the developer should disclose the issue, and it sounds like Jack and Joe have done so now. The logistics of incorporating the license into products like the Dash is not there, and to do so would require far more investment than return for Ben. X-Aviation has long time worked for the infrastructure we have in place to accomodate this (years), but it's not something that can be cross-deployed. That's the reality of it, and I see it fair. Even more-so because Gizmo still WORKS full on without purchasing a license, unlike the FS counterparts they call FSUIPC and WideFS.

That's your prerogative. The CRJ-200, Falco, Corvalis and any other products on XA do not have this. You simply reverting back to an older version will cause issue, and if you find it not worthy to purchase a $5 license (which is not mandatory to begin with) at promo discount so that planes that are not sold on X-Aviation don't have the nag screen then that's up to you! Simple solution: 1) Keep the nag screen and the Gizmo that works with X-Aviation products and don't buy a license for all non X-Aviation products. 2) Buy a license for all gizmo aircraft at only $5 currently and keep all you X-Aviation products happy as well (they'll be just as happy in option #1) 3) Use Jack's method and break your X-Aviation add-ons. Simple solution. What you do with it is your choice!

Which will now render your X-Aviation purchases no good. You'll understand what I mean when you try to open one up with this older version of Gizmo Jack is suggesting.

Guys, We're having two different topics here. The context of my speech is STRICTLY about Gizmo and its worth. If the developer fails to disclaim the fact that they have a nag screen with their product I certainly agree it SHOULD be disclosed with info as to why it's there, that it is there, and how to get rid of it. Ed, Can you please share what this supposed work around is?

Aha. Well, I can agree with you there to an extent. You'll need to take that up with the fine folks at armchair. You "don't" need to purchase anything additional. The aircraft works, full featured as the author made it, with or without the added license. It's not mandatory. It's optional. *shameless plug*...developers who sell at X-Aviation will have their products exempt from this screen popping up as a license is embedded for our products and customers into our DRM. Again, because the product DOES work with or without the license it's not the same analogy you have used here. For you as an end customer, I suppose that could be true. The reality is this: Gizmo has been about 5 or so years in development to make life easier on developers. Ben Russell has worked very hard on this. I see no harm in getting the name out there and giving the power to developers to develop faster for FREE. All a customer needs to do is pay a one-time $10 fee to get rid of the shareware logo and that same $10 purchase is good across ALL aircraft you buy that will use Gizmo. Considering Ben's work is near enterprise level, this is absurdly cheap and this community should be appreciating this effort rather than trying to bash it. If you're willing to look around the Gizmo forums there's also a way to currently get the serial for Gizmo for a measly $5 fee with a special promo code.

I'm genuinely curious, and please don't take this the wrong way... What is your objection to supporting a platform (Gizmo) that is going to allow developers to rapidly create products they never would have been able to before without tons more work? It benefits you in the end, and $10 for ALL of the products you use it for seems like a great shareware price to me!

Ok, all, This topic has definitely ran it's course now. Topic closed. David said his peace, and my official answer back to him is here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=2675.msg25010#msg25010 There were some obvious, blatant lies in his postings, and this should be easily evident with all the email correspondence I have now publicly posted with him. As my suggestion to him, he has also now re-posted his negative review, this time keeping the review on topic and pertaining to the product instead of a personal bash. For this, his review can remain just like anyone else who posts a negative review. I think it's important people see others' honest take on products to assist not only customers in buying products, but also for us to improve on what our customers feel needs improving on. Thanks for reading and chiming in. Cam

No, that's not what Tom said. You have used an overly abundant amount of licenses in the span that you've had this product. 99% of customers need a new license on the MU-2 very seldom, and only with normal upgrade changes. You, on the other hand, have needed one so many times that it's easy to count on multiple hands. When version 1.5 comes out (free update) you'll receive a new license "set" that will allow you multiple installs again as you please. It is easier to manage with the new license system vs the one currently in the MU-2. It will also allow us to track and figure out WHY you need so many activations.

Absolutely ridiculous assessment. I do NOT delete reviews about products on XA just because they are bad, and there ARE blatant, bad reviews seen on there. As long as the review has to do about the PRODUCT the reviews always remain. After all, the reviews system is for and about the PRODUCT. I'm not sure what you are talking about, David. To me this is complete hogwash. You and I have had ONE instance of interaction here, and that was when I replied to you in a thread regarding your support request. You sent me an e-mail stating your distaste for my response, and at your request (which is rare I might add), I edited my post to your favor. How was this bad? Looking at our support e-mail interaction I also see nothing out of line. I was exceptionally rude by email? Well, I guess we better make our e-mails public then: My first ever email from you: My first ever email response to you - total response time: 8 minutes Your email response to this: I don't know about you, but it sure as heck doesn't look like you were rudely met in support emails nor even suggested so in them. I find this very awkward of you to claim here! You then sent me the following e-mail: Email from David about forum posting (topic in question here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=2617.0 ): Which you then shortly followed up with before I had a chance to reply: Another consecutive email from David My reply to the above two emails were: Reply from Cameron To which you replied with this last, and final e-mail between the two of us: Email from David That was the LAST correspondence I have ever had with you, and the LAST e-mail you ever sent in to X-Aviation. I don't believe I was rude. Why are you saying posts? As in plural? You mean POST? As in singular? Yes, that is correct. Your subsequent POST (singular) was deleted. Why? Simple: 1. You started a new topic to post a response to an already locked thread. This is a basic forum etiquette no-no. 2. You requested to me through e-mail that I retract my own forum post, and in a very rare moment, I actually obliged to YOUR request to do so within minutes (literally). After doing so, you posted a rather ridiculous new thread as a response to the locked thread regarding your want to rebut my response...yet by the time you had made such a post I had already obliged by your request to edit my own so that your name was not felt to be slandered on this forum. Where again was this rude? 1. You're assuming it was me. You have no proof. 2. Your posted review had much more to do along the lines with the sense of this posting and your failure to still be sentimental towards the posting on this forum rather than a product review of Florida. People had to read through a whole bunch of 'crap' before getting to your very small review. Sorry, but this was not a product review. That said, yes, it WAS me who deleted it. However, you are wrong in stating that it was deleted the following day. You published on the 16th. It was removed on the 22nd. That's six days, not one. Furthermore, I do not delete reviews even if they are bad so long as they stay on task, and when I do I always contact the author. I did not get around to doing so to you just yet due to being on travel in airplanes. Up until this one, the only time I've ever had to delete one is: A) When it's a double posted review (so one of the two still remains from the same author) When the author was using it for support instead of for writing a review C) At the request of the author If the reviews are about the product then I have no objections. That's what the review system is for. If you want to go back and write a review that hurts the product and can keep it to being about the product, by all means, do so! Kind of like your post here riddled with false information? More like none were ever posted. I do believe there are many posted for the "Enhanced" series of products though (Oahu and Reno). It's no mystery that the Legacy scenery packs are not our better line of products, however they are offered there because there is no alternative and they still serve a purpose! Florida falls into that 'Legacy' category. Read above. If you really had to post that line then you surely have not been here long enough. Go have a gander around the Rant forum especially. You're off base, David. I don't delete posts. Yours was the exception, not the rule, and with good intention. Your deleted post made YOU look like an ass because mine had already been edited at YOUR request. Think about that for a moment.... No? Just like I haven't deleted the ultra unfavorable review in that same product review page by Michael O' Brien? Come on, David. This isn't rocket science. Should you continue this rather ridiculous, baseless crusade you will be too. We don't hide things around here, including the very few (4) bans ever done in the existence of X-Pilot. Well obviously that just got slammed, didn't it? Read above and you'll see EVERY email you and I have ever had. Either you have a very short memory that your e-mails were responded to within usually minutes of sending them in, or you just figured "Eh, Cameron didn't keep the emails, lets bash him." Sorry, I do not delete ANY customer emails. Ever. The next time you want to post slanderous remarks you should probably back it up with facts (like emails) as I have done here to prove otherwise for the forums members. People can come to their own conclusions. Thanks for reading, posting, and sharing your concerns! It's always good to clear the air! Best, Cameron

It's not a shame. The plug-in accurately reports where to write.

Nope, sure isn't: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=965.msg18562#msg18562 It only happens with very specific user changes or setups...like switching your net on or off, or between wifi and ethernet, etc. What do you have to base any of this off of? As far as I am truly aware, there is only one person who has ever had a problem with the DRM system that we were unable to solve. Please don't make statements you can't back up. Not only that, but you HAVE activated your Corvalis...THREE times on different operating systems! Please don't pass this along as something that is flawed. You hit your max allowable hardware/OS key slots. It's doing what it's designed to do in that instance. Why? So that we then get customers screaming at us for going behind their back and "phoning home?" I don't think so! A quick look around the entire X-Pilot forums would tell you your take on support is very much so opposite of the majority when it comes to X-Aviation. Case in point, one of the many examples: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=689.msg19723#msg19723 Your comment about only flying default planes instead is well...ok.

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=965.msg18562#msg18562 That's all there is to be said on this subject.

A quick read through this forum will tell you that the CRJ supports the existence of XPUIPC and some of it's functions at this time. However, XPUIPC is still known to cause crashes when active with the CRJ. The developer of XPUIPC is closely working with us to resolve this issue.

David, Your topic has been edited. Please follow the criteria as outlined in the linked topic.

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?board=69.0

Thanks. Philipp will be with your shortly!