Cameron

Fixed now.

Hello, all, This is a note to those that have purchased the SeaMax that version 1.1 has been released and you should have received an e-mail with the installation/download instructions for this. If you cannot find the e-mail please check your spam box! If you are considering purchasing the SeaMax, effective immediately all purchases made on the SeaMax are automatically patched to version 1.1 for you.

WOW! That stuff is EXCELLENT, Ola! Very, very well done!

Awesome, man! Really looking forward to the results in sim.

Tom, I don't think your post was perceived as bad, so no worries. One of my key points to you was that Raf. himself was throwing stones at his own head as "xp9videos" in this very thread. Either way, this thread is "old" so to speak, with the last real post being in June. Rafael is working hard at redeeming himself through his work on the EMB-195, and I think he's doing a good job on it. Nothing more to really say on my end. Blue skies!

Tom, Please see the following thread: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=237.0

Awesome! Moving quick. Can't wait to see what you have done with it in X-Plane.

Ola, Thanks for the updates! Any pictures with the mapping yet? Cam

Jason, Can I ask what your reasoning for wanting this would be? Just curious, as the Javelin has the FMS as is.

Absolutely, AWESOME, Jim! I'm assuming the scenery is an FS2XPlane conversion? That plane looks nice too...available on the org, right?

Eric, It appears you are mistaken, which is why we informed you of this. The post you quoted was here: http://forums.xplanefreeware.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=7966&view=findpost&p=59290 You made a post in that same topic here: http://forums.xplanefreeware.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=7966&view=findpost&p=59191 The Javier that develops the CRJ is not the same Javier that develops the UFMC. Your post that I linked to above is posted in a topic regarding the UFMC and Javier Cortez. There are several posts here regarding the CRJ that have addressed release times. It's all dependent on the programming as of now, and we have no release information at this time. Just so there's no confusion, there are currently NO betas of the CRJ floating around. Best, Cameron

As Dhruv as mentioned, this message you posted was regarding Javier Cortez and the UFMC, not Javier Rollon.

I believe Ben's actually been working with LUA a lot as of late! This is something we are all looking forward to.

You mean Nicolas decided to censor your download and remove it from the community eye? Did he give any kind of reasoning? I'm sorry to hear about that, Jason. If you'd like to send it to me, I can put it up for you. Send an e-mail to cameron {at} x-aviation.com

Nice job, Jason! Glad you're having some fun!

This would be a limitation to X-Plane, as there are no custom plug-ins or anything of the sort with the Seamax. Javier may know of a workaround that I don't know about at this time. As of late, I've been utilizing X-Plane remote from the iPhone. Waiting for Javier to answer. Not a problem at all!

Hi, Jason, I just examined the aircraft to see what you were speaking of. I was finally able to spot it, though it's very much so a minimal issue, especially with the prop rotating (since it's only really visible at that point anyhow)! I'll wait for Javier to report back to you with his explanation. Something for a future fix, but definitely minimal to the point where most would probably have never seen it. Good eye! Thanks!

Dave, I've consistently told you here I would like to see pros vs. cons. I've also stated I don't know if it would be possible for you to do with your method of writing. If it's not, so be it, and expected at that. You've tried to state above that it's essentially an irrelevant request. This is, of course for you to decide as well. I gave my feedback, and so have others. There's nothing more I can do there. It is your blog, after all. Lastly, I've clearly stated multiple times that we are all as individuals entitled to our own opinions. The fact that you disliked the product yourself does not bother me at all. It is my opinion you've crossed the line with your sidebar, though maybe that's a good thing for reasons of your credibility. We'll always disagree on this. The fact that you went as far to even try and investigate Eric and make mention of anything another person in his family does is uncalled for, and not pertinent to anything X-Plane or RealScenery. I've not argued this up until now. Regardless as to whether it pertains to the review or not, it shouldn't be there. At least, not in the manner you have it. From personal experience, Eric is a very honest person. I wouldn't be doing business with him if he wasn't. Let's face it Dave, some people get along with you, and some people don't. If Eric made the decision to stop talking to you, that's his choice. You aren't exactly easy to get along with unless one agrees with you. The same goes for virtually anyone in this world. With that said, Eric has always answered fair game questions, and while his name may not be plastered over the website as an "Eric" product, so what? It doesn't mean much of anything. RealScenery is the name of the business who makes the products. As such, this is the information posted. You've made mention that I was somehow "haunted" by your bringing up of a past statement I made (on a website non-related to X-Plane). I've read my posts over, and I don't see a response in any manner that states I would be haunted over it. What you got was a response that informed you the business pertains to nothing any X-Plane user would use, thus it's of insignificance to this arena. I DO agree with you in that such claims should never be made if you don't want them ever brought up. The forum you questioned was pertinent to information regarding X-Plane, and you were given that info. Additionally, we can go ahead to agree to disagree on the PR issue. It's not even worth getting into. I've maintained honesty, and I welcome your views. This thread stands, and I have nothing against it. It's up to the people to decide on credibility at this point. Thanks for posting, Dave.

Hobofat, Thanks very much for your contribution to the thread. Your thoughts and opinions are very welcome! I completely agree. While some may see it as a downer, allowing people to speak freely without harm is always a good thing, I think. This is essentially what I am trying to get across here. Dave is most certainly entitled to his opinion, as am I to mine, and you to yours! However, I do feel pros and cons are good things to list in reviews. You find this most anywhere. This is something I can appreciate and understand, and is the kind of constructive criticism I can work with as well as look for to try and improve products. The goal here is to not skimp out on customers and give them their dollars worth. I feel RealScenery provides a great package for it's cost (especially when you compare MSFS' MegaScenery at expensive rates per state), and we'll definitely look into furthering the products. We want customers to return, and in order to do that, we have to be willing to listen. Some things are not as easily accomplished as others, but we will always investigate reasonable requests! Thanks again for chiming in!

Dave, Okay, so attempting to make personal life attacks on any individual doesn't count as being defensive. Got it. I don't believe I've been twice defensive in great length, unless you consider the following statement such: If this was perceived as being defensive, or anything that was contained around it, this was not the intention. It was simply my view of your pattern and choice of writing time after time. I can understand how it could be perceived as sarcasm though. As I've stated, It's not for me to do. While I am aware of some misinformation, I would not be the appropriate party to let out info on someone's life or accomplishments in time. You have accuracies and inaccuracies in the sidebar, and that's all I will allow myself to say. It's better to have definitive, accurate info if you're going to get personal (like you misinforming which high school I went to) I think, or else it may cause personal damage on someone. No one knows anyone's life better but themselves. I am not Eric, and should he perceive the info to be damaging, maybe he'll come to you and let you know. Side note: Now that you've decided to edit your post to state: Should you really have a genuine, vested interest in this, you can read up on the I.B. program. I'm unsure of the overall performance of valley schools these days, but I don't believe it was too bad during my time there. Many of us went to Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA. Not too bad, I suppose, but it doesn't speak for the overall performance of area schools.

As I've stated earlier, that's Eric's decision. I'm not completely sure how Downey's standards are, nor do I recollect talking of it. Yes, I'm from the same town, no, I didn't graduate from there. If you really want to dig into the correct, deep information, I'll hand it to you. That would be Modesto High School, and it wouldn't be 2004. The forum spoken of would be X-Plane Freeware Project. The business is none of yours, nor is this the appropriate place to speak of not only mine, but anyones personal life. I'm not recent, and number two (if you want to talk about age in general), I guess more people should be concerned about handing their personal info over to "recent" graduate Mark Zuckerberg's company too? Maybe the guys at getdropbox.com as well? The X-Plane.org issue has been explained, it appears. This whole thing is quite simple, Dave. I applaud your writing ability, however, I don't agree with your method of review. It would be nice to see the pros and cons to each section you review, and I don't say this for just a product I may sponsor. I mean this for anything you review, be it freeware or payware. You would rather take this personal and I won't play that game with you. Yes, you're entitled to your own opinion, and I'm also giving mine. You seem to be getting pretty defensive for someone who likes to shell out the bombs to others.

Dave, I, of course, do have a vested interest, however, your perception of a sensible business model or my own again appears you want to be the final call and set an agenda. Additionally, I used quotes from topics of other users here to support my claims so that it's not just me being supportive of what I say. In reality, I'm very open to reviews and encourage them. The goal at X-Aviation is to have the best quality products for X-Plane, and the only way to get better is to hear the criticism. This comes from all angles, be it software applications, web applications, and anything X-Plane related that we publish. The only problem I see with your review is that while it's negative, it's not very open-minded. I guess this comes with the territory on anything you write, as it's typical DaveDuck material. Opinions are certainly one thing I can't control, but trying to find a happy medium is something I CAN control. My counteraction posted above is to show that I (as a regular RS user), do not view the terrain to be too light in contrast as you, and why the airports are the way they are. Without getting too much into it, you simply feed in the negativity and never give credit to the other side of what you speak of. It's not open-minded, but very "I have an agenda to kill." To you, it makes sense. To the person reading your review, all they take in is what you speak. You're still a great writer, but your review is more a fun read of journalism than anything accurate, or remotely open-minded to those reading. Your sidebar is also riddled with incorrect information and false assumptions. I highly disagree with the review itself in most instances, simply because you don't invest any time into discussing any type of pros vs cons. I'm not sure that's even possible for YOU to do, especially in the creative way that you write. For you it's either negative or positive, but never both. Don't let all of this shy away from the fact that I am aware of people not always agreeing and having different opinions. This is why we encourage reviews from various publications; so that many opinions can be shed about. Best, Cameron

Dave, It's great you've taken some time to write a review. I believe it's sensible to have someone with good writing skills to be writing something clever, however, one thing is quite evident to me in your writing: you have an agenda in all of what you write; your mind is made. I mean no offense to this, however, with your writing and assumptions so incredibly negative, it's hard to believe you had any other intentions or felt the need to be subjective/take into account varied opinions of those that may read what you have written. To me it wreaks of someone irked or feels as if the wrong button was pressed on them (you), and that's simply that. Regardless of these things, your negative writing is still good, so job well done there! With the above said, you are most certainly entitled to YOUR opinion, so I'll also share mine. 1.) Your review clearly shows some drawbacks to photoscenery. I think it's very important you shared this, however, it appears you took in NO account to those that fly online. A great deal of users fly online (VATSIM, etc), and it's important airports line up to the scopes of controllers on networks like VATSIM. Not only for that reason, but also for the simple fact that it's nice to see traffic at your airport. X-Plane will not display online flying/moving aircraft in the correct position within sim unless lat/lon/alt all match up. This is a trade off that's made, and not entirely a fault of the RealScenery product line. Additionally, it's important to note that a good number of airports match up with the photos just like a good number don't. Of course, the bigger airfields match up more proper than those that are "in the sticks." I wish there were a way to make this perfect, as do you it appears, however, what you may think would be perfect, others will disagree with. As an online flyer myself, I appreciate the photo terrain below and the fact that my airport data has NOT been adjusted. It would drive me batty otherwise, that's for sure! 2.) You spent a great deal of time discussing the terrain coloration. I think this one is definitely an agree to disagree section. I find your preference of coloration too dark, and X-Plane's default to be as well. The RealScenery Oregon product may not be perfect, but I also feel it's not far off. Of course, unlike you (it appears), I understand one opinion is different than the next, so if darker works for you, all the power to you! All the power to you that you found an author from FS whom you feel shared your opinion just because his terrain was darker, however, I feel his is a tad too dark. There is no question, though, that FlightZone02 is a fantastic package, and I recommend all to get it regardless of terrain coloration perception! To those interested in non-edited (minus the cropping) photos of Oregon, there are some here. It's better to draw your own opinion: Other images: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=183.0 Using a direct quote from a customer of all the RealScenery products posted here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=241.0 3.) I'm a little dumbfounded by your fascination to dig so deeply into one's personal life (speaking on the additional column you created called The Curious Case of Eric Gillett), however, I'm somewhat pleased you did it for the comedy of the misinformation included! Typical quality journalism from an ex professional journalist though, right? It was certainly a good laugh, especially with your fantastic writing ability, Dave, and I sincerely mean that! I won't really speak more on the misinformation you posted regarding Eric, as I feel his personal details are for him to correct you on should he feel the need. In regards to hidden whois info, one word: spam. I have a lot of domains, and one of the biggest mistakes I ever made was leaving all my info in them. I've received so much spam over time through snail mail, I've finally begun to invest the extra $ to privatize such information. Yet another X-Planer proving my point that everyone has their own opinion and won't always agree with you or others around, and it's not even regarding a RealScenery product. Quite frankly, when I read this post, Dave, I already knew to expect negativity. After all, there's no fun in reading DaveDuck's blog without it, as it's become the norm. There are a few non-negative posts that have been made by you on your site, but they in no way outnumber the consistent negative opinions of our well-versed, Dave! I could keep going and going, but this review of your review may get a bit too long for the normal person to have patience for...like someone else we know. Oh, but before I forget, I give your review: Let's see...according to your rating guide here: http://plainlyxplane.blogspot.com/search/label/flight%20sim%20software%20reviews This means your review is "Monkey dung." Oh, okay, I feel bad now. You DO have good writing ability. Much better than me, in fact, so I'll up it. According to your own ratings guide, basically: It's a great read but fails to deliver a great review. It's also impractical (opinions suck sometimes, don't they?), but damn is it a fun read. While your ratings state "Not Recommended," I'm going to have to scratch that little tidbit and encourage people to get some good laughs from a great writer! Cheers, Dave. Mad respect!

I assume you purchased the Javelin through Jrollon.com, as I see no order on X-Aviation, however, PayPal provides your email address when you send money. Javier will send you your files soon, I'm sure.

Jimmi, Thanks for the report. The error you saw with the verification for the user guide is actually an error on our side. Very minor, but in short we updated the user guide since the original version, so the MD5 sum is different than the original version of the zip file. The verification is still checking for the old zip, thus flagging the new one as faulty. I'll fix this, but you DO have all the correct data downloaded. You've been able to report back here relatively fast since your purchase time. I assume your download speeds are good? Thanks!