Houses of parliment....

[Mattyboom]

Drew wrote:
sorry if i sound unfriendly, but i dont think i do. You just think i do as i dont agree with what you are saying. ps, im not insulted at all?????

ok, I put it the wrong way, its the way your posts came across. As if saying "how dare you ask for more" feeling to them.

It may be a suggestion, but as i have shown, its simple enough for even thou most uncomputer friendly person to edit.


as for why it was placed there, i will leave that one to Dan

However I disagree. You have shown your mother that, if I asked my Dad, I can almost guarnetee he would not be able to.

[Drew]

ok, but tell me seriously.....

how many times will you edit this file in all the time you use FsP? Twice at most? do you really think in your opinion it is worth making
an interface to edit the war zones, that people will use at most twice?

If people do have trouble, they can simply post here, and someone will be on hand to help out, tell how to remove areas, or add areas etc.

I appriciate that you have the suggestion, i also you appriciate that your annoyed that you got shot down on final into EGLL (i myself would
find that annoying) but i really dont think the time making the interface would outweight the usage of it, therefore not worthwhile.

[JoshH]

Quite a bit actually if I keep on finding war zones in ridiculous places. But I may also sometimes like to add a war zone just for a bit of fun
flying. So it all depends on the person actually using the product.

[Mattyboom]

Drew wrote:
ok, but tell me seriously.....

how many times will you edit this file in all the time you use FsP? Twice at most? do you really think in your opinion it is worth making
an interface to edit the war zones, that people will use at most twice?

If people do have trouble, they can simply post here, and someone will be on hand to help out, tell how to remove areas, or add areas etc.

I appriciate that you have the suggestion, i also you appriciate that your annoyed that you got shot down on final into EGLL (i myself would
find that annoying) but i really dont think the time making the interface would outweight the usage of it, therefore not worthwhile.

lets agree to disagree. I think it would be a useful function. espeicially if you do want to change it often to keep up with real world events. Anyone
else have an opinion?

[Dutch64]

If there is no config file people will complain there isn't. Now there is one, now we have people complaining it's there and
too difficult.
The whole dangerous area feature can be disabled by a menu entry. If you want more specific you have to edit the file which
is really not that
difficult, also not for people who don't have computer knowledge at all. It's also explained in the FAQ and all over the forum.
I don't understand what the fuss is all about.

[DanSteph]

GUI are the most expensive in mean of coding time, dialog are a pain to create
and after that you must check every possible situation that can goes wrong,
Every dumb things that user will try to enter etc etc. Dozen, hundred line
just to avoid typing 10 secondes.

Now if I add one just for this things that -as said drew- is not so often used
and easy to edit why not adding also GUI for all other and more usefull things
that you can tune in FsP ? more option, sound editor, voice editor etc etc.

Doing that is impossible, first reason of course: time.
I'm not sure FsP would have been out yet with all those dialog.

Second reason: you end with a complicated interface with thousand option, dialog, menu
wich does not look good at all and may give you the feeling that it's a very complicated things.
It might be so impressive that anyway you'll miss most of the options.
(seem you missed the "don't use dangerous area" in option ?

Now: as simple as possible interface for noobs and people that don't want to dig
in hundred option + more option to edit by hand for people that want more and read the docs.

FsP is not a "pong" it's not a simple product, without a minimum abilities you can't play at all,
most people that play FS are computer litterate. With a litle bit of research there are help in
doc, in help text in FAQ , in forum etc. etc.

Now I agree with you that perhaps london and paris should not have been placed in 100%
area. I may remove that in futur release.

But as everything have two side: perhaps this helped a lot of people to discover
another cool feature of FsP ? (many people don't read the doc)

I agree the discover may have been a bit ... brutal ?

Dan

[JoshH]

You can say brutal again....

Well I am pleased we have reached an understanding on this now, but you can imagine the shock as you are all set up for a standard landing at Heathrow
to find it thrown into a full emergency in the last 12 miles. I can deal with war zones over Iraq, I would probably expect to get shot down. I just
think it needs to be balanced for when the product is initially installed so that if people want to have an unrealistic over London, Paris or wherever
then they can choose to do that for themselves.

Regards

[DanSteph]

Notice, you may gain a lot of pilot points if you land safely...

Dan

[Full_Throttle0]

I do not know about parliment but the white house and some place in new mexico, are the only 2 places in the world where all air traffic is
banned from 0 feet to infinite in altitude. if you are are flying low enough, and close enough to the white house you should be shot down if
only for president's safety also the government does not want someone to find out about the nuclear testing the military did.

[pagir]

I helped Dan to create the war zones and it was my idea to include those small zones to show the precision of the tool and to reflect the post 9/11 world.

Anyway, if one don't like to edit the warzones, one can have searched in the download section and find a dangerous.cfg without the no-fly
zones...

http://www.fspassengers.com/?action=down...gerous.zip

Pagir



Post Edited ( 05-02-06 05:54 )