Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ailchim

Positive security package results Flight1 FLT1CHK4.DLL

Recommended Posts

------> VirtualiIn this case, I believe from the "bad licence" error message I get on the Level D 767 that the problem lies in whatever is being done to check that I have a valid product registration - which I do before we go down that route. We also know that this self same file affects at least 3 separate add-ons - the Level D 767, the Flight1 ATR and GE Pro. Therefore, with these 3 products having separate developers, the DLL is part of the Flight1 e-commerce system.So let's be clear, and I put this point to Steve Halpern earlier in this thread which he hasn't denied, what is happening is that the mechanism which Flight1 puts in place to protect itself against piracy is preventing me from using validly purchased products because the mechanism used to check those registrations looks like (NB LOOKS LIKE, not IS) something which is unacceptable to not one, but a series of security products. It is not a random set of coincidences giving a positive, it is the design or the process which is setting off the alarm bells.I sympathise with the need to prevent piracy but it's not, or shouldn't be, my problem; I don't do it.As I say, I have sympathy but I am in danger of getting annoyed when commercial vendors seem to say the opposite i.e. "Oh it's all very complicated and difficult to do, so therefore we won't bother, you the customer will have to deal with it". Is that too harsh a summary of what you are saying?You guys are the IT professionals and we, the customers are not. You have the revenues to at least buy one copy each of the mainstream security packages and try out your add-ons against them. We as customers do not have those revenues and in the majority of cases don't have the necessary expertise either.I have previously said my version of McAfee does not allow users to ignore security warnings. That isn't entirely true.The full truth is that Mcafee DOES allow the user the to selectively "trust" files it identifies as suspicious, although I would still qustion why I should have to make allowances in this way. However, it does NOT allow the user to ignore those files it places in the very highest risk category. This is where it places FLT1CHK4.DLL, albeit because it seems to think it is or contains the Artemeis Trojan.To reiterate, this file is I assume, going through my hard disk, collecting information and transmitting it to Flight1. Correct me if I'm wrong please, I don't even claim to be an expert. What is a security program supposed to think about that?-----------> DaveoThe problems arose with FS9 running under Vista. Coincidentally, I have just moved on from FS9 to FSX so the issues aren't really current for me, although if it wasn't for all this, I would have upgraded both the 767 and the ATR to FSX by now. I haven't because I can't be sure they will work.I do take security seriously but all the various security products are running as they came, I haven't altered any settings, up or down. What I think has caused the differences are that the newer products are doing more real-time monitoring rather than just working off the occasional scan and that's tripping up things which worked OK before. But what do I know?As noted above, it is true McAfee doesn't allow very much fine tuning. But then, it does place this file in it's highest risk category.Prior to this, I have NEVER had any problems installing or running anything to do with FS or even the other less adult games I play at times or any other software I have on my machine.I have never had the type of problems you indicate. I have used various versions of ActiveSky for weather - latterly ASV6.5 for FS9 and ASX for FSX. Never had any problems with weather downloads on either.


                                  ngxu_banner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

------> McCrashPlease do not make this a "bash Flight1" thread.I am positive there is nothing underhand here at all. Flight1 have ligitimately been preventing software piracy.However, that does appear increasingly to fall foul of newer security products, that's all.


                                  ngxu_banner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case, I believe from the "bad licence" error message I get on the Level D 767 that the problem lies in whatever is being done to check that I have a valid product registration - which I do before we go down that route.
The "bad license" is not the cause of the problem, it's the effect of your antivirus that has mistakenly identified the Flight1 DLL as a virus, and it's blocking its execution.Since that file is needed to validate the license, if the antivirus is blocking it, the code inside the airplane doesn't have any other choice than issuing a license message, because the needed DLL is not running, because the antivirus is blocking it.
what is happening is that the mechanism which Flight1 puts in place to protect itself against piracy is preventing me from using validly purchased products because the mechanism used to check those registrations looks like (NB LOOKS LIKE, not IS) something which is unacceptable to not one, but a series of security products. It is not a random set of coincidences giving a positive, it is the design or the process which is setting off the alarm bells.
Seeing from the other point of view, it's the mechanism that the antivirus developer has in place to detect not yet to be discovered viruses that has a fault, and it's preventing you to use a software you have purchased! The options that every antivirus software has to control this (user white-listing a file or turning heuristic detection off) are there for a reason, because antivirus developers *knows* there might be a lot of false positives and without the chance to change the settings, lots of software wouldn't work.The issue is that you are assuming that the Flight1 wrapper is really doing something "strange", but in fact the fundamental flaw is the reliance of antivirus software upon heuristic detection, which is just a marketing gimmick to be able to advertize the antivirus software is able to catch viruses that hasn't been classified yet, and be able to advertize they can catch more viruses than the competition.If you would allowing me to explain what heuristic detection does, you would see how this might be cause a lot of problems to legit software that does legit things:Heuristic detection means that the antivirus is NOT using a verified database to judge if that file has a virus or not, but instead is trying to guess a possible danger by analyzing some behavioral patterns, which unfortunately are used BOTH by real virus AND by other legit software that deals with security, like any e-commerce software. Some of these includes the following:- ANY e-commerce software should use some form of encryption. Would you trust with your Credit Card an e-commerce software that doesn't ? Unfortunately, some viruses use encryption too, to conceal themselves from antivirus software so the antivirus might flag this behaviour as suspicious, when in fact is absolutely legit and required for an e-commerce application.- ANY e-commerce software should be able to protect itself from being modified BOTH for the developer security ( to prevent cracking) AND for the customer security. Would you trust with your Credit Card an e-commerce software that doesn't take any of such precautions, and being at risk of being modifed by an hacker, to include something like a keylogger, that might send away the data you are typing, including CC numbers ? Unfortunately, virus usually take the same precautions too, in order to defend against antivirus software that try to "heal" a file.- ANY e-commerce software should be able to protect itself from being debugged, which is also a security measure that protects both the developer against possible cracks AND the customer against the same dangers as above, since being able to debug a program is the first step to being able to cracki it or modifying it in any way, including adding malware, spyware or security holes (like key-loggers) which is something that many virus do to legit programs. Unfortunately, for the same reasons, real virus use checks against being debugged, so this might be considered a dangerous behaviour by the antivirus, although is used for legit purposes.- Most e-commerce software are not plain files, but they are usually compressed with some kind of run-time compression method that usually have some kind of enryption added to it, so only the software itself is able to decompress when it starts. Again, this is another measure to make hacks and modifications more difficult, which is an absolutely legitimate way for an e-commerce application, that needs to do whatever possible to not being tampered with, to protect BOTH the developer from cracks AND the customer from malware that might attach itself to the legit file. Unfortunately, there are virus out there that use the same technique, to hide inside a file that can't be opened without launching it, which might be dangerous if the file IS a real virus. So, the antivirus with heuristics on stays on the safe side, and blocks EVERY software that is wrapped in such way, without really knowing what's in there.So, these are the technical reasons why heuristic detection will NEVER be fully reliable, and should be used with great care, because it's the most likely reason of uncompatibilities between antivirus software and other software you run on your PC.The fact that more than one antivirus software detects the Flight1 .DLL as dangerous doesn't mean much, if you understood all the above explanations. It would be enough that a recently discovered virus used the same anti-debugging wrapper as Flight1's, that all antivirus out there might flag it as dangerous on their first live update. As I've said, when a DLL is wrapped in such way, the only way to uncompress it to see what's inside is to run it but, since the antivirus can't risk doing that, it's blocking it straight away, because it doesn't have a chance to really "see" what is DOING, it's just assuming that there *might* be a virus inside that compressed file JUST because a real virus was found to use the same kind of compression.So, now that you have all the information available, I hope you finally understood why heuristic detection should not be trusted, not at least without knowing exactly what it means.As I've said before, the digital signature is a way for you to know that the file you have on your disk is exactly the same as was released by the developer (provided it has been signed, I don't remember if Flight1 signs their executables, but I guess they do) and hasn't been altered in any way because even if just a byte was changed, the digital signature wouldn't be valid anymore.I strongly suggest you to either configure your antivirus to allow exacution of the FLT1CHK4.DLL file OR, just turn heuristic detection off, and you shouldn't have any more false positive issues.best regards,Umberto Colapicchioni / VIRTUALIhttp://www.fsdreamteam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--------> VirtualiI think we may be having communication problems and I'm afraid I can't help because unlike you I have no ability in foreign languages at all.1) I know it's not a bad licence causing the problem but that the DLL which normally checks the registration has been removed by the security package. My point is that usually, something which collects information from your computer and send it to another computer IS regarded as at least spyware.2) That said, I am categorically NOT saying the Flight1 system is doing anything other than checking its own licences. However, the mechanism being used to do that seems to be becoming increasingly unacceptable to mainstream security packages.3) You have given a very complex explanation of what's going on. I appreciate your efforts but I'm a simple customer, I'm not interested. I want my purchases to work and as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the people that sell them to make sure they do. I'm willing to follow clear & simple warnings which should be available before I make my purchase. Just as an FS add-on might bear the warning "Requires Acceleration Pack/SP2", Flight1 products should currently be bearing the warning "May not work with McAfee security products". If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation, not me.


                                  ngxu_banner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation
Which they have done, and hit the same brick wall as every one else has. What now? The add-on company has tried to get the situation rectified, but cannot. So maybe they put a warning on their website "May not work with X Security/Antivirus". Customers still moan "I really WANT that plane but I have X Antivirus. If I want the plane I have to also purchase another antivirus software package, or dump the one I paid for on a year's subscription." It's a no win situation for the vendor. You really expect Flight1 to monitor and test every single antivirus product on the market? Remember that while most AV Vendors produce their own Update/DAT/Definition files, some do not and may use versions of McAfees definitions. How do you know? You dont until you use the product. If McAfee dont back down and change their perception of the file in the DATS, it affects other AV software too. You really think Flight1 have the resources to check all that? Maybe they can alter their DLL to work a different way? That's fine for new customers and new products, what about the thousands of existing ones with the old DLL? The onus here is on the AV companies to recognise that an established company's DLL file is not viral or spyware, especially when the company itself and many hundreds if not thousands of users have sibmitted the file for testing as a false-positive. The FS add-on vendors are listening, the AV vendors are not. End of.
, not me.
Ever heard the phrase "help comes to those who begin with helping themselves"? If everyone took the attitude where they would not try and help others, the flight sim community would no longer be a community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Carl, and everyone."The onus here is on the AV companies to recognise that an established company's DLL file is not viral or spyware,.."You, and I, wish that life were that simple, but the reality is that if an entity / Company, that is in the business of analyzing Security treats considers a chunk of code to be a security treat, is up to the people that created that code to learn, and change. I am sure you know all about how secure all the MS's code, and promises are, what makes you think this is different? Yes, the Developer Must test all the available combinations, make a change, or state what they tested it with. We seem to live in a very superficial World, Engineers no longer care what actual Facts / Science is. Get something out the door to get some cash, goal accomplished. The end user buys the product, and because of the MS's and others in the Software business, new introduction of you bought it you are stuck with it, they feel that they do not have to do any real testing. Put it out, we just use the Customers as Beta testers, when they find something we just SP it, or better yet if there are not enough of them that complain, just ignore it.I am with the Buyer / Customer, in this case, it's up to the Developer to make it work, and reimburse him for his lost time, in some way. The fact that one has something out in the thousands, does not make it right. Again look at MS and others. I am getting tired of buying things that do not specify exactly what is working with., like is Vista compatible, buy it and it will not work with Vista 64, or XP and it will not work with original release, you must have at least SP2, SP3 etc.Where has the engineering responsibility gone? Or maybe the Software companies do not need to follow the same rules. Maybe they are in the wrong business, try a political career, more money and you can do and say anything you want, no science, no facts, no responsibility, and a great pension to boot. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I know it's not a bad licence causing the problem but that the DLL which normally checks the registration has been removed by the security package. My point is that usually, something which collects information from your computer and send it to another computer IS regarded as at least spyware.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about this .dll which is creating unnecesasry confusion.This .dll does not ever "phone home." Period. The Flight1 wrapper package does "phone home" once (or never at all if the user chooses to use the off-line activation method). Once validated, the wrapper package will "unwrap" the contents to whatever source files the developer has "wrapped." Typically this is a separate installer executable, a "readme.txt" and perhaps some bitmap images.Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process.If a virus checking program has improperly flagged the .dll as suspect, and inhibits it from being executed/querried, then at that point the aircraft gauge system will report an error message...

Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fr. Bill, and everyone."Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process."While the Developers may only use that, as you stated, and I do not dispute it, what is there to stop others from using it? I see it all the time in my system, Vista 64 SP1, where attempts are made to access the Auto dialer through other Applications. If the gate is there, someone will use it. We should have learned from MS's blunders in the past, and present. Not only you do not know when and what they are sending, they are making it next to impossible to disable that action.If a Developer needs to get info., they need to let the Customer know, what and iwhen nfo. is gathered, and that code should Never be imbedded in an active, continuous use, executable. Use it once, allow the user to quarantine that App., or use it and disable, No Op that portion of the Code. Having an active .dll that can be used as back door is Not a good idea. Tell that to MS, I've been telling them for years, and they still don't get it.The intent does not have to be malicious, but I want to know about what goes out. These acts are no different than someone walking in my house, without my knowledge, using my tools, bathroom, etc. and walking out. Why do we put up with it? I am gathering data right now to see what MS, and others, are sending out without my permission / ability to disable that function, it's scary stuff. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Fr. Bill, and everyone."Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process."While the Developers may only use that, as you stated, and I do not dispute it, what is there to stop others from using it? I see it all the time in my system, Vista 64 SP1, where attempts are made to access the Auto dialer through other Applications. If the gate is there, someone will use it. We should have learned from MS's blunders in the past, and present. Not only you do not know when and what they are sending, they are making it next to impossible to disable that action.If a Developer needs to get info., they need to let the Customer know, what and iwhen nfo. is gathered, and that code should Never be imbedded in an active, continuous use, executable. Use it once, allow the user to quarantine that App., or use it and disable, No Op that portion of the Code. Having an active .dll that can be used as back door is Not a good idea. Tell that to MS, I've been telling them for years, and they still don't get it.The intent does not have to be malicious, but I want to know about what goes out. These acts are no different than someone walking in my house, without my knowledge, using my tools, bathroom, etc. and walking out. Why do we put up with it? I am gathering data right now to see what MS, and others, are sending out without my permission / ability to disable that function, it's scary stuff. TV
Fr. Bill's point is that the .dll never calls home. The Flight1 wrapper does so on installation and that's it. A key is generated during that process. The .dll queries the key (on your local machine) when the aircraft is loaded. That's it. So far as I am aware, only Cloud9 and FSDreamTeam actively query a key server at load time (a choice that I very much dislike, BTW - but they're right up front about it). All that said, if you want to prevent the outflow of information from your system it's really quite simple - there are several free and payware firewalls that give you that ability.DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a problem develops after-sale which puts products sold into conflict with other software, potentially for thousands of people, then it's up to the vendor to work with the other software provider to rectify the situation, not me.
You should throw in the towel then... it's not going to work out for you. There is no proof that this is systemic across the total base of users and the ultimate solution, given Steve's response, is to allow an exception to their .DLL file in your AV software. I am saying this despite the fact that I've also been bitten by this same problem with NOD32 and Vista64. In my case, the Flight1 wrapper .EXE file was dinged as "bad." I've also had other "software-within-a-wrapper" programs get dinged by AV programs. AV programs don't like it because it is software compressed within other software.When you understand the problem, you will see that the work-arounds are trivial. When you throw your hands up and demand that "...the customer is always right," and that a workable solution is completely on the vendor then, honestly, I don't think the Flight1 wrapper way is going to work for you. That's a shame because a majority of the rest of us are doing okay, even if we do have to take an extra step or two. Don't get me wrong, it's your right to as a customre to become incensed and indignant, but I don't think it is going to get much traction. The truth is, Steve's answer was honest and indicated that the cost disincentives to stay on top of every AV package out there on a daily basis. Also, they'd have to use mulitple machines/images and/or boot-partitions in order to undertake this daily test as these AV programs don't like to co-exist.There might be a vendor of some software somewhere out there who would undertake the hand-holding care you seek, but I think you can multiply the sticker price by a factor of 10 or more above what the typical Flight1 title costs.Of course, if you are here to argue the merits of your position in a rhetorical sense, then I suppose that is up to the moderators. In any case, I think you got the authoritative response "from the horse's mouth."

Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------> FiliotUK"You really expect Flight1 to monitor and test every single antivirus product on the market?"Well, call me old fashioned, when I buy something I assume it will work, I think that's fairly common. I appreciate that the security product vendors are partly to blame here. The difference is that their product is doing what it says on the tin, maybe too effectively, whereas the excellent Flight1 products are currently not, for me and maybe a number of others - I'm not in a position to say how many."You really think Flight1 have the resources to check all that?"Well, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that these are vast organisations but in truth I suspect many are small groups of committed enthusiasts. Where Flight1 fits into that I don't know.What I do know is that they are the ones marketing the product and have at least some commision revenue to cover costs. I have no resources and no revenue so sure as eggs, it's far less reasonable to expect me to check compatibility. -------------> N4gix/Ubersu"Once validated, one can then disconnect their computer from the internet and load/use the aircraft as often as they like. All that's required at that point is that the .dll file be available for the developer's gauge code to query during the loading process."I bow to your obviously superior knowledge. I would have preferred to hear that from Steve Halpern as I have mentioned it to him probably 3 times without a categorical answer.However, it matters little, since my products still don't work and I never was accusing Flight1 of anything underhand in the first place. Provided the process is foolproof, I'm actually quite happy to have my licences checked as they are all in order.---------> Ahuimanu"There is no proof that this is systemic across the total base of users and the ultimate solution, given Steve's response, is to allow an exception to their .DLL file in your AV software.When you understand the problem, you will see that the work-arounds are trivial."There have been a series of posts on the Flight1 forum reporting similar problems with a range of security packages. I have 2 on my system, McAfee and Ad-aware to sweep up spyware Mcafee leaves behind. Both have been updated in the last 3 months and, having previously given no problems, are both now reporting FLT1CHK4.DLL as suspicious (or worse in the case of McAfee). From where I sit, it looks like an increasing problem.I'm not sure either that over-riding your security product is a trivial matter. Anyone would wonder what the point is of having it if the first time it gives a positive result (which is the case with me) you over-ride it. "When you throw your hands up and demand that "...the customer is always right," and that a workable solution is completely on the vendor then, honestly, I don't think the Flight1 wrapper way is going to work for you. "It's funny you should quote the very commonly held rule that the customer is always right. I bet you have used it in your own life a thousand times in other situations. What is it here that means it shouldn't apply?"Of course, if you are here to argue the merits of your position in a rhetorical sense, then I suppose that is up to the moderators."I have 2 products, which I paid for, the Level D 767 and the Flight 1 ATR which are now not working. The reason is known, an incompatibilty with some security products. I also paid for the main security product, only recently.Presumably you regard that level of simplicity as rhetorical because others are able to put a lot of detail on why it's happening and to take a view on who is to blame. That isn't the issue for the average user, who merely wants his payware products to work and have the vendors sort out how that has to happen. Failing that, if there are known irreversible incompatibilities, as seems to be the case at least with McAfee, then he should be warned before he parts with his money.In many ways, those trying to defend the situation on a technical basis are prolonging this thread. In essence this is futile because no matter what the technicalities, commercially it's indefensible and it would be better to accept that and move on.


                                  ngxu_banner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the poor design of the security product you purchased. Just because you purchase something does not mean it is always correct. Because McAffee, or Microsoft, is bigger than some of our smaller companies does not mean THEY ARE RIGHT or doing things the best way. It turns out that there is a MAJOR and intentional design flaw (in my opinion) in the Home edition of McAfee, and McAfee users put their computer applications at risk of being turned off.I did do some research on this, and I did speak to McAfee. The best I could come up with for now is what I post here... http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29466. Hopefully this will help some customers, and there is a workaround, although it should not have to burden the customer to this level.Sorry, this is just frustrating, especially when a company can easily fix this by activating a simple exclude feature in their product. Without that, you are at the risk of whatever McAfee decides.


Thanks,

 

Steve Halpern

Flight One Software

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far as I am aware, only Cloud9 and FSDreamTeam actively query a key server at load time (a choice that I very much dislike, BTW - but they're right up front about it).
Sorry, but this is not true. The activation server is checked only when activating for the first time when you buy the product, OR when you need to reinstall the scenery on a new PC or after changing a major hardware component so, it's not really different from the Flight1 method.After the activation is verified once, the activation info is stored in the Windows registry so, as long as you don't reinstall Windows from scratch, no online access is needed anymore. It's very easy to verify this, just disable your internet connection, and the scenery will still work, because if it finds a valid activation in the registry, it doesn't need to go online.And, just to be precise, you don't even need online access when activating the first time, because there's an OFFLINE ACTIVATION method, that automatically pops out when no internet connection is detected, when the programs needs it (which is only when activating the first time, or when reinstalling Windows from scratch or on a new PC). In this case, there would be a code that can be used on *another* PC that has Web access to generate another code that can be used to activate the product on the non-internet connected PC. So, activations and regular use of the product, is possible even on PCs that never had ANY kind of internet connection.regards,Umberto Colapicchioni - VIRTUALI s.a.s.http://www.fsdreamteam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_
In many ways, those trying to defend the situation on a technical basis are prolonging this thread. In essence this is futile because no matter what the technicalities, commercially it's indefensible and it would be better to accept that and move on.
I just need to understand something please. Say you own a Chevy (Windows/fligtsim), and purchase new rims/wheel to go from 15" to 17" (your addon) and then you purchase a "cruise control system" (your anti-virus) running on Chevy. It works fine. Then you receive an update for the cruise control system and all of a sudden, the 17" wheel are no longer working like expected (cruise control is off by a dozen or so mph). Is this the tire manufacturer that has to change your tires, or the cruise control manufacturer that has to update the system to work with your 17" tires (it works fine with other 17" tires, not just the brand you have purchased), from a commercial standpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Hi, JeanLuc_ and everyone.Since this post was not addressed to a specific individual, I hope I am not out of line for commenting.Your analogy lacks validity. If indeed you have a system, like you mentioned, I would expect that some Specifications will stipulate what the working combination is, and or provide a way to adjust for that variation / combination. The same thing is expected with the Code / Application.The problem here is not Hardware, is Software. I am sure you know the difference and I will not dwell on it.Now days we seem to lack the sense of responsibility, due, in part, of the external inputs, like the "great" politicians, actors, MS, celebrities in general, and self respect.We are talking Science / Engineering / Software. Nobody expects 100% compatibility, but everybody expects to know what the Code was tested on / works with, at the time of creation. Is that too much to ask?This is not a problem with just FS. Go to the store buy a Mobo that says XP compatible, go home spend hours getting a system together, try to install the Drivers, and find out that you must have at least XP SP1, or 2 in order for it to work. Who is responsible for this? It most certainly Not the User. Start with the board manufacturer 2 bit Engineers, move to MS who has no idea on how to maintain compatibility, the Store that stocks the product etc. How is the end user o know?Another example, go get an Utility that says Vista compatible, take it home put it on your Vista 64 system and find out the it will not work. You are stuck with the product. It's not the User's responsibility to test the code and see if it works, it's the designer that has to say Tested on… specifically, and what other known limitations may be known. If I buy something that I have to go through a Chinese acrobat contortions to get to work, from one individual, but others can make a similar product, without having to go through it, guess which one I would buy? But the do not specify the limitations, because they limit their income potential. We are much too into making money, at any cost, and worry about it later, and look where it got us?We need to get back to basics. Most of us are educated, responsible individuals, don't allow the politicians / celebrities to adversely influence your character. I expect just about anything from a salesman, but expect facts from Engineers / Scientists etc. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...