Let's not be hypocrites. The simple act of reverse-engineering the MSFS airfiles was a violation of the EULA.And without that, there would not have been 3rd party aircrafts with high quality flight models.And airfiles are not the only thing that have been reverse-engineered in MSFS.Marco

If MS/ACES hadn't wanted folks to be able to modify/adapt/create airfiles, they'd never have provided the tools to do so! Haven't you ever wondered what was in the FS9\Aircraft\templates folder? :(

Any 3rd party airfile belongs to said 3rd party. You might want to read their EULA before you decide you have the right to move it to a different platform. I'll tell you right now most addons for FS are licenced to the specific version they're developed for and thus even moving them across versions can violate the EULA.Most would agree that all the pirate groups on the internet are a bad thing, stealing people's products and offering it up for free. However, apparently most don't feel they're doing anything wrong when they themselves violate the license... as long as they're not giving it away.

You are absolutely right Ed. It's up the the developer to determine how strictly they want to restrict their product. But I will tell you a story that applies to our hobby as well as to my former company's specific situation. We had a product we used during the course of our development which I "inherited" as PM of the project. I wanted to both upgrade the product and move it to our new IT office in Arizona--first move it then upgrade when our budget allowed. When I called the vendor, they were adamant--we could not move the product without paying a penalty of $1000 per workstation, as per the terms of our license agreement (one I never would have agreed to had I been PM at the time). I crunched the numbers and realized is was simply cheaper to remove the product and install the the most current version being sold on the market. But the vendor involved would not allow that because we had (as we had the right to per our contract) ceased maint. support from the vendor a couple years' prior. They wanted us to pay back support even though we weren't in breach to pay for a product version anyone could buy from the vendor.I shopped around, flew several vendors with competitive products out, and chose something else. The vendor lost the $50K or so they would have received from us and another vendor received the money. Our team was skilled enough to adapt to the new product with very little overhead. The vendor we chose had a much more flexible license arrangement that recognized the reality of the marketplace they lived in and allowed us to use their product in any location we chose (Microsoft also has such a policy with some of their older dev products). The first vendor did not stay in business and their product ceased to exist.I've worked professionally in development for two decades now. I've worked for firms which have worked the way of the former vendor, and worked in the manner of the latter. All the ones that followed the practices of the former vendor are gone. Here we are in a hobby where a major piece is gone--Microsoft. Yet some view our community in the same way vendors view the business world--deep pockets, EULA's that require lawyers to read, and so on. I would suggest a smart vendor recognize the market they are in and work with the existing reality we're faced with. Dropping the "Pirate Bomb" on hobbyists who have bought a license to a product simply because they wish to use the product on another sim on an existing workstation? I view that as petty and a poor way to do business with this community. Yes, you may be absolutely right. But I feel those third party vendors who survive the loss of MSFS will find ways to adjust. The Napster analogy? Napster allowed people to distribute music to those who'd never purchased a license to hear it. My understanding of this thread is people who've purchased a license for a product on sim x would like to adapt the flight dynamics to sim y. Call them pirates if you wish, but what we call potential future customers has a way of biting us back. The irony here is I don't think such an interface would work--there are simply too many differences between the two sims. But we know better what developers think, that's always good to know in making future purchase decisions.Regards,John

There is also perhaps another side to this also.If programs were developed that tranfered for example fs scenery into xplane-would there not be increased sales for fs products even by simmers who did not own or use fs-increasing profits for third party developers..sort of like a Mac running Pc software? Would that not be good for everyone?

If MS/ACES hadn't wanted folks to be able to modify/adapt/create airfiles, they'd never have provided the tools to do so! Haven't you ever wondered what was in the FS9\Aircraft\templates folder? :(

Hi Bill,correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I knew, the airfiles were only _indirectly_ modifiable via the tools provided by MS itself.Instead, they have been reverse engineered during the years, and this allowed 3rd party to tweak flight models in a much more effective way.I doubt Real Air could do what they did with just the tools provided by MS!Marco

... correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I knew, the airfiles were only _indirectly_ modifiable via the tools provided by MS itself.Instead, they have been reverse engineered during the years, and this allowed 3rd party to tweak flight models in a much more effective way.I doubt Real Air could do what they did with just the tools provided by MS!Marco

Not quite. The MS ESP 1.0 flight model SDK includes a tool, Asm2Air.exe, allowing you to compile original assembler (ASM) air files into the AIR file of an aircraft (not to be confused with the aircraft.cfg file). The MSDN (microsoft developer network) website contains 5 sample ASM files (Single piston engined aircraft,Turboprop aircraft, Jet aircraft, Piston engined helicopter, Turbine engined helicopter and a legacy model of a Turbine engined helicopter) you can modify at will. BUT: 1) you require a MSDN subscription ($699)2) the ESP SDK will only remain available until March 31,2009 :(

Not quite. The MS ESP 1.0 flight model SDK includes a tool, Asm2Air.exe, allowing you to compile original assembler (ASM) air files into the AIR file of an aircraft (not to be confused with the aircraft.cfg file). The MSDN (microsoft developer network) website contains 5 sample ASM files (Single piston engined aircraft,Turboprop aircraft, Jet aircraft, Piston engined helicopter, Turbine engined helicopter and a legacy model of a Turbine engined helicopter) you can modify at will. BUT: 1) you require a MSDN subscription ($699)2) the ESP SDK will only remain available until March 31,2009 :(

Actually, you don't. Anyone can buy the ESP1 SDK for a only $99 directly from MS, rather than having to go through a reseller or have any level of MSDN Subscription.

Actually, you don't. Anyone can buy the ESP1 SDK for a only $99 directly from MS, rather than having to go through a reseller or have any level of MSDN Subscription.

Thnx. I have a MSDN subscription for other (work-related) reasons, so i wrongly assumed it was necessary.

The irony here is I don't think such an interface would work--there are simply too many differences between the two sims. But we know better what developers think, that's always good to know in making future purchase decisions.

The irony to me, is reading strong comments about "license violation" and having vendors selling products based on and derived from Microsoft IP, like the default XML based GPS, which is forbidden per Microsoft FS(9/X) EULA.The truth of the matter, is that whatever tool there is, the results might come close but never high enough compared to native work done with the XPL SDK. The real question is whether or not vendors will support another platform than FS for their products. It is very difficult to "port" a product from FS to XPL, and in great length because XPL is a different programing paradigm than FS in terms of "addons". The more you are locked-into the FS SDK for your products, the more difficult it is to do. The more out-the-box you are, the easier will it be (less dependency on FS system). Pretty much like doing the GUI part of a business program for Windows and Mac: if you are heavily dependent on the Windows API, it might be difficult to port the application. If you are doing most yourself, you just need some simple "hooks" in whatever system.Of course, this is just my opinion and this has been one key driver in making Gauge XTreme (for the Reality XP products). It has taken more than a man year to develop, but helps making products for FS9, FSX, ESP and now XPL. And it is evolving too.

The truth of the matter, is that whatever tool there is, the results might come close but never high enough compared to native work done with the XPL SDK.Ok prove it! When I see X-Plane aircraft with the complexity of a PMDG 744 or MD-11, or a LDS-767, Aircraft with the accurate fidelity of the Real-Air Spit of SF260, ATC replacement system, Weather generators like ASX, REX. or all the other myriad of apps available for FS, then you can talk about how superior XPL SDK is, until then it's nothing but hot air! Like Larry and Geoff, I've been hearing how superior X-Plane is to FS, (and it is in some areas, like FS is in others) but where it matters, X-Plane falls way short of the capabilities FS already has! Does it have potential? Yes it does, as Marco has shown Geoff it is possible to get a better FM by tweaking it. Geoff's point is also valid, why isn't there more X-Plane aircraft that have a good FM to start, to show the sim in it's best light? An accurate FM is only a part, albeit, very important part of the simming experience. ATC is also important to me. Even with FS ATC's faults it is better than the X-Plane counterpart. Plus there are 3rd party ATC addons that alleviate many of those short comings. While the ground textures look pretty good the coast lines are not accurate, especially inland waterways. For a 60GB load I would have expected better, and 3D landmarks which are so important for VFR flying is non existent, as is the lack of 3D airport structures. The thing that I hate most is the visibility limitations. If I want to choose a denser detail, it arbitrarily reduces it even further with no option (atleast I haven't found one) to override it. Even if I could I would still be limited to 25 miles.

The truth of the matter, is that whatever tool there is, the results might come close but never high enough compared to native work done with the XPL SDK.Ok prove it! When I see X-Plane aircraft with the complexity of a ...

Humm, Humm,No need to be "defiant"! the topic I was mainly answering to was the "breaking the law" using a tool to convert an FS flight model file to an XPL flight model file. What I was saying is that regardless of law considerations, "whatever tool there is, the results might come close but never high enough compared to native work done with the XPL SDK."What I mean is that a developer working naively with the SDK (in this case, the flight model SDK) should always get better results than converting an FS flight model to XPL flight model with a tool.I hope it is clearer now!

The truth of the matter, is that whatever tool there is, the results might come close but never high enough compared to native work done with the XPL SDK.Ok prove it! When I see X-Plane aircraft with the complexity of a PMDG 744 or MD-11, or a LDS-767, Aircraft with the accurate fidelity of the Real-Air Spit of SF260, ATC replacement system, Weather generators like ASX, REX. or all the other myriad of apps available for FS, then you can talk about how superior XPL SDK is, until then it's nothing but hot air! Like Larry and Geoff, I've been hearing how superior X-Plane is to FS, (and it is in some areas, like FS is in others) but where it matters, X-Plane falls way short of the capabilities FS already has! Does it have potential? Yes it does, as Marco has shown Geoff it is possible to get a better FM by tweaking it. Geoff's point is also valid, why isn't there more X-Plane aircraft that have a good FM to start, to show the sim in it's best light? An accurate FM is only a part, albeit, very important part of the simming experience. ATC is also important to me. Even with FS ATC's faults it is better than the X-Plane counterpart. Plus there are 3rd party ATC addons that alleviate many of those short comings. While the ground textures look pretty good the coast lines are not accurate, especially inland waterways. For a 60GB load I would have expected better, and 3D landmarks which are so important for VFR flying is non existent, as is the lack of 3D airport structures. The thing that I hate most is the visibility limitations. If I want to choose a denser detail, it arbitrarily reduces it even further with no option (atleast I haven't found one) to override it. Even if I could I would still be limited to 25 miles.

Good points and I think the answer to all of them is very interesting.When I first started simming in the early 1980's I bought an Amiga. It was by far the best computer of its time-a mouse/mac operating like system, a huge screen res,stereo sound,and lots of color.At the time the ibm pc was Dos, small screen res, and 16 colors if I remember correctly, and little chirps for sound. I had a debate with a friend at the time that claimed because ibm's sold more they were superior to the Amiga as more software was available. I thought he was crazy. The Amiga was clearly superior.Then when fs4 came out-and had many more features than I could get on the fs version on my Amiga- and they stopped making it when MS took over (and there were many other flight sim titles available like Chuck yeager that were not available for Amiga)- I sadly abandoned my Amiga. I was shocked how lacking and primitive my 1st ibm clone was at that time in compare, and the pc did not catch up to the Amiga for many years-but I had to admit my friend was right. It was a numbers game-and if nothing was developed for a superior system then it was useless.I see FS-Xplane situation is somewhat similar. A big team of FS developers vs. a small team. An exponentially huger user base for FS than for Xplane.Therefore at this point it is no mystery that FS has much better add ons-both in quantity and quality.But is this because FS is a superior product-or is it a numbers game?FS is clearly at this point superior in-1) add ons 2) atc 3) missions 4) easy to use user interface 5) generic worldwide scenery-both real world building representation, rw airports, and generic airport scenery, built in gps and approaches.However-Xplane is superior in a number of things too-a few I have found 1) sloped runways 2) ground/takeoff characteristics 3) visuals including better fog, visibility, runway lighting, wildlife and consequences (bird strikes), water-simply amazing!, systems failures, mapping capabilities, sound and reactions from aircraft, weather, rain, snow, and visibilities, icing effects (and a lot more I just can't think of off the top of my head). It seems every day I notice a new thing and say-how cool! Of course the big one is fluidity of instruments, flight, and no blurries-ever!Now to flight modeling. In fsx we have heard constant complaints that there is not as much developed for it-now even 2 years after its release. This is true. It is also true as many have stated that it is hugely more complex to develop an add on for fsx-it takes more time.Xplane's flight modeling strikes me the same. It is amazingly complex. One may even need a Nasa Aeronautics degree to even fathom half of what it can do.I believe the lack of credible aircraft for xplane right now is a combination of 1) lack of numbers of users vs. fs 2) complex knowledge needed to do justice to the flight model 3) possible changes and additions from version to version.Now in my case-I am just a tinkerer and a newbie, but in a week I have a Baron that flies much better than the Fs default. I have a feeling with more knowledge I could have one that is down right amazing. So though I originally came out against the fm-I think the potential is certainly there to be stellar. So ultimately-is the fault here really with the program-or a lack of user base/knowledge to manifest the program?If Fs had not gone under-I frankly would never see the situation changing, and probably would never contemplate a switch to xplane. I think the situation has changed.If the ibm pc in the 1980's had gone under-I would have happily gone back to the Amiga again which was frankly superior. Perhaps if that had happened, and all the ibm users were forced to go to the Amiga we would have a better situation today!Now I am finding myself strangly more attracted to Xplane than fsx-but I find my simming needs change all the time.In the early '90's I used fs4 for my ppl. I found just getting the coordination of rudder pedals, setting xwinds and dealing with them very useful. Scenery really didn't matter.In the 1990's when I got my ifr rating and first airplane-a bonanza-I naturally gravitated to Pro Pilot which included a realistic Bonanza, atc, rw terrain, and real working instrumentation. FS at this time was lagging way behind. Pro Pilot was most useful to me for my simming at the time. When Fly came along with avionics/systems that matched real ones-I went to that and used both Pro Pilot and Fly.The last decade I have used FS-because at this time it served my needs-and the others went awol. The ability to put my own aircraft's cockpit in with a reasonable reality, interact with atc, do approaches, get real weather downloads matched my needs for practice at that point.Now at this point-I have to say I have little need for atc the way it is implemented now-for any sim. I basically file-I basically get direct, I basically fly an approach at the end.The one thing that I need is trf's that pop up all the time, and that dreaded phrase ("amendment to your clearance-let us know when ready to copy"). As far as I know-no atc does either of these right now-so I just don't use atc in a sim anymore-period.Add in aircraft-I buy these-but after a couple uses I usually go back to my Baron. Just very useful to me and saves me more importantly lots of real money being able to do some things on the sim. So at this point I find myself edging a little towards Xplane. Why? The Baron I have now is just more real-the cockpit is closer and the handling is closer. I can sync the engines by sound like I do in real life! The nose gear compresses and the plane bounces up and down on takeoff depending on the runway like real life. I can fail a huge number of systems like real life.The weather just looks more realistic overall. The icing (another thing I have graduated to with a Baron with deice equip) is just done better. Some of the visuals take my breath away-water effects. It just feels more "real" in the aircraft experience.Yes-most of the airports look lonely, and I miss seeing other airplanes flying around, and I wouldn't mind some rw checkpoints like fs has. Having just done my first mission for Fsx I wish it had a capability like this.But I am finding that xplane allows me to "simulate" with more of what I need right now.Now just suppose the "numbers" change-and add in developers and freeware users start migrating. Perhaps xplane can then be a little of what fs is now-a little of something for everyone.Right now Xplane strikes me personally a little more like that phrase everyone who finds their personal simming needs fulfilled called "more serious". I'll be still flying fsx for fun-but for serious it will be Xplane.

Xplane's flight modeling strikes me the same. It is amazingly complex. One may even need a Nasa Aeronautics degree to even fathom half of what it can do.I believe the lack of credible aircraft for xplane right now is a combination of 1) lack of numbers of users vs. fs 2) complex knowledge needed to do justice to the flight model 3) possible changes and additions from version to version.

To completely understand the FSX air files you'd also need a degree in aeronautics engineering. Even though tables for induced drag and drag due to sideslip are strangely missing. Makes you wonder how Rob Young managed to create realistic sideslipping in the Real Air Scout for FSX. :( So I don't think the complexity of the flight model (point 2) is the real issue here (just my opinion).

Hi Y'all,A number of interesting points have been brought up here...to me the most important one is: the self-reinforcing roll of market share!I hear users tell me: X-Plane could sell more copies if only it had more add-ons.I hear add-on developers tell me: X-Plane could have more add-ons if only it sold more copies.My point is this: MSFS has a stable ecosystem based around large sales numbers. That is, because there are a lot of copies of FS X out there, a huge amount of effort goes into developing add-ons for FS X. And since there are a huge number of add-ons for FS X, it wins a "feature war" with any other sim, since it can be augmented so far with existing third party art assets and code.(Just look at the "X-Plane wish list" thread...it seems that a lot of the wishes for X-Plane are that it do what FS X does via third party add-ons!)So my statement would be this: please evaluate X-Plane's capabilities by studying its SDKs and functionality, not by looking at existing content. It might be that no existing add-on has pushed X-Plane as far as you would like it to go. To take one example:

Ok prove it! When I see X-Plane aircraft with the complexity of a PMDG 744 or MD-11, or a LDS-767, Aircraft with the accurate fidelity of the Real-Air Spit of SF260, ATC replacement system, Weather generators like ASX, REX. or all the other myriad of apps available for FS, then you can talk about how superior XPL SDK is, until then it's nothing but hot air!

I don't think the quality of the SDK can be judged by the existence of add-ons - the other variable is the force driving the add-on - market share! This is not a case of "if we build the perfecT SDK, PMDG 744 will come". An add-on with that many man hours requires developers who are willing to sink the time in - that requires being the sim with the most copies out there, to maximize the up-side. X-Plane is not the sim with the most copies out there.What I think Jean-Luc is getting at is that given equal effort, an add-on will be superior if built directly on the native APIs of the final host platform. The X-Plane SDKs are a better interface to X-Plane than the FS X ones, and the FS X interfaces are a better interface to FS X than the X-Plane ones - "porting" products can at best approximate the host platform.(Actually, I don't think I 100% agree with that ... it might be that the porting product reduces time to market. If one product has a much higher level authoring layer than the other, and that higher level authoring layer means faster development time for certain classes of product, then the porting layer is really acting as a utility library that reduces time to ship. Er, never mind, I'm getting way off topic -- attention to detail is very important in flight simulator add-on products, so I think Jean-Luc is correct in his assertion!)One other comment, re: EULAs and licensing and porting tools, etc. (IANAL and all that great stuff) There are two categories of porting approaches, both being used for scenery:FSImp is a rendering engine emulator. It reads BGLs and displays them in X-Plane. Basically it's a plugin that talks directly to the graphics card (X-Plane plugins have full access to 3-d acceleration) and draws BGLs. The stuff it does that might have legal implications are:- It can read BGL files. (Dunno what IP surrounds the BGL file format.)- It requires the scenery be installed on the computer.FS2XPlane is a scenery converter. It is a stand-alone app that reads BGLs and makes X-Plane OBJ and DSF files. Basically it converts the graphics file formats for use in X-Plane. The stuff it does that might have legal implications are:- It can read BGL files.- It makes a mechanical translation of .bgl files. (Those bgl files are the IP of someone, usually the third party author.)I would imagine that FS2XPlane is both more frightening and more interesting to third party authors - frightening because it is making copies of files, but interesting because it could be useful for a company that wants to port its own add-ons. (E.g. if I had a whole pile of art assets for airport scenery in one sim, I'd at least look at whether a mechanical translator would let me sell more copies on a second sim using the same art assets.)I think that both tools would be acceptable a la Sony-vs-Universal (but then with A&M Vs. Napster, who knows).When it comes to flight model, I think only emulation is possible...X-Plane's native flight model code just doesn't speak "table". I don't think a converter would be possible. One could in theory (if one were capable of programming an emulator of MSFS's flight model) put such an emulator in a plugin and use it to drive X-Plane...that is, plugins can turn off X-Planes' physics/systems simulation entirely and just move the plane around.cheersBen

When it comes to flight model, I think only emulation is possible...X-Plane's native flight model code just doesn't speak "table". I don't think a converter would be possible. One could in theory (if one were capable of programming an emulator of MSFS's flight model) put such an emulator in a plugin and use it to drive X-Plane...that is, plugins can turn off X-Planes' physics/systems simulation entirely and just move the plane around.

Very flexible! Also, say a third party wanted to create an AIAircraft/ATC plugin for XPlane. I guess that means the plugin could use its own simplified flight model to move the AI planes around the sky and render the AI aircraft models itself (ala FSIMP fashion).I think one area where XPlane is lacking is SDK support for weather. It would be good if the SDK would let a plugin create its own localised weather "boxes" (ie, put a given type of cloud/precip in a box X/Y/Z meters in size at given location). Imagine what could be done with that fine level of control, localised smog over cities, smoke/haze from forest fires, cold fronts etc.Also... i find the max visibilty of 25nm a little too limiting. Its fine for flying down low, but at FL300 the view is a little "boring".I should put these wishes in the wish list thread.

Xplane's flight modeling strikes me the same. It is amazingly complex. One may even need a Nasa Aeronautics degree to even fathom half of what it can do.I believe the lack of credible aircraft for xplane right now is a combination of 1) lack of numbers of users vs. fs 2) complex knowledge needed to do justice to the flight model 3) possible changes and additions from version to version.Now in my case-I am just a tinkerer and a newbie, but in a week I have a Baron that flies much better than the Fs default. I have a feeling with more knowledge I could have one that is down right amazing. So though I originally came out against the fm-I think the potential is certainly there to be stellar.

I suppose I've followed the X-Plane org. forum too long. I just don't believe the X-Plane flight dynamics program to be that powerful. All I can say at the moment, is that sim aircraft such as the RealAir SF260............can fly rings around anything from X-Plane when it comes to the use of rudder. And that is in an aerobatic sense, as well as the side slipping. X-Plane always seems to fall short.L.Adamson