[

Bob, again with the assumptions and baseless allegations? Will you and MGH not stop until you've made utter fools of yourselves in a public manner?? LMAO.gif

Where have I mentioned you or Eaglesoft either explictly or implicitly?I specifically said:

Microsoft's approach is set out it's EULA - that's all most of us have as guidance. I say most of us because it's possible that the major 3rd party developers may have a different relationship with Microsoft

And there's no of course when a 3rd party developer agues that copyright law and his EULA make modifying his files illegal, even for personal and private use but then argues that doesn't apply to Microsoft's files because (1) Microsoft's definition of Software Product doesn't cover .air and .bgl files and (2) because they are data files so they can be reverse engineered.And to answer the obvious question before it's asked, I have modified both Microsoft's files and 3rd party developers' files for my personal and private use legally and will continue to do so.

My 16 year old grandaughters reply seems apropos here: Whatever :(

Where have I mentioned you or Eaglesoft either explictly or implicitly?

Right below Bob: That's a false and baseless assumption and allegation on your part.You may want to pay a bit more attention to your posts. You may find some food for thought. :(

So the Eaglesoft .air file with a bunch of tables copied straight over from the original Microsoft .air file isn't a copyright violation? How does that work? This, I believe, was MGH's point.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Remember that I'm the guy making the argument FOR adaptation/modification and FOR preeminence of copyright law over the EULA. I think FSUIPC is great, and have no problem using it. In my eyes, FSUIPC is reverse engineering for the purpose of compatibility, something allowed by copyright law but forbidden by the Microsoft EULA.But there's a certain amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy in integrating software and the capabilities it brings--software derived outside the bounds of the MS EULA--into your own works, and then calling the adaptation of a program for personal use "illegal" because it is similarly derived outside the bounds of a EULA.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Not if Microsoft provides a tacit nod to the entire industry and userbase Bob. Knock Knock, is this thing on?? :(

Right below Bob: That's a false and baseless assumption and allegation on your part.You may want to pay a bit more attention to your posts. You may find some food for thought. :(

Hey Ron, you do realize that wasn't my post? Ready...fire...aim!!

Not if Microsoft provides a tacit nod to the entire industry and userbase Bob. Knock Knock, is this thing on?? :(

Ah, I see, so the "tacit nod" supercedes the EULA and copyright law. That's just another way of saying that "until they call you on it, it's OK." Got it.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Mark your calendars now for one year from this date, so I can finally provide details about a conference ~150 freeware and payware developers and I attended, as that's when the NDA the other's and I signed expires.Many of the things that've been discussed in this rather pointless thread will be put to rest, finally... :(

Hey Ron, you do realize that wasn't my post? Ready...fire...aim!!Ah, I see, so the "tacit nod" supercedes the EULA and copyright law. That's just another way of saying that "until they call you on it, it's OK." Got it.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Ummm Bob, you may want to check post #116 from which I took the quote. Seems that is your post... :( The tacit nod by Microsoft appears to allow Pete Dowson, Third Party Developers, and the entire Worlwide FS Userbase to benefit from the publication and sale of FSUIPC.Hmmm, why would Microsoft allow the Third Party FS Industry and Worlwide FS Userbase to benefit from limited violations of its Copyright and EULA?? Answer that and you will have a more complete understanding of the issues at hand.

It's far beyond mere "tacit permission" or "benign neglect..."

Ummm Bob, you may want to check post #116 from which I took the quote. Seems that is your post... :( The tacit nod by Microsoft appears to allow Pete Dowson, Third Party Developers, and the entire Worlwide FS Userbase to benefit from the publication and sale of FSUIPC.Hmmm, why would Microsoft allow the Third Party FS Industry and FS Userbase to benefit from limited violations of its Copyright and EULA?? Answer that and you will have a more complete understanding of the issues at hand.

You were answering mgh's question about where he'd ever mentioned Eaglesoft in this thread, and you attached something I wrote. Ready...fire...aim. Again. Maybe you'll get it right the third time around.As to Microsoft .air file data appearing in an Eaglesoft .air file, I'm looking right now at the .air files from the default FS9 Cessna 182S and the Eaglesoft Cirrus SR20 G2. Table 511...Prop efficiency vs advance ratio and blade pitch. They're a byte-for-byte match. Table 512--ditto. Table 451--ditto. And it doesn't stop there. False and baseless assumption? No, it's the truth. Significant discrete parts of that .air file come straight from the default Microsoft FDEs included in FS9. It's common developer practice...but you engage in it too.And that was the basis for my question after mgh brought up the point...how is it that including parts of an original copyrighted Microsoft .air file in your .air file is NOT a copyright violation? OK, I understand, Microsoft has elected to not press the issue, but how does that change things?It all keeps coming back to "do what I say, not what I do." It's acceptable for you to usurp the EULA and/or copyrights for Microsoft's work--you've got it all rationalized, but yet you believe others should not similarly usurp your EULA and copyrights? The appearance of hypocrisy is hard to refute...and one thing for certain is that it can't be resolved by calling people clowns or denying a provable truth.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Get it straight Bob. Post #116 is your post with your tag in your post. :( I simply quoted your statements about Eaglesoft.As to the FDEs you may be looking at it may interest you to know that our airfiles are contracted to Rob Young of Real Air Simulations and are protected under copyright.Vague similarities or even exact value similarities to MS Airfiles may exist in Rob Young or other FDE Producers work but that hardly makes a case or amounts to an indictment against the FDE Producer in question or Eaglesoft Development Group. Rob could have used the default stuff as a guidline for all I know.At the end of the day, it would seem that Microsoft either does not care to restrict Third Party Developers and the FS Customer Base or again provides a tacit nod to the industry and userbase as a whole.Sorry to "bust your bubble" Bob but Microsoft would not have asked Eaglesoft Development Group to be involved under NDA with projects we are unable to discuss publically if they were concerned with violations of their EULA, SDK, or NDA by Eaglesoft Development Group.Sorry, but you appear to be pixxing up a rope once again. :(

Get it straight Bob. Post #116 is your post with your tag in your post. :( I simply quoted your statements about Eaglesoft.

Post 116 is mine. But in post #123 you were answering mgh, you even quoted him there, and then you pasted in a quote from me in answer. Ready...fire...aim #3 now. At least you're badly consistent.

As to the FDEs you may be looking at it may interest you to know that our airfiles are contracted to Rob Young of Real Air Simulations and are protected under copyright.Vague similarities or even exact value similarities to MS Airfiles may exist in Rob Young or other FDE Producers work but that hardly makes a case or amounts to an indictment against the FDE Producer in question or Eaglesoft Development Group. Rob could have used the default stuff as a guidline for all I know.At the end of the day, it would seem that Microsoft either does not care to restrict Third Party Developers and the FS Customer Base or again provides a tacit nod to the industry and userbase as a whole.Sorry to "bust your bubble" Bob but Microsoft would not have asked Eaglesoft Development Group to be involved under NDA with projects we are unable to discuss publically if they were concerned with violations of their EULA, SDK, or NDA by Eaglesoft Development Group.

Previously you were telling us that my statement that your airfiles contain parts copied directly from default Microsoft airfiles was...let's see, how'd that go, "a false and baseless assumption." Now you say that even though they do, it doesn't matter--Microsoft does not care. I guess that's progress.Going back to the OP's question, when someone asks "how do I make this mod on my system" I prefer to use the Golden Rule in my answer...is this hurting someone else? If they're asking how to steal someone else's work, they get no love. If they're asking how to make software they've legitimately acquired run better for them, there's no harm there and I love to help.Unfortunately, there's always someone that'll answer: "you can't do that, it's illlllllllllllllllegal." And as we've seen in this rambling discussion, some of those spouting forth with answers like that feel free to take whatever liberties with the EULA and copyright restrictions of others as they see fit for their own purposes when the need arises. It's only illegal in their eyes if you do it, but it's OK for them if they have good reasons for it. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.I'm glad to have helped the OP solve his problem, and I have been thoroughly entertained by the discussion.Bill...I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say when that NDA expires.Ron, I'll leave it to you to issue one last denial of the obvious, a fresh round of ad hominem put downs, and a chance to get in at least 4-5 more of those silly animated characters that you use like commas here.Night all.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, again with the assumptions and baseless allegations? Will you and MGH not stop until you've made utter fools of yourselves in a public manner?? :(

I'll repeat my question again and expand on it:Where have I mentioned you or Eaglesoft either explictly or implicitly?Whare have I made any allegations against you or Eaglesoft (baseless or otherwise)?

Bob, I'm hardly obligated to continue participating in this comedy of errors. :( Feel free to continue with your irresponsible inferences, assumptions, and allegations.I'm not inclined to walk you back thru this mess in order to see you once again obfuscate the facts regarding your own hypocritical behaviour here.Sorry, but I'm not inclined to believe you practice the "golden rule" based on your own hypocritical behaviour towards me personally or my company.Oh, almost forgot, here are your requested icons. :( :( B) B)

Neither Mr. Scott nor 'mgh' have actually explained in what manner Microsoft has explicitly stated .air files and .bgl files can be modified/created. It has happened... and if they can't explain why... then they must admit they don't know enough about the topic to continue discussing it.

Let it go Ed...sheesh lets get back to work... :(