Virtuali - A Rant

[virtuali 4,419]

- More user prompts. Even though the end result may be the same, user prompts are good in that they make the user feel in control, whether that may actually be the case or not.- More documentation and transparency as to the various components used, what they do, transmit, etc... And don't expect users to go looking for it, put it in their faces! All the more reason to keep it short and to the point or the users will lose interest.

This is very reasonable, what kind of prompts do you think could improved ? During the installation, or inside the actual program ? Some users would like to have more prompts, but some wouldn't.For example, we have a prompt that notifies the user he has an outdated scenery and suggest to download the latest version, which according to your suggestion, it's "in their face", because it appears at every flight sim start, so it's can't be missed. But some complained about being intrusive so, it's difficult to balance between "in your face" and "intrusive"...Maybe we could change it and let it appear only if the user enters in the scenery area, and not at every Flight sim start ?

If one installs Virtuali supported product A, leave Virtuali supported product B alone! So that at least product B will continue to work

We always try to keep backward compatibility. Lots of problem we had, was due to the interaction of older Cloud9 products released before Vista/Windows7 which used Esellerate libraries which weren't compatible with the new OS, but many people don't know we have updated installers on our web site or they don't even know the version they have is not compatible with Vista/Win7, because all the original documentation that came with the scenery was written before those OS were released.This was improved a lot when we added the live update from the internet, but there's a lot of older installer that don't have this feature, which are still in use. Cloud9 also produced CD versions to be bought at regular shops, so it's difficult for us to get in touch with those users, because we don't know who they are and, if you combine this with the fact those installers don't work on new OS, it might become a mess. That's why I'm not very fond of boxed products, since it's difficult to fix things when CDs are out, and it's even more difficult to let *know* users what to do in case of problems.

That also means it must become more difficult to remove the Addon Manager, difficult in the sense that it must be clear what it does and what products on the user's system make use of it. Perhaps you can have the uninstaller mention that. "The Addon Mananager is used by these installed poducts: ..., ..., etc... (Name them!) Removing the Addon Manager will cause them to no longer work (or something to that extent).

Well, it might be very nice to have this, but is going to be tricky because, how an installer released today should be able to list also addons which weren't know to it when it was released. Probably it will involve accessing some data online...that's why that message was made generic.

- Making it all a bit more anti-virus friendly may help too.

I assure you this would immediately fix 90% of my support email. Well, not really, the N.1 question is:"how do I reinstall my scenery after a reformat, now that I've lost my purchase receipt ?" Which is of course explained in the FAQ on our website, in the manual and in a sticky thread on our forum at the very top of the General section, without mentioning the Addon Manager itself has a "Reinstall" option, which will WALK the user through reinstalling, even pointing to the method of retrieving a lost order. Yet, it's still the N.1 support question I get, which tells how much people read the documentation, even when it's available in multiple variations and duplicated in different places.

Secondly, it is not "the" correct position. It is what you think is the correct position

As I've asked to stay to the point, because how many pixel you would like the jetway moved doesn't have anything to do with this thread, I'll try asking the scenery designer to have a look at it, even if you were the only one reporting it as a problem. But as I've said, you should really go to our forum to discuss this.

[simbio 56]

The issue is, I as paying customer ask you if you could please move the jetway to a different static position so that it doesn't interfere with AI. A most reasonable request, I do believe. Perhaps others can chime in on that. Why not honor my request? Don't you understand that it is more efficient to let your own preference of "real world jetway position" go and make the user happy. Instead of continuing to post from dawn 'til dusk.That's all from me, really.

Ok Mike I am Fabrizio I have create Fort lauderdale and I will fix the jetway problem.So soon there will be an update, is there anything left on KFLL that you think we must fix?could you reply in the FSDT forum under the KFLL section, please?Fabrizio Pascucci

[fwerff 70]

Ok... I've just read through 5 pages of this thread and I have a hugh admiration for Umberto in his patience while answering to everything that's being said.Besides my admiration for Umberto, I also want to express my disappointment in Tom A. Whether he does it on purpose or not, he is mis-using the power he has in the FS community (him being Mister Avsim) to sort out some problems he believes to have with a developer.Tom shouldn't have played this card, since it potentially damages some very respected FS developers and companies.This thread already proves this since all kinds of side-discussions are dragged into it.What disappoints me most is that while starting this highly explosive topic, Tom is hardly contributing to it, other than stubborn statements about him not changing this mind (no matter what's said).Given his status in the FS community, I think it would be very good if Tom would lock this thread and directly contact Umberto and work out the issues Tom apparently has. I'm more than sure Umberto will go into enormous lenghts to help his customers..... that's at least the experience I have with the FSDT products (and I have all of them...).

[B777ER 2,484]

Umberto = Class Act. A true professional in the way he is handling this thread. Not once did he start throwing barbs out. Some in this thread should take notes....

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

"This thread is only about our addon module, and I've explicitly asked suggestions about what we could do to make it more user friendly, which doesn't include getting rid of it, because this is not going to happen, so please don't waste your time trying to convince us DRM is bad"There seems to be a failure to communicate here , the community UNIFORMLY detests Addon Managers/DRM modules, only the companies that still make use of these believe they reduce piracy and improve revenue, i typed "FSDT Torrent" into Google and see About 29,000 results.It’s been my contention for some time now that installers need to be as transparent as possible and only verify with the server that there was a corresponding order and monitor the number of installs, additional levels of security , a vanishing VC, dead avionics , sign in the cockpit to verify your licence, licence/ registry checks on boot up, and last the #1 most especially disliked were modules that update or verify all that producers products on install and each use.I have used them all, and was in a position to follow the service enquiries and work on solutions, multiple Operating Systems and hardware configurations , that damned Norton Antivirus( works too well ), UAC , various levels of permissions , etc all combine to assure that the casual user will suffer more than the computer literate Pirate.The result of this experience is that these addon manager installer modules are no longer used in releases, in a couple of cases the " High Security " Installer was replaced with a Flight1 style verification system and resulted in an increase in unit sales and a substantial reduction in irate forum posts, i never went back.So to the Quotation i pasted on the top, if that’s your opinion then i assure you that you’re not listening to the clients, they don’t like security measures one little bit , and some will not buy your products because of it, it’s been my experience that sales volumes are improved on products without the DRM. Yes there are going to be abuses and its pirated in short order , those thirteen year olds don’t have credit cards anyway , or so i tell myself ... recalling the time i looked at one site and saw 17,000 downloads of a Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23, the MFD's buttons meticulously coded to make use of your superb F18's avionics suite,, in the end its a form of flattery , designers should have some sort of scoreboard to rank the popularity of products on these pirate sites, and present a yearly award to the winner.

[Guest bstolle]

Sounds to me you've got the wrong impression of the QW forum. Just register and off you go... Never had any problem with it... :(

The only available forum available to a non-customer is the general discussion forum.Even in the 'general' forum your post needs to be read and approved by an admin first and this takes a long time. Chances are rather high that if QW doesn't like the post, it never gets posted anyway.Just downloaded the QW manual and using the search function there wasn't a single word about Virtuali stuff and/or an add-on manager being installed.

[mgh 89]

I've replied of couple of times in this thread, by linking to a discussion on Avsim here:http://forum.avsim.n...t1-flt1chk4dll/If you follow that thread, I've made a couple of quite lengthy posts, explaining why a flight sim licensing module, like Flight1's and our own, can have those issues.And see how Flight1's instructs to configure the antivirus to exclude their files from scanning:http://www.simforums...topic24061.htmlThey also suggest switching to a different antivirus, if the one used doesn't allow to specify exclusions, which is exactly the same suggestion we would give.

You explain how to overcome the problem but not why your downloads trigger user's antivirus applications when other downloads don't.

[JSkorna 137]

You explain how to overcome the problem but not why your downloads trigger user's antivirus applications when other downloads don't.

Ever hear of a false positive? Did you contact the AV company to ask them why their software flags a particular file?

[Kosta 122]

So you don't have to EXIT from FSX, to change them and restart it to see the effect ? So you don't have to edit the fsx.cfg manually ?So you can cruise with HD textures on to admire the paint, and turn it off immediately without exiting before landing to get the maximum performance ?

OK, so behind all the tweaks that are available today, why not just put some more for the user to tweak with (even within the flight), instead of flying? Alright... (hear the irony)Some features you present in your thread are definitely neat.And Aerosoft's module? ViMaCore or whatever? Delete it and everything else is/was still working? Without yours, everything shuts down...But what bothers me is, and how this sounds...

Even if we moved the part of licensing that the user interacts with it externally, which could be fairly easy to do, we would still need to have a .dll module that will *check* that inside FSX, otherwise no protection would be possible for sceneries, and as a result, it would appear as a "stealth" module, without any user interface, making it less understandable than it is now. And, we would have to maintain two different programs, one to manage licenses, and the module to enforce them inside FSX. The end result would be exactly the same, just that you would see its user interface in a separate program, but the possible issues will be identical, it would still use exactly the same protection features and will do exactly the same things, just without an interface.

...is like the primary target of your software is to address piracy and THEN user friendliness. Meaning, you use the module for the anti-piracy and you will do anything to prevent your intellectual property, without any regard for a real user.Then, after you've managed that, you wrap it up in the "addon package" and sell it like that.I've been looking at your scheme for a long time and didn't want to, until now, say anthing about it.But man, you are way overreacting. Piracy is a big problem, yes. I don't believe I know anyone who doesn't have something pirated. Shall we start with mp3s and movies from the internet?I just don't know how other companies like FlyTampa, ORBX, PMDG, Aerosoft survive without such drastic measures. But you "must" know what'S good for your paying customers.I didn't read the rest of the thread, cuz in the last hour it got 25 new replies... talk about popcorn and fun <_<Edit: I see you want to discontinue this "DRM discussion", which I believe is in the direct connection to your protection scheme AND what you present all of us as an addon manager.I stand by my opinion that all can be done differently IF one wants to do it. Everyone else IS doing it.That wraps up my thoughts about it.

[mgh 89]

Ever hear of a false positive? Did you contact the AV company to ask them why their software flags a particular file?

toI'm well aware of false positives. My question is why do Virtuali's downloads trigger anti-virus software (false or not) when nothing else I download or code I have written does?

[Silverbird 115]

Guy's its not just only anti piracy the sceneries need the add-on manger to function properly its a software for the simulator. with things Umberto from fsdt designed and optimized to do things not possible with the regular method of fs9 or fsx. it also updates the files to stay current. this is the part of the tech deisnged and used by fsdreamteam.Flight1 uses a anti-piracy software and I'm fine with that some games I have use securom. a good example is the new gsx that fsdreamteam is working on. without the functions and built in features of the add-on manger or the script engine coutel, it is not possible to do things like they show in the video. I almost forgot to mention that some add-ons use the ViMaCore2004.dll core and the antivirus software freaks out and gets trigger happy. that one is used in aes and other products.

[virtuali 4,419]

You explain how to overcome the problem but not why your downloads trigger user's antivirus applications when other downloads don't.

I thought that post was quite self-explanatory: I've explained why the Flight1 module could trigger a false positive, and I've think to have clearly explained also the reasons why this is happening with Flight1, because they are very similar to our own, not just the workaround.

[virtuali 4,419]

And Aerosoft's module? ViMaCore or whatever? Delete it and everything else is/was still working? Without yours, everything shuts down...But what bothers me is, and how this sounds...

Nope. Remove Vimacore.dll and see if, for example, AES would still work.

Meaning, you use the module for the anti-piracy and you will do anything to prevent your intellectual property, without any regard for a real user.

This is clearly proven wrong by the fact the program has been constantly updated, is way more reliable today that it used to be, and that I'm also asking here what could we do to improve it.

I've been looking at your scheme for a long time and didn't want to, until now, say anthing about it.

That's not true either, it has been years since we never had a discussion like this, we really thought this was behind us, but what the Addon Manager does, was clearly explained years ago, just that some people don't want to believe that, for example, is serves other purpose other than protection.

But man, you are way overreacting. Piracy is a big problem, yes. I don't believe I know anyone who doesn't have something pirated. Shall we start with mp3s and movies from the internet?

I knew this was going to derail into the beaten mp3 and movies discussion. Sorry, software doesn't have anything to do with this, and even less software for a niche market, were we don't have any other way of supporting us. Musicians can become popular with pirated mp3 and charge lot of money for live shows, movies have multiple sources of income, theaters, tv, dvd, bluray, netflix, webtv, advertising and even merchandising, software doesn't have any of that, and we can't use piracy as a way to create a de-facto standard on the market, something that most major software publishers did in the past.So, please, drop the mp3/movies argument, because it doesn't apply to this market.

I just don't know how other companies like FlyTampa, ORBX, PMDG, Aerosoft survive without such drastic measures. But you "must" know what'S good for your paying customers

Aerosoft JUST introduced a new DRM NOW! And there are users on their forum complaining about not being as friendly as ours, for example, having less activation or not allowing user-controlled deactivation. PMDG always had a module (pmdgoptions.dll) that handle both utility functions and protection.Fact is: there are more flight sim developers using some kind of protection today, than few years ago.

Edit: I see you want to discontinue this "DRM discussion", which I believe is in the direct connection to your protection scheme AND what you present all of us as an addon manager

No, I'm also asking what to do to improve it. Sorry, but some kind of DRM will stay because, opposite to what you said, the trend in the flight sim market is not towards a reduction of developers using it, quite the opposite.

[virtuali 4,419]

i typed "FSDT Torrent" into Google and see About 29,000 results.

As I've already explained in a previous post: most of them are fake search results, created to drive users on pages for pay sites that promise hi-speed downloads for everything, even things, like GSX, we haven't released yet!Yes, we have been cracked a couple of times in the past, earlier version of Zurich, OHare and JFK and other Cloud9 products where shared but, it happened more than 1 year after the scenery was released so, it really didn't hurt sales. If we never had any protection, the products would have been shared the next day, and that would have made a big difference on sales. And nothing we released after 2009 has been cracked yet, and even if it would be tomorrow, it wouldn't matter a lot being cracked 2 years after release, after those products sold everything they could anyway, considering users by now know very well that any crack will not survive the next product update/patch or the next released product.I'm beginning to suspect some are more opposed to our protection system compared to others, only because it works too well...

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

There seems to be a failure to communicate here , the community UNIFORMLY detests Addon Managers/DRM modules, only the companies that still make use of these believe they reduce piracy and improve revenue, i typed "FSDT Torrent" into Google and see About 29,000 results.

I dont know about the community UNIFORMLY detests Addon Managers/DRM modules because personally I haven't had any issues with the FSDT Addon Manager as well as others who have posted in this forum who haven't had any issues with it as well. It's easy for those to say they dont like DRM modules when they aren't the ones with money on the line or sales to be lost. If I was a 3PD I would probably go the route that offered me the most protection, even if that mean using some type of DRM module that a hand full of people complained about. Although none of them are perfect and can probably be hacked, I think it would be better than no protection.To your point about "FSDT Torrent" comming up with 29,000 results, try typing ORBX torrent and you'll get 80,000 results, FlyTampa torrent yields 103,000 results, Aerosoft torrent over 1 million results. It would seem that FSDT must be doing something right to protect themselves since they got the least amount of hit vs. some of the other popular scenery developers.