Those two files are the worst thing that could happen to the FS world - I bought FSDT scenery and quickly uninstalled it after I've seen that it actually runs software paralelly to the FSX and loads a separate program. Also forceful updates... ugh. It's my computer and I will do what I desire with it! I don't like it and share the same opinion as Tom.

Tom, I think the main reason for not offering a choice when installing new stuff (which affects all your currently installed titles) is that these updates are focused on keeping the copy protection current.From memory, I think that, back in the days (so to say), they even had a discussion in their forums about the nature of this protection and also the performance impact of it since it seems to run quite some items besides just displaying scenery/aircraft and their systems. Im no programmer, but there was a guy which seemed to have a closer look on it and described the constant load just coming from these protective items. The devs weren't that amused back then.Every company has its policy on protecting things. Personally, I question the whole process and the problems arising when I see valued customers struggling with it. At the same time, Google might lead you to unprotected and free products, so did this protection really fulfil its purpose then? I doubt.While the world is angry about pirates (for good reason), one should also be angry about having to fight protective mechanisms like this one (which, obviously, leads to problems here and there) although having paid for his stuff.I don't question some more or less activation (serial check or something) when installing, but running some processes besides FSX all the time, just to "watch" the valued customer is too much in my eyes. If I can avoid such products (and therefore their company policy), I actually do. Sometimes I can't though, the products are just too nice to miss. :(

In late November I purchased an aircraft add on. Worked perfect. Loved it. Flew it just about evenly with my PMDG collection. In early March, I purchased a scenery. It installed without issue, and I proceeded to boot up FSX. Went to the airport just installed. No terminal buildings and jetways and light poles were floating about 20 feet off the ground. Not pretty. Dumped it pretty quickly.

This seems to be the main cause of all your issues. Something in your system, most likely the antivirus, has prevented the Addon Manager, which is required by the scenery to work, to run.

During the install of the scenery however, a new guage file was downloaded for my earlier purchased, and perfectly running, aircraft. I removed the scenery file, and started up FSX again. Went to fly my perfectly running aircraft, and upon selection, it caused FSX to CTD

The problem wasn't the downloaded gauge. The downloaded gauge is not wrong or faulty and it wasn't that one that caused FSX to quit to the desktop when selecting the airplane and, the one that was downloaded was very likely the same version you already had. The problem was the same as above: if that "something" that prevented the Addon Manager to run in your system and made the scenery not visible is still preventing it, the airplane (which also required the Addon Manager) that used to work before, will stop working, since at this time your system is not running the Addon Manager anymore. You probably lost the Addon Manager menu as well, which is the easiest indication the module is not running.ORWhen you uninstalled the scenery, you also replied YES to the question "Do you want to remove the Addon Manager", which is followed by a warning about all other addons requiring it, will stop to work. If you did so, the end result would be the same: any addon requiring the Addon Manager would stop to work, as the warning said, since you said to remove it.So, either the Addon Manager was unintentionally blocked by something ( which most of the time is the antivirus and less likely is other problems, like Simconnect ) OR you intentionally asked to remove it when uninstalling the scenery, but the end result would be the same: all addons that requires the Addon Manager will not work anymore. This is the same as having Simconnect or fsuipc or pmdgoptions.dll or anything similar stop running from any reason or removed: all the product depending on them will stop working.

. There was and is nothing since then that has allowed me to get my previously perfectly running aircraft operating again. The reason? Virtuali had downloaded a new gauge file for my aircraft, when installing the freeking scenery!!! A guage update that apparently didn't work.

The downloaded gauge wasn't the reason. The lack of Addon Manager was, for reason we can surely try to investigate better because, if you tried to contact me, I'll surely would helped you.If you can't load fsuipc for any reason, and hundreds of airplane requiring it suddenly stop working, you try to reach Pete Dowson and ask support, rather than enquire with all the different airplane devs that use it, that can probably help only to a certain point, and it's a very well know fact that how fast and efficiently we deal with these issues, both on FSDT forum and by email, and we usually always end up finding other problems in the user's system (which created the issue in the first place) that the process of diagnosing what seemed to be caused by the Addon Manager, helped discover. This when it's something other than the antivirus, which is the most common cause and it's the easiest to fix.

I have vowed to never ever again purchase a product that has Virtuali included. I refuse to purchase a program / add on that uses this program. Virtuali itself may be a perfect product, but when I am not allowed to chose whether to accept an update or not, when the author/publisher of the product pushes an "udpate" without giving me the choice to accept it via Virtuali...

The issue is: you need to get to the source of the problem and understand it, before be opposed to an automatic update.First, the automatic update that caused you problems wasn't the one in Gauge! It's the Addon Manager that came with the scenery, which didn't work for some reason. Let's not discuss now *why* it didn't work on your system, but I'll need to explain first the logic for the automatic update.First, it's not really an automatic update, because there's no running service (like an antivirus or Windows Update) that can automatically install updates at any time. The Addon Manager is rather more a "Live Installer", a very common practice used by lots of products: the installer itself is always the same, but some files are downloaded from the internet. The reason for this is you can be sure to always get the latest version of the Addon Manager, even if you haven't re-downloaded the installer in a while. You have to run an installer of a newer product, to get an automatic update. Fact the update is from an online server, is really not relevant: even if the update was offline and included with the installer, if the new version wasn't compatible with your system, for any reason, it would fail just the same, even if the actual file wasn't pulled from a server and was instead contained in the installer executable.Now, exactly the SAME situation can happen, if you have two airplanes both requiring fsuipc and both installing it, but one installing a newer version which, for any reason, doesn't work in your system. Would you have attached the airplane developer or in the same way, on the premise that an addon should NEVER automatically install an "update" of something, without your consent ? Do you think it doesn't happen with fsuipc ?http://forum.avsim.net/topic/195140-i-am-getting-sick-of-fsx-and-addons/Now, I'm fairly sure the problem in that thread wasn't "caused" by fsuipc, and fsuipc failure simply *exposed* what was an already ongoing problem on that user system (Simconnect, in this case) but, it was just an example, to explain that modules CAN fail, and if several addons are dependent from them, they'll all fail, and it's usually best to always install the latest version, and I never seen an airplane or any other product requiring fsuipc asking you permission to install the fsuipc they came with so, I don't see how the Addon Manager should be different, and how would make any sense if any addon using it should first ask you permission to install the current version.You said you would like to have a choice to upgrade or not. But, it's not that you can always have a real choice: if you install a new product which *requires* a new Addon Manager because it uses features that weren't there in the previous version, and said "no" to an hypothetical question of upgrading it, fearing your other installed product *might* stop working, the newly installed one will not work for sure so, in either case you'll have something which will not work.The automatic update is useful, what can possibly cause problems is, instead, are inter-products DEPENDENCIES, and this is getting complex, but I HAVE to explain it because, without understanding of the issues at hand, it's too easy to draw unfair conclusions. The scenery you installed depends on the Addon Manager to run. The airplane you had also depends on it. That should continue working together after an Addon Manager update, it's MY OWN RESPONSIBILITY, as the Addon Manager developer. This means, if you update the Addon Manager for any reason, the current version will work with all the former products that requires it, even going back to Cloud9 product released in 2005. They all work with the very latest version of the Addon Manager. Usually, they work better, if anything because they got better license terms, better activation policies and better uninstall options (like the ability for the USER to DEACTIVATE a product and gaining an additional activation without contacting support, which we added recently). All previously released products gained the newer features automatically, even those dating back to 2005.Sometimes, it's also necessary to update the products themselves, which is why products installers automatically downloads gauges for the installed airplane products. But as I've said, the gauge update (maybe it wasn't even updated, it's likely that it just re-downloaded the same version you already had), wasn't really the problem.So, this to make it clear that, just installing an updated Addon Manager will not break compatibility with existing products that requires it, but it can only improve them.Of course, provided the Addon Manager IS WORKING.Which bring us to the REAL issue (which, as I've said, wasn't the automatic update), WHY the Addon Manager stopped to work ?Since you never contacted me before with the problem, I can't say why it stopped working on *your* system, so I can only list some of the most common causes:1) Antivirus/antispyware is the main and most common offender. If the antivirus decided the Addon Manager can be a disguised threat, it will stop it from running, and all the products requiring it will stop as well. It's no use repeating what was a very long explanation of the reasons for this, see THIS post here on Avsim, for a discussion about antivirus:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/243449-positive-security-package-results-flight1-flt1chk4dll/It's interesting to note, the thread started by someone having a problem with Flight1's module, which is also antivirus-unfriendly like the Addon Manager. If you follow the thread, there were a couple of posts of mine, in which I've tried to EXPLAIN why a perfectly legit .dll module (like Flight'1 AND the Addon Manager) can cause problems to antivirus products. No need to repeat it here, that thread contains lots of information already.2) Broken Simconnect installation. This is not so common, but it happens. The Addon Manager requires the latest Simconnect version, the one that gets installed with FSX SP2 and/or the Acceleration Pack. It will not work with older versions. Some users having this specific problem, might not realized it, because they might have *other* addons which use previous Simconnect versions so, if ONLY the SP2/Acceleration version is the broken one, they'll continue to work, but the Addon Manager will not. There are modules and gauges which are programmed to run with multiple Simconnect versions (like fsuipc) so, if at least one version is working, the product will run but, unfortunately, the Addon Manager *uses* some specific features that are available in the latest version only. All installers that contains the Addon Manager will check if FSX is updated to SP2 or Acceleration and will not continue if it's not but, if FSX is updated but the Simconnect that comes with it is broken for any reason, there's nothing the Addon Manager or the installer can do to fix this. Without digging too deep into very complex stuff, fixing what is a WinSxS (Side-by-Side) library, like Simconnect, if it breaks, can be very complex, sometimes it's easier to reinstall FSX or even Windows from scratch. Check this post by Pete Dowson here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/323009-simconnect-gone-mad/

In my opinion the side-by-Side library system is the most diabolically convoluted system ever conceived and implemented by Microsoft and when it goes wrong it is fatal

3) Problems with Visual C++ runtime libraries.Like any other product written in C++ (and FSX itself), the Addon Manager depends on the MS VC++ runtimes. In order to minimize chances for potential conflicts with FSX itself, I've choose to stick with the 2005 version, which is the one FSX itself depends on as well. Guess what, even those libraries use Side-by-Side method, just like Simconnect.There are other addon products (namely, PMDG) which use the 2008 version of those runtimes. Now, the issue is, many users think that, having the "latest" version, should fix everything but, instead, it's not how the SIde-by-Side method work, because it's possible to have multiple releases of those libraries, all installed at the same time, and even running in memory concurrently. The idea was just to fix the old ".dll hell" but, it's in fact more complex and convoluted than that, because those libraries have some "policies" files, which also allow a program that was linked against an old version, to automatically use the newest one, on the premise the newest will always work better. As you can see, lots of things gets automatically updated in your system without your knowledge or consent, it's not the Addon Manager...since the Addon Manager *depends* on the VC++ runtimes and by Simconnect, and BOTH are using the Side-by-side system, anything wrong in either of them will prevent the Addon Manager from working, which will in turn stop all the products requiring it.4) Problems with the Windows TRUST databaseVery uncommon, but still possible (it even happened to me once...), under very rare circumstances the Windows trust database can become corrupted. This will stop any new executable from being trusted and, since every FSX module use the trust system in some way (even if only to tell the user a certain module is from an unknown author), if this stop working, no module will be trusted anymore and, if you got a updated Addon Manager, it will never get a chance to being trusted. This usually can be noticed, if you are NOT being asked to trust a module by FSX, even if a new version was installed. It has something to do with the catroot file in the Window system folder being corrupted.5) User decided not to trust anything signed from VIRTUALIThis should be fairly obvious but, it also happened to a couple of users in the past: if you have being asked to trust the Addon Manager, the dialog (the standar Windows dialog) has a down arrow for additional options, and one is to "untrust" anything signed by a specific developer. This will of course stop the Addon Manager, it that option was chosen. It can be fixed easily, but in an not very intuitive place: the Internet options, under the tab "Software authors".6) DLL.XML or EXE.XML files ALREADY corrupted (by another product) before installing anything related to the Addon Manaager. Lots of code in our installer is just there to DEFEND against mishaps created by other installers, which happen in the XML files but also the scenery.cfg. And of course, to defend against hand-editing of those files, especially the scenery.cfg, but also the XML files are easily corrupted, either because it's easy to miss an open tag, or because some users edit them with Word, which is not a good idea for XML files. There's a long historical list of other products known to corrut the DLL or EXE XML files, or replacing with their own version, or formatting them in strange ways. The best solution we came out with, is to first run the XML files through a syntax check, using the official MS XML library (the same IE uses) and, if any errors are found, notify the user the file has some errors inside, and offering the choice to create a new clean one, but only after user's consent, and after making a backup of the existing files. Of course, these checks can only be made at installation time. If an user installs something that corrupts the XML files AFTER the product requiring the Addon Manager, the Addon Manager will also stop to work, and so all the products that came with it.As you can see, for most of the things listed here, the Addon Manager is not clearly the culprit, but it's the victim. Something else in your system or FSX installation is failing, and the fact the Addon Manager stopped working, was just an indication of an ongoing problem.As I've said, I can only discuss in general terms here, because I don't have any idea why the Addon Manager failed on your system, since you never contacted me first so, maybe most of the issues I've listed here don't apply to you but, since others have pointed out the Addon Manager being a cause for problem, I had to explain it, because the Addon Manager is usually the victim of something else which doesn't work, exactly like other modules, which can fail for similar reasons.Now, please, if you still have problems with the Addon Manager, please contact me via email, I'll have a look what's wrong with your installation.

Indeed!Much as I'd like one or two of those scenery packages, I refuse anything more using THAT process!!!It's caused me no end of grief.

I am not saying that any product that uses Virtuali is bad, I am saying that Virtuali's absence of choice in downloading "updates" is why I will not purchase any program that uses it. It is simply about choice. I refuse to accept that any update needs to be "pushed" on me. I want control of that function, period.

Well, I think to have already explained your issue didn't had anything to do with the actual download but, instead, you simply had a problem running the latest version of the Addon Manager that came with the scenery, if the new Addon Manager stopped to work for any reasons, the airplane would stop to work just the same, even if there was no new gauge downloaded (it's likely the downloaded gauge was the same as the one you already had).There IS also a way to stop the automatic download, and is to run the any installer that has the Addon Manager included, with the internet connection off. The installer works even without an internet connection so, if you run it offline, it will use a local copy of the files that it would have downloaded from the site. Doing this should, for example, fix the problem you had with the airplane after uninstalling the scenery, if you run the airplane installer you have with an internet connection off, it will install the version included in the installer, which it used to work on your system before installing the scenery.This should at least get you going, while we try to understand why the older version of the Addon Manager worked on your system and the newest doesn't.All our installers, including the one we made for other developers using the Addon Manager, have the ability to run in offline mode, without requiring extra download. It's needed, because not all users have a permanent internet connection so, everything needed to run is included in the installer, it's just the download takes precedence if there is an internet connection.

This is just typical - it's also what happens on the Virtuali(etc) forums... Blame the setup of each user (mine included).How interesting that the ONE thing ALL these apparently faulty PCs have in common... that very same installer/activation package.I think you just dug a deeper hole with that err... explanation above.It's SUCH a shame, as the software (at least the one's I've had) are great!

I bought FSDT scenery and quickly uninstalled it after I've seen that it actually runs software paralelly to the FSX and loads a separate program.

If you are referring to the fact to the Couatl program, which is an external software that runs in parallel to FSX, it's surely not the only 3rd party FSX addons that adds something to the EXE.XML file (anything inside EXE.XML is something that "runs software paralelly to the FSX"). There are many examples, from the Ultimate Traffic 2 module (UTServices.exe), to the AI Arrestor cables (AICarriers.exe) and many others. The EXE.XML IS THERE for a reason, and it's even the preferred way to make an FSX addon, and Microsoft suggest using the external .exe approach, for several reasons, some of them are:- If an external .exe addon crashes, it will just quit, but it will not bring down FSX with it- An external .exe will automatically get multi-core scheduling thanks to the operating system so, it will use all those spare cpu cycles that FSX itself doesn't use. This is our main reason for having the Couatl module running in parallel to FSX. We use it for the Python interpreter, which does things like the docking system (and its logic) in the scenery, the custom lighting (and its logic) on some sceneries and even the ability to use native ground shaders on a very large area which allowed such good performances in KDFW, all those logic don't steal any processing power on FSX because, being run in a parallel .exe, they get scheduled on free cores automatically.As an example, KDFW has custom taxiway and runway lights, which reacts to airplane positions on ground (both user and AI airplanes), according to RWSL, THL, RWL and FAROS specifications, and all the logic is made as Python programs, handled by Couatl, and they all run without any cpu hit or, more precisely, the low cpu hit they have, is not using precious FSX cycles.So no, if you uninstalled an FSDT scenery "just" because it run another software in parallel, it wasn't a very good motivation, since fact is external is what makes it MORE friendly to FSX itself. If we had to run the same logic in-process, it would be both more heavy on performances, and would have more risk of crashing FSX. Being external, the worse it can happen to it, is that FSDT sceneries or other products requiring it will not work, but at least it will never cause any problems to FSX itself, something that might happen if it were an internal in-process .dll. In fact, we are progressively moving more and more tasks from the Addon Manager to the Couatl program, because of that.

This is just typical - it's also what happens on the Virtuali(etc) forums... Blame the setup of each user (mine included).

I'm not "blaming" anyone, but the fact is, the Addon Manager has at least 2 major dependencies, which is Simconnect and the VC++ runtimes, and if any of them is broken, the Addon Manager will fail, and so will fail any other FSX module requiring either libraries.Both systems are very fragile, and it's the only grief we have with FSX right now. In fact, we basically stopped having such issues with the FS9 version of the Addon Manager, since there's no Simconnect there, the VC++ runtime used there is not Side-by-Side, and there's no requirement to sign executables, so the FS9 version doesn't suffer from issues related to Trusting, it's all much simpler and reliable there, even if the Addon Manager for FS9 is all based on undocumented hacks, while the FSX version is only using officially (Simconnect) SDK methods...

How interesting that the ONE thing ALL these apparently faulty PCs have in common... that very same installer/activation package.

No, what they have in common is they have a latent problem that, by installing the Addon Manager, was brought to user attention, but it would have surfaced anyway, sooner or later, as soon another FSX module with the same requirement would be used.

I think you just dug a deeper hole with that err... explanation above.

I'm first and foremost all in favor of disclosure and transparency, which is why I've explained all the issues. Telling the truth is more important that trying to "defend" or "un-dig" anything, which should have been proven by having a look at this post here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/243449-positive-security-package-results-flight1-flt1chk4dll/In why I've posted to DEFEND FLIGHT1, against someone ranting against their module for being antivirus unfriendly, and I've tried to explain why.

This is the first time I have chimed in on another developer. There is an unwritten rule that no developer should comment or criticise another developer publicly, and certainly not in order to point score. I also realise that "guilt by association" is something that should be avoided in normal circumstances. But this one time, I'm going to add my views:I have had the same problem of virtuali dlls imposing changes that I did not know were happening, and certainly was not given an "option". I notice that a very quick DOS window was appearing every time I ran FSX, and I never gave my permission for this to happen. I traced it to the dll files Virtuali seems to place in the main FSX folder.Moreover, I don't know what the connection is between Quality Wings and Virtuali, but QW appears to use virtuali addon manager or associated files in order to run their licensing. Does this mean there is a commercial connection between these two developers? Again, there is scant info about why these library files and/or modules are used, and what the relationship is between the two developers.Finally, and I am reluctant to tread on toes here, but if you look at the timeline and associations of Virtuali, it seems there are links to an outfit called Lago, who might well be remembered by seasoned sim enthusiasts. This outfit does not have a very good record of customer service, or indeed the way it treated contributing authors or co-developers. Invoicing Lago was an exercise in running through hoops, ridiculous paperwork whose purpose was quite obviously to delay or avoid payment, much obfuscation, what looked to be tax taken at source with no proof that the tax was paid, absurd red tape and manoeuvring of a bizarre nature in order to avoid obligations.I don't think anyone was surprised when Lago folded. What has always concerned me is that I can't help noticing that spin off developers from Lago seem to have constantly moved around, changed names, relaunched themselves and generally re-invented themselves with different names. Some of those relaunches no doubt produce good products, but personally I find it very strange that anyone would want to be associated with what appears to be a dubious outfit from the past with a questionable reputation.Let me emphasise that there are I'm sure some authors working for or at Virtuali who are beyond reproach and who run their operations in a perfectly honest and scrupulous manner, but this is not the first time that odd things have happened that have echoes of Lago. I think my confidence in Virtuali products would be strengthened if they would issue a statement emphatically disowning anything to do with Lago (rather than proudly quoting that name in their list of addons and achievements) and making it clear that their current business model and practice is not in any way associated with, shall we say, sins of the past!

I have had the same problem of virtuali dlls imposing changes that I did not know were happening

Did they really caused a problem, or your "problem" was just the fact something was installed in your FSX ? Besides, NOTHING in FSX can happen without you knowing it's happening: what's the point of having a TRUST Dialog then ?Anything executable that gets installed in FSX, will require you to TRUST IT, twice in a row. A first dialog in Windows will notify you of a new software inside FSX by a certain publisher (or by an unknown publisher, if the developer hasn't signed the executable) and will ask you if you want to run it and, if you reply Yes to this question, a 2nd FSX dialog will then ask you if you want to permanently trust this module in FSX, or run it just once for that session.So, how can you say things are being run without your knowledge ?

and certainly was not given an "option"

If you want to "opt-out" of a module, FSX gives you two chances not to trust it. The 2nd question, the one made by FSX, is especially useful, because it allows you to TRY the module once, to see how it works, so you can always decide not to Trust it in subsequent FSX sessions, in case you discover that module has problems, even after you already trusted in Windows (the 1st question).Don't you agree that, a 3rd question, maybe made by our own installer, would simply becoming "another trusting question that you always have to reply Yes", just like the FSX ones ?

I notice that a very quick DOS window was appearing every time I ran FSX, and I never gave my permission for this to happen. I traced it to the dll files Virtuali seems to place in the main FSX folder.

First, many FSX addons have "Quick Dos Windows", to do additional things after installing. Out of my mind, I surely recall Wilco installers use an external Dos program to add their own sections to the DLL.XML file.However, as I've said, I'm 100% for full disclosure and transparency so, I'll tell you exactly what that "Dos Window" does:In order to DEFEND our installers from corruption or issues caused by other products installers to the EXE/DLL XML files, we run an official utility made by the W3C people, to check and clean up XML files, it's called TIDY.EXE, and here's the web page:http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/This is ran over the existing XML files, to check if they are correct, and to clean up some of the most common mistakes, caused either by hand editing the files or by other product installers. That utility is obviously entirely harmless it fixes lot of common small issues, and it's run only AFTER checking the XML first, using the standard XML parser from MS, which instead checks for serious errors. If there *are* serious errors, which can't probably be fixed by Tidy, the installer will NOT MODIFY the XML files. Instead, it will notify the user of the error (since the MS parser will give the line number of the error), and will ASK the user if he'll want to continue with a new clean file, or abort and keep his old version.When I've said we had to do lot of work in the installer, to defend against existing problems in the users files, I mean it...

Moreover, I don't know what the connection is between Quality Wings and Virtuali, but QW appears to use virtuali addon manager or associated files in order to run their licensing. Does this mean there is a commercial connection between these two developers? Again, there is scant info about why these library files and/or modules are used, and what the relationship is between the two developers.

I really can't see any issue here: of course there's some licensing involved, but I really don't see how this should be different than, let's say, an airplane developer using fsuipc, which is also licensed to commercial developers, buy I haven't see many airplane developers explaining what they use fsuipc for, nor their relationship with Peter Dowson.Of course, Peter Dowson surely explain on *his* site what's fsuipc is used for, exactly like we do, on our FAQ page:http://www.fsdreamteam.com/faq.html

What are the other functions of the Addon Manager? Could the scenery be programmed in order not to use it?

Finally, and I am reluctant to tread on toes here, but if you look at the timeline and associations of Virtuali, it seems there are links to an outfit called Lago, who might well be remembered by seasoned sim enthusiasts. This outfit does not have a very good record of customer service, or indeed the way it treated contributing authors or co-developers

. You got it entirely BACKWARDS here!! I WAS one of the "contributing authors or co-developers"! LAGO used to be a very nice company, back in the '90s when I was worked FOR them. If you go back to that time, LAGO used to have a very good reputation. Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft used to work with LAGO before he joined Aerosoft, and nobody said anything against them. In 2001, the original owners of the company SOLD it to a large italian distributor, Leader spa. So large that, in fact, they were so disappointed discovering how small the Flight sim market really is, than it basically retired from it, which is why all the "contributing authors or co-developers", including me, Mathijs and many others, flew away from it. LAGO hasn't really "folded", is still active, just not in the flight sim business, and there's nobody there left over from the old LAGO.When this happened, since I am first and foremost a developer, more than a marketing guy, decided to continue working for someone, instead publishing myself so, while another of those "contributing authors or co-developers" of LAGO, started Cloud9, I decided to continue being a developer only, and had several things published by *them* instead.When the Cloud9 owner decided, for strictly personal reasons (yes, people have lives outside the flight sim world) to do something else with his own career, I finally had to take the matter in my hands, and took the plunge to handle my own company directly and self-publish, at the cost of doing much less development, and much more user support and management.So, there weren't any "name changes" at all, I was a LAGO contributor, just like many others that today works for other flight sim developers, and I was a Cloud9 contributor as well, but never had any participation/share in any of those companies, and I got my share of mis-threatments too.And yes, both LAGO and Cloud9 sometimes handled customer support to low-payed individuals, who ended up doing lot of damage to their reputation. I had to reply to several customers enquires, which were in fact follow up of previous email exchanges with former Cloud9 support people, that's why know I personally do ALL customer support for FSDT.

Just to "chime in" too. I recently upgraded my system and had to reinstall all my addons, including all the FSDT airports I owned. I had absolutely no problem with the new Addon Manager and all products were activated without incident. Then, when the Sandy Bridge chipset problem came up, I replaced my MB, restarted FSX and the Addon Manager automatically saw the upgraded MB and reactivated each scenery at startup. It couldn't have been easier. I think the fact Tom had no buildings when he first started up was due to the fact the scenery was in demo mode as the buildings will disappear after 5 or 10 minutes until you restart FSX or activate the product. Why the scenery was floating off the ground though is probably due to moving the mesh slider too far to the right for this particular scenery. I blame issues like this on all the people who pirate software requiring more sophisticated security by developers. And Windows 7 and Vista don't help as they have added security built in too to make it less possible for a dirty evil person to send you a virus or hack into your system without your knowledge. I have disabled User Access Controls (UAC) since installation of Windows and I have never used an anti-virus program. I just make sure the firewall is activated. I have never received a virus on my system (since August 1991). These programs, when enabled, can cause an incomplete installation and maybe that's the reason I have never had a problem installing new software/addons. I hope Tom reconsiders installing the FSDT scenery again as the scenery is one of the best addons you can get for FSX.Best regards,Jim Young

Did they really caused a problem, or your "problem" was just the fact something was installed in your FSX ? Besides, NOTHING in FSX can happen without you knowing it's happening: what's the point of having a TRUST Dialog then ?Anything executable that gets installed in FSX, will require you to TRUST IT, twice in a row. A first dialog in Windows will notify you of a new software inside FSX by a certain publisher (or by an unknown publisher, if the developer hasn't signed the executable) and will ask you if you want to run it and, if you reply Yes to this question, a 2nd FSX dialog will then ask you if you want to permanently trust this module in FSX, or run it just once for that session.So, how can you say things are being run without your knowledge ? If you want to "opt-out" of a module, FSX gives you two chances not to trust it. The 2nd question, the one made by FSX, is especially useful, because it allows you to TRY the module once, to see how it works, so you can always decide not to Trust it in subsequent FSX sessions, in case you discover that module has problems, even after you already trusted in Windows (the 1st question).Don't you agree that, a 3rd question, maybe made by our own installer, would simply becoming "another trusting question that you always have to reply Yes", just like the FSX ones ?First, many FSX addons have "Quick Dos Windows", to do additional things after installing. Out of my mind, I surely recall Wilco installers use an external Dos program to add their own sections to the DLL.XML file.However, as I've said, I'm 100% for full disclosure and transparency so, I'll tell you exactly what that "Dos Window" does:In order to DEFEND our installers from corruption or issues caused by other products installers to the EXE/DLL XML files, we run an official utility made by the W3C people, to check and clean up XML files, it's called TIDY.EXE, and here's the web page:http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/This is ran over the existing XML files, to check if they are correct, and to clean up some of the most common mistakes, caused either by hand editing the files or by other product installers. That utility is obviously entirely harmless it fixes lot of common small issues, and it's run only AFTER checking the XML first, using the standard XML parser from MS, which instead checks for serious errors. If there *are* serious errors, which can't probably be fixed by Tidy, the installer will NOT MODIFY the XML files. Instead, it will notify the user of the error (since the MS parser will give the line number of the error), and will ASK the user if he'll want to continue with a new clean file, or abort and keep his old version.When I've said we had to do lot of work in the installer, to defend against existing problems in the users files, I mean it...I really can't see any issue here: of course there's some licensing involved, but I really don't see how this should be different than, let's say, an airplane developer using fsuipc, which is also licensed to commercial developers, buy I haven't see many airplane developers explaining what they use fsuipc for, nor their relationship with Peter Dowson.Of course, Peter Dowson surely explain on *his* site what's fsuipc is used for, exactly like we do, on our FAQ page:http://www.fsdreamteam.com/faq.html. You got it entirely BACKWARDS here!! I WAS one of the "contributing authors or co-developers"! LAGO used to be a very nice company, back in the '90s when I was worked FOR them. If you go back to that time, LAGO used to have a very good reputation. Mathijs Kok from Aerosoft used to work with LAGO before he joined Aerosoft, and nobody said anything against them. In 2001, the original owners of the company SOLD it to a large italian distributor, Leader spa. So large that, in fact, they were so disappointed discovering how small the Flight sim market really is, than it basically retired from it, which is why all the "contributing authors or co-developers", including me, Mathijs and many others, flew away from it. LAGO hasn't really "folded", is still active, just not in the flight sim business, and there's nobody there left over from the old LAGO.When this happened, since I am first and foremost a developer, more than a marketing guy, decided to continue working for someone, instead publishing myself so, while another of those "contributing authors or co-developers" of LAGO, started Cloud9, I decided to continue being a developer only, and had several things published by *them* instead.When the Cloud9 owner decided, for strictly personal reasons (yes, people have lives outside the flight sim world) to do something else with his own career, I finally had to take the matter in my hands, and took the plunge to handle my own company directly and self-publish, at the cost of doing much less development, and much more user support and management.So, there weren't any "name changes" at all, I was a LAGO contributor, just like many others that today works for other flight sim developers, and I was a Cloud9 contributor as well, but never had any participation/share in any of those companies, and I got my share of mis-threatments too.And yes, both LAGO and Cloud9 sometimes handled customer support to low-payed individuals, who ended up doing lot of damage to their reputation. I had to reply to several customers enquires, which were in fact follow up of previous email exchanges with former Cloud9 support people, that's why know I personally do ALL customer support for FSDT.

Hi Umberto,I accept that you were at some time "just a co-author or developer" for Lago then Cloud9. What interests me is that, knowing the mess that Lago left, and also about the silly games they played with people who worked hard to build Lago's reputation and were treated badly, I find it odd that your website mentions Lago in your list of achievements, as though that was something to be happy about. Wouldn't it be better if you demonstrated that you are entirely independent and in no way associated with Lago's rather poor history by completely dissociating yourself from them? I accept at first sight your explanation of the associations with what appeared to be spin-off activities from Lago, but you must admit it does look very odd when various names associated with Lago keep re-inventing themselves: Lago, Leonardo, Cloud9, FSdreamteam, Virtuali. etc ad infinitum. I think also you are not being quite straightforward in your earlier posts about Cloud9, some of whose staff were most definitely part of Lago when, sadly, it became an organisation which somehow started well and ended up operating with extremely poor business practices. I accept that it is possible that members of Lago were not happy with the way it was run, and that was the reason they left and started something else, but I distinctly remember getting the impression at the time that this was not exactly the case. You say you just happen to do support for Cloud9, but as far as I can tell, Cloud9 does not exist. The web address: cloud9.com just brings up a statement announcing its new association with Virtuali. Does Cloud9 exist or not? If it doesn't then say so! If you have absorbed Cloudd9 products and are marketing and supporting them, not just casually agreeing to offer some support on a forum, then why not say so, emphatically and clearly?As I said, I have no doubt that Virtuali itself has good intentions. I just wonder why there is no EMPHATIC and clear dissociation with Lago, if indeed as a developer yourself, you were not treated well by Lago. Secondly, I read your reply with interest but many of your quotes attributed to me are not mine, but someone else's.Thirdly, I accept that some flight sim software installs dlls and other files which run automatically. However, I think it needs to be made clear exactly what these library files do, in detail. It seems clear to me that at least one of the files is related to software protection, but those files appear also to be used by what you describe as other licensed users. I cannot find anything in your documentation that refers to your protection software being licensed to others, nor do the other developers using it make it abundantly clear why they are using your software. I think what your customers need is CLEAR information and perhaps that would stop any comments that imply suspicion.Mentioning FSUIPC is not really a good comparison. FSUIPC has been around for many many years (and has had the same name for many years too!) and it would be almost impossible for any vaguely interested flight sim enthusiast NOT to have already heard of it, and know exactly what it does. The same is NOT the case with your software.I do not wish to make your life awkward and none of us are perfect, and we make mistakes. I have nothing against Virtuali and as far as I can see you produce good sofware. You say you want to be transparent and straightforward. That's a good thing. Maybe you could review your documentation or website so that two things are made crystal clear:1. You have no association with Lago or ANYONE who worked there at a time when many co-authors and some customers were on the receiving end of bad business practice.2. Be more detailed about what your library files do, and why they are included in your software AT THE POINT of sale.Thanks

Just to "chime in" too. I recently upgraded my system and had to reinstall all my addons, including all the FSDT airports I owned. I had absolutely no problem with the new Addon Manager and all products were activated without incident. Then, when the Sandy Bridge chipset problem came up, I replaced my MB, restarted FSX and the Addon Manager automatically saw the upgraded MB and reactivated each scenery at startup. It couldn't have been easier.

Thank you for posting, this is what 99% of users experiences too. But with several thousands customers, even if you had just an 1% problems rate, it would still be hundreds of people, which surely we don't have, there might have been maybe from 5 to 10 people at the *most* were we couldn't find what was the cause of the problem but, even if I still count them as failures I'd rather not have, it would be a problem that would ended up fixing itself, either after a Windows reinstall, or by some Window hotfix or service pack, that somewhat fixed something.Since we have a Trial version, if the Addon Manager failure rate was higher, it would show up with decreased sales, which also means it's in our best interest to find and fix problems on our side as soon as possible, because without Addon Manager working, the Trial version wouldn't work as well, and that means a lost sale.With a recent version of the Addon Manager, we added the ability for the user to deactivate a system on his own, reclaiming the activation so, even when an user has consumed all his 6 activations, and upgrades his hardware, he can reactivate without having to contact support asking for additional activations. Another very well known developer has just switched to an activation-based system for sales, and users are complaining it's not as friendly as our own. These things needs a lot of testing and also need to be experimented on the field: it's almost impossible to *guess*, for example, how many activations give, if you don't let actual users use it, also because everyone changes/upgrades hardware differently. 1-2 activations might be enough for someone, but 6 might be too few for someone else, which is why we added the user-controlled deactivation, which is still somewhat in testing now, so we limited at 6 deactivations (just to make it an easy number to remember, since it's the same as the activations), but we plan to make it unlimited soon so, chances are nobody will have to ask for reactivation again, provided of course he'll use the deactivation feature before upgrading.I AM an user too, and sometimes I have to work with products far more expensive than FSX, which have very restrictive licensing, like the Unity engine (a 3d dev tool for PC and Mac) and it only allows me 2 activations, after that I need to call support, explaining why I need another one. Which means I can't use it both on my Mac Laptop and on my Mac Desktop at the same time, since they both run OSX and Windows and each OS counts for one activation, which is quite annoying, since the product main feature is that is cross-platform...I was asking them to allow user-deactivation or user handling of the license, which we have for our puny 30$ addons, but it hasn't happened, and that product costs 1500$...so I know perfectly well what activation issues might be, from an user's point of view, which is why we keep trying to make the licensing as liberal as possible.Note that, for our FSDT sceneries, the Addon Manger+Couatl programs do WAY more than just licensing. In fact, we wouldn't be able to do almost anything without it, right now. KDFW (and even more than upcoming KLAX) would work much worse and would run much slower without it, which is why not many developers creates such large hub, and those who do, usually suffer from performance problems so, for us at least, the program we use are an integral part of what we are doing. We even have whole addons ( like XPOI ), written 100% in Python so 100% depending on Addon Manager+Couatl, without this having anything to do with the protection, but just because of the convenience and power of being able to write a wholly interactive product using a powerful and elegant language, running externally to FSX, in order to not impact performances.

Well, I had a few run ins with Umberto (virtuali) in the early C9 days. What I came to believe is that he is a totally honest reliable guy, who knows what he's talking about, and good at his job. The bglman.dll etc won't try and take over your computer, they just make his excellent products pirate proof and run better. Just install the products and enjoy them.Russell.

Well, I had a few run ins with Umberto (virtuali) in the early C9 days. What I came to believe is that he is a totally honest reliable guy, who knows what he's talking about, and good at his job. The bglman.dll etc won't try and take over your computer, they just make his excellent products pirate proof and run better. Just install the products and enjoy them.Russell.

No arguing with your assessment of Umberto. But there is, unfortunately, no such thing as pirate-proof, and if there was I'd be writing this from an agreeable location somewhere sunny, warm and somewhat more selubrious!