Yes, I agree with you Robert. I should probably have said "his attempt to make it pirate proof" Russell.

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?

What the products themselves have anything to do with the LAGO or Cloud9 business practices ? I'm still proud of the products, which surely were groundbreaking at the time. Honolulu had a mention of honor on Avsim, because it was the 1st scenery made entirely with GMax, and it changed perception of performances, since it ran at an incredible fps compared to the offering at that time. Before PHNL, everybody used Scasm and hand-coded FS8 asm and after it, everybody moved to Gmax so, it had more impact on flight sim development than it might seem, especially for sceneries.Besides, when I was developing for LAGO, everybody was happy of them. Last product I made for them was in 2003, before FS9 was released, and (just to give you an idea of the timeline), when Mathjis was still with them. LAGO started to derail after that, mostly when Mathjis, and several other people went away. I think the first real "problem" LAGO had, was with the Scenery Enhancer, which was a brilliant idea, but needed constant support from the company, to run the server and keep it updated with user contributions. I had nothing to do with it, but the upper management of the parent company was already basically pulling the plug on flight sim stuff, which for a product like that is a disaster, since it really can't work without support.

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

The only thing Leonardo has in common with us, is they are italian too, based in Sardinia, but I never had the pleasure getting to know them personally, I only know they make an excellent MD80...They were *another* contributor, who rightly decided to do on its own, rather then being published by something else. What else do you expect from external contributors, considering what happened to LAGO ? Some people decided to work for someone else, others decided to start their own publishing business, I'd say it's quite normal, considering LAGO position during those years was far stronger than most of today's developers, which means they attracted many different developers ?

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 always said the same thing about my relationship with Cloud9, which was of an external contributor with no shared interest in that company.Unfortunately, since I ALSO did (in exchange for part of the license of the Addon Manager) some support on their forum, some people mistakenly assumed I was *part* of Cloud9, even if I always signed with my own signature as being "VIRTUALI" and never Cloud9, and even if the Cloud9 installers all included "Addon Manager licensed from VIRTUALI s.a.s." in the splash screen, which nobody reads anyway. And you know, once rumors spread, before you know it, some people made the association that Cloud9 "became" FSDT somehow.The truth is far more mundane: Alberto Sangalli, the sole Cloud9 owner, decided to change his life and started an Agritourism and quit from the flight sim market. It's true, but it won't make an interesting story, compared to the "fishy company that morphed from Lago, to Cloud9, to FSDT".

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.

I was treated fairly well, and flew as soon things started to derail, which happened quite fast. However, as an external contributor, I don't see why I should have apologized in any way for their behavior. In fact, you mentioned the tax issue: one of my last contact with Lago management, was about me complaining they weren't applying tax regulation correctly on their web store, and this would hurt public image and sales too. But this is not something you normally say in public, we can probably discuss it now, because 8 years have passed, and Lago is out of this business anyway.

Secondly, I read your reply with interest but many of your quotes attributed to me are not mine, but someone else's.

??? There's only one quote which wasn't taken from your post, this one:"What are the other functions of the Addon Manager? Could the scenery be programmed in order not to use it?"Which I've quoted from our website, to indicate we try to explain what it does. The rest of the quotes were all from your message...

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.

We surely describe what our modules do, in detail, in our installation manual, named fsdt_install_guide.pdf, which covers everything related to the Addon Manager. Presenting this information before installing, would sound like a dialog box in the installer stating something like:"We are going to install this module, which is required for the product to run, you can choose not to install it, but if you choose not to, the product will not run anyway, do you want to install it ?" maybe with a long text that nobody reads anyway (like the EULA), explaining what the module does 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.

Is this practice common ? Is any other airplane or product installing executable modules ( .dll and .gau files ) informs in detail what they are for ? It seems to me, the fact is used for product protection (but not ONLY) make you pretending more disclosure about it than you normally would request from any other module of any other developer.

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.

Agree on #2. It's our own stuff, and we are responsible for it, so we'll try to improve the documentation.I can't agree about having a requirement to dissociate with Lago, because I really don't feel having done anything wrong against Lago customers. I was only doing sceneries, which were almost universally well received, and while I was doing them, Lago didn't do anything wrong to customers or other contributors, surely not to my knowledge.

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!

This argument has already been discussed a lot, and I would be a fool pretend to say otherwise, of course anything can be cracked but, what makes a lot of difference, is not being cracked in the first months or days, since most of the sales of an addon are made during the first months anyway and we surely achieved this result.Yes, some of our older products have been cracked sometimes, but it always happened several months and in certain cases years after they were released, which really it's not useful at all, since those old crack wouldn't work with more recent product anyway so, a REAL user wouldn't want to be stuck forever with older products and being cut off the chance to use the new ones. One that doesn't care, and he's happy using, let's say, an old Zurich for free without being able to upgrade to anything (since the system is *designed* right from the start to kill any crack with updates and new products), wasn't probably a much interested user in the first place, so we don't consider it as a lost sale.Also, keep in mind that most of the website reporting supposedly cracked versions of products, are just programmed to spit out fake search results, to be honeypots for "pay for download" or "pay for hi-speed download" web site. If you type "Fsdreamteam GSX torrent" in a search engine, you WILL find results for "high speed downloads" for it, and we haven't even released it yet! So, be careful with crack sites, because lots of them are just scammers.

I can understand Tom's frustration in what he perceived was an unsolicited install sequence to two separate products, albeit sharing some type of a licensing agreement.That being said, I'd like to applaud Umberto for the manner in which he has responded, in lieu of some unflattering insinuations...some of which are from the fraternal order of Commercial Developers. From my perspective it sure doesn’t look like he is obscuring the truth in his response. As an owner of FSDT's many scenery products, I find the company is exceedingly capable in the area of quality and customer support. They are certainly no LAGO. Allow them the chance to work on your behave to resolve your issues. Their stuff is simply some of the best out there.

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

As much as I admire your flightsim work I think this post is completely over the top. This thread has nothing to do with Lago and I fail to see how Umberto is responsible for your problems with them. There was a long list of developers working for them, many of whom are still active, who produced (and still produce) excellent products and had nothing to do with Lago's business decisions. Any number of add-ons install .dll's for license checks and other functions (including Flight1, Aerosoft, and PMDG) and none of them provide the intimate details of those additions. In addition, many add-on's modify the registry. I fail to see why Virtuali needs to be any exception or is in any way tarnished for not explaining in gory detail the function of all components.I have installed many products that use the Virtuali functionality, in FS9 and FSX, and have had zero issues with them. I have never met or corresponded with Umberto, but have read many support threads and general discussion threads that indicate he is nothing but a stand-up guy who is responsible for an excellent product line.DJ

I'm happy to confirm most of the above comments. I'm not bashing Umberto, and I appreciate he is acting honourably on this particular matter. I agree too that many Lago products were good. I have never said that Umberto was himself associated with bad business practice and I'm happy to confirm that again. I'll leave it at that.

I can understand Tom's frustration in what he perceived was an unsolicited install sequence to two separate products, albeit sharing some type of a licensing agreement.That being said, I'd like to applaud Umberto for the manner in which he has responded, in lieu of some unflattering insinuations...some of which are from the fraternal order of Commercial Developers. From my perspective it sure doesn’t look like he is obscuring the truth in his response. As an owner of FSDT's many scenery products, I find the company is exceedingly capable in the area of quality and customer support. They are certainly no LAGO. Allow them the chance to work on your behave to resolve your issues. Their stuff is simply some of the best out there.

Well said, Ryan, and my experience with and impressions of FSDT products are the same.

Well said, Ryan, and my experience with and impressions of FSDT products are the same.

the FSDreamTeam products are top-notch.I have had some issue with couatl but that had to do with creating environment variables that confused the software as it tried to use Python. I assume BGLMan is the license-checking software.I don't mind that a developer looks out for their interests by protecting their IP. Furthermore, I don't think the Addon Manager (bglman) is too ostentatious in execution. However, what I'd LOVE to see, especially seeing as how Umberto has partnered with ACES in the past, is a UNIFIED approach to license management for addons. This way, we wouldn't have all manner of processes hanging onto, or dancing with, FSX/Flight as it runs. Something like the simconnect approach would be good - perhaps simconnect could be extended for this purpose.Anyhow, while the OP and others make valid points, this thread feels a little "witch-hunty."Umberto has been urbane in his deportment here and seems reasonable. I did scratch my head when QW chose to use Addon Manager, and I also scratch my head when the Addon Manager install routine includes files for QW even if you don't have it installed. But I've found every product that uses Addon Manager to be of high quality.

I normally would not enter a thread of this nature, but having read the entire thing, I have to say my piece.I could care less about LAGO or anyone's association with them, it is totally irrelevant to the subject.I am adding my meager .02 because I have had occasion to deal with Virtuali in the past regarding a similiar issue with a addon plane, and his assistance was supurb. The amazing thing to me was the fact that I was only indirectly involved in the issue, as I purchased the plane for someone else, and they are the one who had a installation problem, and not only did he fix the problem, but also kept me in the loop until it was resolved. Having had first hand experiance with him, I can say that from my standpoint, and the depth he has gone to in this thread to explain things, he provides nothing but first class service.I hope Tom reconsiders and gets his issue resolved, Umberto has shown excatly what is expected of a developer and deserves Kudos for his efforts.

I have installed many products that use the Virtuali functionality, in FS9 and FSX, and have had zero issues with them. I have never met or corresponded with Umberto, but have read many support threads and general discussion threads that indicate he is nothing but a stand-up guy who is responsible for an excellent product line.

Same here. I have almost everything made by FSDT and Umberto has always been more than helpful in diagnosing and fixing problems. I've even seen some customers be outright rude to him on their forum, and he could easlisy ban them or tell them where to go, if you get my drift, but instead he has always continued to help the customer until the problem is resolved. In fairly recent post of customer who had a problem on thier site, Umberto has even offered to use Team Viewer to be able to access the customers computer to get the issue sorted out. I can say from experience, there are not many 3PD's that will go to that extent to help solve a customers problem.As far as problems go, anything I have ever installed from FSDT or anyone who uses their purchase module, like Flightbeam, have ever caused issue on my computer or tried to download or install anything without asking me for permission. I'm sure if ever had a problem, Umberto would work with me on his site until the problem was resolved, just like I had witness him do with hundred of other customers.

Another satisfied FSDT and Flightbeam user here. I have had absolutely zero issues with these add-ons, and I have KLAS, KORD, KJFK, KFLL, KDFW, and KSFO.

Umberto has been urbane in his deportment here and seems reasonable. I did scratch my head when QW chose to use Addon Manager, and I also scratch my head when the Addon Manager install routine includes files for QW even if you don't have it installed. But I've found every product that uses Addon Manager to be of high quality.

Thank you for all your comments, I only wanted to add, regard the QW757, the Addon Manager installer doesn't include any files from QW, only the full QW installer includes them. What it does, instead, is to check if you *have* the QW757 installed, and if you have it, it automatically downloads the latest gauge for it from their server. If there's no QW757 installed, no download will be made and there's no local copy of it included in the installer.An advantage of having both our products and QW (and now Flightbeam) manager under the same Addon Manager is that, when we added support for the user controlled deactivation, even QW and Flightbeam (and Aerosoft, they published our Florence X scenery using the Addon Manager too), and even former Cloud9 customers immediately benefited from that, without having to do anything other than install the latest Addon Manager.Another marginal, but useful thing, is we recently added an option to enable HD textures (4096x4096) automatically, without having to rely on fsx.cfg not being touched, so they stay even if acting on the graphic sliders, because the Addon Manager just writes the correct value in memory, allowing to switch between 1024 and 4096 textures even on the fly, without restarting FSX, which is useful for airplane developers like QW that includes HD textures...

Thank you for all your comments, I only wanted to add, regard the QW757, the Addon Manager installer doesn't include any files from QW, only the full QW installer includes them. What it does, instead, is to check if you *have* the QW757 installed, and if you have it, it automatically downloads the latest gauge for it from their server. If there's no QW757 installed, no download will be made and there's no local copy of it included in the installer.An advantage of having both our products and QW (and now Flightbeam) manager under the same Addon Manager is that, when we added support for the user controlled deactivation, even QW and Flightbeam (and Aerosoft, they published our Florence X scenery using the Addon Manager too), and even former Cloud9 customers immediately benefited from that, without having to do anything other than install the latest Addon Manager.

I don't call that an advantage. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, I don't want one addon checking to see if I have another addon.Call me old fashioned, but I rather like privicy.P.S. None of my posts in any way refer to the quality of your actual products. I've always really liked what I have from you. I just refuse to install them now because of the installer.

I don't call that an advantage. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, I don't want one addon checking to see if I have another addon. Call me old fashioned, but I rather like privicy.

Privacy concerns your personal data being used and/or transmitted to someone, to be used without your knowledge. This kind of update doesn't have anything to do with privacy: your setup data or other personal informations are not *sent* anywhere, because the check is made locally on your system, and nothing is done if you don't have that addon, a download is started only if you have that product, and this of course doesn't *send* anything that could identify you, and if you are a customer of the addon that required the update, the developers already have all your data so, it's not they could gather any more info on you than what they already have, even if the installer *did* send something about you, which it doesn't.And, the installer also work without any internet connection, in that case, you'll just lose the live update feature, so you might not always get the latest files and might be forced to re-download a whole installer from scratch, which is exactly what the live update feature is trying to prevent.

I've never had this coutal program update any files... How is everyone having this happen? I never even run the coutal script, or hardly ever run the addon manager. Is there an option upon install that people are checking and shouldn't be?