You say beside licensing its managing addons and all. Then pray tell, how do other major scenery developers of similar qualities, manage to stay away from such solutions?

Flight1 has a licensing module, Aerosoft just introduced a new one, which also covers sceneries. That doesn't mean all developers share the same worries about piracy, but more of them are worried today, then they used to be a few years ago. It's not that we are going in a different direction of a trend. Many airplanes have anti-piracy code embedded in their gauges anyway so, it's not that your system doesn't constantly run lots of anti-piracy code already.

Why would one need a manual inside FSX? Can't I run windowed and open Acrobat?

To read charts maybe ? Yes, you can open Acrobat but, since lots of people send support emails asking *where* the manual is located on the hard drive, I guess some will appreciate the fact it can be opened for you, without having to browsing the correct folder, and having to recall where it is. And no, putting a link to the manual on the Desktop so it can be found fast, it's not an option good for anyone either, because there will be always those saying "installed that, it cluttered *my* Desktop..."Besides, we surely weren't the first one having a support module that also open manuals. Aerosoft had one long before us and, guess what, it's not made by Aerosoft, it's made by VistaMare and it's called vimacore.dll, and was used by Lago before Aerosoft. Not really different...

Why would someone want to change HD textures inside FSX?

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 ?

Tweak options? Set before FSX? WAY easier if you ask me - and cleaner.

Easier, obviously not, because you have to edit the fsx.cfg manually, and remember how a tweak is named, because it might not be there in the fist place, and also remember what min/max values it accepts, and there's no easy button to restore default setting. There are PAYWARE tweakers, which do that so, apparently, for some it's useful. The Addon Manager does it for free as an added feature, because the tweaks are not related to its managed sceneries only so, there's a free FSX tweaker inside it.There's a freeware utility that comes as an executable which runs alongside FSX, which does ONLY the HD texture enabling. And what it does ? It CONSTANTLY re-writes the fsx.cfg file, in case the user had acted on the graphic sliders, to write back the 4096 value, and it does it *every* second. How about that for performance ? The Addon Manager, if the HD texture option is enable, doesn't do it constantly, but only when the user changes the graphic settings, and will also update the memory directly, allowing to see the effect immediately.

Of course it means managing

That's exactly what I've said, the name is appropriate for what it does

it also means another menu in FSX when you already have many, some that are really needed (FSUIPC...).

Not a problem anymore in FSX, since it has own Addons menu, it's not really a problem like it used to be on FS9, when too many menus might not even fit the main bar.

You will probably say small things - but do they really matter when it comes to the scenery?

Yes, of course. It matters A LOT for our sceneries, the Addon Manager does the following for us:- Automatic detection of the user's airplane type and front gear position recognition. This is used by the safegates, to properly adjust settings depending on airplane, without having the user to unrealistically dial COM frequencies in order to configure the gates for correct airplane type.- Objects appearing on conditions like time and season, allowing for special effects like seasonal trees, ice blocks on the airport, seasonal vehicles.- Frame rate optimizations, allowing to cut object appearance when not needed, and reinstating several conditions that are not longer possible with FSX scenery SDK.- Custom ground AI objects, allowing for good looking customized ground vehicles with proper motion and behavior on ground- Special handling of ground textures to allow shaders and get rid of the slow FS8 legacy code, which hinder performances. This is why KDFW looks so good, and it performs so well, despite of its size- Custom lights and runways with behaviors, like the special lighting at KDFW (which will be used at KLAX as well, since both real-world airports have them), so FAROS (flashing PAPI with occupied runway) and THL/RWSL, etc. light which interacts with AI, are possible.- Communication of weather/visibility related variables to the scenery, allowing things as custom runway light to be visible in fog.- Allowing entirely different objects to appear on day/night transition, not just same objects with different textures, and not using legacy FS8/FS9 code.

My opinion? Dump the managing (do it externally, forget the module in FSX), manage the licensing some other way (eg. prior to installation) and be done with it!

Your opinion was based on not knowing all that it does. 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.

Well, so you don't really have an 'option' because it simply doesn't work without it, or even worse crash FSX.

It's very unlikely it will crash FSX, and the 2nd trust question, the one made by FSX, allows you to do just that: allow to test the module, but just for a single session so, in case it won't work or crash FSX, if you said No to the 2nd question, FSX wil not load it anymore. And of course, the Uninstaller will give you the change to remove it entirely, in case you replied Yes, and subsequently found it had issues.

If I would request a refund because I don't want to install third party files which have nothing to do with the product, that would be for sure a problem.

All our sceneries comes in Trial version so, if you don't want to install any third party files, you can uninstall the Trial, and not buy the scenery. The Trial will ask at the end if you also want to remove the Addon Manager entirely. It will not remove it automatically, because it might be used by other installed product you might have, but if you remove it, it will be just like as it was never there.

You can't compare FSUIPC with the bglmanx stuff because problems with the vitualli/bglmanx stuff is all over the place in various forums since years.FSUIPC never had this problem AFAIK

We aren't discussing about chances of failures, we are discussing about the legitimacy of having a product from developer A, installing a module from developer B, and the fact the user need to allow the module for that product to work, and fsuipc it's exactly the same in this regard.

1) All our sceneries comes in Trial version so, if you don't want to install any third party files, you can uninstall the Trial, and not buy the scenery2) We aren't discussing about chances of failures, we are discussing about the legitimacy of having a product from developer A, installing a module from developer B, and fsuipc it's exactly the same in this regard.

1) The QW757 doesn't have a demo AFAIK2) The only reason for this thread ARE the failures of your module! If the virtualli/bglmanx stuff would work only half as good as FSUIPC does, this thread wouldn't even exist!

1) The QW757 doesn't have a demo AFAIK

I can't force every developer using the Addon Manager having a Trial version, because that's their own business decision which involves many things, from support to issues with airplane features, people not reading manuals, etc, but if your worry is not being able to test the Addon Manager itself, it can be tested using our own Trials.

2) That's wrong. If the virtualli/bglmanx stuff would work only half as good as FSUIPC does, this thread wouldn't even exist!!!

I've said that it's not strange that developer A install a module from developer B and the user has to accept it in order to use the product, and that's stands. And if fsuipc had to deal licensing for several 3rd party products and had to do it effectively, it will probably increase its failure rate, because it would likely start being antivirus unfriendly, like that Flight1 module, and that is the most common point of failure for us.

A question for everyone:We CAN do something to make the Addon Manager less fragile in regard with the relationship with security programs out there, like antivirus or antispyware, etc, it would mean making it somewhat less secure for us.It would be interesting to know if those that are opposed to it, would change their minds, if it was improved to be less likely to be harmed by those products. Because, if this would improve the experience the the attitude towards it for everyone, we are open to discuss it.If, instead, you are opposed to ANY DRM, regardless how good/bad it works, and are not accepting the Addon Manager or the idea you have to activate a software in principle, then sorry, this is not open to any discussion, there will always be a module, and we can surely try to improve it, but surely not remove it.

Hello Umberto,The way you stand up and face these attacks head on is quite frankly commendable. You're ok in my book.Now stop wasting your time in this stupid thread and get back to work on KLAX. I'm sure there are hundreds of simmers out there who are anxiously awaiting for that airport to be released and just like me, they don't appreciate you wasting your precious time here. ....On a side note, what do you guys think about that ARIANE 737? Is it any good?(Run away Umberto...run now! I've got them distracted for you)

If, instead, you are opposed to ANY DRM, regardless how good/bad it works, and are not accepting the Addon Manager or the idea you have to activate a software in principle, then sorry, this is not open to any discussion, there will always be a module, and we can surely try to improve it, but surely not remove it.

That attitude worked out really well for Ubisoft and StarForce :(.Had I actually been aware that this sort of thing was installed when I purchased the QW package my wallet would have remained closed. And you will of course note that if I declined to accept the install QW already has the money with no refund possibility beyond opening a credit card dispute. This is obviously not really your problem as the devs are entitled to implement such a policy; however, it does not make it any more palatable to the consumer.Yeah-what you are describing in your well-written posts is essentially the same (although gentler) as attempts by StarForce to obfuscate the simple fact of intrusive and potentially system or program-disabling DRM being installed on the average honest consumer's sytstem. Them who will pay-do. Those who don't pay-won't. External bolt-on stealth DRM non-withstanding.**edit**I was just about to delete this post as being just a wee bit aggressive but having parted with a fair bit of cash over the weekend for simulator software WITHOUT DRM as those particular dev's are more concerned with paying customers-v-non-paying types reading your defense of this stuff justifies leaving it in place.

Perhaps Viruali can answer my question in post #60?I've had a large number of downloads over the years, not only for FS. I can't remember the last time I had a problem with my anti-virus software. Why are yours prone to being blocked?

The fact that these kinds of threads are recurring, indicates a problem. While the Addon Manager may only be causing other issues to manifest themselves, it does appear to be the common denominator. It is understandable that some users then become wary of anything "Virtuali", whether the Addon Manager is factually at fault or not is irrelevant. Perception is everything. It is that, that isn't always understood.

I feel bad for Umberto since he's spent the better part of his day here respondiong to posts and it past midnight already in Italy.

He spends hours on all kinds of forums. Time he could better spend on trying to change certain people's perception of his products, not by debating them, but by addressing their concerns. That is not done by having lengthy arguments with customers. See this thread. Although the outcome in this thread seems to be favorable, it isn't always the case.While I understand the praise, there is another story to tell. To give a simple example. I perceive that as a problem. The author of the thread does. And I dare say most people would too. But what happens is that instead of correcting the issue and making sure it doesn't happen again, it is argued that the jetway is in its real world position... Result is, almost two years later, jetways still go through AI. Not just at KFLL, but now at KDFW as well, for example. I don't understand why, the business reasoning behind it?! Surely for someone with the source of the scenery, it'd be very quick to fix. Customer happy. Why not do so, instead of spending hours on forums?I'm first to admit I've had more than one passionate discussion with Umberto, but that is because he chooses to tell me my personal perception of things and my preferences and likes and dislikes are wrong. That's an odd position to take as a business owner and me and my frankness don't always let it slide. Although more so in the past than now. Eventually I got tired of hearing the same time and again and seeing posts of mine edited and deleted. Yes, that is the other story.Sorry for going slightly off-topic and for bringing my own issues along as Umberto would say, but this entire thread is already surreal, so my single post is not gonna make a difference.:(

That attitude worked out really well for Ubisoft and StarForce

Yeah-what you are describing in your well-written posts is essentially the same (although gentler) as attempts by StarForce to obfuscate the simple fact of intrusive and potentially system or program-disabling DRM being installed on the average honest consumer's sytstem.

You can't really compare StarForce with what we do: Starforce went as far as replacing your system IDE/CD drivers with its own, which it's clearly very intrusive and risky, and also very difficult to uninstall, if something went wrong with it. It was something that acted system-wide, and stayed there even if you were not playing the game it supposed to protect.Our system doesn't do anything like that: - It doesn't replace any system files, it just adds the standard VC++ redistributables launching the official MS installer, which will not do anything if they are already there.- It doesn't install anything resident in Windows, like a service or a driver, something that many other DRM systems do.- It starts when FSX starts, and ends when FSX ends. It can be easily removed, using the standard Uninstaller and if the user ask to remove it, everything related to it will be removed, just as if it was never installed. Only one thing will be left, and it's the user Serial number in the registry, which is convenient so there will be no need to reinsert it if reinstalling, and of course is totally harmless if there's nothing that interacts with it anymore.This doesn't really have anything in common with what Starforce does, every DRM is different, we shouldn't use Starforce, which is probably the most intrusive around, as a measure to judge all the others.

While I understand the praise, there is another story to tell. To give a simple example. I perceive that as a problem. The author of the thread does. And I dare say most people would too. But what happens is that instead of correcting the issue and making sure it doesn't happen again, it is argued that the jetway is in its real world position... Result is, almost two years later, jetways still go through AI. Not just at KFLL, but now at KDFW as well, for example. I don't understand why, the business reasoning behind it?! Surely for someone with the source of the scenery, it'd be very quick to fix. Customer happy. Why not do so, instead of spending hours on forums?

Unfortunately, you chose the wrong example because, on the link you posted, it can be clearly seen the jetway IS in the correct real world position, but in MY screenshot, which was made in FSX, it was MOVING inside the AI, but this because in FSX, we don't have full control on how exactly the jetway moves, the actual movement is calculated by FSX, depending on the airplane doors, and sometimes the Inverse Kinematics solver in FSX makes mistakes. Even the default jetways at default airports with default airplane, sometimes move in strange positions or sink the wheels into the ground, and FSX doesn't really like jetways that in reality would move over a single axis.We are planning to fix this problem at once, possibly replacing the whole jetways systems in our upcoming GSX program, making jetways more controllable, possibly user-controllable.But, the user (it was you ?) reporting that problem was using FS9 instead, and on FS9 we don't have movable jetways at all, they are all static so, the static is placed in the scenery at the correct position, and doesn't move.If it moves in FS9, if it's only if there's AES installed for that airport and, again, we don't have any control how AES will then move the jetway.

I've had a large number of downloads over the years, not only for FS. I can't remember the last time I had a problem with my anti-virus software. Why are yours prone to being blocked?

I've replied of couple of times in this thread, by linking to a discussion on Avsim here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/243449-positive-security-package-results-flight1-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.com/forums/flt1chk4dll-and-flt1chk3dll-and-virus-scanners_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.

I would like to add a couple of things:- this shouldn't be a discussion against or pro DRM because, it's an argument that was beaten to death, and I guess it can't be solved here, and we'll risk derailing the thread easily into endless philosophical arguments covering everything, from kids downloading mp3, to rockstars complaining about piracy and driving Ferraris, to the bad state of the economy, etc. Let's stick to the point.- it shouldn't be a discussion how good/bad our sceneries are, or if there's still some bugs left in a scenery, since every product has its fair share of bugs, and this is not FSDT support forum.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, because we know it is, but it's a necessary evil we have to accept to stay in a business which is so fragile and small, it can't really afford large percentages of piracy, like the big software or music industry probably could.Also, in order to be able to do something, I'll need the help of someone that has recently tried to install any of our products, and failed entirely to run the Addon Manager, regardless of any suggestion we had. If anybody reading this thread is or was actually in this situation, please contact me, so we can start some real testing. I hope that, after all those rants, it doesn't turn out that nobody here really had a problem with the Addon Manager to begin with...Tom, for example, are you willing to help me test some modifications ?

I hope that, after all those rants, it doesn't turn out that nobody here really had a problem with the Addon Manager to begin with...

Suggestions are already there for you to find. But you have to be willing to see them... A couple of things that come to my mind.- 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.- If one installs Virtuali supported product A, leave Virtuali supported product B alone! So that at least product B will continue to work. 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). Are you sure you want to remove? You may want to re-install or update instead. For more help, go to so-and-so."- Making it all a bit more anti-virus friendly may help too.

so my single post is not gonna make a difference.

Note to self, don't make promises you can't keep.

and on FS9 we don't have movable jetways at all, they are all static so, the static is placed in the scenery at the correct position

Umberto, first of all, thanks for illustrating my point so beautifully. Secondly, it is not "the" correct position. It is what you think is the correct position and you use a real world image that reflects one millisecond in time to support your opinion. An image I might add, that has the jetway better aligned than the sim... Also, a jetway connects to an aircraft, not in an aircraft. So if you must insist, you can do better at replicating that real world example. But that is not the issue.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.How many posts has Tom made in this thread, how many words has he used? How many posts have you made and how many words have you used? Who's ranting...Result is, voting with one's wallet. I have six FSDT sceneries, last three of which I've purchased with considerable discounts. All you have to do to change that is a move a jetway a couple of pixels on my screen. Easy money. I don't have a business, but I know what I would do.:wink:That's all from me, really.

That combined with the fact that potential customers can't even read forum messages about possible user problems with e.g. Virtualli makes QW a definite no-go for me.

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... :(