It doesn't particularly matter if Flight doesn't actively prohibit freeware - as long as there is no SDK it would be incredibly difficult (even impossible) to make add-ons....you need to talk to people like N4gix - the godfather of FS development.

Thank you, this is already adequate to strike down my idea that work without an SDK would be feasible. N4gix is thus freed of the burden to further elaborate :(

I assume there will be an SDK just not one that you can get for any cheap amount without signing your soul over to Mr Gates.

Further firming Tom's assessment. Too bad.

That's also illegal.

This may well be.But I can't help wondering how the internals of the .air-files were learned before they were ever documented, or where those tweaks come from that change how FSX works but were not part of the original fsx.cfg or documented by, for example, Phil Taylor...

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by nbz

Distribution is potentially illegal. We don't know that yet.

Nope, reverse engineering is illegal in any form or shape, whether you distribute or not.

I always wondered about that. If I buy a car, I am allowed to figure out how it works and fix it if it breaks.Why am I not allowed to fix buggy software?

Nope, reverse engineering is illegal in any form or shape, whether you distribute or not.

Its not quite that simple, often its allowed under fair use, and in some jurisdictions its even totally allowed no matter what. US copyright law does not apply in, say, China

Nope, reverse engineering is illegal in any form or shape, whether you distribute or not.

Not at all. A wikipedia summary of US law (for simplicity); United StatesIn the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately.^[21] Patents, on the other hand, need a public disclosure of an invention, and therefore, patented items do not necessarily have to be reverse-engineered to be studied. (However, an item produced under one or more patents could also include other technology that is not patented and not disclosed.) One common motivation of reverse engineers is to determine whether a competitor's product contains patent infringements or copyright infringements.The reverse engineering of software in the US is generally a breach of contract as most EULAs specifically prohibit it, and courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law;^{[clarification needed]} see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies.^[22][23]Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (i.e., the ability to exchange and make use of information). The section states:

(f) Reverse Engineering.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (:(, a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term 「interoperability」 means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

I assume a good chunk of the performance gain comes from dropping support for legacy code and content. The code base gets pretty bloated when it has to drag around support for formats that are 10-15 years old. This is a fresh start, folks. We, the hardcore simmers, are too tiny of a market to make it worthwhile for Microsoft to invest in the development costs of maintaining legacy code or the feature set of a high end simulator.

That's not what I read. I read somewhere that they started with the FSX code base. It is not a fresh start per se.

That's not what I read. I read somewhere that they started with the FSX code base. It is not a fresh start per se.

Yeah its definitely built out of FSX. Sorry, I should have clarified that its a fresh start in terms of addons.

Its not quite that simple, often its allowed under fair use...

Those who develop open source software do what's called "clean room development": one person will pull apart a piece of software and carefully document all of its features and functions without making reference to specific code, then he'll pass the design document to another person who has had no contact with the original software who will write new code based on the design document. The end result is a functionally equivalent piece of software that is 100% legal to distribute.

Those who develop open source software do what's called "clean room development": one person will pull apart a piece of software and carefully document all of its features and functions without making reference to specific code, then he'll pass the design document to another person who has had no contact with the original software who will write new code based on the design document. The end result is a functionally equivalent piece of software that is 100% legal to distribute.

That's not legal - it's just a method of circumventing being caught.If I gave a friend plans to build exact replicas of an iphone 4, he won't escape legal action because I gave him the plans.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by HowardHughes

Is this gonna be the Windows Vista of Flight sim? I am kind of worried.

That's not legal - it's just a method of circumventing being caught.

It is perfectly legal, and open source developers have been doing it for years. One such project is ReactOS which has the goal of making a free and open source Windows-compatible operating system. They've been making slow but steady progress over the last decade, and you know Microsoft would have shut them down long ago if they legally could. But since the developers are not actually infringing on Microsoft's IP (meaning actual Windows code), there's nothing they can do.

If I gave a friend plans to build exact replicas of an iphone 4, he won't escape legal action because I gave him the plans.

It depends on how it's done. If you just straight-up duplicated the iPhone, sure, but not if you created a functionally equivalent smartphone that didn't infringe on Apple's IP.

Not to draw off topic but, I wonder what would happen if you too far away from HawaiiDo you die?

Not to draw off topic but, I wonder what would happen if you too far away from HawaiiDo you die?

As I've posted in another thread, the range of the main aircraft in the game (ICON A5) is 300 miles. From Hawaii it's 3000 miles to the nearest mainland. I imagine it's just sea forever.

In the UK (and EU) decompliation is legal, subject to the conditions that:

(a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective");and(b) the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.

subject to the information not being readily available. That said it would be an impracticable task to decompile Flight sufficiently to be able to develop significant add-ons.Also the "clean room" approach is legal in the UK (and EU) where the functionality of code can't be protected, only its implementation. Fot example, no one can claim rights to a function to calculate a square root.

As I've posted in another thread, the range of the main aircraft in the game (ICON A5) is 300 miles. From Hawaii it's 3000 miles to the nearest mainland. I imagine it's just sea forever.

Hmm yes I just read that quite interesting...This is quite disappointing however.