Wow, Developer fight...

 

Don't see this very often. I know Ben Supnik chimes in here every now and again, perhaps this would be a good time for his unique brand of calm.

 

Or perhaps even Austin himself, heck he's even answered a few of my emails personally(which is what I love about this sim ecosystem).

 

Come on guys, this is so beneath all of you.

No one is fighting, Ping Pong. It's telling a past and shedding some light that did have a ton of negativity. We can't change how history evolved things, but even then, many countries around the world have had their bad days that eventually shaped them into what they are too. All is well in the world on a grander level.

 

And will the 733 using GIZMO from IXEG work in 64 Bits X-plane 10?

 

To further what Tom has already said, yes, I have been testing an alpha version of Gizmo 64-bit as of today. There are some issues with 64-bit for both Gizmo and SASL (both affected in the same way) where the core interpreter for Lua requires a very low level of memory allocation that is unachievable to obtain unless Laminar makes some changes to X-Plane 10. I, as well as the SASL guys, are all working through it with Ben Supnik to come up with a good resolution. I am confident we'll get there!

 

We'll be sure to keep everyone posted!

Pascal,

 

To be clear, Tom's message was not a bash on the 777 or the developers of it. The message was primarily about the limitations of SASL (though I do understand how it can be interpreted the way you saw it). The 777 was able to get around this issue Tom speaks of by having Philipp come in and work in creating a secondary plug-in written in C. There's really nothing wrong with this, other than shedding light on how far SASL is able to really go. Luckily, with Philipp's hard efforts in C, things were brought to a newer level and the community now has another product that brings X-Plane to new heights.

 

Thanks for clearing thing up, Cameron.

I'm sure SASL has it's limits, and it's strengths. And Gizmo too. But isn't the real interest of the recent announcement of compatibility between both plugins to stop thinking in a "Gizmo vs SASL" way ? Consider that we need both, because, AFAIK, Gizmo is not geared toward freeware developers. SASL is. And in this long lasting quarrel between payware organisations, It seems that freeware developers' needs are not accounted for.

 

Pascal

I'm sure SASL has it's limits, and it's strengths. And Gizmo too. But isn't the real interest of the recent announcement of compatibility between both plugins to stop thinking in a "Gizmo vs SASL" way ?

 

It depends on who or what you're talking about. For the end user, yes, you are 100% correct. For the developer, no, absolutely not! People have the opportunity to make a choice. Going from one or the other may not have an impact on your end users any longer, but it may have an impact on your abilities as a developer. There's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws, Pascal. In the end, this is how things get better. Plenty of people had things to say about Gizmo. It was ultimately made better.

 

Consider that we need both, because, AFAIK, Gizmo is not geared toward freeware developers. SASL is.

 

Not so. Gizmo is to be geared towards freeware developers as well. That said, I can't say I've seen many add-ons that strictly started out and stayed freeware from SASL. This is not a bash. My point here is that SASL is just as much geared for payware as is Gizmo.

 

Consider that we need both, because, AFAIK, Gizmo is not geared toward freeware developers. SASL is. And in this long lasting quarrel between payware organisations, It seems that freeware developers' needs are not accounted for.

 

I don't think anyone said anything to the contrary, Pascal. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Many great add-ons have been created with the assistance of SASL. :smile: