Ryan, first of all my thanks for this thorough statement.

I didn't realize that support issues are among the reasons why the EULA is strict in these ways.

 

I hope PMDG and the VirtualCDU dev get everything worked out. It is an app that adds a lot to the experience of flying the NGX.

 

+1

Thank you for the post Ryan. Explains much.

 

But I can't help but ask - how would you look at adding a certain set of variables as read only property to the SDK?

 

Apparently for this type of application the current content of the CDU screen would be the most benefiting, but I understand that is probably too much. How about letting out a couple things such as current and next waypoint, ETAs and fuel predictions? Again, strictly read-only, and strictly in theory - I am not asking you to release such set, just asking if it would be possible in future, if, say, a known thrustworthy and competent developer approaches you.

Peter - some basic CDU functionality is on the list for the future but as I was saying it's a very delicate process, we have to code in protections to make sure invalid or out of range entries can't be made in any way etc. There's a seriously ridiculous number of ways something like that could mess it up - Vangelis spends an incredible amount of time accounting for these types of things in developing the FMC, he basically has to sit there and go "Now which ridiculous things could someone do that would screw this up?" etc, if we miss even one that's a potential CTD sitting there waiting to happen.

From what I'm gathering here, we obviously don't know yet what the developer did.  But, and Tabs, maybe you can answer this already, I don't know...Is it possible via the SDK to send "button pushes" to the CDU?

 

I have no idea obviously what the dev did, but if he's just doing the equivalent of pushing buttons via code in his client and not actually inputting the data directly into the values that the CDU uses to hold its state, I can't see how it could be at all possible to get the CDU in some sort of wrong state.  It would be the same as clicking the CDU from the virtual cockpit in that regards.  Is it possible for a user to get the CDU in a bad state from the virtual cockpit/CDU interface itself?

 

If it turns out to be that is what he is doing and, the SDK does allow this(?), would we see this app back on the market?  It seems to me that is how this app would work or how I'd do it.  It's more or less just an image displayed on a screen that just sends button pushes to the SDK when it's own buttons are pushed.  That would be a heck of a lot easier than re-implementing the Boeing FMC code again for tablets.  Again, just guessing here.

From what I'm gathering here, we obviously don't know yet what the developer did. But, and Tabs, maybe you can answer this already, I don't know...Is it possible via the SDK to send "button pushes" to the CDU?

 

I have no idea obviously what the dev did, but if he's just doing the equivalent of pushing buttons via code in his client and not actually inputting the data directly into the values that the CDU uses to hold its state, I can't see how it could be at all possible to get the CDU in some sort of wrong state. It would be the same as clicking the CDU from the virtual cockpit in that regards. Is it possible for a user to get the CDU in a bad state from the virtual cockpit/CDU interface itself?

 

If it turns out to be that is what he is doing and, the SDK does allow this(?), would we see this app back on the market? It seems to me that is how this app would work or how I'd do it. It's more or less just an image displayed on a screen that just sends button pushes to the SDK when it's own buttons are pushed. That would be a heck of a lot easier than re-implementing the Boeing FMC code again for tablets. Again, just guessing here.

exactly my thoughts. +1.

From what I'm gathering here, we obviously don't know yet what the developer did.  But, and Tabs, maybe you can answer this already, I don't know...Is it possible via the SDK to send "button pushes" to the CDU?

 

I have no idea obviously what the dev did, but if he's just doing the equivalent of pushing buttons via code in his client and not actually inputting the data directly into the values that the CDU uses to hold its state, I can't see how it could be at all possible to get the CDU in some sort of wrong state.  It would be the same as clicking the CDU from the virtual cockpit in that regards.  Is it possible for a user to get the CDU in a bad state from the virtual cockpit/CDU interface itself?

 

If it turns out to be that is what he is doing and, the SDK does allow this(?), would we see this app back on the market?  It seems to me that is how this app would work or how I'd do it.  It's more or less just an image displayed on a screen that just sends button pushes to the SDK when it's own buttons are pushed.  That would be a heck of a lot easier than re-implementing the Boeing FMC code again for tablets.  Again, just guessing here.

 

If that's all he's doing then there's probably no issue with it, yes. Even if that is the case, he still should have contacted us first before selling an addon to our aircraft, using the SDK etc.

Of course if the functionality was in the product In the first place then their wouldn't be this "issue" after all how hard can it be to do...oh yeah someone did already!

 

I get the support thing, but its a fairly thin argument, fsx is such a naff piece of software, that nearly every user has some mod to make it work, change it etc, and all of these likely have some eventual impact on any other module or add on.

 

It's this kind of innovation that the developer has shown that keeps flightsim on fsx alive, after all the NGX and most certainly the 777 are built on that concept, they have to do all sorts of clever things, stuff outside of the sim engine etc in order to be the excellent products they are. Half the Addons we have are either doing something to work around a bug, or lack of functionality of the sim.

 

Personally as a developer I'd be pleased that additional Addons are made that enhance my product, the level d sold so well because it had an sdk that allowed modules to be written to plug relatively cheap mcps into it,well ahead of pmdg who were still pedalling expensive interfaces that allowed single functionality with very expensive hardware. If someone said buy the pmdg because its great plane and you can plug this, that and the other into it to make it even better then surely that a good thing,realism is what we strive for, and as I always said having to click stuff with a mouse while flying isnt very realistic, most hardware is out of reach of many, and this app gave people chance to have an extra little bit of realism. Of course if it was that I was miffed as a developer that someone was making money out of something I failed to make, then perhaps I'd be a bit embarrassed, or even maybe something I was about to release and charge twice the price for..

 

I'm looking forward to the 777(747 more) but will be miffed if I find I'm back to clicking with a mouse because non of my hardware can be used with it and sdk's have so many stings attached and lacking in functionality that there no point them even existing!

 

I seem to remember PMDG being against the ms flight concept of restricting development and controlling the money and distribution...hate to think they now doing exactly what they didn't want done to them.

 

I too won't be installing any service pack that may prevent me from having this functionality, there many things that need fixing in the NGX but I'd rather keep these bugs/lack of features if it means I retain use of virtual cdu. The 777 will be uninstalled also if it contains code that does that covertly.

 

Innovation is what we need, not the American lawyer mentality of let's sue the world. I work with IPR issues all the time and quite frankly there would be more IPR to actually protect if the lawyers and commercial people didn't actually get in the way of it being created!

 

 

I too won't be installing any service pack that may prevent me from having this functionality, there many things that need fixing in the NGX but I'd rather keep these bugs/lack of features if it means I retain use of virtual cdu. The 777 will be uninstalled also if it contains code that does that covertly.

Innovation is what we need, not the American lawyer mentality of let's sue the world. I work with IPR issues all the time and quite frankly there would be more IPR to actually protect if the lawyers and commercial people didn't actually get in the way of it being created!

 

Ryan stated the developer voluntarily took his product down, and is in discussions with PMDG, which is what he should have done to begin with.  I am confident that things will shake out OK in the end.  I see PMDG as a visionary, not as some kind of bad guy.  

I thought I could live without FSX.  I could.  What I could NOT live without was my beloved NGX.  The quality of that airplane as modeled by PMDG is simply, wonderful.  I think Captain Randazzo would not deliberately deprive us of a joyful plug in that enhances his airplane, with the caveat that the plug-in 'do no harm' in terms of adding to the PMDG support load.

 

All things considered, I'm quite hopeful that the dev will iron things out with PMDG, and as long as we are wishing and hoping, possibly he might smooth the way NOW for the T7 when IT comes out.

 

On the other platform, Ramzzess (FlightFactor) T7 for X-Plane includes the Internet browser-based FMC that I led off this thread with.  I thought THAT was something!  THEN I discovered Virtual CDU.  The difference?  The Virtual CDU covers my entire tablet screen, much like an oversized 'RW' CDU.  It doesn't get much better than that!  I 'fly' (my fingers do) on that surface compared to mousing my way on the FSX version of the CDU.  Plus, it's BIG.  Plus, it's separate from my FSX screen.  Plus, I already own the tablet, I don't have to BUY another monitor.  Plus it's WiFi.

 

Hats off to PMDG, who it sounds very much like, is doing what it can to let us keep our new supplemental toy!

 

And bring on the T-7!  I think that will be a mind-blowing airplane!  Plus they have built-in time-shifting to cut those long cross-country and trans-polar flights down!  Yeah, man!

Fair enough. Lets see how this plays out, hopefully we have a solution for all parties.

Of course if the functionality was in the product In the first place then their wouldn't be this "issue" after all how hard can it be to do...oh yeah someone did already!

 

I get the support thing, but its a fairly thin argument, fsx is such a naff piece of software, that nearly every user has some mod to make it work, change it etc, and all of these likely have some eventual impact on any other module or add on.

 

It's this kind of innovation that the developer has shown that keeps flightsim on fsx alive, after all the NGX and most certainly the 777 are built on that concept, they have to do all sorts of clever things, stuff outside of the sim engine etc in order to be the excellent products they are. Half the Addons we have are either doing something to work around a bug, or lack of functionality of the sim.

 

Personally as a developer I'd be pleased that additional Addons are made that enhance my product, the level d sold so well because it had an sdk that allowed modules to be written to plug relatively cheap mcps into it,well ahead of pmdg who were still pedalling expensive interfaces that allowed single functionality with very expensive hardware. If someone said buy the pmdg because its great plane and you can plug this, that and the other into it to make it even better then surely that a good thing,realism is what we strive for, and as I always said having to click stuff with a mouse while flying isnt very realistic, most hardware is out of reach of many, and this app gave people chance to have an extra little bit of realism. Of course if it was that I was miffed as a developer that someone was making money out of something I failed to make, then perhaps I'd be a bit embarrassed, or even maybe something I was about to release and charge twice the price for..

 

I'm looking forward to the 777(747 more) but will be miffed if I find I'm back to clicking with a mouse because non of my hardware can be used with it and sdk's have so many stings attached and lacking in functionality that there no point them even existing!

 

I seem to remember PMDG being against the ms flight concept of restricting development and controlling the money and distribution...hate to think they now doing exactly what they didn't want done to them.

 

I too won't be installing any service pack that may prevent me from having this functionality, there many things that need fixing in the NGX but I'd rather keep these bugs/lack of features if it means I retain use of virtual cdu. The 777 will be uninstalled also if it contains code that does that covertly.

 

Innovation is what we need, not the American lawyer mentality of let's sue the world. I work with IPR issues all the time and quite frankly there would be more IPR to actually protect if the lawyers and commercial people didn't actually get in the way of it being created!

 

Thanks for not reading (or apparently understanding) a single word I've said on this topic today. I will not be commenting any further on this, the issue is being dealt with and whatever happens will happen. You can believe whatever you want to believe, it doesn't make it true.