Hey klamal,

 

I guess what I really meant was that there's no evidence or supporting comments to say how the app works, but by 'Tabs' posting that message, its put doubt on the product, when he hasn't actually proved there to be anything wrong here. However, that post my now put people off buying the app, and that means the guy the created something the community want, will potentially lose sales and reward for his effort.

 

If PMDG posted saying, we have investigated and the way this app works in violation. Then so be it. But they didn't.

 

It's not beyond PMDG as a software company to investigate first, and then to make an educated post.

 

I guess I feel defensive for the guy, as the app is a good example of what can be done and great development for our hobby.

B)

 

True.  He may lose sales now for his effort while this hangs in the balance.  But, if he violated the EULA, then he kind of has it coming.  Again, I say "If" here.  I/we don't know all the facts yet(I don't think) to know for sure.

 

'Tabs' maybe wouldn't have to do much "investigation" really.  I think he would know his product/SDK well enough to know how someone would gain access to manipulate their data.  But, again, we don't know for sure yet or we don't have all the facts for this part either.

 

I'm not saying this would be bad for the developer and that to some extent, I don't feel bad for him(and for the community here too).  It's a great app.  It would be a shame if we "lost" it due to some EULA violation.  But, it's all part of business.  He should have checked in the beginning before going through all this work in the first place.

 

Again, hopefully this comes to a resolution that benefits everyone and we don't lose this app either via SP2(for the NGX) or via some other means where we are no longer allowed to run it.

I have been using this app since the 7th of March. It is the best thing since sliced bread! The app is rock soild, it just works perfect.

 

I showed RSR a picture of the app on my phone at the award dinner in Wichita. FANCON 2013.

 

Not sure how or why PMDG has not know about this app but guessing yall have been a little busy.

 

RSR needs to reach out to the developer, find out how he did it, work up an agreement and get this technology moving forward. This can be a great revenue source for PMDG.

 

$20 USD is a nice price point, I'm sure Virtual Avionics will work on volume pricing allowing the 20 dollar end user price point to remane as they will see sales go through the roof.

 

PMDG blesses the apps, gets there cut (40%), Virtual Avionics builds the apps, gets there cut (60%) we desk jockeys get the goods that add to the happness that is PMDG.

 

This is a WIN WIN WIN for all.

 

Ryan and Robert it is time to go make this happen!!

 

That is all

 

Ben

Definitely agree and feel very strongly about this. It's apps and developers like these that really make FSX/P3D one of the best flight sims out there. I appreciate the guy's effort and talents. I sure hope things can be worked out on this as I'd hate to see this project die because of an EULA agreement. Surely something can be done that will benefit both the developer of this app and PMDG. Cause in the end, it'll just make the community much happier knowing we have access to great tools and apps that transform our flight simming experience and takes it to the next level.

For RSR,

Here is a reminder pic, I'm that guy that got to spend a few minutes hanging out with the Boss!!

Awesome evening it was!

Ben.

This is a WIN WIN WIN for all.

 

but the iFly 737 users ....?

 

 

 

 

 

 

but the iFly 737 users ....?

 

They got the app. They are winners.

I have been using this app since the 7th of March. It is the best thing since sliced bread! The app is rock soild, it just works perfect.

 

I showed RSR a picture of the app on my phone at the award dinner in Wichita. FANCON 2013.

 

Not sure how or why PMDG has not know about this app but guessing yall have been a little busy.

 

RSR needs to reach out to the developer, find out how he did it, work up an agreement and get this technology moving forward. This can be a great revenue source for PMDG.

 

$20 USD is a nice price point, I'm sure Virtual Avionics will work on volume pricing allowing the 20 dollar end user price point to remane as they will see sales go through the roof.

 

PMDG blesses the apps, gets there cut (40%), Virtual Avionics builds the apps, gets there cut (60%) we desk jockeys get the goods that add to the happness that is PMDG.

 

This is a WIN WIN WIN for all.

 

Ryan and Robert it is time to go make this happen!!

 

That is all

 

Ben

 

Hear! Hear!

 

While no one can deny PMDG has the final "say" on their NGX (plus their accompanying SDK and EULA) and how 3PDs choose to develop for it, it is also equally compelling to realize that this product is a HUGE benefit to the flight sim hobbyist, and it's hard to see how this is 'bad'.  

 

PMDG says "don't use" FSUIPC to calibrate control surfaces on the NGX, but many of us (including me) do just that.  So one must accept that in the realm of a HOBBY, it's going to happen that people try different things to make their overall end-user experience more fun.

 

When an independent guy builds something that is LIGHT YEARS better than the "accepted solution" of dragging a detached FMC window over to a 'mini VGA display' (FlightDeckSolutions, VRinsight), you would hope PMDG would find a way to embrace it, or at minimum, issue a "use at your own risk - not supported by PMDG" edict.

 

Clearly, if PMDG were selling this exact app, none of us would have a problem buying it, and thus the ultimate end solution may well be to join the revenue stream between PMDG and the actual developer and let them split the rewards.  

 

To simply maul the guy and destroy the product, that is something that would seem like overkill to me, and I would be very unhappy to lose the functionality which has been thrilling since the moment I first connected it.

 

X-Plane (Laminar Research) has had it's future threatened by the danger of bankruptcy because of an intellectual property dispute (patent violation lawsuit).  I would dearly hope that Captain Randazzo and the fine group at PMDG could find a higher ground to encourage value-added products that work seamlessly with their aircraft.  Honestly, I can see no problems after using this, it works as well and as reliably as the virtual CDU, without having to pop open a larger window so I can mouse-enter my route data (and more).

 

Were this app to no longer be available, I would be severely disappointed.  I tried the hardware CDU from VRInsight.  It was kludgy and slow.  So much so I had no problem selling it away recently.  To top matters off, the mini-VGA never did EXACTLY match up with the side keys, it was obvious it was imperfect from a programming perspective.  Additionally, the CDU-II put too many extra steps in my way when I fired up the sim, as well.  One of the things I liked in XPlane 10 was the Triple 7 (Worldliner) has a direct FMC via Web Browser interface included, no charge.  That feature, nice as it is, is not NEARLY as good as the Virtual CDU IMHO.

 

Hopefully Tabs and the guys/gals at PMDG will either bless this guy, or find a way we can all co-exist together, for the benefit of everyone involved.  I would think of all companies, PMDG would be a bit more user-friendly, provided the app involved did no harm.

 

but the iFly 737 users ....?

 

That's another point!  I own the iFly - and NEVER use it.  But if the DEV of Virtual CDU were to enter into an agreement with PMDG, it would be dicey about how revenue could be shared in view of the iFly product.  In my mind, the guy should up his price $5 or $10 and split that extra money with PMDG/iFly.  I am sure people would still buy this at $30, $40 or even $50 - it's THAT good.  The FMC is what makes the NGX so appealing, and having it sitting beside us, instead of dragging it to another display (and taking the frames hit) is just too wonderful to take away from the sim community.

 

BTW, AFAIK, using the PMDG 737NGX on Prepar3D is -ALSO- a violation of the PMDG EULA!  And yet a whole army of simmers have elected to do just that.  I can't see any huge difference with P3D, and remain only on FSX/X-Plane.

 

So at what point does a 'violation of the PMDG EULA' become ethically unsupportable?  Or put another way, which intellectual property 'violations' rise to the level of sanctioning with extreme prejudice, and which ones are more like jaywalking or a parking ticket?

 

The lawyers will doubtless scream wolf and have a field day, but the sim community has opinions as well.  Is PMDG being harmed by us using this product?  One could argue that possibly their support call ticket volume might have an uptick, though thus far I can say I have had ZERO problems using this product, which I can NOT say about Linda (LUA Scripting Interface), FSUIPC (registered), and REX ESSENTIAL PLUS OD, all of which I use daily, and all of which have burned substantial amounts of non-flight hours with technical issues vis-a-vis the NGX.  They may be compliant as heck with the PMDG EULA, but the fact is, their products need to be tweaked to interact properly with the NGX.

 

I read a lot of forum discussions, but generally do NOT ask PMDG directly for support.  I recognize that the myriad number of 3PD products on the typical flight deck simply offer too many ways to foul up your sim experience.  To say product A, B, or C is "the culprit" in any given scenario - I wouldn't want to make that call!  In plain language, unless someone can prove to me that Virtual CDU is causing any sort of threat to the performance of the PMDG NGX, why not take a deep breath and let well enough alone? :blush:

this thread has now both increased and withheld further sales, the latter due to loyal ngx customers who feel morally obliged to halt at this moment.

 

well, i'd say

 

1. innocent until proven otherwise.

2. this eula thing is no concern to me as enduser (please correct me if i am wrong here. do i have a moral obligation?)

3. if PMDG discourages to buy this app, then please create it yourself, i will buy it.

4. It doesn't end with pmdg product. i want this for the airbus extended as well. and with the upcoming LD757 later this year (did i say that?)

 

 

and if, and i'll repeat that .. IF this turns out to have actually been an overlook on the authors site, i'm sure it's unintentional, their marketing is virtually non-existent by the looks of it. Lucky for them this thing is so good it can  market itself via word to mouth or other cost-free channels. perhaps it comes as a total surprise to them all this fuzz.

It is a great app, and clearly has support.

 

Not really a helpful post from 'Tabs' who intentionally, or by mistake just sounded bitter that someone's done a good thing and it wasn't PMDG.

 

A great example of the community showing what they would like, and not being told.

 

Great solution for cockpit builders and the rest of us!

Agreed. Something everyone enjoys immensely that have tablets (and more and more people seem to have them). Don't know why pmdg does not want the data read onto it? Unless they are going to release something like this but with them that will likely be a long long time to we see it. I have it and plan to continue using it.

 

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

This is probably why the flyengravity hardware cdu has no support for the NGX - it has to read directly from config files and does not use the 'drag and drop' approach by FDS and Opencockpit.

 

Regardless, I find it sad that this EULA limits the potential of this fine aircraft. They should look at companies like Valve who allow developers to use their software engine to develop impressive addons.

 

PMDG blesses the apps, gets there cut (40%), Virtual Avionics builds the apps, gets there cut (60%) we desk jockeys get the goods that add to the happness that is PMDG.

 

This is a WIN WIN WIN for all.

 

 

Don't forget that Apple/google also take 30%... Not sure why PMDG should get 40% - this type of thing is why they released an SDK in the first place.

 

 

 

Paul Hand

Sent from my Virtual CDU using Tapatalk HD

First, I totally admire PMDG 737NGX, it is the ONLY plane I fly in FSX, period.  A main contributing reason why I returned to FSX after being lured to the darkside (X-Plane 10). After some time, I realized the AIRPLANE was more important than any other part of the sim environment, and honestly,  no one builds payware aircraft to the level of detail that PMDG has showered us with thus far in the NGX (and the enticing prospect of the upcoming T7).  I will also say that I fly with online ATC (PilotEdge) 99.99% of my flight time, and that it is VERY important to me that I can make rapid changes in the flight plan per ATC directly to my FMC.  I can also say that while I own spare display monitors, I do not wish to cripple my frames rate by connecting more than ONE monitor to FSX.

 

Thus the Virtual CDU is a Godsend bit of software for me, and I thank my stars I discovered it.  I have flown a number of flights using it, and all systems interoperate together as expected, no issues, no problems. I did turn AutoPilot "REALISTIC" setting to "OFF".  It was simply too twitchy trying to engage the A/P if the AofA wasn't just right, or if the wings weren't level.

 

At any rate, all systems working just peachy, and the CDU is as important to me as the airplane itself!  I love the fact that it's beside me, and works by touch just as if I were pressing the keys on an actual FMC.  On the huge 10.1 Samsung Note tablet display, the impact on your immersion is spectacular (it's one louder now, isn't it?) to say the least.

 

So, I'm very much concerned when one of their staff, a guy I admire (Ryan Mariarz, "Tabs") points out that there may be an issue with the EULA and a piece of software that I find immensely valuable.  I can only fervently hope that behind the scenes, PMDG will communicate with the dev who built the Virtual CDU and 'work things out' so that all parties are happy and that we, the end-users of the plane, continue to enjoy the experience that is exclusively PMDG in combination with this wonderful new add-on for Android or iPad.. It's hard to imagine PMDG doing anything other than the right thing to resolve this matter equitably and to the benefit of their vast user base.  I would look for more word on this from PMDG via their forum(s) at some point in the not-distant future.  If I were involved in the decision, I would issue a statement something along the lines like "use at your own risk - this product not endorsed or supported by PMDG".

 

But of course it is not my call.  It is up to Captain Randazzo and the PMDG team. 

The success of the entire flight simulator genre is based on the expandability of the simulator platforms. FSX, X-Plane, Prepar-3d...all would be a shadow of their current selves were extensive modding were not allowed. What if FSUIPC violated the Microsoft EULA? I'm told that EZ-Dok functions by modifying FSX memory addresses- I could certainly imagine that Microsoft wouldn't endorse this. The NGX itself is built on the ability to interface *meaningfully* with the simulation. It would be disappointing if PMDG was so against third parties expanding further upon their products. 

 

Nevertheless, whether this is actually a violation of the terms depends on the exact implementation of virtual CDU. It is clearly not allowed if they are redistributing a modified version of a PMDG file. However, if you write a program that modifies the original file *which is provided by the user*, or if you merely interface with the original program in an unintended way, then it is much more of a gray area. It is notable that 'jailbreaking' a phone IS explicitly legal, even though it involves third parties actively circumventing protections and modifying the original Apple system files. Nothing Apple can say in their conditions can remove this legal right, although they can (and do) make it technically challenging for those who try to jailbreak. I wonder if virtual CDU may fall into a similar category. At any rate, if no proprietary files are being illegally distributed, then I don't see anything wrong with the situation. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I don't think Virtual Avionics *needs* to contact PMDG at all. I do think they should have talked to PMDG, but I don't think they have to - if they are not distributing proprietary files then everything that they are selling is their own work.

 

Of course, PMDG has the right to update the NGX to break virtual CDU, and that's OK too, even if it results in a lot of disappointed PMDG customers. 

 

By the way, I think this talk of PMDG getting a cut from virtual CDU is nonsense, unless they want to distribute PMDG intellectual property or collaborate on development. However, the program is already written without PMDG's assistance. PMDG is no more entitled to a cut of virtual CDU's sales than Microsoft is entitled to a cut if I write a program that runs on Windows. Apple and Google receive a cut of revenue on their app stores because they distribute the apps, so if PMDG were to sell virtual CDU on their website, this would be a scenario in which a commission would be appropriate. If virtual CDU wanted PMDG to make changes on their end, then this would be another profit-sharing scenario. But as it stands, I don't think it's appropriate for PMDG to get a cut from the existing work (again, providing no proprietary files are being distributed). It would also set a terrible precedent for the expansion/modding community.

VirtualCDU is simply amazing

I have been using it since its release

I ask PMDG to play nice with each other and come to terms amicably since this application is a true reality game changer

The success of the entire flight simulator genre is based on the expandability of the simulator platforms. FSX, X-Plane, Prepar-3d...all would be a shadow of their current selves were extensive modding were not allowed. What if FSUIPC violated the Microsoft EULA? I'm told that EZ-Dok functions by modifying FSX memory addresses- I could certainly imagine that Microsoft wouldn't endorse this. The NGX itself is built on the ability to interface *meaningfully* with the simulation. It would be disappointing if PMDG was so against third parties expanding further upon their products. 

 

Nevertheless, whether this is actually a violation of the terms depends on the exact implementation of virtual CDU. It is clearly not allowed if they are redistributing a modified version of a PMDG file. However, if you write a program that modifies the original file *which is provided by the user*, or if you merely interface with the original program in an unintended way, then it is much more of a gray area. It is notable that 'jailbreaking' a phone IS explicitly legal, even though it involves third parties actively circumventing protections and modifying the original Apple system files. Nothing Apple can say in their conditions can remove this legal right, although they can (and do) make it technically challenging for those who try to jailbreak. I wonder if virtual CDU may fall into a similar category. At any rate, if no proprietary files are being illegally distributed, then I don't see anything wrong with the situation. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I don't think Virtual Avionics *needs* to contact PMDG at all. I do think they should have talked to PMDG, but I don't think they have to - if they are not distributing proprietary files then everything that they are selling is their own work.

 

Of course, PMDG has the right to update the NGX to break virtual CDU, and that's OK too, even if it results in a lot of disappointed PMDG customers. 

 

By the way, I think this talk of PMDG getting a cut from virtual CDU is nonsense, unless they want to distribute PMDG intellectual property or collaborate on development. However, the program is already written without PMDG's assistance. PMDG is no more entitled to a cut of virtual CDU's sales than Microsoft is entitled to a cut if I write a program that runs on Windows. Apple and Google receive a cut of revenue on their app stores because they distribute the apps, so if PMDG were to sell virtual CDU on their website, this would be a scenario in which a commission would be appropriate. If virtual CDU wanted PMDG to make changes on their end, then this would be another profit-sharing scenario. But as it stands, I don't think it's appropriate for PMDG to get a cut from the existing work (again, providing no proprietary files are being distributed). It would also set a terrible precedent for the expansion/modding community.

 

What a well-reasoned and well-stated post!  I think you have given this issue much thought, and have clarified the situation.  One can only hope that PMDG will embrace the public-relations "WIN" by doing the right thing.  It would be devastating to me if they somehow blocked Virtual CDU from working with the NGX.  

 

Virtual CDU is a game-changer, no question.  I shudder to think of the 500+ hours I flew without it (when I didn't know it existed).  The biggest thing is it brings touch control to the flight deck, on a separate device, and thus does not "block your view" of your cockpit.  The fact you don't have to open the FMC in your Virtual Cockpit in order to operate Virtual CDU is HUGE all by itself.  In my mind, Virtual CDU is as important to me as Rex, or Garmin Pilot, FSUIPC, or Linda.  It's critically-important and its value is unsurpassed.

 

After reading the EULA, I'm less worried about a problem for the DEV, albeit the DEV needs to fix a few issues, chief of which is communicating with PMDG to ensure his app is compliant with the terms of the SDK EULA.  Part of that compliance revolves around issues like "private entertainment use ONLY- not for commercial firms running the NGX for a training tool", and "including and displaying the NGX SDK EULA at the time of installation of the new third party software and requiring the end-user to agree to the terms of the SDK EULA."

 

I don't see how the actual PROGRAM ITSELF does anything "horrible" with respect to sending data blocks to the airplane.  In my mind Virtual CDU is no different from other software products offered by VRInsight or others like FlightDeckSolutions where the stand-alone mini-VGA monitors and physical keypad buttons on their aftermarket FMC devices write commands back to the airplane which are then displayed and reflected on the VIRTUAL CDU in the NGX COCKPIT.  All that's 'different' in this app that I can see is that the dev of Virtual CDU doesn't require us to buy a hardware CDU, he made his app drive existing external hardware (to wit the iPad or Android Tablet devices) and took touch input from those devices and sends it back and forth to the airplane via IP packets.  In plain language, other major manufacturers already produce products with interface with the NGX CDU and read AND write data to and from the NGX in real time.  So I don't think Virtual CDU is in any way doing something wrong other than failing to distribute the SDK EULA, require confirmation and agreement to the SDK EULA by the ultimate user ("US"), and of course, getting permission from PMDG.

 

I think if the dev of Virtual CDU were to communicate with PMDG, a compliant product and its accompanying installation routine could be released with minimal fuss and bother.  I furthermore don't see a reason why the dev would need to pay money to PMDG, as it appears that the PMDG SDK EULA envisions third-party applications being built to control the airplane by exterior means, some of which was foreseen and some of which have yet to be imagined.  I don't see language within the EULA where PMDG is seeking money for such products, providing they are compliant with the EULA for the SDK.  (Notwithstanding illegal use or other penalty provisions of the EULA).