I Loathe FSDT's COUATL!

[ZKOKQ 984]

Jim, I think the genuine users on this thread have been civil, so I was puzzled why you closed the topic. The only fly in the ointment was the nasty anti Avsim poster.

 

I thought just banning him (again) would have sufficed.

[Guest]

I'm done debating the problems with this product, instead I'd like to move to some more constructive "possible" work arounds or maybe even perminant solutions.

 

In your FSX\fsdreamteam\couatl right click on the Couatl.exe and select properties, click the compatibility tag, check the "Run As Administrator" option.  Do the same for the Couatl_Updater.exe (in the same folder).

 

Also, create a desktop shortcut for FSX.EXE ... in the shortcut, click the compatibility tab, select "Run As Administrator".

 

Launch FSX using this new shortcut.  Pick and Virtuali control airport and fly now.  If you get the prompt in FSX to update, go ahead and try it and report back please.  I haven't tried this process yet, but I'm going to later tonight and I hope that I don't lose all my airports again.  I know there is a GSX update pending.

 

Also, before doing an update, make sure all your airports are selected in the scenery library (enabled).

 

I'll report back my test results tonight as I've got CYVR, GSX, Hawaii1, Hawaii2, JFK2, KFLL, KIAD, KLAS, KSFO, OHareX, PHNL all at risk of being trashed.  Fingers crossed.

 

But as far as the Virtuali servers going down or having a problem during the middle of an update, only the developer can gracefully recover from this situation and obviously the Add-On manager doesn't appear to do any failure cleanup.

 

Rob

[ZKOKQ 984]

 

 

In your FSX\fsdreamteam\couatl right click on the Couatl.exe and select properties, click the compatibility tag, check the "Run As Administrator" option. Do the same for the Couatl_Updater.exe (in the same folder).

Thank you Rob. One thing I now will do is avoid updating on the fly (within FSX ) as I always seem to have issues after that, particularly GSX. Even now, the T7 front doors do not work as stated.

[scott967 62]

AFAIK, the "addon manager" is bglman.dll/bglmanx.dll and interacts with the eSellerate DRM which I think is one source of problems (not a big fan of eSellerate myself). 

 

Then there is couatl.exe which I guess is a python engine that allows the simconnect stuff to be written in python and compiled.  FSDT for the most part defines scenery and GSX objects as misc simobjects (you can see them in your simobjects) and then uses simconnect to actually display the objects (and move them about in the case of GSX), though IIRC they didn't do that with KDFW because of performance problems.

 

scott s.

.

[virtuali 4,421]

In your FSX\fsdreamteam\couatl right click on the Couatl.exe and select properties, click the compatibility tag, check the "Run As Administrator" option.  Do the same for the Couatl_Updater.exe (in the same folder)

There's no need to do that. ALL our products are 100% UAC compliant.

 

They never try to write something into the FSX folder (unless you specifically tell them to, for example if you explicitly configure Couatl to LOG into the FSX folder, it will comply with your order)

 

The only file writes we do, are made in %APPDATA% roaming folder for small user files preferences, and the C:\ProgramData\ folder for larger files that are not user-setting dependent, such as the Couatl airports cache.

 

This is correct, according to all standard UAC practices. The C:\ProgramData\ itself, by default requires admin permission (the ROOT) but, our installer correctly grant to your user name read/write permission for the C:\ProgramData\VIRTUALI sub-folder, which is a similar to what the FSX installer does for the C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\FSX folder.

 

They never try to access the HKLM registry, your Serial Number is stored ONLY the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Fsdreamteam. Have you EVER lost THIS key ? Because, this is the only key WE manage.

 

This means, if your user account is correctly configured, and you are RUNNING our software under the same user account you INSTALLED into, you will never have to give Admin access to FSX or any of our software. You might have to, for OTHER addons, not ours.

 

However, if you switch to another user, or you make a total restore from a backup with an user with the same *NAME* but with a different UUID (which is what usually happens if you reinstall Windows and try to restore by manually copying files/folders) there will be no registry keys set for you Serial Number, because that user is new so, you are mislead thinking "the registry keys have been wiped", but they aren't, it's just the user account is not the same anymore, and we correctly store all these settings at the *user* level, for the precise reason to be entirely UAC compliant.

 

If your user account has changed, you switched users, you restored from a backup and you new user has the same name, but has a different UUID, you'll have to do the following:

 

- Register the Serial Number again, so it will go into the new user registry. This WON'T count as a new activation, because the hardware is the same, and it will not even on online to check the activation, unless you really changed hardware OR reinstalled Windows on a new HDD.

 

- Reinstall GSX, so its installer could set all the proper permissions on the C:\ProgramData\Virtuali folder for the new user, which is mainly needed for the GSX Airport Cache.

 

The reason why you get the wrong impression we "lose activation keys", it's precisely the reason why we don't REQUIRE the program to get Admin access. Because of being fully UAC-compliant with everything running in the USER space, settings and registry Serial keys are user-based, which means a new user account should register again and reinstall.

 

If we weren't UAC compliant, we might have something that would look more "robust" as far as Serial registration works, but it would then REQUIRE to run everything, both FSX and Couatl.exe As Admin, which is not right, potentially dangerous and not really needed. Not for our software, in any case.

 

MY personal advice, which usually fixes most of the issues with other add-ons not being entirely UAC-aware, is to install FSX into C:\FSX (or any other folder you created), instead under C:\Program Files, because this will sort 99% of the issues of other non-UAC compliant FSX add-ons. The same result can be obtained without reinstalling FSX, by granting read+write permission to your own user name for the FSX main folder with sub-folders. 

 

It doesn't make any difference for our software, which happily runs with FSX installed in the default location with default permissions, but it might be safer for users that will not be tempted to start playing with User accounts to fix problems of non-UAC compliant products or enable the nasty Compatibility modes, which forces the video drivers to underperform, since they would revert to WDDM 1.0, creating visual issues too.

 

 

 

 

But as far as the Virtuali servers going down or having a problem during the middle of an update, only the developer can gracefully recover from this situation and obviously the Add-On manager doesn't appear to do any failure cleanup.

 

First, we have two servers located in entirely different places, which runs in parallel. One is our own (in Italy), the other is Dropbox, which is backed by Amazon bandwidth with multiple mirrors around the world.

 

The updater or any of our installers will select one of the two server randomly at start, and set the 2nd one to act as a mirror which means, if the main server is down during an update, the file is downloaded from the mirror. If by chance, the mirror also goes down during the update, it's usually enough to restart the installer, so the 1st and 2nd server might be exchanged so, unless they are *both* down at the same time, the downloads will work.

 

In the very unlikely event that BOTH mirrors are really down (not just for a moment), there's another backup in place: which is just installing with the NETWORK DISCONNECTED.

 

All our installers don't really "need" the online files. They download files in order to be sure you always get the latest version of them.

 

But they ALL contain ALL needed files for the product to work. They might not always be the very latest version in all installers, that's main point of having the online download feature in the first place.

 

But there's an exception: the Stand-Alone Addon Manager installer, since it's smaller, it's ALWAYS get updated and constantly kept in sync with the very latest online files.

 

Which means, in the very unlikely case everything goes wrong with all the servers at the same time, downloading the current Stand-Alone Addon Manager AND installing it as the last thing you do, with the network disconnected, will get you all the latest files AS IF the online server was up normally.

[pete_auau 1,159]

Umberto thanks  for the detailed  explanation

[Max Kraus 339]

This is the same I feel about the over engineered EZDOK.. I need their head movement thing in VC. I loath their camera views stuff...IT requires a Ph.D in EZDOK to get comfortable with it... 

 

If you're after a better dynamic head movement in VC try Opus FSX. Perfect interface. You get a great weather engine too as a bonus. I ditched EZDok ages ago.

[Q_flyer 766]

No disrespect, but the complexity and length of Umberto's post, reflects the (some feel unnecessary) complexity involved with the use of AM / Couatl. 

 

This is about scenery - not complex algorhythmic, calculation based add-on aircraft.   Now don't misinterpret that to mean that I am saying that scenery creation is easy, of course it's not; it's art, it's design, it's a hugely skilled process and only the best can create works of art like FlyTampa and FSDT sceneries.

 

But why should scenery require such complexity in it's installation, licencing, and even updating?..... When I install a FlyTampa scenery, I enter a key, the scenery installs, and I will never have issues with that product again.  Whether I change hardware, my PC, nothing.        Software using Couatl / AM, is just too much of a contrast to that simplicity I get with other products.

 

This thread is full of people praising the FSDT scenery design;  it is beautiful and up there with the best.    But it is a shame Umberto that you chose not to acknowledge the feedback  and views in the thread about AM, Coualt, errors, pop-ups, and the whole debate on the necessity (or lack of) to have an authentication system running inside FSX, with all the risks and added complexity that that entails.

[hawkeye52 8]

 

 

No disrespect, but the complexity and length of Umberto's post, reflects the (some feel unnecessary) complexity involved with the use of AM / Couatl.

 

I really don't post here often (long time lurker) but I have to support this statement.  I have been eyeing these scenery products for a long time and have heard nothing but wonderful things about their quality.  Unfortunately, after reading this thread I'll have to avoid them for now.

 

I have a few payware aircraft (NGX, VRS, A2A) that add enough overheard to FSX (and necessarily so to do what's going on under the hood).  Scenery should not be that way.  I have a suite of Flight1 scenery products and I coudn't be happier with their installation process.

 

What I love about Flight1 is that you download the product before purchasing, register your account with it, pay for the product, and after payment, the installer extracts an essentially DRM free installer.  All the scenery products I've gotten from Flight1 have no overhead.  I also have a couple aerosoft scenery packages and those as well don't require additional DLLs, EXEs, or whatnot, and nor should they!

 

A scenery product should NEVER require the kind of lengthy explanation that FSDT is describing.  There are probably five or six scenery packages I really want from FSDT, but one needs to vote with their wallet on such policies.

[simmerhead 885]

I stay away from any FSDT products as well. Apart from FSUIPC I don't want any module installed into FSX. Too bad. Their airports look stunning!

[virtuali 4,421]

No disrespect, but the complexity and length of Umberto's post, reflects the (some feel unnecessary) complexity involved with the use of AM / Couatl.

You call my previous post "complex" ? That's hurts...yesterday night, I was working on the REAL post, which was something like 10 times bigger than that.

 

And while I was working at it, this thread was locked, so I couldn't post it anymore, which is why I've asked the moderator to reopen it, so I could post my reply.

 

Which is not the one you call complex and long, that was just a QUICK reply explaining why the suggestion of running FSX and Couatl.exe "As Admin" doesn't apply to our software, and what other issues might mislead an user the registry keys could somehow "lost", when they aren't, as a side effect of being 100% UAC compliant.

 

The issue is, you are saying my "long" reply (you should have seen the other one...) was proof of the "unnecessary" complexity of those modules, because those are "just sceneries"...but fact is, you say this BECAUSE you lack the background knowledge, which unfortunately REQUIRES an explanation way longer than what I've just posted, which you feel too be too long already.

 

So, it seems there's no way out of this:

 

- If I post all the background information you need in order to make up your informed decision about WHY this supposedly "unnecessary" complexity is in fact needed, even for just "simple" scenery, you might say the very explanation is proof the complexity was unnecessary in the first place!

 

- But if I posted something very short, like

 

Of all people that posted here, the only one that has some grounds to say why a scenery designer would want to use the AM/Couatl, is Mir from Flightbeam, because HE'S a scenery designer (and a very good one too) and you aren't, and he knows what it does.

 

That would look very rude, not my style of communication (I want users to UNDERSTAND and LEARN about the issues, and that comes only with "complex" and "long" explanations).

 

So, I'm not sure how to proceed.

 

I saved my long reply, but I'm not sure if it's still a good idea to post it because, there's the risk that some people, instead of reading it entirely and trying to understand it, with all its implications, including thoughts about moving forward in scenery design for the future considering the limitation of the FSX engine, will simply look at its length and will go away with their original idea.

 

So, I'm tempted to simply reply this way:

 

You have to TRUST US

 

Without the Addon Manager and Coatl modules, we couldn't do sceneries like KDFW, KLAX, CYVR and JFK V2.

 

Not that we "couldn't do them", we couldn't do as they are now, we would have had to compromise on quality (=no shaders on ground textures, for example), performances (we would have to use slower FS8 code), loss of full DX10 compatibility, animated jetways (static jetways is an easy way to boost fps).

 

There are sceneries out there that looks very good, but no scenery has ALL those features TOGETHER.

 

They either miss animated jetways, or they miss full DX10 compatibility, or they miss shaders on ground, or they have bad fps, or they are purposely chosen to be located in the middle of nowhere, so they can go overboard with wasting memory and sub-optimizing, because there's nothing around the airport and the default scenery there ran at 200 fps. Or they are tiny airports , taking more memory and resources than JFK.

 

And Flightbeam KIAD too, it has some novel design techniques (which I haven't seen anywhere else), and they work by means of the Couatl script engine. I read many comments about Mir being one of the top scenery designers out there, and why's that ? Because he comes from the the "real" videogames market, which means he known what he's doing as a modeler/artist, and he's *frustrated* like everybody else by the limitations of the FSX graphic engine but, instead of just complaining and keep designing sceneries as if it was 2004, he's smart enough to understand the need to bypass some of the most annoying limitations in FSX, which is why he licensed the Addon Manager + Couatl modules.

[guidos 2]

You call my previous post "complex" ? That's hurts...yesterday night, I was working on the REAL post, which was something like 10 times bigger than that.

 

And while I was working at it, this thread was locked, so I couldn't post it anymore, which is why I've asked the moderator to reopen it, so I could post my reply.

 

Which is not the one you call complex and long, that was just a QUICK reply explaining why the suggestion of running FSX and Couatl.exe "As Admin" doesn't apply to our software, and what other issues might mislead an user the registry keys could somehow "lost", when they aren't, as a side effect of being 100% UAC compliant.

 

The issue is, you are saying my "long" reply (you should have seen the other one...) was proof of the "unnecessary" complexity of those modules, because those are "just sceneries"...but fact is, you say this BECAUSE you lack the background knowledge, which unfortunately REQUIRES an explanation way longer than what I've just posted, which you feel too be too long already.

 

So, it seems there's no way out of this:

 

- If I post all the background information you need in order to make up your informed decision about WHY this supposedly "unnecessary" complexity is in fact needed, even for just "simple" scenery, you might say the very explanation is proof the complexity was unnecessary in the first place!

 

- But if I posted something very short, like

 

Of all people that posted here, the only one that has some grounds to say why a scenery designer would want to use the AM/Couatl, is Mir from Flightbeam, because HE'S a scenery designer (and a very good one too) and you aren't, and he knows what it does.

 

That would look very rude, not my style of communication (I want users to UNDERSTAND and LEARN about the issues, and that comes only with "complex" and "long" explanations).

 

So, I'm not sure how to proceed.

 

I saved my long reply, but I'm not sure if it's still a good idea to post it because, there's the risk that some people, instead of reading it entirely and trying to understand it, with all its implications, including thoughts about moving forward in scenery design for the future considering the limitation of the FSX engine, will simply look at its length and will go away with their original idea.

 

So, I'm tempted to simply reply this way:

 

You have to TRUST US

 

Without the Addon Manager and Coatl modules, we couldn't do sceneries like KDFW, KLAX, CYVR and JFK V2.

 

Not that we "couldn't do them", we couldn't do as they are now, we would have had to compromise on quality (=no shaders on ground textures, for example), performances (we would have to use slower FS8 code), loss of full DX10 compatibility, animated jetways (static jetways is an easy way to boost fps).

 

There are sceneries out there that looks very good, but no scenery has ALL those features TOGETHER.

 

They either miss animated jetways, or they miss full DX10 compatibility, or they miss shaders on ground, or they have bad fps, or they are purposely chosen to be located in the middle of nowhere, so they can go overboard with wasting memory and sub-optimizing, because there's nothing around the airport and the default scenery there ran at 200 fps. Or they are tiny airports , taking more memory and resources than JFK.

 

And Flightbeam KIAD too, it has some novel design techniques (which I haven't seen anywhere else), and they work by means of the Couatl script engine. I read many comments about Mir being one of the top scenery designers out there, and why's that ? Because he comes from the the "real" videogames market, which means he known what he's doing as a modeler/artist, and he's *frustrated* like everybody else by the limitations of the FSX graphic engine but, instead of just complaining and keep designing sceneries as if it was 2004, he's smart enough to understand the need to bypass some of the most annoying limitations in FSX, which is why he licensed the Addon Manager + Couatl modules.

Make the addon manager working properly, then people would not complain and you don't have to write such long posts. Problem solved. Thanks

[virtuali 4,421]

Make the addon manager working properly, then people would not complain and you don't have to write such long posts. Problem solved. Thanks

 

The Addon Manager works properly, this thread is about COUATL, not the Addon Manager, which doesn't really do much and it's not something that usually fails.

 

So Couatl, as with any other Windows program can suffer from problems caused other products (mostly, antivirus, which affect many other modules, see Flight1, see PMDG Ops Center), or issues with the Windows configuration like missing libraries, issues with Simconnect, etc.

 

The long post was probably let people UNDERSTAND why these issues happens, why they SEEM to be "caused" by the our software, when in most cases is something else.

 

There were many different issues raised here, and some comments about problems with Activation happened because THIS WEEK, Esellerate is having have problems with some of their Activation servers which couldn't be reached for some reason. This caused to trigger the manual Activation method, which is more complex, but it's not the normal activation system, which resulted in an "Esellerate Fatal Failure" when trying to activate online, which is the simple procedure that always worked flawlessly for the past 8 years we worked with Esellerate.

 

We have been in touch with Esellerate engineering since several days by now, and they are confirmed the problem to be on their own side, are working on a fix, but couldn't provide a precise estimate how much time it will take to have it fixed.

 

So, this added complication happened this week, added to the fact that we *UPDATE* our modules very often (so they tend to be blocked by too aggressive antivirus, because they haven't build up enough "reputation"), is likely added to the frustration with some users, which might be the reason of this thread.

 

But again, I doubt that anything I can say we'll ever make you change your mind, judging from your reply.

 

If anyone would like to read my "real long reply", to really know ALL the story, I think it's much better if you request it to me with a private message or by email.

[Paul J 349]

Hi Umberto:

 

I'm not about to join the fray here - only to ask that you do not allow the forum tone to affect your creative, artistic and programming skills - nor your professional demeanour when managing consumer issues. These will always be present, regardless of application complexity.

 

Many thank you for your courageous responses, but - in your own words - "It seems there's no way out of this." 

 

All the Best,

 

Paul J

[pumrigar 0]

Thanks. Atleast I now know that my particular issue was due to a problem with the esellerate servers and not my PC.