No. if they're using a hack, we legally can't go that route.

 

About what hack do you talk?

About what hack do you talk?

kterz stated:

Tom,

 

there are no miracles in computer science. If you see the data (clouds in this case) inside your sim, then it's somewhere in memory and it can be read. It's just a matter of having the technical competence and giving yourself enough time (months) and patience being dedicated to your goal. So, once again I invite you to take a (closer this time) look at ASN and what it offers

That's what is called a hack. Where you hack into the software to determine what you can find out. I suppose a more polite term might be reverse engineering, except they didn't actually reverse engineer the sim's code but merely figured out how to read areas of it's memory use.

 

There are legal reasons why Mindstar Aviation can not support such approaches.

Interesting enough, PMDG have changed their T7 EULA in a way that "4th party developers" are not allowed anymore to read the PMDG variables directly, but have to wait until PMDG release their T7 SDK to them.

 

I believe that's the analogy to what we're discussing here.

FWIW though FSUIPC has been doing hooking and code injection for ages.....

 

Not advocating doing so on PMDG's equipment as there is really no valid reason to even do so there (they can provide more developer friendly access for hardware easily) but when it comes to things like controlling the ambient precipitation variables to overcome FSX limitations I cant say I see whats wrong with that. Source code is not being modified or stolen. MS property is not being distributed. License protection systems are not being violated. Whats the problem?

Whats the problem?

Read the Microsoft EULA, figure it out. There is a legal issue here.

Read the Microsoft EULA, figure it out. There is a legal issue here.

 

 

In the United States...maybe...sort of... :lol: (which I fully realize likely applies to you so ignore the rest of this post if you will)

 

That really hinges on which court hears the case, even with DMCA interoperability exemptions. 

 

The EU on the other hand is very clear, that as long as any reverse engineering or circumvention isn't done in an effort to create a competing product (and that details aren't shared), then do what you will.

 

To be clear, I am not taking either side, and absolutely do not wish to rehash the traditional, protracted, AVSIM IP Debate 2014 Edition, when so few are actually able to make informed comments, though for anyone that is really bored, you might start here.

 

EDIT: I will add though, this is a pretty cynical thread. Not really sure I understand how it ended up where it is.

I don't think there's a "side". I'm simply stating that Mindstar Aviation won't cross that line. It's not a risk worth taking as any legal proceedings would be absurdly expensive.

Well Ed, as I probably said during another similar thread, P3D presents an opportunity for 3rd party developers to work with LM to put these sorts of issues to bed.  If the only way to access certain data in FSX requires what you call a "hack" then by all means raise these issues with the LM people so they can properly expose the data you need in their interface.  I'm no legal mind myself, so I have nothing to add to the argument over whether such and such constitutes a technical EULA breach, but my thoughts are this:  FSX might be a dead horse, subject to these disparate interpretations, but P3Dv2 need not be plagued with these sorts of frustrations going forward.  Groups like Hi Fi or Mindstar have the ability to get stuff added to the P3D SDK if they make a case for it, don't they?

We have no more control over what goes into Prepar3D than anyone else here at AVSIM. Only L-M can "make the call", anything else is simply a request that may or may not ever happen.

We have no more control over what goes into Prepar3D than anyone else here at AVSIM. Only L-M can "make the call", anything else is simply a request that may or may not ever happen.

 

No, I understand that LM calls the shots, obviously, not you 3rd party developers, I'm just saying that from my own consumer standpoint, these are the exactly the kinds of things that I hope 3rd party developers such as yourself are aggressively raising with the LM people, if you think there is some kind of barricade to implementing a capability that is clearly in demand.   We out here in consumerland hear a lot about how such and such cannot be done due to FSX limitations, so it naturally follows that 3rd party developers who are most familiar with the ins and outs, should be the ones lobbying the LM developers to make possible what was not previously possible, or which had heretofore required questionable workarounds.  Certainly I imagine if a known developer asked for certain things it would carry more weight than if a chump like King Ghidorah, or any other random person on Avsim asked for the same. 

Since this topic is going South with discussions about licensing restrictions and EULA's and reverse engineering, and moving toward violating our Terms of Service, I'm going to lock this before it gets further out of hand.