FSX-SE IMPORTANT Re SDK- Seems DTG/Steam have mis-sold the product.

[mgh 89]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I find it strange in the extreme that although DTG most certainly has at least one and probably more members reading this, they have not responded.

 

To me this absolutely confirms the worst of all cases.

 

Perhaps DTG didn't think it was worth while?

[Anxu00 176]

I am not a developer of add-on for FSX.  However I have question: if the DTG is recompiling and fixing bugs, even without introducing any new feature at all, at some points some issues will need a SDK update?  Not releasing the SDK sounds to me that there will be incompatibility issue with 3rd Party add-on down the road between FSX and FSX-SE.

[Milviz 919]

DTG is not, so far as I know (or understand) allowed to modify the FSX (SE) codebase such that 3rd party devs would be locked out.  Not putting the SDK in is a cheap and easy method of doing so and, fortunately, has no effect on us as devs becuase, as previously stated, we use the P3D exporters.

 

That said, I can pretty much guarantee that any new sim that they do will be similar at least to what DCS is doing.  Closed, with them cherry picking who gets what and when and at what cost.  As an example of how this works, I own part of a model that was done for DCS though I cannot say what it is.

 

ED takes 30% off the top of what's left after the 30% for Steam.  Though I find this a tad unfair... at least ED has put (a ton of) money into their sim.  DTG... not so much.  And, I can tell you that DTG aren't NEARLY as generous as ED.  

 

All you really have to do is look at what DTG did/does with Train Sim.  Support is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent...  There's no real available SDK and, it's a pretty much closed system with DTG controlling nearly, if not all, aspects of any DLC or addon.

 

The leopards spots do not change.  If they do what they did to Train Sim, it's an absolute CERTAINTY that they will try to do the same in Flight Sim.  Guaranteed.

[mgh 89]

....and secondly to repress discussion through a draconian NDA that has nothing whatever to do with protecting the rights of all the parties, but simply to prevent it being known what lousy deals they are offering.

An NDA covers what's in it in order to protect the rights of all the parties  If it covers financial or commercial matters then they are included it. One can't pick and choose which parts of the NDA you choose to ignore. Presumably you did agree to that NDA?

 

As I said another thread asking if I knew what were DTG's interests I replied:

 

Yes - to make money from  the flight sim community (or any one) for its private investors.

My position still hasn't changed.  DTGs interests are not those of other developers nor of posters on these forums etc. The sooner that's realised the better and we can back to reality.

[robert young 2,897]

An NDA covers what's in it in order to protect the rights of all the parties  If it covers financial or commercial matters then they are included it. One can't pick and choose which parts of the NDA you choose to ignore. Presumably you did agree to that NDA?

 

 

I have already stated twice in threads you saw that I did not sign an NDA but I have already pointed out to you (again twice I think) that an NDA is not enforceable where it creates an imbalance between the bargaining power of the parties or where its ramifications are already in the public domain, This is not my opinion but is the law. None of the conditions of the NDA I was presented with - and for the third time I confirm I did not sign - had any elements which protect the rights of both parties, but were solely to protect DTG in suppressing knowledge about the imbalance in bargaining from being known. I don't think I could be more clear.

 

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts, because you keep submitting the same questions and challenges while giving the impression that they had not already been emphatically answered. Either that or you haven't fully absorbed what has already been posted before rushing in to ask the same questions over and over again. Thank you.

[mmann 72]

 

 

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts. Thank you.

 

I know how you feel. Not only here at AVSIM but on a least two other forums that I frequent, the comments of this individual are almost 100% adversarial, and it's getting old really fast!

[Glynn 405]

This works for me :smile:

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by mgh. View it anyway?

[robert young 2,897]

I know how you feel. Not only here at AVSIM but on a least two other forums that I frequent, the comments of this individual are almost 100% adversarial, and it's getting old really fast!

 

I really do try to be patient and tolerant, but sometimes it reaches the point of no return.

[JB3DG 225]

I regret that I let my feelings run away with me in the other thread so lets see if this comes out better.

 

We are all agreed that no one can force anyone to do something they don't want right? However it also cannot be denied that we all have wants and try to satisfy them in some way or another, either by being up front and asking, or attempting to subtly woo it our way, or in the worst case with some, get it by devious rather than honest upright means.

 

Gerry I am guessing you, and many other flight simmers would very much like to partake of the new sim DTG is planning. And I will go out on a limb and say that many developers, including myself, would also love to have a part as well.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong Gerry but the impression can be gotten that you would like the 3rd party devs to swallow their "perceived" sense of injustice in DTGs terms in order to satisfy the wants of the customers. However, where do the customers want their money to go? Into the pockets of those who truly earned it by the sweat of their brow, and who will invest as far as they are able in continuing to produce new contact in order to bring pleasure to the customer? Or into the pocket of some suit who only cares about the number of digits in his paycheck? While some teams do have the means to be relatively independent of their income from the 3rd party addon industry, and thus invest it almost entirely if not more in production, others do not. Some of them are dependent on it for their daily bread as well as the support of development, and in many cases they are in circumstances which deny them the opportunities that can be grasped of rising above circumstance. And they make heroic efforts to put out quality that rivals that of the better funded teams. Even more admirable are those who provide this quality for free. So is it fair on the customer's part to try and wheedle and plea that developers just suck it up and go along? Again, if I am wrong, please feel free to correct.

[GHarrall 494]

 

 

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts, because you keep submitting the same questions and challenges while giving the impression that they had not already been emphatically answered. Either that or you haven't fully absorbed what has already been posted before rushing in to ask the same questions over and over again. Thank you.

 

Amen to that. 

[rjack1282 316]

I really appreciate (and hope others do as well) the openness of the developers that choose to shed light and interact with its customers and forum members.  As I am exclusive to P3D and X-plane now so I'm not really sure if this discussion has any affect on my sim future; however, I felt it necessary to thank the developers that have opened up and contributed to the topic because I know it could potentially affect their future.  I now have several Milviz and RealAir products and will continue to purchase and support your products in the future.  Thank you. 

 

One thing I do is try and encourage people to visit the P3D website and have a look around.  The place is essentially advertising space for 3rd party devs.  That is the flight sim future that I want to be apart of because as a majority of us know, it's the 3rd party and freeware devs that make the sim.  DTG will fail without them, just like Flight.  The power of Steam might prove me wrong though. :ph34r:

 

Thank you again.

[BeechPilot 0]

Dovetail Games is acting as a publisher for Microsoft and is only licensed to modify the simulator in order to make it Steam compatible. Although we have optimized FSX: Steam Edition for use on Steam, in accordance with our licensing agreement with Microsoft we are not at liberty to make significant functionality changes to the simulator.

 

 

What is considered "Significant" , which is very much open to interpretation.

 

Clearly the code has been modified to :

Allow "steam"  compatability.

The original FSX Online licensing/registration removed.

Steam Multiplayer added.

Original FSX Multiplayer removed. (by IP)

Gamespy functionality removed.

 

 

To do this, one must assume they Dovetail has access to the majority of the FSX source code, and that steam is a newly compiled and re-built version  ( no trivial task).

( The re-compilation and rebuild  may well have resulted the what appears to be a more stable build, especially as far as the OOM is concerned).

 

Maybe they made some "insignificant" improvement to Memory Management ? 

 

Therefore "Assuming" that Dovetail can compile & build new version of FSX-Steam, and can do so provided they do "not make significant functionality changes to the simulator",  FSX-STEAM  is going to be an interesting development of what is technically possible vs what is legally allowed.

 

Whatever the future of FSX-Steam  -- it's going to be an interesting next few years.

[GHarrall 494]

Personal opinion on FSX:SE

 

Wont touch it.

 

Its clearly not in DTG's interests for this platform to be truly 'open ended'

 

Eventually, they will want a slice of the profits for any addon. 

 

I'm not going to support any attempts to go down this path. Sure, its easy going right now, but eventually DTG will want a piece of every pie in town.

 

I will stick with my original FSX and continue to use / stay interested in the P3D development.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Amen to that.

 

And a double amen.

 

Scott

[shivers9 1,174]

This Thread is starting to sound a lot like the discussion when the Developers started to 'out' the whole "Flight" scam that MS tried to pull off. I have a feeling this will lead to the same dead end. It just may take a little longer because this Dovetail bunch are better trained in sucking the nickles and dimes out of the water fountain.