yes it does sound interesting and had it been released through VATSIM as an approved client I'd have used it.But as it is I won't touch it even though the creators now claim it's clean (after all, didn't they claim it was "just a version check" before when the allegations first were made?).

Hi again Jaime, First of all, let me stress that I have no affiliation with either network (VATSIM, IVAO or FPI) other than flying online (primarily on VATSIM, though I have tried all of them) once in a blue moon. So, I have no management responsibilities and the points I make are solely my own (and those who tend to agree with me :-)). To answer your first question (and remarking that the policy of secretly collecting data is actually strictly illegal in most countries. There better be a damn good explanation for this if you ask me. Debugging purposes is not valid -- I am a developer myself professionally) I think the developers of SquawkWin really have two options: Either complying with the rules of an existing network or make their own network. If they choose the latter, I think their chances of success has been severely hampered by the collection of user credentials. So, no, I don't think all is lost now. I just think these people will have to mature up and start answering questions. To a certain point I agree with you that a bit more clarity would be nice on some networks. I seem to recall that the formation of FPI was due to conflict between the team that developed the FPI software and the development team of that specific network the software was originally developed for. If my memory serves me right, one of the reasons for the split between the developers and that network was over access to source codes (forgive me if I remember wrongly. I know that there were also other details involved). On the other hand, the providers of these networks give us a service of a certain "guaranteed" quality, so they provide the rules. Hope this clarifies a bit, :-wavePittsburgh

Oh I never knew that.Matt can you verify in the latest release that they have indeed removed this 'feature'?

A very big THANK YOU goes out to everyone at Avsim and everyone else who brought this issue to light. I did not use this software nor will I ever but it is very nice to know that there is someone out there that is looking out for us. If this does not warrant a donation to Avsim, I don't know what does! :-) As for the Sun Team, or whatever you are, to me there is no valid reason for you to gather a user's name and password, none, you have stepped over the line and unless you provide a more reasonable explanation, that includes coming out of the closet and revealing your identities, I am going to consider you a less than desirable element. Granted this is not stealing from people's bank accounts or anything but you have invaded people's security and who knows what you where going to do with that information. To quote a friend of mine "Come forward with the truth or be cast down". It is very sad that someone has actually stepped over the line in our hobby, I hope that the intentions where benign but I really wonder in this case.Philip Olsonhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

If they indeed removed the spy function in the software, then I cant see any reason why we as users should have to wait for "god knows" how long until we can fly online with something not developed for the use with FS98.With the humble respect to all developers out there. If the "Sun team" developed SquawkWin in no time, what have Vatsim and IVAO spend there time on ? I'm not a developer, so I have to ask, am only interesting in a software that works on my computer and with FS2004, I really don't care who

Guys I wouldn't use it IF they took away this password stealing code. Its still outlawed by Vatsim and IVAO and using it is IMMEADIATE grounds for suspension.

Besides of all thoughts, and idea's, I wonder what the harm is in haven all those ID's and passwords.Imagine having this database, what on earth would you do with it?Fly online with random userid's? so and what cares?Sell to spam firms? maybe hacking in AVSIM's database will have more use, and even then you have a 14895 registered members, not much on those millions of emails in the world.I dont see any real security problem, only an real moral problem.And thats where the problem lays. If they are smart, then they reveal their identity, and make a good statement today!Btw, the too slow SB release just ingnites these kind of things.EDIT:I cannot give them the benefit od the doubt after studying Matts investigation. Why on earth would have programmers do such a hasle to encrypt testing data? Thats the question!And the answer is...Johan----http://www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johd

Hi all.......I am not a computer wizz just a user and simmer. Just as I am a user of e-mail and internet. I like most get about 100 junk mails a day from two accounts without any requests for them from me, so where is this leading?...my data must be being transmitted without my knowledge and spammers hitting me with junk. Anonymous developers who take my data without my knowledge and use it for some advantage to themselves are the pits of the software world. If your software is so good then why should you be allowed some shortcut into someone elses system for testing without approval. Aviation generally is about procedures for everyones safety, so if there is a procedure for getting the software onto Vatsim or Ivao then use it, get approval then we can applaud it. Luckily i didn't download the software so have no axe to grind, I only use Vatsim for my VA online flying and have never not been able to fly due to software restrictions so in conclusion, if there is new software out there for online simming then let it be tested and approved by the networks that have also worked damn hard to get their systems free of junk and if it is deemed to be good enough then let it win on its merits.John Calleja (user and simmer) no proffesional associations with Vatsim or Ivao

Hi Andreas, I agree that the wait for SB3 is becomming a bit long. However, I would seriously question what "no time" means. I am sure that quality, stability etc all cost resources and take time. I am not so sure that I would want something that has been developed in no time to mess up my experience while on final approach. Also, I think that those people that develop software for the various networks are doing this as a spare time thing giving their free time to us.Thanks,Pittsburgh

Hi All,I would like to say that speaking only about the software functionality (not the trojan stuff), it is a very good idea to use P2P technology to increase the refresh rate of AI into the sim without increasing the servers job.Regarding the network software approval rules, I must say that it's not so easy that it seems to be :1) - I'm now the developper of SquawkBox 3 for Fly!2 initially coded by Lefteris Kalamaras. I've been accepted as a developper in VATSIM dev org with the help of Lefteris. Then the SquawkBox V 3.1 (that does not have any modification of the server protocol ;-) ) has been approved by Richard Critz and I released it on Avsim lib. But if you have a look to the official approved pilot software list, you won't see it :-( Does that mean that it's an illegal software ?2) - I've tried several time to have some contact with IVAO pilot software team leader to be included in their dev rules, but I didn't received any answer from them. I hope that the reason is not because the Fly! 2 community is quite small now ! It's good to think that MSFS, X-plane, Fly! and other simmers can fly together in the same sky.Then what can I do ?- roland -* AirFeedback 1.0 ** DragPoder 1.0 ** SquawkBox 3.1 * - For Fly! II -

Most spam you're getting comes from people sending their crap to random addresses. Once they find an address that doesn't bounce, that one is saved and sold on to other spammers so you'll get even more spam in the future.Indeed some companies sell your email address to spammers if you sign up for mailing lists or buy stuff online from them.By law they MUST ask you whether you want your address kept private or not, and if they sell it anyway despite your wishes not to you can sue them (though it may be hard to prove it's through them you get the spam unless you set up separate email addresses for every list you sign on to).

>If they indeed removed the spy function in the software, then>I cant see any reason why we as users should have to wait for>"god knows" how long until we can fly online with something>not developed for the use with FS98.Because God knows what they put in the software in it's place. Are you saying that because they removed the spyware (which they still deny they had), you can guarantee that there is nothing new, which is just as bad (if not worse)? Greg Phelan

maybe these people where in a similar situation and they took the wrong decision.Which does not excuse them from sending private data outside, thats a whole different thing.Jaime.

I haven't used this suspicoius software but I am affraid we'll see more initiatives like this since development of SB3 became a joke. After 2 years of waiting all the developers had to say was that SB3 will be ready when pigs fly. Really bad joke.

Hey guys I've been testing SB3 for just over a month and all I can say it realy realy realy is worth the wait. Turst me on this one.As for the SquawkWin guys, I would guess that if they had have gone forward and send this to the networks the same way all the other 3rd party delevopers do, then maybe they would have got the ok. But going about it the way they did, you realy have to ask yourself what were they realy doing? Any other software that the networks are looking at you hear about long before it goes out to everyone else. To have a software program just show up like this was a little strange.