6 hours ago, Keven Menard said:

Apologies if we did not post it on the forums. We posted it on our Blog, Facebook, Twitter and as email replies but we forgot to update the forum. We locked the other thread because there was another one open.

You can read the Statement here: https://fsfxpackages.com/en/blog/2017/02/26/server-outage-feb-26-2017/

Just read it. Like you know Keven, I love this product. I can live with being online personally, just hope you set you some redundancy that's all we really need-ask.

I'm glad I saw this thread and the outage announcement. I was about to replace Ezdok by this, but unfortunately this mandatory, constant connection will make it impossible.

It's also curious to see there is no response from them here.

2 hours ago, Redglyph said:

It's also curious to see there is no response from them here.

If you're referring to the developer, then it's because he has already responded multiple times in other threads that he will address it after the release of v1.

Until that occurs, stick with Ezdok if you wish.

Ernie

.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, airernie said:

If you're referring to the developer, then it's because he has already responded multiple times in other threads that he will address it after the release of v1.

Until that occurs, stick with Ezdok if you wish.

Ernie

Ah, thanks! I had searched a little bit but found nothing, only recent posts on the requirement of a fast Internet connection. I'll wait then, trying not to fall for Ezdok 2 which would be a shame :)

 

On 28/02/2017 at 9:25 PM, Nyxx said:

  On 28/02/2017 at 3:20 PM, Keven Menard said:

Apologies if we did not post it on the forums. We posted it on our Blog, Facebook, Twitter and as email replies but we forgot to update the forum. We locked the other thread because there was another one open.

You can read the Statement here: https://fsfxpackages.com/en/blog/2017/02/26/server-outage-feb-26-2017/

As Keven requested in the post about Chaseplane crashing on startup yesterday that we post our complaints here, I will do so.

The failure yesterday is disappointing because I read the above Feb statement before I purchased Chaseplane in March and accepted the assurance in that statement "we took the decision to start the work on a new server infrastructure to better handle server load and to increase redundancy and latency to enhance update speeds and to prevent events like the one we observed today. We plan the transition to this new infrastructure in April." It is also disappointing because anyone who has anything to do with IT knows that servers fail and it appears (in the absence of a fault description) the plan announced back in Feb is not yet implemented or is not up to scratch. I have stated elsewhere that I love the Chaseplane product and the support here, its delivery method is what needs further examination. Many have justified and verified concerns today about cloud and online security I would place myself in that camp however reliability of service via the cloud is as great a concern to me.

I hope that a solution that works is found soon and the progress is advised here in the official support forum. It is quite possible that an explanation will be provided as to what happened in due course and that may be helpful.Online security will be a decision for the individual.

I'm a potential purchaser of this software having watched 3 videos on YouTube all praising it. None of them lingered on the requirement for a permanent internet connection.

At first I didn't think much about it but after some thought if this software is not going to work without an internet connection how does that help me when I take my PC to a monthly flight sim meeting at a village hall? There's no internet available there.

I appreciate piracy is a problem but there has to be a balance between security and usability. Maybe a check every x days rather than a permanent connection? It would be a pity not to be able to use purchased software simply because the user has no internet access.

I am in the same situation, sometimes at locations without an internet connection. I bought it anyway because a solution was promised. Nothing so far I'm afraid . Obviously not a priority :(

I'm back to Ezdok 2.5 now

19 hours ago, willy647 said:

I am in the same situation, sometimes at locations without an internet connection. I bought it anyway because a solution was promised. Nothing so far I'm afraid . Obviously not a priority :(

I'm back to Ezdok 2.5 now

Keven has indicated that the fix will occur after v1.0 is released.  As CP is still in beta, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

On 14/08/2017 at 3:03 AM, airernie said:

Keven has indicated that the fix will occur after v1.0 is released.  As CP is still in beta, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It may be in beta, but I still don't see a good reason for stating after 1.0 other than kicking the problem off into the long grass to deal with at an unspecified date in the future.  Much like the decision to not provide a facility for users to deactivate and reactivate the license themselves without submitting a support ticket. I too am likely off to pick up an EzDok 2 license this week as I'm planning a Windows reinstall and have gotten fed up with the consumer hostile activation limits. (After all, only pirates would reinstall more than once in a three month period!)

If I could return my license permanently I would at this point. I strongly dislike supporting companies that treat paying customers as pirates. (When ironically, if and when a pirated copy of this pops up it'll be the people who haven't paid, who will get the least intrusive experience)

On 8/7/2017 at 9:20 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

At first I didn't think much about it but after some thought if this software is not going to work without an internet connection how does that help me when I take my PC to a monthly flight sim meeting at a village hall? There's no internet available there.

Tether your mobile phones hotspot to your PC via USB lead possibly. I often do this when no Wifi is available for my laptop.

59 minutes ago, Glynn said:

Tether your mobile phones hotspot to your PC via USB lead possibly. I often do this when no Wifi is available for my laptop.

Yes, I've since remembered I have that option. Would rather not have to keep proving I'm a legitimate owner of course. Even the security minded FSLabs only check your licence every few days.

28 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Yes, I've since remembered I have that option. Would rather not have to keep proving I'm a legitimate owner of course. Even the security minded FSLabs only check your licence every few days.

Of course the danger with that option is how many background services these days instantly start trying to check for updates, phone home etc as soon as you connect - can burn through a tethering data allowance worryingly fast.

Even assuming Windows 10 with it's "metered connection" option only stops Windows Update - it doesn't throttle all the other programs and services that want to start chatting as soon as they sense an internet connection.  Been burnt by that more than a few times whilst travelling

Piracy is a BIG problem in this industry, 3 out of 5 people pirate software/music/movies.  Please no debates about piracy, it exists (I have very valid real world data) and I wish it didn't, but it's just an unfortunately reality of doing business.

Having coded our (my company not related to flight sims) own "copy protection" process that does require internet access, we simply would go out of business if we hadn't (many years ago we we're about to close the doors due to product theft).  Requiring an internet connection saved our business, we did lose some "valid" customers but gained many more "paying" customers and over the many years it's paid off and we're currently doing reasonably well.

But at the time, we had thought about alternatives for those resistant to internet access (today that represents <1% of our client base).  It used a technique similar to what Apple used for it's then very expensive products (I think it was Final Cut Pro, or Logic, or maybe Shake - back in the day) ... it was a physical USB key that shipped with the product ... software would NOT work without the USB key inserted into a USB slot.  

For us, this was a viable alternative, but it's a costly one (especially with support and client's losing the USB key) and we passed that cost onto our clients.  In my company nobody has purchased that option for a long time ... apparently the valid usage case wasn't worth the extra cost.

So there are alternatives, but implementing those alternatives can cost more in terms of coding and developer time and I'm not sure, in this type of market (flight simulation), end users would be willing to pay the extra cost to be free of an "required internet connection".  Leaving us developers to either accept the loss of customers on those valid usage cases, increase product cost by 50-60% (not a good option), or code costly alternatives to the "internet connection requirement".

But "internet connection required" is by far the least end user intrusive copy protection and is definitely the most "powerful/secure" method of copy protection and does cover majority usage cases (in my companies case 99%).  It's still not good to have to spend the development time to protect one's work, and I wish we didn't have to because that cost ultimately gets passed onto valid paying users/customers/clients.

But I am curious (for any future adventures/projects I may undertake for the FS community), for those wanting to be free of an internet requirement connection, would you be willing to pay extra to have that option via a USB key?  (BTW, I have nothing to do with Keven or his company other than I support there development efforts with my wallet).

Cheers, Rob.

Hi Rob, I remember "dongles" on my Atari 800 way back when. I don't know how it would work with USB keys, (probably a chip) but my friends and I back then were trained in electronics so we discovered all they did was use a resistor.  We bought the same resistor at Radio Shack and instant dongle.  We were just curious to see how they did it.

I didn't like pirating back then and didn't do it as I appreciated that they'd lose money but I knew some guys who did pirate.  You couldn't convince them not to pirate.  One guy even had a pirate flag in his dorm.

Having said that, I think a USB key which is a lot more difficult to duplicate would work very well for me.  I'd pay double the value of Chase Plane for a USB key to not have to always have an active Internet for it to run.

 

15 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Piracy is a BIG problem in this industry, 3 out of 5 people pirate software/music/movies.  Please no debates about piracy, it exists (I have very valid real world data) and I wish it didn't, but it's just an unfortunately reality of doing business.

Having coded our (my company not related to flight sims) own "copy protection" process that does require internet access, we simply would go out of business if we hadn't (many years ago we we're about to close the doors due to product theft).  Requiring an internet connection saved our business, we did lose some "valid" customers but gained many more "paying" customers and over the many years it's paid off and we're currently doing reasonably well.

But at the time, we had thought about alternatives for those resistant to internet access (today that represents <1% of our client base).  It used a technique similar to what Apple used for it's then very expensive products (I think it was Final Cut Pro, or Logic, or maybe Shake - back in the day) ... it was a physical USB key that shipped with the product ... software would NOT work without the USB key inserted into a USB slot.  

For us, this was a viable alternative, but it's a costly one (especially with support and client's losing the USB key) and we passed that cost onto our clients.  In my company nobody has purchased that option for a long time ... apparently the valid usage case wasn't worth the extra cost.

So there are alternatives, but implementing those alternatives can cost more in terms of coding and developer time and I'm not sure, in this type of market (flight simulation), end users would be willing to pay the extra cost to be free of an "required internet connection".  Leaving us developers to either accept the loss of customers on those valid usage cases, increase product cost by 50-60% (not a good option), or code costly alternatives to the "internet connection requirement".

But "internet connection required" is by far the least end user intrusive copy protection and is definitely the most "powerful/secure" method of copy protection and does cover majority usage cases (in my companies case 99%).  It's still not good to have to spend the development time to protect one's work, and I wish we didn't have to because that cost ultimately gets passed onto valid paying users/customers/clients.

But I am curious (for any future adventures/projects I may undertake for the FS community), for those wanting to be free of an internet requirement connection, would you be willing to pay extra to have that option via a USB key?  (BTW, I have nothing to do with Keven or his company other than I support there development efforts with my wallet).

Cheers, Rob.

I'm in the camp that believes that periodic re-validation is fine, but constant connection is only acceptable in a world where server outages do not exist, only this weekend I lost my entire weekend due to an unexpected server failure at work - if you have a supplier of servers that never fail then please hook me up because I've yet to find one. There has to be a contingency system in place for when these things inevitably happen, otherwise the only people losing out are your paying customers, whilst the (inevitable) pirated version continues to work just fine.  There is no scenario in which it's acceptable for a locally running program to totally fail to work because a remote server somewhere has failed, or the customer's internet connection drops out. Paying customers should never have a worse or more restricted experience than illegitimate ones.

Where this really falls down though, is the activation system that has no facility for customers to manage deactivating and reactivating their license - there is no need to have always connected monitoring AND an activation system like the one currently implemented here.  Out of all the FS related products I've owned this is the only one that gives the end user zero control of their own activation status and forces them to depend on opening a ticket with an "up to 48 hour" SLA if they need to reinstall in a time period shorter than the developer believes is acceptable for a legitimate user.  Every other product I have doesn't care how often they're reactivated as long as the appropriate steps were taken to release the activation before uninstalling.  I don't see any of their costs being inflated 50-60% by implementing a more user friendly solution.  It is not a hypothetical - the rest of the market bears out the fact that more lenient solutions not only exist, but are practical to implement without large cost increases being passed on to the consumer.