the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have had downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and some of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come forward.

So I can't have an SDK so I can make an FS enhancement for my own personal enjoyment?You see where this thread is going don't you?? :-)

I doubt there will be just one SDK.There were 15 for FS2004 and close to that many for FS2002.In some cases the data provides is such an indepth level that only the real programmers can use it. Others - like the TrafficToolBox SDK are essential to the average level flight simmer.The poor quality stuff which barely works comes more from a lack of information and understanding than too much information.The "hooks" which payware developers use to keep track of the software on your system are simply self-defense on their part. They have nothing to do with FS itself or the SDK(s). We don't like to admit it - but payware aircraft and sceneries are repackaged and traded across the community by too many people.The SDK(s) are the key to better development, and the keys to average flight simmers understanding what the program can do.Keeping them secret / restricted HURTS the FS community in my opinion.

Wow, there is no way this thread will make it to 10 posts without turning into a flamefest. Who has the right to dictate who does and doesn't receive the SDK(s)?As has been the case since pretty much the first version of Flight Simulator, if someone makes an add-on you don't like then you don't have to download it.

"the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have had downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and some of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come forward."Likewise some shouldn't have MSFS handed over to them, any version, that is. Come to think of it, some shouldn't be given Internet access either until they learn that magic word--uhhh---what is it? Oh yeah, TACT!-John

Obviously, the OP considers himself to be the ultimate judge of what constitutes quality and who is qualified to produce that and should therefore by the grace of Bob be allowed to use the SDK.I wonder what he'll charge for the privilege of being allowed access to His hallowed attention?

"Who is up to the task? Come forward"Me. :-)

>"the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out>there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some>despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have had>downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my>FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and some>of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like>when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my>Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now>laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)>>From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond>what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come>forward.">>Likewise some shouldn't have MSFS handed over to them, any>version, that is. Come to think of it, some shouldn't be>given Internet access either until they learn that magic>word--uhhh---what is it? Oh yeah, TACT!>>-JohnGreat reply John!! Someone track this guys IP so we can go to his house and take his computer away! I'm up to the task, but not one I can talk about here without getting in trouble, LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Yeah, me too. Where do I get on of these SDK's? :)Ian.

I am marvelled by the responses! This is supposed to be a mere discussion not entended at all at insulting anyone. Surely the policy will not and should not change for this. All I meant to say is express some frustration regarding some (not even payware) great-looking free sceneries that after installing them brought unpleasant results with no easy remedies for them.

I believe it was the manner in which it was said. Many payware and freeware authors put many, many hours into their work, and they and the users of said add-ons most likely have taken offense to the wording of the original post.Ian.

>the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out>there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some>despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have had>downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my>FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and some>of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like>when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my>Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now>laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)>>From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond>what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come>forward.Everybody gets access to the SDKs. They're available for download.During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs. It is a broad sample of professionals and hobbyists, across all areas. It is not a small sample. They are all under NDA, so don't bother asking who they are. :)It is limited to a sample strictly as a bandwidth issue. Our metal bandwidth, that is. Cheers,Jason

>I am marvelled by the responses! This is supposed to be a>mere discussion not entended at all at insulting anyone.>Surely the policy will not and should not change for this. All>I meant to say is express some frustration regarding some (not>even payware) great-looking free sceneries that after>installing them brought unpleasant results with no easy>remedies for them. In all fairness, it was the way you expressed yourself sending the feeling/message that some should not be entitled to get the SDK for whatever reason and that is just wrong. Your post came across as insulting anyone that could not get great results and that those should not have access to the SDKs. Everyone should be able to have the chance to design what they want. Not everyone has the same skills to get the same results as say, FlyTampa or Flightscenery.I agree, some sceneries are better than others and some look great while giving you 2 FPS. Best thing you can do is either delete it, send a nice, thankful email expressing your concerns and hopefully the designer will look at it and see if he can improve it, or learn to design it for yourself.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

>Everybody gets access to the SDKs. They're available for>download.>>During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party>add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs. >It is a broad sample of professionals and hobbyists, across>all areas. It is not a small sample. They are all under NDA,>so don't bother asking who they are. :)>>It is limited to a sample strictly as a bandwidth issue. >Our metal bandwidth, that is. >>Cheers,>>JasonThank you for your great response!

Well said, and I'll add do a little research prior to downloading or buying anything, the internet is a wealth of information for product reviews including avsim and other FS sites. Ian.