FAO John Ci, Regarding sim1.dll thread.

[Guest John_Cillis]

Hi,I am responding to you're Locking of this threadhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=298171&page=3whilst I appreciate you're views on the legalities of peoples properties etc, I think that the text, and or link, could have been deleted instead of simply Locking Up the Whole Thread, this does not help in any way whatsoever, the people who, like myself, just wanted to know what this sim1.dll file does, and if there is any differences between the file we already have on our systems, and the other sim1.dll that was there before the link was removed. this is what I was asking, and, even if someone did know the answer, and was kindly prepared to tell me, and others, they could not because you locked off the Whole Thread.thank you.

[Gridley]

Also, it is possible to rename the file to sim9.dll and use a modified .air file to enable the use of the modified dll. This is, in practice, no different than sharing modified FS scenery bgls...A happy middle ground can be found here that is acceptable to all parties...

[mgh]

The FS EULA prohibits decompilation etc. How do you modify a default .bgl without decompiling it? Also, the only way to modify a .air file without decompilation is by using FSEdit and aircraft.cfg according to the relevant SDKs.

[Gridley]

You summarize my position perfectly. There's a double standard here - how could sim1.dll infringe on rights, but not all these others? If sim1.dll were renamed, would that bypass some subtle nuance that would make it okay to use and distribute? I only ask because I find the modified file very useful.

[Guest sb55mv]

so, can anyone actualy tell me Please what this sim1.dll does, what difference does it make etc over the one we already have ?thanks,

[Gridley]

I don't know all the details of what is in that file, but:It is the "guts" of the sim and contains many of the parameters that are important for the physics of the sim, representing flight, etc. The edited version simply changes one friction coefficient, to allow for altered ground handling of the aircraft. It allows for lower throttle to start rolling, and seems to improve turning on the ground. It's a matter of opinion, some like it, some don't.

[mgh]

Are you arguing that it's OK to disregard Microsoft's rights in its software?

[Gridley]

Of course not. Merely illustrating that modified files are available in abundance, why draw the line at this particular file?

[mgh]

But, if you don't want to disregard Microsoft's rights then, presumably, you wouldn't want to use a version of sim1.dll, based on decompliation?

[Gridley]

I didn't say I didn't want to use it, I said I didn't want to argue it! :-smooch

[Guest Daniel Pimentel]

Give it a rest, man. If you've that much of a trauma about the whole matter, you should go on a crusade against modifications of default textures, BGL's, and a bunch of other files. I doubt you'd draw much of a following, but feel free. :) I mean, we've seen so many modifications of the default stuff that you'd probably have to drop half the files on the library! :-lolDaniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

[Guest John_Cillis]

Daniel,I usually find myself in agreement with you, but when it comes to changing executable code--and dll's and exe's are such code, I think there's a difference. Microsoft encourages tinkering with .cfg's, bgl's and the like, but they are very clear about code--as they should be.That said, most government laws allow reverse engineering of code for personal research. Whether that trumps a license agreement that we as users make with vendors like Microsoft, I can't answer. In spite of that, that doesn't permit someone to host their reverse engineering of code on their website for the whole world to see. At that point, it's no longer "personal" research.Yes, this information is widely available anyway, and so are the links. I don't mind those brave enough or handy enough with a hex editor to try to make the changes themselves--that's there risk. I do mind someone else doing the job and posting the link here in the forum to their work. There's no double standard in my approach--I have nixed numerous threads linking to hacks of MSFS code and when alerted, I've also nixed links to hacks/pirates of freeware as well. But I imagine if I miss one, I'll be called on the carpet for it :) -John

[Guest John_Cillis]

Sorry the thread had to be locked, but given the nature of what was posted there I was not interested in seeing a shouting match develop over the issue. And sure enough, one has started in this thread.I think I can state this on behalf of both Tom and Ken as well as myself, that it is getting so dang frustrating trying to please all the people all the time here. Perhaps those who are unhappy should find a "no holds barred" site/forum to swim around in. We volunteer our time, and sometimes even make mistakes in judgment. I certainly have. Since you chose to evade the PM system and make this a public debate, I challenge you to volunteer your time as well and help the rest of us sift through the thousands of posts a week that appear here. You may find, once the shoe's on the other foot, that you may have to make a similar decision vs. a thread. :)-John

[Hornit]

I think overall that we are such a small part of the community and in most cases work in non harmful ways that MS would look the other way. I have seen no malicious intent from anyone in all my years of simming and tinkering. I think MS knows we are a small tigh knit community that has no intention of breaking anything or using someone elses work for profit. It really is a non issue.Hornit

[Guest John_Cillis]

I noted that in my reply yesterday--the sim1.dll edit especially seems to have no malicious nature to me. But I have to consider that I am not qualified to know whether Microsoft's legal department would look the other way. I can't take that risk or set the precedent. It's always better to err on the side of caution in such cases...but your reply Hornit is noted and as always, very well thought out and point taken! :)-John