Warning-Orlando scenery not compatible with Vista

[Guest craigjjs]

Cloud9's Orlando Airport scenery is not compatible with Vista. You can install the addon (demo download that can be upgraded to full operation when purchased), but when you try to start FSX it crashes to desktop. Even after you remove the Orlando software, FSX will continue to crash. I had to reinstall my entire FSX installation. There was nothing on the download page of their website or in the software warning of this problem. I did not become aware of this problem until I read about it on Cloud9's support forum, after reinstalling FSX. If you are running Vista, save yourself from a big headache and avoid this software until Cloud9 sees fit to fix it.Craigjjs

[David Roch 1,975]

Hi Craig,I'm sorry to hear your problems but Orlando works pefectly for me with Vista 64.You just have to follow this:http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=4362No headache at all and a wonderful scenery IMObest regards,David

[virtuali 4,419]

As David promptly pointed out, KCMO works with Vista, provided you follow the directions on Cloud9's forum. You said you learned on Cloud9 forum about this problem, why not saying also the forum offered a solution ?Also, what's the point of your "warning", considering the product is offered as a Try Before Buy, and since it's sold from within FSX, it can't even be *bought* in the first place, if it doesn't start ?Also, what's the point of reinstalling FSX ? You just downloaded something, for any reason FSX immediately doesn't start soon after this new software has been installed, but you *first* reinstall FSX, and *then* look at that software's support forum ?The reason why the product doesn't work in Vista default configuration it's not a "bug". It's related to the added DEP (Data Execution Protection) that act in Vista in a different way than in XP. Expect a LOT of other software having similar problems, in fact, even other FS addons have the same problem, namely, all product using Flight1's wrapper needs DEP turned off, EXACTLY like Coud9's.

[Guest JimC1702]

Rather than avoid Cloud9's software, better to just avoid Vista. Way too many problems.Maybe after a couple of service packs it'll be as robust as XP.Jim

[neil0311 366]

>Rather than avoid Cloud9's software, better to just avoid>Vista. Way too many problems.>>Maybe after a couple of service packs it'll be as robust as>XP.>>Jim>That's a highly subjective statement Jim. Many of us use Vista with absolutely no problems and can adapt to the changes in the OS, many of which were the result of a cry for increased security. When used in the correct manner and when directions are followed, Vista is as "robust" as XP.

[n4gix 4,947]

>That's a highly subjective statement Jim. Many of us use>Vista with absolutely no problems and can adapt to the changes>in the OS, many of which were the result of a cry for>increased security. When used in the correct manner and when>directions are followed, Vista is as "robust" as XP. It's a bit pointless, actually. If one has to turn OFF all the added security in order to USE one's software, that's just plain silly... *:-*

[ryanbatc 12,812]

That's why I'm sticking with XP...When I used Vista RC1, to change my own settings I had to acknowledge requests even though I was admin lol

[tf51d 284]

>>That's a highly subjective statement Jim. Many of us use>>Vista with absolutely no problems and can adapt to the>changes>>in the OS, many of which were the result of a cry for>>increased security. When used in the correct manner and>when>>directions are followed, Vista is as "robust" as XP. >>It's a bit pointless, actually. If one has to turn OFF all>the added security in order to USE one's software,>that's just plain silly... *:-* I don't use Vista yet, but I have heard from others that a number of software titles require installation under an administrator account in order to run. XP required this in some cases too, but it seems like Vista is even more sensitive to user account restrictions!

[jcboliveira 1]

If the producer uses the CSIDL_APPDATA instead of the FS directory to store data there is no problem. The difference is that on XP if you are in an admin account you get access to all directories but in Vista you still have UAC.Jos

[Guest craigjjs]

As you must have read in the forum, the purported fix did not work for the writer. See below:"kousa wrote:I tried the instructions in the other thread, no luck.. the only thing I can think of is I'm on vista and not xp. Is bglmanx currently incompatible with Vista RC1? Have you conducted tests?IlariOn Vista the current version of bglman is incompatible, the Vista version of bglman is on final stage of internal testing."Your 'try before buy' argument is specious. The problem was not that the product wouldn't start. The problem was that it corrupted the entire FSX installation.If the installation of this product requires a workaround to avoid crashing a user's FSX installation, the responsible thing to do is to say so on the download page or in the installation software or installation guide or user's guide? Instead, the information is buried in a forum. What is your relationship with Cloud9? If you are responding on its behalf, I would like to know so I can avoid Cloud9's products. I would prefer to avoid any developer who attacks a customer (or potential customer)in such a childish manner.

[Guest craigjjs]

>Hi Craig,>I'm sorry to hear your problems but Orlando works pefectly for>me with Vista 64.>You just have to follow this:>http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=4362>>No headache at all and a wonderful scenery IMO>best regards,>David>Thank you David for your helpful and positive post. Under normal circumstances I would try the linked procedure and, if it worked, say so on the forum. In light, however, of the attack by 'virtuali' in a response, I will wait until I learn whether this poster was responding on behalf of Cloud9. If so, I will never buy anything from the developer and take any opportunity available to urge others to avoid them. If he was not representing Cloud9, I will try them again.

[virtuali 4,419]

>As you must have read in the forum, the purported fix did not>work for the writer. See below:>>"kousa wrote:>I tried the instructions in the other thread, no luck.. the>only thing I can think of is I'm on vista and not xp. Is>bglmanx currently incompatible with Vista RC1? Have you>conducted tests?Of COURSE, if you are referring to an old post when Vista was still in RC1 state, it's quite OBVIOUS that a definitive reply wouldn't have been possible back then.Of course, by simply typing "Vista" in the Search field of Cloud9 forum would have presented you with dozen of threads, each one with direction about how to make the Addon Manager work with it: like this one, for example:http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=4362were the customer that got the problem solved also adds "Your customer service is remarkable...">The problem was that it corrupted the entire FSX installation.No installation was "corrupted". It's Vista that is preventing FSX to start with its default security setting. In fact, by changing that settings, FSX will start normally, something that wouldn't be possible if the installation was "corrupted"Again I fail to see your logic: you downloaded and installed something and, soon after that, FSX doesn't start anymore. Instead of making the obvious choice, ASKING to who wrote the software help, or SEARCHING in its forum for similar problems, you took the pain route to reinstall FSX. And, when you finally "discovered" your problem, instead of reporting to who wrote the software, you posted HERE issuing a meaningless "warning". >Instead, the information is buried in a forum. So, if you really wasn't able to use the "Search" function, that would have presented with several results and solutions, why taking the time to post HERE, instead of simply posting a request on Cloud9's forum, that was the obvious place to get an answer ? You would have had a reply imediately, just like all the other user that DID post a request for help.>What is your relationship with Cloud9? If you are responding>on its behalf, I would like to know so I can avoid Cloud9's>products.I don't think I'm hiding my identity whatsoever, since my nickname here is the SAME I use on Cloud9's forum. I WROTE the Addon Manager module Cloud9 is using under license. I'm not part of Cloud9, but I'm informally doing support with issues with Addon Manager. Had you properly searched the forum, you might have noticed that most of the solution replies were written by me. Of course, had you posted a message requesting for help on Cloud9 forum, chances are you'd get a similar solution from me as well...>I would prefer to avoid any developer who attacks a>customer (or potential customer)in such a childish manner.You got it all wrong. YOU attacked a developer without even trying the most obvious route, asking for support in the proper place (the forum), instead you took the time to post on a another forum, where the wrongly attacked developer might have or not a chance to reply.

[virtuali 4,419]

>If the producer uses the CSIDL_APPDATA instead of the FS>directory to store data there is no problem. The difference is>that on XP if you are in an admin account you get access to>all directories but in Vista you still have UAC.In this case, it's not an UAC problem, that would have been much easier to solve, and it's usually dealt with updated installers. In fact, Cloud9 installers were updated to be complaint with UAC.In this case, the problem is deeper and not easy to solve, because involves DEP (Data Execution Protection), and it doesn't have anything to do with User's permissions. It's a safety measure that was already available in XP, but is more restrictive in Vista, and is supposed to prevent programs to execute code from a non-executable memory region, in order to prevent attacks like buffer overflows or similar.Unfortunately, DEP usually clashes with many existing software, expecially those using security measures to protect the product from tampering, for example ecommerce-enabled applications that process sensitive information like user's CC numbers, are always protected by "wrappers" that use these techniques to protect themselves from hacking.Several FS products could be affected by DEP in Vista, like those from Cloud9 that use the Addon Manager, and those using Flight1's wrapper.Usually, it's possible to turn off DEP JUST for a single application so, ideally, you'd want to turn off DEP for FSX only, but leaving the rest of Vista at the higher security level BUT, unfortunately, FSX ITSELF is registered on the system as an "Essential Application", because even FSX itself tries to protect from hacking, because it uses product activation.So, the only solution is to turn off DEP entirely at the system level, making Vista to behave more like XP in this regard.

[Guest craigjjs]

You are clearly representing Cloud9 and making money from the sales of its Orlando scenery. I will, therefore, buy nothing from Cloud9 and recommend to others that they do the same. You, obviously, do not understand that a developer that requires an installation procedure that differs from what is stated in its own multi-page installation guide should let customers know IN ADVANCE if the end result is a crashed FSX installation that will not start in Vista. When you put the burden on customers to search your forums to find out how to install software, in order to avoid an unusable FSX installation, you create frustration. I posted on this forum for one reason and one reason only, to warn other Vista users that there are problems with installation of your software. Unlike you, I am not trying to make money from FS users. No reasonable user would go to your forum before trying to install your software when your own installation guide, website and software give no hint that a problem exists for Vista users. I suppose you are too busy counting your euros to put a simple message on your download page or in your own installation guide.I have used FS for many years and purchased many addons. I have read others' observations that the for-profit sector, in some cases, came to adopt the worst features of commercial ventures. Fortunately, until now, I have not had negative experiences with addon vendors. I, now, understand the complaints. How dissapointing! To look at the bright side, however, I now better appreciate the many addon vendors who act responsibly and do not attack their customers when problems are identified.Goodbye and have a profitable life Mr. Cloud9.

[Mike... 7]

To anyone wanting to discuss something relating to Cloud9 with Mr. Virtuali, don't bother. You'll be banging your head against your desk in no time.I have three Cloud9 products/airports (EHAM, KLAX, KDCA), good stuff. But what you see in this thread, I've seen all over the community. They treat people with utter disdain. And by doing so they've alienated a significant portion of their customers.