Thanks for the feedback on the FSX Cirrus SR22 and Beechjet 400A.As we mentioned, we are working with the good folks at Flight One on a possible solution which will reduce or eliminate the requirement for user interaction with Vista Security Settings.When completed, we will announce and users will be able to redownload and reinstall their products under Vista without the need to disable DEP. Please understand that this is a work in progress and we need to test before saying anymore.:-)

Ron,It is very unfortunate that Vista does not allow users to exclude fsx from DEP, despite the fact that vista does allow many programs to be excluded. Notwithstanding, it is not a good temporary solution to completely turn off DEP just so one piece of software will work. Turning off the security measure leaves the system open to a certain breed of malware attack. It is great that you and flight1 are coming up with a true solution, but what you are telling people to do for the time being is bad. I have thoroughly read each of your pages. Both Eaglesoft and Flight1 are not making it clear to customers the risks - mild to some but not to others - of disabling DEP or UAC.

>It is very unfortunate that Vista does not allow users to exclude fsx from DEP, despite the fact that vista does allow many programs to be excluded.Correct. It is indeed unfortunate but Eaglesoft and Flight One are not responsible for MS decisions regarding Vista Security and FSX.As mentioned before, we are required to build for specific FS Versions because that is where the aircraft must live and operate. We've done our job in that regard and the aircraft run as designed in their respective FS environments.:-) Any Eaglesoft and Flight One solution to the Vista Security issue are seperate and exclusive workarounds for Vista users and have no relationship to the FS9 or FSX base aircraft product at all.Please note that turning off DEP was a solution provided to us by users and turning DEP back on is also provided by users. There is also a disclaimer that such a fix is NOT approved by MS.All of this simply proves that we are, and have been, doing our level best to support customers across the board and help educate users that the issue is NOT the base aircraft or its Sim Version but the interaction of those products with a new OS:-)

>>By the way, could you PM me>>in our forums?Ron, I believe I am still waiting to be authorised to your forums.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaCheck out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

Chris, email me the username you registered.

Ron Hamilton wrote:>It should also be understood that third party developers build>for a specific Flight Simulator Version, NOT a specific>Operating System.>>You see, developers MUST build for a specific Flightsim Sim>Version since that's where the product lives and operates.>Then you're telling us your FS9 add-ons work perfectly fine with FS9 running on either Windows 98 or Windows Millenium Edition?? If not, you've got that all wrong.Third party developers have to develop products for the complete operating environment their product can be expected to encounter. The OS is as much a part of that environment as the FS version.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Sorry Bob, but that's not entirely correct.Consider that the specific sim version, be it FS9 or FSX, has it's own set of rules/limitations and development tools. The actual addon aircraft installs, lives, and operates within the specific sim version it was designed for and must conform to the specific limitations of the version it is designed for. This is why you see FS9 and/or FSX versions regardless of the OS.Of course you are correct with regard to the fact that specific sim versions need to operate in various Operating Systems. In short, if a specific sim version has difficulty with a specific OS then that is Microsofts responsibility:-)

G'day, one thing about DEP and Vista. All my FS stuff and other games are installed on d: and e: drives so given previous explanations about DEP I am not sure it makes sense. Anyway, turning DEP off allows me to load the aircraft ok. On another thread someone mentioned problems when viewing 2d panels in the 3d cockpit. Most of the time this seems ok but I think this may be when I have had my problems with some of my payware machines. I will need to keep better track of what I am doing!The two aircraft I have no problems with I don't use 2d panels because I don't need them. I dunno if they even have them!

>Sorry Bob, but that's not entirely correct.>>Consider that the specific sim version, be it FS9 or FSX, has>it's own set of rules/limitations and development tools. >The actual addon aircraft installs, lives, and operates within>the specific sim version it was designed for and must conform>to the specific limitations of the version it is designed for.>This is why you see FS9 and/or FSX versions regardless of the>OS.>>Of course you are correct with regard to the fact that>specific sim versions need to operate in various Operating>Systems. In short, if a specific sim version has difficulty>with a specific OS then that is Microsofts responsibility:-)OK, so then back to my question...does the full line of Eaglesoft FS9 products work with FS9 regardless of the OS? If I run FS9 on Windows Me, as FS9 is designed to do without dificulty, and add an Eaglesoft plane, will your GDI+ gauges still work?No...they will not.The add-on needs support from both the OS and the FS version. An add-on designed to run on FSX and WinXP that will not work as designed with FSX running on Vista needs to be caveated as a WinXP product. And any developer writing add-ons for FSX that isn't also designing them for Vista compatibility has his head buried deep in the sand (or wherever else one's head might be buried deep...) ;-) RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Ok, so then back to our answer..we have not tested any of our aircraft in WinME because that is one OS that we took a pass on. It was clear to us as that time that Win98 was the OS to use if you wanted performance. We simply waited for WinXP and were glad we did.Of course a given FS Version needs OS support or it will fall flat. It is clear that FSX/SP1 is supported by WinXP and Vista with some adjustments needed with regard to FSX Security and to Vista Security.A) Case in point: As we developed our FSX line under WinXP, one of the first discoveries was that we now needed to "Code Sign" our gauges for FSX Security reasons. It was also discovered that FSX is checked every 30 minutes for a valid installation requiring us to rewrite code which became broken during this "secrity check". Whether the user knows or controls the validation check is quite another question.:( Case in point: As we devloped for FSX under Vista, user feedback pointed out that UAC and DEP were preventing our products from installing or loading in Vista because Vista Security sees the product as an intruder. The same users provided the answers we have outlined as a work around to Vista Security issues. The disclaimer that those fixes are unapproved by MS is also outlined. Another Vista issue provided to us by a user was that he could not even edit a text file such as an aircraft.cfg without disabling UAC??C) Case in point: We are, and have been, working with the good folks at Flight One with regard to our current Ecommerce System and its interaction with Vista Security system. We do feel that we may have something which will minimize or eliminate the need for users to interact with the UAC and DEP at all. This is under testing as we speak and we'll let folks know more as we know more:-)Finally, please understand that all of the issues noted here are either FSX and/or Vista Security issues, NOT the base OS or FS. version. For these reasons, Eaglesoft products are designed for Specific Sim Versions and are proven to work well in both WinXP and Vista when users handle their Vista Securuty issues.Hope this helps:-)PS: Eaglesoft Products are already proven to work well under Vista. Perhaps you would like to reevalute where your own "head is located".:-)