21 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

Thanks for the clarification, Yes I really placed REX as a company to higher practice standards and assumed a company with such a track record of good clean products would be vetted and approved before REX Atmos was released to the public. Honestly wouldn't expect them to pull such a move fearing MS/Asobo would promptly send a cease and desist with possible legal actions . This seemed pretty bold, but then again we don't know the whole story behind the scenes and I hope this issue is just something minor between the two parties that is currently being resolved. It's really the wild wild west out here these days I see!🤣😂 

As @Lucky38i mentioned, Rex may be using memory injection. Memory injection is risky and I can see why the MSFS team doesn't want to support add-ons that use memory injection.  In the worst case scenario, a memory injection program may cause MSFS to CTD, especially if MSFS is patched.  You would hope that Rex is around to fix their app if MSFS is patched and their memory injection is causing CTDs. That's not to say that using the SDK won't cause CTDs if MSFS is patched, but the risk of a CTD from properly using the SDK is a lot lower than memory injection.

I'll just say that memory injection is not a standard and accepted software development technique for professional software because it probably leads to instability and CTDs if the host application (MSFS in this case), constantly goes through patches.  The problem is, if you use memory injection, and you allocate a segment of memory to overwrite, and then MSFS is patched, that segment of memory Rex needs to overwrite may change in the next patch. And if MSFS is patched again, the segment of memory may change again. Rinse and repeat.  This is all fine if Rex always has a developer to change the app after every MSFS patch, but that's what I mean that you better hope that Rex is always around to fix their app after every MSFS patch. And I can see the MSFS team not wanting to deal with memory injection programs, because some MSFS users will file support tickets asking why is MSFS CTDing, when it's really the memory injection program they are using that is causing MSFS to CTD.

Now if Rex isn't using memory injection that @Lucky38i is claiming, then please strike everything I wrote above about Rex.  Everything I wrote above assumes that Rex is using memory injection.

Edited October 6, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

8 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

The irony in Microsoft is that many of their development platforms rely on “OpenSource” … like say WASM for example which is entirely “OpenSource” and “free” … yet MSFS wouldn’t exist without WASM.

Here is an idea, how about Microsoft provide an SDK “for all” that can actually accomplish what users want?

The entire software world depends on open source software, how does this have any correlation to a piece of software that injects offsets into the memory of a commercial product? 

we would all love a super extensive SDK, that allows devs to do any and all to product in a legal manner. Unfortunately we don’t which, for a multitude of reasons but is what it is. This requires devs to take a different approach. Some of these approaches break TOS and thus are not allowed on official community spaces. This is common place for ANY kind of software.

you still have the full freedom to use the software and discuss said software in non-official spaces. This whole thing however won’t change because of the implications behind memory injection and how it’s almost impossible to support if the software itself is closed source.

this is genuinely a nothing burger.

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Well, some might accept the benaviour over in those forums because their forum, their rules. To me it is a joke, the main intention here is clearly censorship on areas that might publically denonstrate the inability of Asobo on certain aspects. They simply do not want this, it is not only if you post about forbidden addons, but also if you write anything else using facts going in the same direction. As soon as your post contains fact underlying the shortcomings of the sim, bang, it gets censored. You are only allowed to discuss things that might not point this inability out or the devs already gave the slightest impression of fixing it sometime. 

In the end you have a forum full of yaysayers praising the product. And this is what they want. Simple as that.

It is like a kids forum; cartonistic avtars; and vote for the best dolly.

53 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

This is genuinely a nothing burger.

It WOULD be, if they wouldnt overreact this way in the forums. Isnt it enough to officially state that mod XY is not supported and end of the story? Why they have to censor posts about those mods and even ban people who paid for the sim in the official forum just for mentioning those mods? They make a huge thing out of this, not us customers...

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

It WOULD be, if they wouldnt overreact this way in the forums. Isnt it enough to officially state that mod XY is not supported and end of the story? Why they have to censor posts about those mods and even ban people who paid for the sim in the official forum just for mentioning those mods? They make a huge thing out of this, not us customers...

You get out of here with all that non toxic common sense!
Only purposely vindictive "I told you so" finger waving replies are welcome here!🤣
 

@abrams_tank Solid info right there bud!
Great point about future updates as well as far as vendor/dev side continuity
Totally understandable if MS/Asobo just decides to blacklist this software🍻

15 hours ago, UAL4life said:

It’s just another excuse in a long line of excuses from Asobo to hide their shortfalls. 

Nope, not at all.

11 hours ago, AnkH said:

Well, some might accept the benaviour over in those forums because their forum, their rules. To me it is a joke, the main intention here is clearly censorship on areas that might publically denonstrate the inability of Asobo on certain aspects. They simply do not want this, it is not only if you post about forbidden addons, but also if you write anything else using facts going in the same direction. As soon as your post contains fact underlying the shortcomings of the sim, bang, it gets censored. You are only allowed to discuss things that might not point this inability out or the devs already gave the slightest impression of fixing it sometime. 

In the end you have a forum full of yaysayers praising the product. And this is what they want. Simple as that.

You break the rules, you get in trouble. Same thing happens here.

17 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

The entire software world depends on open source software, how does this have any correlation to a piece of software that injects offsets into the memory of a commercial product?

There is no such thing as "memory injection", you replace data at a virtualized memory address or you are non-destructive and just read data from one (or more) virtual memory addresses ... executable code does this all the time.  The only difference is you have external code doing this rather than the initiated thread/process.  

Also, how does anyone here know exactly what REX Atmos is doing?  Got proof?  Does Microsoft have proof?  A hack can mean many things that aren't related to replacing data at a virtual address from an external process ... could be many things.

Finally, if such a "hack" works then why isn't that data being made available to the SDK for read/write?  In most cases when a company obfuscates functionality it's because there are other financial interests (parties) wanting some level of exclusivity (which we already know that exists in MSFS).

But I agree, this isn't some "new" tactic from Microsoft, they've been doing this for decades.  It's a double edged sword, why Microsoft want to operate this way with entertainment software is beyond me, there can't be that much $$$ at stake to attract such a negative perception.

On 10/5/2024 at 9:18 AM, vgbaron said:

Active Sky is using the SDK to control the weather.

Correct.  We absolutely DO NOT do any memory injection, hacking, or non-SDK/accepted practices for ASFS.  This is why we did not release ASFS for so long and why it was such a challenge.  We had to figure out how to control weather within the existing framework/SDK and we are using the CoherentGT/HTML/CSS/Javascript UI capability as lightly outlined in the SDK documentation.  This is also why we have been advocating strongly (despite incredibly surprising public criticism) for proper SDK capability to allow additional control.

Why don't we hack MSFS2020 when others perhaps do?  Because, in an unprecedented fashion, MS/Asobo/Jorg specifically asked all devs not to do that, and indicated that additional SDK capability would be coming, before MSFS2020 even released (in public videos) and we've always respected them and their wishes.  Even when it has literally killed us financially.  And even if this has been a somewhat acceptable/common practice prior to MSFS2020.  HiFi would never go against the wishes/goals of simulator developer and we are very much in support of MS/Asobo and their efforts.  Maybe one day our sacrifice here will pay off.

So, we're still advocating for additional weather SDK capability for MSFS since 2020 (now 2024).  And we hope more will join in and support this advocacy, even if there are legal/commercial conflicts of interest.  Things can change, perhaps.

 

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Damian Clark

1 hour ago, Damian Clark said:

Correct.  We absolutely DO NOT do any memory injection, hacking, or non-SDK/accepted practices for ASFS.  This is why we did not release ASFS for so long and why it was such a challenge.  We had to figure out how to control weather within the existing framework/SDK and we are using the CoherentGT/HTML/CSS/Javascript UI capability as lightly outlined in the SDK documentation.  This is also why we have been advocating strongly (despite incredibly surprising public criticism) for proper SDK capability to allow additional control.

Why don't we hack MSFS2020 when others perhaps do?  Because, in an unprecedented fashion, MS/Asobo/Jorg specifically asked all devs not to do that, and indicated that additional SDK capability would be coming, before MSFS2020 even released (in public videos) and we've always respected them and their wishes.  Even when it has literally killed us financially.  And even if this has been a somewhat acceptable/common practice prior to MSFS2020.  HiFi would never go against the wishes/goals of simulator developer and we are very much in support of MS/Asobo and their efforts.  Maybe one day our sacrifice here will pay off.

So we're still advocating for additional weather SDK capability for MSFS2024.  And we hope more will join in and support this advocacy, even if there are legal/commercial conflicts of interest.  Things can change, perhaps.

 

All good points; and respect to Hi Fi.

But the point is; do you believe Ms treat developers the same ?  The answer is NO.  One example; simple Msfs 2024 beta sdk only 'reserved' one months test for marketplace devs; like the others out there working hard do not exist or are less worthy. This is a bad attitude and habit; creating hostile environments; a toxic habit they gone into. Do not wonder why some take it under their control; like in this case; and give the sim a good 'memory' shake; indeed also high respect for Rex; took it under their control and initiative; with a product biting hard marketplace competition.  That is the point here. Clearly; many are enjoy Atmox; and do not give a single though of what they asked you to do or not do. Control back to devs rather than bureaucrats;  eroding developers creativity.

No Ms do not have to give anything; but what it give make sure is given equally to all who equally pay for the game; either a developer or not. We are all Ms customers; pay same price for the simulator; either you develop or not; as such betas; of sdk or game should be open to all and not just for few 'privileged friends' ; take example from Laminar X-Plane how to deal with your customers with open betas if you choice to do so.

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Marc22

3 hours ago, Marc22 said:

All good points; and respect to Hi Fi.

But the point is; do you believe Ms treat developers the same ?  The answer is NO.  One example; simple Msfs 2024 beta sdk only 'reserved' one months test for marketplace devs; like the others out there working hard do not exist or are less worthy. This is a bad attitude and habit; creating hostile environments; a toxic habit they gone into. Do not wonder why some take it under their control; like in this case; and give the sim a good 'memory' shake; indeed also high respect for Rex; took it under their control and initiative; with a product biting hard marketplace competition.  That is the point here. Clearly; many are enjoy Atmox; and do not give a single though of what they asked you to do or not do. Control back to devs rather than bureaucrats;  eroding developers creativity.

No Ms do not have to give anything; but what it give make sure is given equally to all who equally pay for the game; either a developer or not. We are all Ms customers; pay same price for the simulator; either you develop or not; as such betas; of sdk or game should be open to all and not just for few 'privileged friends' ; take example from Laminar X-Plane how to deal with your customers with open betas if you choice to do so.

Can't argue with any points here.  We can relate, deeply.  The alienation we and others have felt is real.  We aren't in the marketplace and are losing hope that we can ever be accepted (maybe due to some assumptions about our integration methods).  And we can't judge any developer for the decisions they make.  We certainly have considered many things out of desperation.  For us we decided it was better to stick to SDK even if it means we are out of business.  Fortunately we were able to survive a little longer (barely) and try our best to continue to be patient and do what we feel is the right thing, for us.  But I wanted to correct the record in regards to any confusion about our product and methods used to integrate, as speculated in this thread.

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Damian Clark

11 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

You break the rules, you get in trouble. Same thing happens here.

Yeah, some accept this fact, others question the rules and disagree with them. Always like this. I rather belong to the second group if rules are obviously ridiculous and close to censorship. You do not, fine. 

BTW: as mentioned, it is THE official forum for a product I paid for. Heck, there is even official support there (besides Zendesk) and if you get banned because of those «rules», your experience with the product you paid for is basically hampered. I doubt that they could win any lawsuit when someone being banned for just mentioning such addons would seriously go down the route of law. 

 

3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

There is no such thing as "memory injection", you replace data at a virtualized memory address or you are non-destructive and just read data from one (or more) virtual memory addresses ... executable code does this all the time.  The only difference is you have external code doing this rather than the initiated thread/process. 

"Executable code does this all the time"?  That's blatant misinformation and misdirection.  The general programmer writing in C++ is not typically writing directly to specific memory locations, or even reading from specific memory locations. You let the compiler determine the final machine instructions and those machine instructions determine how the data is pushed to memory or read from memory.  A C++ programmer will allocate and deallocate objects, but the code they write is compiled by the compiler and the compiler handles the actual instructions on how the data is pushed to memory and retrieved from memory (along with the operating system).

And yes, there is such a thing as deliberate "memory injection."  Hacks for games use memory injection all the time. Memory injection, to alter the data of a game, is a form of hacking.

That doesn't necessarily mean using memory injection means bad intentions (and not all forms of hacking necessarily mean bad intentions too).  Rex is trying to make MSFS better so they have good intentions.  The problem is the risks that come with memory injection as I outline in my comment above, especially if MSFS is patched or updated, the memory locations Rex has to write/read to may change, and if they do change, you better hope Rex is always around to update their software as well, otherwise, it can cause a CTD or other instability issues.

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

especially if MSFS is patched or updated, the memory locations Rex has to write/read to may change, and if they do change, you better hope Rex is always around to update their software as well, otherwise, it can cause a CTD.

 

This is true not only for Atmox; but also every other addon; in the modern world of msfs and indeed x-plane; the call to update an addon can come at any time.

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by Marc22

24 minutes ago, Marc22 said:

especially if MSFS is patched or updated, the memory locations Rex has to write/read to may change, and if they do change, you better hope Rex is always around to update their software as well, otherwise, it can cause a CTD.

 

This is true not only for Atmox; but also every other addon; in the modern world of msfs and indeed x-plane; the call to update an addon can come at any time.

The key understanding though is if you follow the SDK, the chances of your app breaking if MSFS is patched/updated is a lot lower than memory injection.  It can still happen that your app breaks when MSFS is patched/udpate, even if you follow the SDK 100%.  But the chances are a lot lower than memory injection.

And I have no idea how Rex is doing memory injection. But in the worst case scenario, if MSFS is patched/updated and the memory locations that Rex needs to overwrite has changed, but the Rex code is still writing to the same memory locations, Rex could overwrite the memory location of other apps, causing other apps not even related to MSFS CTDing.  Whatever apps you use for MSFS, it's very unlikely those apps can cause other apps not related to MSFS in Windows to CTD or crash, if those apps are simply following the SDK and not doing any extreme techniques.

Now I would hope Rex is doing something smarter than that and has certain guardrails they put up, such that they are not overwriting the memory of other applications not related to MSFS.  But memory injection is really the "wild west" and if the software doing it doesn't have any guard rails in the code, then a lot of instability and CTDing can happen, even with apps not related to MSFS.

Also, we can just look at the case of the latest Navigraph CTD issue. Navigraph followed the MSFS SDK, they didn't do any "hacking" at all.  When the bug was discovered, the MSFS team did a patch to MSFS to fix the problem.  This is one of the benefits of following the SDK properly - the onus can be on the host (in this case, MSFS) to fix the problem, if the add-on developer was following the SDK properly.

TLDR: Following the SDK results in much more stable code that is less likely to CTD (but not impossible to CTD), than using techniques like "memory injection."

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by abrams_tank