1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Not allowing discussion on their own forums that breaks ToS is a different matter entirely from the comment I was responding to which was about supposed nefarious reasons that MS/Asobo are not accommodating enough in the SDK for weather add-on developers to inject their own weather (like Acive Sky). MS/Asobo want as much add-ons as possible for the health of their sim ecosystem, and they'll allow discussion of any (on *their* forums) that follows the ToS and proper use of the SDK. Additionally, they're not "hostile" to add-ons that break the ToS in that they are trying to prevent them from being available to users, etc... all they're doing is not allowing discussion re: these in their forums, which they get to set whatever rules for (like avsim, etc). OTOH, add-ons like Active Sky can be discussed since it's using the SDK properly and not breaking any ToS. Not quite sure why this is all so hard to understand for some 🙂
 

Again - it's not hard to understand!! word not allowed 🥵

It's possible to perfectly understand the ToS and still have a discussion on whether this is the best approach by Microsoft. But thanks for clarifying. 

EDIT: I'll rephrase myself - hostile was too strong. Let's say they have a firm stance on discussing certain apps that violates the ToS. 

Edited October 10, 20241 yr by Cpt_Piett

My thread was certainly needed whether some want to admit it or not!

Six pages later with tons of questionable debates from TOS technicalities to IPC/memory injection methods.

Really good read and oh so entertaining!

Ummhmm you're welcome!😛

 

Only drama is see is in this thread.

12 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Only drama is see is in this thread.

No. It's a discussion. A dramatic discussion perhaps (it's Avsim after all), but nevertheless a discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to head over to any of the less dramatic threads. Good luck with that by the way 😄

It's certainly one of those discussions that's easier said over a pint in a pub, than in a forum where the written word cannot be expressed well enough through our train of thoughts.

I'll meet you in the Dog & Duck at 7pm then @Cpt_Piett & @bobcat999 😄

5 minutes ago, MarcG said:

It's certainly one of those discussions that's easier said over a pint in a pub, than in a forum where the written word cannot be expressed well enough through our train of thoughts.

I'll meet you in the Dog & Duck at 7pm then @Cpt_Piett & @bobcat999 😄

I'll be there! 🍻

On 10/8/2024 at 12:36 PM, CO2Neutral said:

 

I see neither one of you want to discuss IPC?

Your defense of not want to add more to an SDK is mind boggling and certainly doesn’t help get users what they want.  What is even more mind boggling you have a few folks that seem to support you … wow! 

 

I do find it odd all of a sudden the loudest acclaimed "subject matter expert" in the thread no longer has the energy, tact nor emotional temperament to give you a calm, solid, knowledgeable and technical response to the whole IPC/memory injection debate you are willing to discuss publicly. Instead you are getting the exact observation the user tried to deflect onto others, tons of "WORD SALAD". While others hide behind the user with most convincing argument.  I don't see why folks are all of a sudden silent and flustered at your non offensive IPC technical debate request. There are no longer any knowledgeable software engineers in this thread to prove you wrong on this matter, but many are silently agreeing with the person avoiding your request? 
Hmmm...🤔

Edited October 10, 20241 yr by blueshark747

19 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

I do find it odd all of a sudden the loudest acclaimed "subject matter expert" in the thread no longer has the energy, tact nor emotional temperament to give you a calm, solid, knowledgeable and technical response to the whole IPC/memory injection debate you are willing to discuss publicly.

Is it really odd? I have given several knowledgeable and technical responses. There is nothing more conducive to add.

 

9 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

Instead you are getting the exact observation the user tried to deflect at others, tons of "WORD SALAD".

I'm curious, what portion of what I said was word salad? Are you afraid to call out my username?

Your original comment:

Was unfortunately incoherent and I genuinely did struggle to understand what point you were trying to make. This is not an insult at you but this is just my attempt at trying to interpret what you were saying, which I still responded to none the less.

 

12 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

 I don't see why folks are all of a sudden silent

I'm "silent" because I wasn't willing to go around in circles with someone who hadn't bothered to use the SDK and instead throw around terms to seem technical on the subject matter but nothing actually pertaining to how the MSFS SDK functions and how writing and reading memory was not a part of it's interface. I do not care if CO2 has been software developing since the 80s, they've clearly demonstrated that they haven't used the SDK. They then proceeded to suggest I am not a programmer at all, which is ironic.

 

14 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

There are no longer any knowledgeable software engineers in this thread to prove you wrong on this matter,

@abrams_tank and I have already made our statements on the subject matter. I've provided more than enough on what @CO2Neutral's "wants" aren't possible.

I see you love a good "drama" and trying to stir up drama under the guide of discussion but the topic has been put to rest. If you or CO2Neutral don't want to believe me, I implore you both to read the SDK and try "writing and reading" to memory with it's interface.

This is a little childish now.

Rather than having this type of discussion that goes round and round and gets far too technical for people at my level . I just wish that if we are writing, pushing, or injecting to memory, we could all accept it is roughly the same thing, and we all know what we mean anyway, whatever it is called.

3 hours ago, MarcG said:

It's certainly one of those discussions that's easier said over a pint in a pub, than in a forum where the written word cannot be expressed well enough through our train of thoughts.

I'll meet you in the Dog & Duck at 7pm then @Cpt_Piett & @bobcat999 😄

I'm starting the weekend early - make mine a large one! 

11 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Let's say they have a firm stance on discussing certain apps that violates the ToS. 

if it it  violates their ToS  why havnt  they acted on Rex  than, unless  rex  havnt  done  any thing  wrong that is

On 10/10/2024 at 8:46 AM, Lucky38i said:

I'm "silent" because I wasn't willing to go around in circles with someone who hadn't bothered to use the SDK and instead throw around terms to seem technical on the subject matter but nothing actually pertaining to how the MSFS SDK functions and how writing and reading memory was not a part of it's interface. I do not care if CO2 has been software developing since the 80s, they've clearly demonstrated that they haven't used

Because you don’t understand, that’s why … you avoided IPC and Blazor/WASM entirely … again the SDK is VERY reliant on WASM.  BTW, Blazor-WASM was introduced about 4 years ago, it’s one of the more recent technologies from Microsoft.  Your campaign of misinformation and selective usage to portrait your false narrative is exactly “Word salad”.

Back on topic:

1.  MS just deemed a product (we’re all assuming REX Atmos) can’t be discussed in their forums because they claim it violates ToS without any reason of exactly what or how.  That opens the door for MS to deem any 3rd party or freeware product a “ToS” violation without having to provide details of what exactly is being violated.  This is commonly used on many websites but doesn’t necessarily make it “legal” and can be challenged under various US laws of which Microsoft need to follow.  Public domain manipulation of information is a big topic these days.

2.  Everyone wants a better flight simulation experience, how and why is this a negative and why argue against it?  Open doors, don’t close them.