I am posting this here because the technical review is now complete, and I want to explain the issue clearly and without exaggeration.

This concerns the current OEJN MSFS matter only.

During the dispute, the developer side supplied the MSFS airport-layout XML themselves. That file was then compared against my original OEJN source. The issue is not a generic “same airport” overlap, and I am not claiming a literal 100% unchanged copy of every asset.

The point is narrower and more specific than that: the completed technical findings identified repeated structured correspondence between the developer-supplied MSFS XML and my original OEJN source in stand layout, gate naming and numbering, headings, taxiway geometry, and related jetway-location patterns.

One report found 235 of 249 parking entries within 50 m, 2811 of 2909 taxiway points within 50 m, and related jetway-location correspondence. A second report found 145 shared named gate positions, with 115 aligning within 50 m and 10 degrees.

Both reports also state their limits clearly. They are technical comparisons, not legal opinions, and they do not claim that every 3D asset is identical. My point is simply that the underlying layout structure shown in the developer-supplied MSFS XML materially corresponds to my original OEJN source in a repeated and documented way.

That is why I am putting this on record here.

Edited April 15Apr 15 by mmogahed

What is this about?? 

Hmmm...also somewhat confused here 🤨.

I'm sorry if the OP is under any sort of stress over the minutiae of a legal/quasi-legal matter important to him but this is surely the wrong place to put up such material; I see no benefit to anyone else.

This forum is for discussions about Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 and 2024).

I’m referring to the current OEJN product for MSFS, sold under Double T on simMarket:

https://secure.simmarket.com/double-t-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-msfs.phtml

I’m putting this on record because, during the dispute, the developer side sent me the MSFS airport-layout XML for that product. That file was then compared with my original OEJN source.

So this is not just a generic “same airport” argument. The issue is the repeated structured correspondence found in the developer-supplied layout data.

I’m keeping this limited to the current MSFS matter, the XML they supplied, and the completed technical findings.

Nope, still now idea what you are carrying on about...looks like another opportunity to use the ignore function so kindly provided by avsim!

I am assuming that the OP is indicating that this other developer has stolen some work, and used it in their product?

4 hours ago, mmogahed said:

I am posting this here because the technical review is now complete, and I want to explain the issue clearly and without exaggeration.

This concerns the current OEJN MSFS matter only.

 

If you expect anyone to understand what on Earth this is about, you really need to provide some context!

Particularly;

• What is the actual dispute?
• What is the "technical review"?
• Are you a developer? What's your standpoint here? Where are you coming from and what are you trying to achieve with this mysterious "putting the record straight"?

 

  

2 hours ago, mmogahed said:

I’m referring to the current OEJN product for MSFS, sold under Double T on simMarket:

https://secure.simmarket.com/double-t-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-msfs.phtml

I’m putting this on record because, during the dispute, the developer side sent me the MSFS airport-layout XML for that product. That file was then compared with my original OEJN source.

So this is not just a generic “same airport” argument. The issue is the repeated structured correspondence found in the developer-supplied layout data.

I’m keeping this limited to the current MSFS matter, the XML they supplied, and the completed technical findings.

...this still does not successfully explain anything to members of this forum, who don't know anything about the background of this.

As it currently stands, the post is a complete waste of yours and all other viewers' time.    Which is a shame, if this actually is something meaningful.

 

Edited April 15Apr 15 by JYW

That is fair, so let me explain it more clearly.

I am the original creator of this OEJN work:
https://forums.x-plane.org/files/file/69509-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-2021-oejn/?_fromLogin=1

The current MSFS product I am referring to is this one:
https://secure.simmarket.com/double-t-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-msfs.phtml

During the dispute, the developer side sent me the MSFS airport-layout XML for that product, and that file was then compared against my original OEJN source.

I am not here to create drama or turn AVSIM into a legal thread. I am putting this on record because I do not want my original work to be quietly buried or ignored, and I do want the community to understand why this matters.

AVSIM has long been one of the places where flight sim users actually follow developers, products, and what happens around them. That is why I felt it was the right place to explain the issue and ask for fair understanding and community support.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

Shouldn't we expect gate positions, for example, to match within 50 meters and 10 degrees, even if the work was done completely independently? The addons reproduce the same real-world airport, and there is only one correct real-world position and orientation for each gate. Presumably both you and the other developer wanted to be as faithful as possible to the layout of the real-world airport, so I think it should only be expected that the end result would be very similar?

59 minutes ago, mmogahed said:

That is fair, so let me explain it more clearly.

I am the original creator of this OEJN work:
https://forums.x-plane.org/files/file/69509-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-2021-oejn/?_fromLogin=1

The current MSFS product I am referring to is this one:
https://secure.simmarket.com/double-t-king-abdulaziz-international-airport-msfs.phtml

During the dispute, the developer side sent me the MSFS airport-layout XML for that product, and that file was then compared against my original OEJN source.

I am not here to create drama or turn AVSIM into a legal thread. I am putting this on record because I do not want my original work to be quietly buried or ignored, and I do want the community to understand why this matters.

AVSIM has long been one of the places where flight sim users actually follow developers, products, and what happens around them. That is why I felt it was the right place to explain the issue and ask for fair understanding and community support.

I suggest you hire an actual lawyer instead of using AI for legal advice. No idea what you're on about, but this is not the place to litigate whatever it is that you're litigating.

1 hour ago, weaklink said:

Shouldn't we expect gate positions, for example, to match within 50 meters and 10 degrees, even if the work was done completely independently? The addons reproduce the same real-world airport, and there is only one correct real-world position and orientation for each gate. Presumably both you and the other developer wanted to be as faithful as possible to the layout of the real-world airport, so I think it should only be expected that the end result would be very similar?

I have to agree here...it's quite reasonable to expect that the geometry of independently-created renditions of the same airport would/should closely resemble each other.  Now if they *exactly* matched, that'd be something else, but geo coordinates, orientations, and names of gates, jetways, taxiways, etc can be easily and accurately derived from satellite imagery/aeronautical mapping products...and given the high resolution of publicly available mapping data, 50m is really not that close at all.

You cannot paint a copy of the Mona Lisa and then accuse another of stealing your work because the copy of the Mona Lisa they painted looks similar to yours.

Barring some actual compelling evidence of wrongdoing, let's end this here.