BGLXML 1.8 vs. NewBGLAnalyze1.0 when decompiling AP files

[Guest jzax]

I just wanted to post my experience when using both decompilers to examine default AP files.As a conclusion, none of them is perfect. My observations follow:1) Both will decompile taxiway signs almost always, but BGLAnalyze will decompile them wrong, turned around 180 degrees. The error is in the parameter "justification" which comes out "left" when it should be "right" and viceversa.2) BGLXML will sometimes decompile ILSs wrongly associated to the runway end (changing "primary" to "secondary" and viceversa).3) Re approaches, BGLXML just forgets to decompile the very important CF, FC and FA legs. However, in the other leg types, it spits out more parameters than BGLAnalyze. BGLAnalyze omits some key parameters in the CI leg (time or distance, it just won't compile again), and often "turndirection" in VI and CI legs.4) BGLXML will not nest NDBs inside the corresponding Airport section, making them NOT a "terminal NDB" (as they are intended to be in an AP file)5) BGLXML also corrupts the "services" section of an airport, while BGLAnalyze seems to do it correctly.I would like others to post their observations in this thread too, so we can all benefit and avoid mistakes when designing and xml-coding our sceneries.

[scott967 62]

Thanks for the analysis. I know from experience it can be dangerous to trust either too much. There dopesn't seem to be much interest in maintaining these tools, unfortunately. Maybe for FSX.scott s..

[mgh 89]

Check the Flight Simulator EULA.

[Guest jzax]

What for??

[mgh 89]

This:Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

[Guest artmartin]

MS development staff have been well aware for quite awhile now that the development community has been doing this type of activity and they have never discouraged it that I can see. In fact, the decompilers are using what they can find in the SDK's so it's not like they are unlocking guarded secrets. The holes exist simply because the SDKs are not quite complete or have errors in them. I would think, if it really was a sore spot from MS, that we would have known long ago. My guess is that many of the developers of the decompiling software have been selected for beta teams for new versions.Art Martin

[mgh 89]

Then why does the EULA explictly forbid it?Or is it OK to ignore the EULA on your products?

[Shaka 2]

>Then why does the EULA explictly forbid it?>>Or is it OK to ignore the EULA on your products?Are you still on this boat? I think you've made your point, but you're still wrong. It was a valiant effort, but no one cares. Not even MS.- Martin

[mgh 89]

I agree no one cares - but it's interesting that those who don't care about infringing Microsoft's rights complain when their rights are infringed.

[arno 1]

I hope this will not add to much fuel to this fire, but do they also mean the BGL files with software product? You could also see a decompiler as a tool that is able to read the BGL format (just like FS reads them) and that then saves them in a different format. So you are not reverse engineering FS itself, but a file format used to exchange information.I am not 100% sure if this is the correct understanding, but it might be a nice point for discussion :).Besides that, if we use the decompilation only to see why certain things go wrong (and then try to solve that), it is not such a bad thing. It helps to improve the product. If you use the decompilation to steal data or the work of others, that is wrong of course. But I don't think anyone is encouraging that here (or should do that).

[Guest Horst]

@ mghMaybe consider reading this bloghttp://blogs.technet.com/torgo3000/archive.../19/412742.aspx

[jvile 1]

The AFCAD utility has been around for years. It is a decompiler! Decompiles what? The APnnnnnnn.bgl airport scenery file which houses many of the Element statements that make a default airport look the way it does and function the way it does. Counting the AFCAD decompiler, that makes 3 decompilers available to us the user to enhance FS9 and the way a airport looks and works.The BGLComp2 SDK clearly says DeleteAirportThis element is used to delete an airport or part of an airport and potentially replace with new information. This element is not allowed to contain other data and must be terminated with

[Guest jzax]

Geeee...It was not my intention to start the thread to discuss legal issues.If any of you would like to have that discussion AGAIN please open another thread, thankyou. How many times has that issue been discussed? It is so boooring and unproductive....gimme a break....Comments on BGLXML vs. BGLAnalyze welcome!

[mgh 89]

ArnoThe EULA states:"...the Microsoft software product identified above [MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2004: A CENTURY OF FLIGHT], which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and

[arno 1]

But where is the border between decompiling and reading a fileformat that is used to exchange data? A program like AFCAD does read the information from the BGL files, is that decompiling as well? It does nothing else then BGLXML for example. It only presents the information in a graphical way instead of in a text file.This is not much different from for example a program that is able to import the Microsoft Office file formats. I don't think that is called decompiling and breaking an EULA?When you start to decompile the EXE of FS itself or start to change default BGL files, then you are breaking the copyright I think. But when you are just reading a fileformat that has the purpose to distribute information, I am not so sure.But maybe it is better to stop this endless discussion. None of us are lawyers it seems, so we will probably never reach a definite conclusion on this.