I'm disappointed that this discussion has descended so soon to the level of personal ad hominen attacks, ie, when the opponent is attacked rather than his arguments, usually because they can't be countered.

hey there, anonymous:What discussion? According to your point of view there is no room for discussion. Instead AVSIM and other sites need to shut down immediately because ~90% of the files they offer and a large part of the knowledge exchange happening here are in breach of the FS EULA. Thus, Tom's question is very on-topic: if that's your belief, what are you doing about it? Using add-ons and posting at Avsim could be seen as supporting those that are outside The Law.Meanwhile, a lot of people are having fun with this hobby ;-)Cheers, Holger

Another ad hominen approach ("anonymous") that fails to address the question.

MS had been very clear and consistent.Yes, many of the files for addons - in fact the vast majority of addons - both freeware and payware - tehcnically violate the EULA. And Microsoft takes exactly the remedy they wish - "If it doesn't work or causes problems, it's not our problem" to deal with those violations.However, when using the MS provided Software Developer Kits to decompile, modify and update files does not appear to be a violation of the EULA. The two EULA's are actually in conflict - one not allowing any modification or reverse engineering, the other specifically giving tools and directions on how to modify and reverse engineer.Also, Microsoft has been VERY ZEALOUS in pursing and stopping what they consider to be violations of EULA.People have been sued and taken to court.People have removed their products from distribution and left the FS community as part of a settlement with Microsoft.The basic point of this thread is AI traffic and traffic schedules.MS does not like some of the aspects of the Traffic Tools program. They have been very explicit that if we use it and have problems because of those lack of checks - that is OUR problem - not theirs.They do provide information on traffic files and tools to create new files.However, like most of the MS products with which I work on a daily basis (enterprise level network systems), those tools require a certain amount of detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the application.Information which can only be found by examining files and rigorous controlled testing.That is the base discussion and purpose of this thread.

My friend,Relax, stop worrying about MS. They can and will take care of themselves. If anyone tries to take any money away from Bill Gates, rest assured he'll shut them down! Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see where anyone is "attacking" you. We're grown men playing airplane here, and I for one am having a great time of it, and appreciate the fact that we may have a new and improved ver of TT's soon, without taking any money away MS.Mikewww.aimadeeasy.comwww.flightontario.comI'm confused. Wait...maybe I'm not!

Reggie, thank you for reminding us why this thread came to be.Now, I have been able to decode the files compiled by traffic tools and obtain the aircraft, airport and flight plan data. My next step is to convert the binary data back to a text format, however, instead of the format being in traffic tools format, it will be in the format consistent with the FSX compiler.From what I've been told, the text files are similar to the FS9 files. So I will use that as a start. Once FSX comes out I'll use the attached SDK to clear up any discrepencies. Right now I am concerned that folks cannot create BGL files using the custom routes option. Can this be confirmed? I'm not terribly concerned as this report comes from a beta version. However, if this is an issue with the production version, more work will be needed to get any type of capability that we currently have. Basically we will have to wait until I can decode and encode the FSX files. Since I haven't put much work into that and with the fact that we know that some of the file database formats have changed, it may take some time.In any case, I'll keep working on my initial plan and hope for the best that Microsoft will not ship a defective product .Lee.

I have reported you to the forum administrator. Your personal attacks masked by your concern for Microsoft's rights has been a consistant feature of your posts in the various design forums.Please stop. Address your concerns to Microsoft, not to members of this forum. I'm sure they will enjoy your nonsense as much as we have.To all others, I suggest we simply ignore this troubled person, and perhaps he will decide to simply go away.Dick

"I'm disappointed that this discussion has descended so soon to the level of personal ad hominen attacks, ie, when the opponent is attacked rather than his arguments, usually because they can't be countered."Hmm, I believe *you* started the ad hominen (sic) attacks. This started with this statement of yours:"Your approach seems to be "anything's acceptable provided you can get away with it"."That is not what I said, constituted a personal attack, and could not be countered.Touche,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

I responded to your views/opinions which is legitimate and not you personally. There is a real distinction between the two.

"However, like most of the MS products with which I work on a daily basis (enterprise level network systems), those tools require a certain amount of detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the application.Information which can only be found by examining files and rigorous controlled testing."That is no doubt true. However, why does it infringing the prohibition on decompiling etc in the EULA?

Wait a minute. I am being accused of something completely false.This started when I commented about *Microsoft's* reaction to people decompiling their files; I never mentioned that I condoned it. That was an assumption on your part. I said "Thus they have tacitly indicated...", meaning MS. Then you responded by saying "Your approach seems to be" - which is not what I said at all - I never mentioned my views on decompiling MS files. I agree that it is technically illegal. Thus you began the personal attacks.Then I responded by describing your illegal actions, not attacking you personally. I fail to see the difference - in fact I feel you attacked me more than I did you.--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Too sad to see that perhaps the most important topic for AI community is sinking because of the personal attacks at the very start

I don't think anything is sinking quite yet ... I think people are waiting for the retail version to confirm what they have learnt from the demo and beta versions.Meanwhile there is a discussion going on revolving around 3rd party developers having used undocumented features over time to provide useful addons such as traffic tools, additional aircraft and fsuipc.Improved documentation and the new SimConnect API will hopefully make this a non-issue over time.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your views, but I don't see that as a personal attack. I never accused individual of being guilty of anything.However, as you admit that decompiling infringes Microsoft's rights then can I assume that you don't make use of de-compiliers?

>I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your views, but I don't see>that as a personal attack. I never accused individual of>being guilty of anything.>>However, as you admit that decompiling infringes Microsoft's>rights then can I assume that you don't make use of>de-compiliers?>>Ok, this has become a seriously screwy conversation.Whether or not Tom condones anything has nothing to do with the similarities or differences between FS9 and FSX traffic files, and therefore is woefully off topic, not to mention the fact that it's not really anyone's business.If you have particular concerns about improper use or EULA violations, I would suggest contacting any of the active ACES members who post here regularly, or contacting the team directly through the [email protected] email, so that they can address your concerns directly, instead of turning a legitimate and important topic into a psuedo-legal debate of he said/she said.