sprintz

Wow, really nice work there. I'm using (probably) a similar technique as yours for the Aerosoft Airbus. None of the CustomDraw navaid icons look anything like the real A32X's, so it all had to be done by scratch. I'm not ashamed to say that it took me awhile to find the overall best method (best, for the particular goals, that is). If your method is very tedious, with tons of repeating code, then we're probably doing just about the same thing. ;-)Again, that ND you show looks very, very nice. I hope that custom navaid icons, vs. always the same old CustomDraw ones, will start to become more of the norm, because custom looks so much more authentic. And of course *variety* is just inherently nice....Scott

No problem. Just callin' it how I see it. I can't believe people think that companies such as yours would spend so much time and money on developing addons WITHOUT having strong legal footing.

Oh how cute...Okay I'll say it:"Yes, we should respect Microsoft's EULA's -- AND all other enunciations by Microsoft as to 3rd party developers' legal standing -- exactly as we respect 3rd party developers' "(I hope that little bit in the middle isn't a stick in your spokes.)

My reply doesn't sidestep anything. You seem like an octopus squirting ink. You're obfuscating, creating issues here from nothing, because, like anyone presented with facts unfavorable to his prior position, you seem all of a sudden to be a little less verbally discriminating and objective, and newly unable to distinguish significant factual differences. If, in your mind, a small 3rd party developer writing programs FOR a simulation platform is no different than the software behemoth creating the platform itself, then I'm probably unable to help you. I'm certainly not going to hold your hand and walk you back through each improper inferential leap you've taken in this thread to get us here, but do review it and notice how your "main issue" seems to have changed several times. That means something... not just retreat, but also that your indignation regarding the lack of an answer (to what you must know is a VERY disingenuous question) seems a little out of place.

The distinction seems pretty significant to me. Microsoft defines its own rights, just as the small 3rd party addon developers define their own. Microsoft has over the years pretty clearly taken a more open approach to the flightsim series, encouraging addons, releasing SDK's, obviously viewing the program more as a platform than as final product. They could have, at any moment, changed course and snatched those rights back up. They chose not to, but to instead allow others to develop payware. (Who developed the first payware addon? Did they ASK Microsoft? I don't know....) But how many 3rd party developers would there be if Microsoft had said "okay, we want 3rd parties to develop addons, but we won't allow them to assert or enforce basic EULA or copyright law"? There would be none. If you're going to encourage 3rd party developers, you've obviously got to give them the right to protect their own work. By the way, I see little PRACTICAL difference between "users may not modify this software" and "provider will not offer technical support to users who have modified this software." (One is just specifying a remedy for violation of a contract term, the other not.) Why would any small software company go after someone like Bob, or whomever was wanting to modify gau bitmaps, when there is no real economic gain in doing so?? It really only becomes a practical issue, I think, if someone were to start redistributing the modified work.

Bob, with respect, you and mgh are making yourselves look like you have very little respect for the hard work of others, work you derive a fair amount of pleasure from. That's not an indictment at all, but just an observation of the "feel" of this thread.As to the legalities... I practiced law for 4 years, and though I was not involved in intellectual property matters, I can pretty much guarantee that the short excerpts from statutes and the few cites to case-law that have appeared here are FAR from the whole story. It is tremendously more complex -- I'm sure there are cases interpreting cases interpreting the relevant statutory sections, cases from different federal circuits seeming to contradict, and so on -- but an attorney specializing in this area would know this law. Well. It would not be complex to him / her. So there are many pitfalls to the type of arm-chair lawyering seen in this thread. Consider: no one has even mentioned whether or not a copyright symbol is present, whether the work is registered, etc.... all relevant issues.(I'm taking this beyond the specific software asked about in this thread, because it seems others were quick to do so.)Beyond legalities, let's look at a simple hypothetical. What if the end user makes a modification to the program he "owns," then later on something seemingly unrelated goes wrong with the software? Then the end user needs to turn to the technical support resources of the software provider. Of course he never mentions his mod. And the problem with the software, the reason tech-support invested those hours, turns out to be related to that very modification made by the end user, made despite the requests of the software provider. End user would never have predicted that his small modification had larger ramifications, as he deemed himself familiar enough with the program's guts, its config files, etc. But he has just essentially taken money from the pocket of the software provider and put it into his own. Now, that scenario makes most sense and is more costly with a more substantial piece of software than is typically produced for FSX, but it is relevant. It's been relevant to pay and freeware flightsim developers. It's been relevant to freeware I've released, and is one of the reasons I've turned more to payware. It would be stupid for anyone in this hobby to ignore the tug away from freeware that many developers ultimately feel, and the reasons for it. These kinds of things -- expectations of support for your software which you later find out has been modified -- are one decent sized reason.

Wow. That quoted statement is breathtaking in its insanity. Heheh. Anyway, this all goes back to the "is it worth it" and "hassle factor" ideas I mentioned above. Just because Mr. Copyright Holder chooses not to pursue damages, that does not mean that the very same action of the violator is now magically transformed to "justifiable" status. Right? It's not at all like your motor tort analogy, the car backing out.On to the practical side.... Many on this board, including myself, make a portion of their income by selling the rights to software they've created. And, also like myself, I can pretty much guarantee you that each of them has watched in horror as the product they've toiled over is passed effortlessly back in forth on the free... uhm... "file sharing" sites. To watch this, with hands tied, is a REALLY crappy feeling. You feel disrespected, even almost violated in a small way. It may not be true that each copy that's downloaded there would've been a sale, but it's true that every 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th, or whatever copy would've been. It's real money out of your pocket. It's like just standing there helplessly watching people take cash from your wallet. And there is no remedy, realistically speaking.I share all that not for sympathy (hahah ;-) , but to maybe put some of what's been in this thread into perspective. Consider who is here: many people who are stolen from pretty much on a daily basis. So if words by the "strict copyright" crowd seem reactionary or heavy-handed, I think we all know why. It does feel like "the winter of our discontent" around the boards the last many months. It feels like the thieves are winning. To me it does. So, just sayin', maybe this isn't the best place to ask about circumventing copy protection. ;-)My take: GAU files are compiled, thus not meant to be edited, and I strongly suspect the EULA explicitly prevents that. Still, the main purpose of the EULA is to prevent BIG things like the file sharing scenario I mentioned above. But, editing 1 GAU file for personal use and never distributing it, that is WAY down on the scale of relative wrongs. But it is still technically a violation to some EULA's.

I think the issue many are having is that your definition of "illegal" seems to be too restrictive. To be illegal means to be "not legal." (Yes, I did feel silly saying that. ;-) There are criminal laws. There are civil laws. Violating either is "illegal." If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that it's only illegal if there's a criminal law involved?? And it's true that criminal law would come into play only if substantial copying and financial gain / financial loss were present, as I think you said. But still there is civil.As to what would make copying "illegal," your reiterated question, I would say that doing what some have suggested in this thread would violate either basic copyright law, or the valid CONTRACT between software licensor and the end user. Contract law is civil law just like copyright, is taken very seriously (obviously), and it is "illegal" to violate contractual principles. This is true in any modern, civilized country.Regardless... civil... criminal... being smacked on the a$$ by either arm of the law can seriously ruin a person's life.The reality of it all, as some have said, is really... what's it worth to pursue a wrong? I hope we can all agree that, just because a harm is small enough that the person wronged couldn't justify the attorney's fees, hassle, time, etc... that doesn't make the action any more or less wrong. (It seems, somehow, that it needs to be said.) There's an example of this type of thing going on right now in our very hobby, involving a very well known company that makes VERY top notch products. And the entity (individual) that claims it was wronged by that company is out over 2K dollars... which still just is not enough to justify the hassle. I mean, lawyers cost $250 per hour or more. Add different countries of domicile, and forget it... just can't even be pursued, practically. I worked in the insurance law industry for awhile, and I can tell you that exploitative people or entities get away with quite a bit just knowing that the harm they're doing won't quite breach the potential plaintiff's "hassle factor" level. It's a shame, because that hassle factor could be several thousands of dollars. People work hard. This stuff needs to be taken seriously. Something doesn't need to be a CRIMINAL offense for it to be "illegal." I think that's maybe a big part of this disagreement?

If you want the curves to be really nice and smooth, I'd do a quadratic regression on your data points. There should be info online, probably even pages that'll do that for you. You'd probably have to combine two equations, however: one between 0 and 25, and one from 25 through 100, since the two sides of your distorted parabola sound nowhere near symmetrical. Still, this should not be hard, as you can just invent 1 extra point (if needed) in order to flatten each curve's slope out right around 25... meaning the two curves will fit your data very well, and will fit together nicely right at 25% load. In fact, hold on... Found an applet that does this. These two equations below meet at x=25 (25% load) pretty nicely, and they're nice smooth curves running through (or very close to) all of your data points.y = .56x^2 - 28x + 2100 [for 0 to 25]y = .056x^2 + 0.2x + 1715 [for 25 to 100]x is load %y is RPMThe only issue, really, is... is that much precision in the load/rpm relationship needed so badly as to justify the horsepower needed for those continual computations? Your call, obviously, but I'd be interested to see if that actually gets you what you're looking for.Oh, in case I copied a number wrong or whatever, you can redo the regression process at: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~plaval/applets/QRegression.htmlScott

Roman:Combos of Acceleration World or Body or Velocity World or Body variables work just fine. That they are each in one spatial dimension only is no problem. A little trig gets you where you need to be. I've compared both methods ( sampling delta IAS over delta time, vs. the "pure" variable ), and the only difference is a lack of spiking and twitching with the "real" variables... a significant advantage. You can make the math more and more complex to get the speed trend value more and more precise, but it is not ever off by a factor of 10. (Am I reading you correctly????) In fact, using only ACCELERATION BODY Z and VELOCITY BODY Z (I think it's Z, IIRC) gets you very, very close 99% of the time. And the remaining 1% is a non-issue for civil aviation, unless something very bad is already happening. ;-)Thanks for your comments,Scott

Hi. For a speed trend indicator, has anyone besides me had better luck with the ACCELERATION BODY or ACCELERATION WORLD variables? As far as I can see, change in speed over change in time is the same thing whether taken directly from a variable, or computed manually, as here. I've personally found that directly using the acceleration variables eliminates spiking and jitteriness. I don't remember if those variables are available for FS9 though, and I no longer have that SDK installed.

Interesting, thanks. I didn't delve in too deep, but I did spend a bit of time looking at "AutogenDescriptions.xml". I see that there are much smaller trees available, from young to very old for many types. I guess the problem, then, is not the "size" of the autogen trees per se, but instead the way the sim very frequently places huge trees in inappropriate places. Too high of a concentration of the "very old" types I guess. I wonder if editing down some of the max scale and min scale numbers would do what it sounds like they'd do?

I disagree with your statement about the autogen tree size. I haven't messed around with the autogen SDK, so am not sure how the tree sizes appear in those editors, but inside the sim the trees definitely are rendered too tall -- quite often 100, even 200 feet.