Competition, Freeware and Add-on Quality

[ricardo_NY1]

Does anyone think it will be or would have been a better deal if MS at least provides an SDK for freeware development? What would be a valid reason for them not to? Considering the idea that MS themselves may be the only add-on developer, how does that affect quality and progress when there is no competition around? You'd figure competition drives the need to offer as much quality and bang for the dollar as possible.

[JSkorna]

Because that same SDK could be used by payware developers. Then what?

[ricardo_NY1]

Because that same SDK could be used by payware developers. Then what?
I hear ya Jim, but you and I both know the big houses like PMDG/Wilco/PM are not going to do that. For the ones who overlook the legal issues, they're going to find out the hard way that when you can't legally market or distribute something at places like the flightsim store, etc........that the only other venue is going to be underground, where it will eventually end up on TPB. It's not going to be worth the time and effort to create something you can't sell. You may as well give it away for free!

[torkermax]

"I hear ya Jim, but you and I both know the big houses like PMDG/Wilco/PM are not going to do that"

And what are they doing now?

[ReggieF5421]

I'm not sure that some SDK type information is not being provided to some developers. We know of some who have publicly said they turned MS down when the conversation got to details about providing addons for Flight.

Some others might have agreed to those details/ conditions.

[ricardo_NY1]

"I hear ya Jim, but you and I both know the big houses like PMDG/Wilco/PM are not going to do that"

And what are they doing now?
Is there something in the current SDK used for FS9/FSX development that says you can't develop and charge? If there is, I stand corrected. Otherwise, an SDK for freeware development as I mentioned would be just for freeware development, not payware.

[angels355]

I don't know of any valid excuse why they could not release the SDK for freeware or payware. MS addons or expansion packs should compete in an open free marketplace. I was flying the default FSX 747, showed everyone the screen shots from my first flight in FSX as I don't have any third party planes installed. The default 747 doesn't look all that great. However there was quite an improvement in the flight dynamics, I liked it, it felt solid. However any freeware POSKY looks better, despite their depending on only donations, somehow they look better, and I think they fly better also. Is that default 747 the quality that we're going to have to expect from MS addons? MS is the giant, POSKY is miniscule and yet they look better and have a more exciting product. That is why we need a free open marketplace with an open unlimited SDK for all types of third party developers. For freeware developers, donation developers, payware developers, and for MS addon developers who want to also sell their addons in an open marketplace. They want to get into the addon market let them see what competition is all about. If the default 747 were made available as a payware addon, nobody would want it because it looks ugly. You would have to explain that it flies very nicely, but because it looks so bad, it would be passed over. This is why the East German cast iron bathtub company failed overnight, they could not compete in a free market. If however MS gives us absolutely no choice in the matter by withholding their SDK, making their addons the only ones that will function in Flight, it is still an open free market and we'll buy PMDG's, or POSKY's, or the free Santa's Sleigh or F18, for FSX or FS9. Or try out X-Plane.

MS said that they were going to make these changes in Flight and hope that they don't "alienate" their customer base. Hello! Are we important, the customer base? We have a number of FS hobbyist that enjoy designing from scratch or painting or tweaking addons for FS, whether they are for their own use or for everyone. Witholding the SDK, how does that not alienate their customers? And by completely controlling all addon content is it likely that they will censor content to be more PC for our own good, like Versaille Treaty 2? I suppose that will also be the end of airliners painted in colors like American Airlines, United, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, they'll just be generic names so as not to offend any airline.

Haven't we developed some legal right of way? For 20 (?) years the flight simulator series has allowed third party addons of any type whether it is freeware or payware without restriction. Can they shut us off like that?

Any way, if they don't want to sell to their customer base, what can we do about it we don't run the company. We'll take the only options available to us, download freeware or buy payware for FS9, or FSX, and many of us have been trying X-Plane. True it is not nearly as good as FSX, however the company is really friendly and enthusastic, and Aerosoft, Carenado, and others are starting to support it. On just a business to customer level relationship basis, what does MS have to say for themselves?

[fxsttcb]

I don't know of any valid excuse why they could not release the SDK for freeware or payware.Greed. Valid? MS thinks so. Plain and simple. If they thought they could compete in an open market for highly detailed add-ons, they would have, for earlier versions. Moot.
With a closed market and no competition, we have no choice but to purchase from them, or go without.

I think if MS focuses a small portion of their development on appeasing the dedicated simmer, they may entice some of us to stay with Flight, at least for a while.
For now, with no Navaids, no ATC, and especially no user content, it is going to live or die with the XBox crowd.

What I just don't understand is; all of the features that are included in FSX are NOT REQUIRED to be used. "Free Flight" and "Missions" are exactly what their names imply.
FSX with all of Flight's performance tweaks plus it's Missions/Online Game modes, in addition, would have covered the "wider audience" they were seeking.

I'm in the mood to shoot something...maybe I'll load up CFS2... CFS3... or ROF... IMO, more rewarding than pacifistically flying through coins anyhooo...Don

[torkermax]

I don't know of any valid excuse why they could not release the SDK for freeware or payware

Because they have spent 100's of thousands developing a program then not generating any revenues from others developing and selling products for it. You cannot distinguish between who will sell and who will give it away for free. You could make the SDK for sale for ex. 1000.00 and not care if it were used for free or payware. Now i dought if many people would pay that to develope freeware. It all boils down to there is no such thing as free today. No business who wants to show profits are going to give away anything for free. Even to hobbiest. Another thing is the piracy that has occured in the industry. You think about it. When or what was the last "freeware" you saw for FSX. FSX developers have pretty much run them out with quality also. X. POSKY. Everybody wants and expects high quality and are willing to pay for it. JMO

Personaly. I dodnt like it either but I do understand it. Just a "mean" corporate world! :) Who ever thought consumers would by water in a convience store?

[fxsttcb]

When or what was the last "freeware" you saw for FSX? FSX developers have pretty much run them out with quality alsoThe Eight new FSX files added to the library here today, and almost every day there are plenty of additions.
Your HD probably ain't big enough to DL one month's worth.
The 33 airport compilation I found recently, that Ant(Ant's Aussie Airports) released, along with a bunch more of his older offerings.

With the lack of a Flight SDK, there seems to be a renewed interest accross the board for FSX development.

Here's one for you: SOH Native FSX Freeware Aircraft list (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58094-FsX-native-freeware-aircraft-list). Post #144 for now. Updated regularly to reflect new additions that are found by members...Don

[Jugador]

Here's one for you: SOH Native FSX Freeware Aircraft list (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58094-FsX-native-freeware-aircraft-list). Post #144 for now. Updated regularly to reflect new additions that are found by members...Don

Thanks for the link...looks like I'm going to be busy downloading some new stuff for the next couple of weeks. :p

[torkermax]

The Eight new FSX files added to the library here today, and almost every day there are plenty of additions.
Your HD probably ain't big enough to DL one month's worth.
The 33 airport compilation I found recently, that Ant(Ant's Aussie Airports) released, along with a bunch more of his older offerings.

With the lack of a Flight SDK, there seems to be a renewed interest accross the board for FSX development.

Here's one for you: SOH Native FSX Freeware Aircraft list (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58094-FsX-native-freeware-aircraft-list). Post #144 for now. Updated regularly to reflect new additions that are found by members...Don

None to my standards! Besides the largest % are repaints of existing.

[benny1]

So this will be just playing the game ? no tinkering with the CFG. files or stuff of that nature ? if there is something i dont like i wont be able to tweak or add scenery objects etc... it could get boring right away

[fxsttcb]

None to my standards! Besides the largest % are repaints of existing.I didn't say they were gonna be superb or payware quality! You asked and I gave a few examples. Which ones did you try? I'll avoid 'em...Don

[csefton]

Does anyone think it will be or would have been a better deal if MS at least provides an SDK for freeware development? What would be a valid reason for them not to? Considering the idea that MS themselves may be the only add-on developer, how does that affect quality and progress when there is no competition around? You'd figure competition drives the need to offer as much quality and bang for the dollar as possible.

Did u consider that some freeware may be far BETTER than their MICROSOFT LIVE PAYWARE?.....the WHOLE point of their new ethos with FLIGHT is to KEEP the cake to themselves and sell the slices to the CONSUMER!!..if someone else is given the SAME ingredients to make another cake for FREE!!! and offer THEIR slices for FREE which may be almost as good as the expensive payware cake slices..........what are YOU going to Eat!?..or OTHERS!.....Sorry but your question and thinking is...erm shall we say naive to be polite! :rolleyes:

[ricardo_NY1]

Did u consider that some freeware may be far BETTER than their MICROSOFT LIVE PAYWARE?.....the WHOLE point of their new ethos with FLIGHT is to KEEP the cake to themselves and sell the slices to the CONSUMER!!..if someone else is given the SAME ingredients to make another cake for FREE!!! and offer THEIR slices for FREE which may be almost as good as the expensive payware cake slices..........what are YOU going to Eat!?..or OTHERS!.....Sorry but your question and thinking is...erm shall we say naive to be polite! :rolleyes:

Absolutely considered it..........and you make the point that the post is about. Add-on quality will be affected if MS has the ultimate control/standard for add-ons. Even freeware would have the capacity to force them to up their quality. If things go the way they seem to be going, competition will be non existent. That in the long run will affect what is offered.

[raimondo2]

It is not only the quality - but also the price !
Do not forget that ms give away flight for free - and the cost of flight production have to be recovered trough addons they sell. If you think that you are in for a bargain - you will be surprised.

[benEggleston16]

Absolutely considered it..........and you make the point that the post is about. Add-on quality will be affected if MS has the ultimate control/standard for add-ons. Even freeware would have the capacity to force them to up their quality. If things go the way they seem to be going, competition will be non existent. That in the long run will affect what is offered.
Both argumants have a point, but when faced with quality or value, most people will go for value. Remember, we don't yet know how much the DLC will cost. They will probably make more money it it's cheap and something people want, say that P-51 in the latest video, if it's $1.99, almost all users will buy it thinking 'what harm can $1.99 do?' and perhaps never intend to buy another. So, microsoft might sell 10,000 but if like I think everyon's expecting, they are the price of full-blown FSX addons, maybe $39.99 or more, the newcomer will be back to buying X-box or CoD upgrades (can you get CoD upgrades? I know so little) in a flash

[Jugador]

Even freeware would have the capacity to force them to up their quality.

That's right...a good example is the golf game Microsoft Links 2003. There's still a following for that game because the "free" courses are spectacular. They're put together by engineers and other professionals who get a kick out of making courses. They share satellite demographic data, textures, and artwork that would blow away anything MS might offer.

[ricardo_NY1]

That's right...a good example is the golf game Microsoft Links 2003. There's still a following for that game because the "free" courses are spectacular. They're put together by engineers and other professionals who get a kick out of making courses. They share satellite demographic data, textures, and artwork that would blow away anything MS might offer.
That's pretty much what it's also been for MSFS in terms of add-ons. Freeware has always surpassed anything MS has offered in terms of sound sets, AI, panels, aircraft, water textures, ground textures, cloud textures and the list goes on.


Both argumants have a point, but when faced with quality or value, most people will go for value. Remember, we don't yet know how much the DLC will cost. They will probably make more money it it's cheap and something people want, say that P-51 in the latest video, if it's $1.99, almost all users will buy it thinking 'what harm can $1.99 do?' and perhaps never intend to buy another. So, microsoft might sell 10,000 but if like I think everyon's expecting, they are the price of full-blown FSX addons, maybe $39.99 or more, the newcomer will be back to buying X-box or CoD upgrades (can you get CoD upgrades? I know so little) in a flash
The point is not how much MS' add-ons will cost or what quality or value they consist of.........it's the idea that without competition from elsewhere, they don't have the same need to bring you either.

[angels355]

That's right...a good example is the golf game Microsoft Links 2003. There's still a following for that game because the "free" courses are spectacular. They're put together by engineers and other professionals who get a kick out of making courses. They share satellite demographic data, textures, and artwork that would blow away anything MS might offer.

That's amazing. On the store shelves I saw several copies of "Farming SIMULATOR"! You'd think by now that they would take that awful "simulator" name off of it, and make it a game with a wider audience. "When I was a child, I dreamed that I could plow....!"

It bothers me that there was such rage from certain MS managers who opposed Flight SImulator in the standard format. After the Fleetwood Mac song "Oh Well" I never presume that someone I or we might look up to or respect would automatically like us back in return. Some years ago I lost my job and I spent 10 x 7 hours/week looking for a job on the internet on the library computers. I had a lot of company, people doing the same thing. I presumed that the librarians cared about us and hoped we would succeed and were happy that we were using their resources to good advantage. And there was never a problem getting a computer. To my surprise, the librarians were fed up seeing us every day and put timers on the computers.

So just because we love MS FS, and may love Windows, and we have undying admiration toward MS, we apparantly have discovered that a significant portion of MS management don't think very highly of us their FS and Windows customers at all. The problem I think is that they are so far removed from their customers, and the concept of selling a profitable franchise product and catering to our desires to increase sales, that they are insulated from reality and have no concept of what they have done. I think those managers should be richly rewarded with pink slips.

[Jugador]

That's amazing. On the store shelves I saw several copies of "Farming SIMULATOR"! You'd think by now that they would take that awful "simulator" name off of it, and make it a game with a wider audience. "When I was a child, I dreamed that I could plow....!"

It bothers me that there was such rage from certain MS managers who opposed Flight SImulator in the standard format. After the Fleetwood Mac song "Oh Well" I never presume that someone I or we might look up to or respect would automatically like us back in return.

How about..."I've always wanted to be a Street Cleaner!" (http://www.gamespot.com/street-cleaning-simulator/) :)

Yeah, you're probably right, if we asked MS what they think of us, we probably wouldn't like the answer.

I sort of like the concept the company Slightly Mad Studios (http://www.wmdportal.com/projects/cars/) is taking with their latest racing game. It's a completely open beta
for all designers, artists and mod folks. You pay a one time fee of about $35 and download the latest build every week. Pretty cool stuff...:p

[angels355]

How about..."I've always wanted to be a Street Cleaner!" (http://www.gamespot.com/street-cleaning-simulator/) :)

Yeah, you're probably right, if we asked MS what they think of us, we probably wouldn't like the answer.

I sort of like the concept the company Slightly Mad Studios (http://www.wmdportal.com/projects/cars/) is taking with their latest racing game. It's a completely open beta
for all designers, artists and mod folks. You pay a one time fee of about $35 and download the latest build every week. Pretty cool stuff...:p

I have to say I'm really excited about this game! Breathtaking realism and graphics, I haven't seen anything like this before! The Slightly Mad Studios is very interesting also.....I mean...the other way....:confused:

I have an F1 force feedback steering wheel w/ F1 paddles and pedals, never tried it, wonder if it will work on modern equipment?

[ricardo_NY1]

That's amazing. On the store shelves I saw several copies of "Farming SIMULATOR"! You'd think by now that they would take that awful "simulator" name off of it, and make it a game with a wider audience. "When I was a child, I dreamed that I could plow....!"

DLC= 1) Seed packs 2)Tractors 3)Insecticide 4)Voucher for free FLIGHT crop duster

[Jugador]

I have an F1 force feedback steering wheel w/ F1 paddles and pedals, never tried it, wonder if it will work on modern equipment?

Ain't got a clue. That's one of the nice things about an open beta, tho, somebody will probably get it working for you.

[angels355]

DLC= 1) Seed packs 2)Tractors 3)Insecticide 4)Voucher for free FLIGHT crop duster

Amazing

[benEggleston16]

How about..."I've always wanted to be a Street Cleaner!" (http://www.gamespot.com/street-cleaning-simulator/) :)
That company, Excaliber Publishing are absolutely rolling in it, they've churmed out pretty much a new title every week, city bus sim, diving sim, police sim, tanker truck sim, cable car sim, gardening sim?! surgery sim (getting ridiculous now...) are the first ones that spring to mind. It's almost cerainly the same engine with a new vehicle every week, no development care/time, they just realise they will always sell at least a couple copies of each 'new' 'sim', so for the work they put in, that's a worthwhile outcome;). Also, they and the slightly more popular Ship Sim 2006/2008 use MS's font for their branding

[angels355]

That's amazing. Some of those look like fun.

[ricardo_NY1]

That company, Excaliber Publishing are absolutely rolling in it, they've churmed out pretty much a new title every week, city bus sim, diving sim, police sim, tanker truck sim, cable car sim, gardening sim?! surgery sim (getting ridiculous now...) are the first ones that spring to mind. It's almost cerainly the same engine with a new vehicle every week, no development care/time, they just realise they will always sell at least a couple copies of each 'new' 'sim', so for the work they put in, that's a worthwhile outcome;). Also, they and the slightly more popular Ship Sim 2006/2008 use MS's font for their branding

Titles in the works 1)PC Technician Sim 2)Car salesman Sim 3)Party clown Sim 4)Traffic Meter Cop Sim

[angels355]

Titles in the works 1)PC Technician Sim 2)Car salesman Sim 3)Party clown Sim 4)Traffic Meter Cop Sim

They should add Rodney Dangerfield Sim, because I get no respect in my neighborhood no respect at all!

[andyjohnston]

Has it actually been specified there will be no navaids?

[mgh]

Has it actually been specified there will be no navaids?
No

[alaskancrab]

Sorry where exactly does it say there is no SDK ? Normally these things are announced 3 months after release. Just because certain companies have broken ties with Microsoft doesn't mean I should believe their speculalation when it comes to no SDK. I mean I checked Nels and Toms posts and neither mention anything about an SDK and they are the only ones that appear to have any authority on this matter at the present time. What I have noticed on the other hand is not every developer has burned the bridges...

[ReggieF5421]

Sorry where exactly does it say there is no SDK ? Normally these things are announced 3 months after release. Just because certain companies have broken ties with Microsoft doesn't mean I should believe their speculalation when it comes to no SDK.

The FS2004 SDK were released individually between 5 and 9 months after FS2004 went on sale. Several addon developers (freeware and payware) provided feedback to Microsoft that (1) it hurt FS2004 sales because of the difficulty in developing quality addons; and (2) several products had to be redesigned after the SDK were released. Some others just gave up and didn't bother to ever fix issues.

During the lead up to the development of FSX, having the SDK available at or before release was a priority of addon developers and many beta testers.

The release of FSX occured during a period when Microsoft was allowing their developers to communicate directly with end users on a wide range of products. At the time I was working with some business systems and networking management products from Microsoft in my real job. Our company had a lot of interaction with the MS developer teams.

I cannot say if that type of two way communication continues with Microsoft today.

What we have not heard from the Flight team, which we did hear at this point from the FSX team, is that there will be SDK released.

We also have heard from developers - PMDG and ORBX - that Microsoft told them there would be no SDK released.

[alaskancrab]

That's the thing. I mean there's always been this two way communication between Microsoft and it's developers. They take extreme pride in their relationships that is unmatched by any other company on earth. You show up to one of their training or information events you are walking away with golden information with regards to advanced product info,demos, etc. They gave 1000 people at last years Build proto-type Samsung tablets so they could get going with Windows 8 development. Bottom line if you tell them what you are doing, they will tell you what they are doing so you can achieve that goal as it's a common one.

So Robert's statement really stood out. "Microsoft asked for sales figures, we refused"(paraphrase). That's just not how its suppose to work. It's a simple question that deserves a simple response. 10,000 customers, 15,000 customers. After all they are the ones making a living off the very SDK Microsoft provided them. How can that information be used against them? Certainly they asked Tom and Nels how many users they had on their forums or just looked at the registration count, and look what it got them, Exclusive access to the biggest news story for the genre in it's 25+ year history that normally would have been reserverd only for the major publications such as IGN/Gamespot.

So as long as Microsoft keeps saying there will be plenty of online content why should I believe otherwise? Certainly their software engineers have better things to do than make every single addon. They need to make a handful of examples, license the SDK out, and that's it. The best thing that will come out of the Microsoft store is quality standards that are the consistent across the industry. So bring it on!

[angels355]

I don't want them to license the SDK with exclusive contracts that will block FS9 and FSX developers from selling to us, their devoted and rabid customers! :eek: I want them to just give us the SDK.

I can hardly believe that MS blocked release of the SDK for 6(?) months after FS9's release. What's up with that, doesn't make sense to me. There's no way in tarnation, yeah that's right TARNATION, that MS developers are going to produce more than a handful of addons. They can't even do a simple thing like give is FSXI. What they seem to want to do is acquire addons from 3rd party developers through exclusive contracts. When Balmer gave his speech at CES MS wanted us to order it on on demand tv, like we would pay to listen to him speak? In this harsh environment incredible freeware developers like POSKY/FSPro and makers of the Klingon cruiser, Santa's Sleigh, and the flying hotdog will be shut out.

Perhaps it's too early to be griping, perhaps MS will lighten up. But, if we got everything we wanted, how does Flight compare to FSX? The graphics are lightened up, but it appears that it would be entirely BYOterrain, ATC, and everything else. If we got everything we wanted, would it still be a keen disappointment? Perhaps they are just utilizing an asset they already have the FSX simulation engine and want to make money with it before it is completely obsolete. For FSXI XII by now we need some real quantum leap improvements like 64 bit and multithreading. Perhaps MS already realizes Flight is really lame and perhaps they intended it for the very young, the all-thumbs, and vinyl siding salesmen?

Perhaps instead of griping, we should say, OK Flight is for kids, when can we expect FSXI and FSXII? Whatls the word on development of FLIGHT SIMULATOR?

[loki]

I can hardly believe that MS blocked release of the SDK for 6(?) months after FS9's release. What's up with that, doesn't make sense to me.

Was it blocked, or did they just not have it ready when the sim was released? SDKs don't just make themselves and do take time to put together.

[ReggieF5421]

I can hardly believe that MS blocked release of the SDK for 6(?) months after FS9's release. What's up with that, doesn't make sense to me.

This is the answer


Was it blocked, or did they just not have it ready when the sim was released? SDKs don't just make themselves and do take time to put together.

An SDK is not something developed before they start work on a project. It is developed from a combination of the rules they used in the development process, tools they wrote, etc.

Often a product has to be near completion before an SDK can be created/ finished.

Creating the SDKs was not a high priority with FS2004. It was with FSX because they saw that they could sell the SDK as part of the FSX Deluxe package. And that was perfectly fine with most folks. We understand the SDK is added content which takes additional time and money to complete.

[angels355]

I see. :eek:

If MS gave us everything we wanted in Flight, would Flight be a worthy successor to FSX? The SDK is a crucial starting point, perhaps because of the time it takes to produce the SDK they haven't fully made up their mind on whether to give us the SDK, however the offer they made to PMDG was concerning. But if they gave us everything we wanted, would Flight be a worthy successor?

Going through the Games department, they decidedly seem to be pushing us out onto online gaming. I have never gone online as I just had dialup for 7 years that was so slow it is hard to imagine, just got broadband maybe 18 months ago. All the other gamers in mainstream gaming usually play online, in racing, military, FPS, WoW, Halo, 2142, Halflife, the Steam people, and many others. That is definitely a "Synergy" factor on the upside perhaps. The downside is that the graphics are reduced like a console game although console games often have the appearance of fine graphics. Then I'm not familiar with the cost of online gaming. I have been running FSX for a few weeks, and have still not tried the missions. Perhaps the Flight demo at CES just highlighted that as one facet of Flight, but it can be played entirely in a standard way if we want? After all that was a beta, perhaps a lot more is going to be added to it?

[loki]

The downside is that the graphics are reduced like a console game although console games often have the appearance of fine graphics.

Graphics don't have to be reduced, and it is just as often done a certain way due to the artistic style the developer is aiming for.


Then I'm not familiar with the cost of online gaming.

This varies widely from the entire game and online experience being free, some being ad supported, to the game being free and supported through subscriptions, and to just paying for your copy and multi-player being free. Halo on the PC, for example, cost $50 or so to buy, and you didn't need to pay anything to play online. WoW, on the other hand is basically free to download, but you need to subscribe to keep playing beyond the trial period.

Having better online and multi-player can be great features to have. However, they have to be done right to keep people around.

[alaskancrab]

I imagine there is also difficulty with the 3D modelling package itself. Obviosly it's not a good idea to ship with GMAX as the new FS tools/SDK may require a full or newer version of 3dsmax. I know there are several validation tools out there for max files that check for optimization among other things and give unbiased "feedback" on the quality of the work and suggests way's to improve the files as well.

Dassault's really incharge here to some extent and perhaps MS is waiting for a newer tool from them before announcing anything with regards to a public SDK. Dassault's already released draftsight.com their public 2D CAD software, which they boast has something like 400,000 users since it's launch last year. Perhaps a cloud version of GMAX is in the works?

I'm not presenting any of this as fact as to why they are so silent, but just suggesting maybe even the MS folks don't even know the full details when it comes to the SDK...

[angels355]

If MS does give us the SDK, that would be a huge step forward, and would alleviate a great deal of worry. Perhaps we'll get lucky.