Writing in FSX's memory same as FSUIPC did?

[Manuel Ambulo]

Hi,

I just wanted to know if with the new Simconnect, it will be possible to write in FSX's main variables, as FSUIPC did?..(i dont have the FSX SDK...neither the BETA....just asking because FSX went GOLD and i think BETA's period had ended or is ending...). I already had saved the money for buy the new FSX Deluxe (with the SDK inside). :D

Best Regards,

Manuel Ambulo

[spotlope]

I'm not a programmer, so I can't answer with certainty questions about how to write to memory in FSX, but I do know that Pete Dowson has already released a version of FSUIPC for FSX, and will continue to support the sim. So in that case, little has changed -- except of course for what Pete had to do under the hood. ;)

[scruffyduck]

Looking at the Draft SDK for FSUIPC4 it is certainly possible to read and write most of the offsets in FSX. It seems that not all of them can be done using SimVars, but using Sim Events which are, as I understand it, equivalent to Controls in FS9.

[Manuel Ambulo]

Thanks, i didnt knew it was a version of FSUIPC already for FSX, i will look at the documents to see how will FSUIPC work with FSX. But when i had heard about the news of SimConnect and what it will going to do for FSX then i ask myself as anyone like "Then what gonna happen with FSUIPC?", cuz FSUIPC had been for many years one of the best add-on for FS.

Best Regards,

Manuel Ambulo

[scruffyduck]

Well the new version of FSUIPC uses Simconnect to communicate with FS as I understand it.

[jcboliveira]

Manuel

The new version was a relief to me. I lost count of how many programs I did FSUIPC based.

However I took the decision, maybe 1 year ago, of changing from C++ to C# and Simconnect seems a logical step specially due to the events.

José

[Manuel Ambulo]

Yep, FSUIPC is the base or basics for making good FS-Addons...most like: A DEVELOPER'S MUST HAVE..(FSUIPC)

But the FSX SDK has still documents or references (methods and functions) for C++ programmers? or its all in C#?...i think that if it is in C# its not a big change ...but just asking...lol.. :confused:

I will save some money for buy C#. I entered to the sites that recommended me scruffyduck, and i see the similarity of C++ and C# so it wont hurt that much moving from C++ to C#, but first i need to buy the C# first...lol.

Manuel Ambulo

[Pete Dowson]

But the FSX SDK has still documents or references (methods and functions) for C++ programmers? or its all in C#?


No, it is nearly all C++ (or C mostly. No real classes as such). I wouldn't dream of moving to anything as clunky as C# if you know how to use C/C++!

I will save some money for buy C#. I entered to the sites that recommended me scruffyduck, and i see the similarity of C++ and C# so it wont hurt that much moving from C++ to C#, but first i need to buy the C# first...lol.

Why bother? If you know C/C++ then stay with it. I've not even seen the wrappers for SimConnect in C# -- the C/C++ base documents and headers tell you the real story, the one the wrappers wrap-around! Seems to me a step backwards going to C#.

Regards

Pete

[scruffyduck]

I will save some money for buy C#. I entered to the sites that recommended me scruffyduck, and i see the similarity of C++ and C# so it wont hurt that much moving from C++ to C#, but first i need to buy the C# first...lol.

C# is Free (well the Express Edition which has what you need). You can get it from here http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualcsharp/

I wouldn't dream of moving to anything as clunky as C# if you know how to use C/C++!

Have you used C# Pete?

[Manuel Ambulo]

Niceee, Thanks Pete, im pleased to heard that most of all is in C/C++ i do really like C/C++ the way it is, but i was thinking that if the FSX SDK was all in C# then that may force me to use C#, (you know that when something new comes up in software, then older things may come obsolete...and so the references for new flightsim may not contain references for C/C++ [i dont know if you got my idea..lol] then that left me thinking as i dont have the FSX SDK...). But its nicer to know that FSX SDK still supports C/C++...:)

Ohh...well i didnt knew that C# was for free..:eek: ....nice to know its free...well the enterprise...but anyway its free....i will give it a try to see how looks like (now that i know it is 4 free)...but i do really prefer the good old C/C++, i used to program in Visual Basic before C/C++, but since i switch from Basic to C++ (about 3 years ago) i do really like to stay in C++....but of course try something new just to take a look around in C#...:D

Best Regards,

Manuel Ambulo

[scruffyduck]

In that case Manuel you should certainly stay with C++. There is a free download of Visual C++ Express also from Microsoft which should make creating GUI a bit easier.

[Pete Dowson]

Have you used C# Pete?

No, I looked at it and shivered in horror. Sorry, but I am an assembler language programmer at heart. Even C is really a bit too removed from the nuts and bolts for me, but at least I can understand the assembly code it produces. Even C++ OOP stuff really makes the lower levels really horribly complex (and inefficient -- too much indirection, awful looking code).

I fail to see why C# has "C" in the name. Looks more like VB/Java or something to me. Horrible.

Of course this is only my opinion. And at 63 I'm too old to change now (been programming since 1963). Before C was invented I used its predecessor (BCPL, invented at Cambridge here in the UK) for a few years, but always resorting to assembly code for efficiency in main loops and so on. At least today's optimising compilers do quite a good job here -- better that I could when you take pipelining into account.

But only MS's Pro versions of the compilers are true optimising ones, which is why I have to shell out lots of ££££ for the whole Visual Studio Pro suite -- you can't get the fully optimising compiler on its own.

So I do have C# and VB.Net and some other stuff I can look at. But use .... nah, not me, thank you! ;-)

Best Regards,

Pete

[jcboliveira]

Pete

I know that I can't change your feelings towards C#. I believe that I started programming in Spectrum Z80 Assembly but usually to see how to get infinite lives in a game. :rolleyes:

Professionally started programming in 89 and for me C was something that allowed me to speed up assembly programming in an 8051 microcontrollers. When I move in to C++ (mainly to use MFC), found out that I couldn't really program in C++. I'm still thinking that classes are struct in steroids nothing more. This thought is something that makes my theoretical colleagues green.

However c# allowed me to start new. The syntax is C so there wasn’t anything new. But the important thing was to loose contact with the memory, no more pointers and memory reserves. The strict casts and handlers (not the .net since that is anything more than a huge library) allowed me to change the way I do things and I took the decision to begin from scratch: Buy books see examples etc.

José

[scruffyduck]

Pete

I completely understand your position on this. We are not that different in age, BTW, and I started with assembler also. In your position I certainly would not change my development tools. You are very effective and create great programs which none of us can do without.

Personally I don't think C# is that much different than C++ in syntactical terms, a lot of it is to do with the way dotNet works and there is a lot of stuff in C# dealing with those things. It has it's roots in C++ and Java, but I don't think it looks or behaves much like VB :)

Anyway we could go on for ever arguing which is best and get no where. Much more important is the results of what we do and not the tools we use

My 2 cents anyway :) :)

[Pete Dowson]

I'm still thinking that classes are struct in steroids nothing more. This thought is something that makes my theoretical colleagues green.

Yes, unfortunately once you see it like that (which is how it looks from lower levels looking up) it is difficult to get to it the way it was intended -- as a top-down programming methodology.

For 17 years I was either programming test programs for mainframe hardware development and/or field testing, or managing a group doing so. All this was naturally bottom-up programming, never top-down.

You get stuck into that way of doing things (and enjoy it, which is mostly the point here). I start with the lowest level bits and bobs I need then build a framework on top to utilise them. You can't do that in OOP without wasting the whole point of OOP. It needs a different mind-set to start with.

This is why I avoid doing application programs (or at least not much more than demos). Low level drivers, interface routines, nuts and bolts: that's me! (After all, someone has to do the dirty work ... <G>).

Best Regards

Pete

[NotASenator]

Yes, unfortunately once you see it like that (which is how it looks from lower levels looking up) it is difficult to get to it the way it was intended -- as a top-down programming methodology.

For 17 years I was either programming test programs for mainframe hardware development and/or field testing, or managing a group doing so. All this was naturally bottom-up programming, never top-down.

You get stuck into that way of doing things (and enjoy it, which is mostly the point here). I start with the lowest level bits and bobs I need then build a framework on top to utilise them. You can't do that in OOP without wasting the whole point of OOP. It needs a different mind-set to start with.

This is why I avoid doing application programs (or at least not much more than demos). Low level drivers, interface routines, nuts and bolts: that's me! (After all, someone has to do the dirty work ... <G>).

Best Regards

Pete

Pete, this is actually the reason why I love C#. I couldn't get by without the low-level programmers to do the work that needs to be done, but I have two things I need: To be able to look at a program or game from an overall logic flowchart type manner and program it for that, and to be able to sit down and actually start working on making the project do what it's supposed to do, not making the program actually work. It's a subtle difference, but I think you'll understand. I have no joy in optimizing the way my programs allocate memory, I just want to build something that does something and then watch it do it.

I'm also too much of an idea guy and not enough of a programmer, where I come up with a concept and I want to see what can be done with it. Especially in the realm of game programming, C# and packages like the new XNA framework have made this incredibly easy for me.

But I realize and accept that none of that would be possible without the guys who get down into the guts and make everything work right, and I respect that.

[Manuel Ambulo]

Yes, without people like Pete (that do low-level programming) we couldnt or it wont be possible to have the GOOD! applications we have today. :)

I do really respect people that does low-level programming, like assembler, because its where the others languages came from..more like where the others languages (like C/C++...then Basic and so on....)....born from.

Best Regards,

Manuel Ambulo

[Filip Jonckers]

I must agree on Pete here...

C++ is the way to go if you want extremely fast code
not to mention portability..
I code a lot in Linux environment too so...

IVAC & IVAP are still using the dreadful MFC library
but am glad we now switched to wxwidgets

A programming language is like a suit .. use the one you're most comfortable in
well.. I wear my C++ with pride ;)

[Filip Jonckers]

to get back on topic...

no - Simconnect is not like FSUIPC

it uses the typical Microsoft style: sending events and receiving events
you cannot go into FS and mess things up :-)

but the great thing is that you can also connect remotely and with multiple clients.

Simconnect has still some rough edges, lots of variables still not as we would like them
and a lot of them are toggles which makes it hard to use
Simply SETing the value is the best way to go - but... yep....

but compared to FS2004 it's a huge step forward

[mmodesto]

when I trie to install FSUIPC

THIS VERSION OF SIMCONECT DOES NOT MATCH FSE.EXE
INSTALL SIMCONNECTMSI

???

THANK YOU

[Pete Dowson]

when I trie to install FSUIPC

THIS VERSION OF SIMCONECT DOES NOT MATCH FSE.EXE
INSTALL SIMCONNECTMSI

???

THANK YOU

Your FSX installation went wrong and SimConnect is not correctly installed. This has happerned to at least two others I know about (via the Support forum of course). You'll need to find SimConnect.msi on the DVDs and execute it to install it correctly. FSUIPC4 cannot function without SimConnect.

FSUIPC4 support is best obtained on the Support Forum as linked in the documentation.

Regards

Pete

[TorgSmith]

I have been programming professionally in C# for just over 3 years now. I like strait C better. I do not like writing in assembly.

The thing I dislike of high level programming languages is there is a bunch of magic happening in between your lines of code and maintaining the code becomes a pain. The stack trace can show nothing but third party library calls and you won’t even know what form it was on. We have a self built library that emails us (developers) when the user gets an unhandled exception. It gives us the error type and stack trace.

C++, C#, and other OOP languages promote the use of global variables. This under a new name of object properties. The OOP people will tell you this is just a small amount of code in an object. Some of the more complex forms (forms are objects) I have worked on had thousands of lines of code.

If you want to pass a complex type by value as opposed to by reference you must support an item array in that object that has all the public properties provided in their base type (i.g. int, float, ect)and pass that array, or else you are really providing a pointer to the object.

I will continue to code in C# language as long as I’m getting paid to. lol I will just complain while I do it.

Thank You,
Mike

[mmodesto]

thank you Peter, like a said I cannot find SDK either SINCONNECT.DLL, I mean I just found the SINCONNECT.DLL folder but nothing inside..I just remove my FSX and re-install and now another problem my MULTIPLAYER just GONE from FSX menu..crazy..but thank you anyway..

best regards

mauricio

[mmodesto]

Peter Great news I just did...I found SIMCONNECT.DLL and bang!! lol..
but I think people who install de FSX should not remove..because if you remove and re-install files will be missing, it's something that we can report to Microsoft, the last time I removed all fsx and re-install SIMCONNECT was missing and multiplayer menu too, now is all back. don't ask me why I have no idea lol...well..thank you so much for your help.

best regards

mauricio modesto
TAM brazilian virtual Airlines
callsign: 3059

[Pete Dowson]

Peter Great news I just did...I found SIMCONNECT.DLL and bang!! lol..
but I think people who install de FSX should not remove..because if you remove and re-install files will be missing, it's something that we can report to Microsoft, the last time I removed all fsx and re-install SIMCONNECT was missing and multiplayer menu too, now is all back. don't ask me why I have no idea

Please write your experiences and send them to tell_fs@microsoft.com. They will not reply to you, but they do read all submissions. If you mention SimConnect in the title it will definitely reach the right person. I keep telling them there are install problems with SimConnect, but it needs REAL people with REAL problems to report them before they consider it important.

I did ask if I could distribute the SimConnect.MSI file, from the SDK, because running that will fix many SimConnect install problems, but they won't let me send it at all. They did hint that they may make it available on the FS website, but there's no sign yet.

Please send that message. The more the better. It will help!

Regards

Pete