However, I do have other questions regarding your specific implementation of the AI traffic within the function of the DDI's. As I recall (correct me if I not, cause its been quite a while since I looked at this capability specifically), the gauges are able to see AI in both AWAKE, SLEEP and In_Air, On_Ground or On_Sea modes, Correct? I've been studying the ITraffic implementation within the SDK and I want to verify/clarify what the XML and C implementations permit, certain features that allow for correct segregation of AI types and states/mode that they are in. Any clarification of your implementation are/are-not within the .gau files (without breaking trade secrets) would be helpful and appreciated.
There's nothing "specific" we did when reading AI states. Everything it's done 100% according to Simconnect specifications, so there's no need to repeat here what you can surely find in the FSX SDK.
So, you are using the SimConnect specifications only or specific implementations? As I read, with XML there are two methods that can be used with differing capabilities and limitations, I'm attempting to learn which ones would be the best for specific purposes so as to use them to that end. At this point this is a mind exercise, nothing more.
Also, this begs another question, if I use both the existing gauge in-place while intercepting the OSB's event ID while having another gauge (invisible) do something with it and then pass that along to your DDI gauge instead of the .gau currently operates, does that also break the IP?
Apart for the absurdity of doing it that way (I don't think it will really work, since you'll have to "fight" against the original gauge code to set the variables), I think my first reply was clear enough: you can do whatever you want, provided you DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY MS CODE IN ANOTHER PRODUCT.
But of course, anything I write here doesn't have any legal base whatsoever, since (as I've said, quite clearly) I do not own ANY of the F-A/18 IP anymore, if a Microsoft lawyer comes knocking to your door, don't expect to justify yourself with "Virtuali, the developer, told me it's ok", because even if I was the developer, I don't own such IP anymore because it has been bought by Microsoft long ago, so I don't have any power to allow/disallow anything about it, that's just my personal interpretation of the SDK EULA.
I appreciate you candor in this matter; but I am at this point attempting to learn from the SDK code specified (which as you already know is very incomplete
) and there are definitely uses for doing such multi-operational code, encryption is a good example of that. But, to clarify legally what I am attempting is merely to use this as a self learning tool for another project that I am working on so, don't worry no lawyer will be coming to either of us as it wouldn't be "out there" to bother them, at least not from me in this exercise.
But, I appreciate the advise and will call on you at some point in the future when I get stuck with something you might be the only source with the answers for.