Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MigloInce

Airbus EXT cause FSX CRASH?

Recommended Posts

I downvoted the comment because it dismissed a solution which worked by saying it's dangerous, which is false, and instead proposed a solution that can be more dangerous (the illegal part doesn't seem to touch you much) than simply renaming the file.

Still, if you agree, you could have upvoted his comment or present your arguments and I don't see the reason why you keep this wave of downvoting with no arguments whatsoever. You are actually doing what you are accusing me of just because John is your friend, with no basis on this whole story at all. So either this forum operates the same for everyone, or it's a happy little company of 10 who believe they are above criticism (which it seems it is really). Just out of curiosity, why don't the Deputy sheriffs for example, say to John, that his answer, apart from one sentence, is mainly off topic (as they jump in other topics about that) and that his second answer is abusive and point out that that sharing Microsoft redistributable runtimes is illegal? This seems to be something you do not fail to point out when it involves aerosoft products. On the contrary, he replies with an even more off-topic post and you really seem to be encouraging this behaviour.

It so happens mate that good old John's POV said specifically that what I proposed is dangerous and on his next post said "I know who I am going to believe", without presenting any evidence regarding that at all. It seems to me that you don't find this behaviour abusive in this forum, but you find abusive the fact I tried to defend my solution as not dangerous (?!). That is sickening and is the definition of operating on double standards. The fact I have to explain all these to you is at least ridiculous and shows that this really is a company of 10.

I didn't try anywhere to prove I am correct, and he is wrong. This is your heavily biased interpretation. If you actually read the posts, you will realise I simply explain that the solution is not dangerous and why. I also pointed out that sharing runtimes can prove more disastrous than this, especially when the user is inexperienced, whch is true, and that sharing them is illegal, which is also true and doesn't seem to bother you guys that much. I never said that the alternate solution won't work, on the contrary I said both work.

It seems to me that many of you guys on this forum operate on a weird basis. In this topic, I can see my first comment which proposes a solution that works downvoted, as well as my post which explains why the solution works, why it is safe and why the alternative is not the legitimate way to do it, which you deputies seem to find offensive for some reason. Can someone please explain to me then why this is happening and why I am discouraged to defend the validity of my solution when it is offended without arguments, if it's not just for the sake of your biased attitude ? Did you even read the posts you downvoted? Does this mean you disagree with the posts? I'm sorry I didn't say "yeah man go there, download a random file and run it in your pc. btw it's illegal and god knows what's in that file, but who cares right?" for you to approve my view.

Share this post


Link to post

Downloading DLL files from previous OS's isn't illegal. It's just simply a issue that could lead to potential problems, as some are wrapped in root-kits and viruses.

@ Miglolnce

Here is the uiautomatiocore DLL that I've used for over two years. Give this one a try before attempting to rename anything and brick your winsys root RDE. Simply place the file in the main FSX directory.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8RHp_Rvf_szdS1sa1pTOFdScTA/view?usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, yes keep sharing your ignorance guys saying my solution will brick the PC, just because you don't know s*it about the file you are sharing. I guess if you read something in a "reputable" forum or have friend in the forum that makes you an expert on all matters here. Copying any kind of file that belongs to a redistributable package is illegal end of story. What you say happens only if the package is under FRS licence and the OS under GPL or BSD licence. Even in that case, rules still apply and allow you only to do so by sharing the source code of files whose code is public domain and not the compiled file. Even the author of the file can't share an individual compiled version of the file. If you go to Microsoft, you won't see anywhere "here take this file", but you will see "please install this package". This is why drivers and firmware, even in open source OSs (Linux, BSD etc.) are compiled on your PC and are not pre-compiled and you are free to look at the code. The only packages that are pre-compiled are proprietary packages and not individual files, by manufacturers, for which the manufacturer has legal responsibility as to their function and validity. Keep proving my point that you guys say and support whatever suits your friends.I upvoted you post, since it's clear you are an expert after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, yes keep sharing your ignorance guys saying my solution will brick the PC, just because you don't know s*it about the file you are sharing. That's the way to go, this forum likes it after all.

By renaming the default file in question, you have the potential to break the DLL's API itself as other programs might still require it. The UIA tree is not a fixed structure, it might contain thousands of elements. Parts of the tree are built as they are needed, and the tree can undergo changes as elements are added, moved, or removed. Furthermore, the majority of the UIA verify functionality is provided through a dynamic link library (e.g. UIATestLibrary.dll). By remaining it, you (can) break the functionality it enables and essentially remove it's regp for certain programs to find and or use. I said can, not will. I'd rather not take the chance

Share this post


Link to post

The UIA library consists of of very specific files numbering in the tens (not even ten actually), not thousands. Moreover, anyone who understands the basics of how these things work knows that what you say is not even a coherent sentence and doesn't even mean anything at all. A dynamic link library (.dll) is just the specification for any such portable executable file and is not what you imagine it to be. All these files are dynamic link libraries and it has nothing to do with a file having "library" in its name. No .dll file will make alterations to other .dll files and recompile them for the imaginative scenario you describe to happen. Application dependencies are determined and the dependency tree is built every time you run the application and are not permanent. .dll files are only linked together dynamically (when they are needed) in runtime. in your computer's RAM. They are not permanently linked every time something changes through recompilation, and nothing gets built when it is needed, apart from the "links" that bind dlls with the application that uses them. Every single library is pre-compiled and what you say can't even happen in Windows, as the source code isn't there in the first place. The dependency tree exists only in the RAM of the computer, constructed by the permanent hierarchy defined in the library file you mention. The library file you mention, is simply a runtime dependency tree for the UIA, and if a dependency is not covered when it is called it will simply stop executing which doesn't destroy anything at all. Yes, if you rename a file that is used by the OS at boot time, you can "break" your OS (something which is also easy to repair through safe mode or command line by just renaming it again), but the uiautomationcore.dll is not a boot runtime dependency of Windows anyway. The fact that the file is in the tree of UAI doesn't mean it will be loaded, or that the tree definition will get destroyed if the file is not found. If you rename the dependency tree file you mentioned, yes windows may not boot because it will be searching for it, but this doesn't mean it will call every file in its list. In fact, Windows will just search to see if the tree file is there and won't even execute it unless an app requires it. If you need the library you will know, as you will get a message that says it's missing.

All these mean that if a file can't be found for whatever reason, nothing happens apart from breaking runtime execution and of course the dependency tree defined in a file will never change, even if dependencies are missing. The thing about breaking application functionality or dependencies permanently (? if that's even what you mean) is just a fantasy that cannot happen for a variety of reasons. Next time you run, if the dependency is satisfied it will run fine and nothing at all will change in your system. This is the whole point of the .dll concept anyway; sytem-independent portability for different system builds. It is the opposite of what you are saying. In that case, simply reverting the name as I said 25 posts above will fix this "catastrophic" consequence. Furthermore, unless you use accessibility features (in the vast minority of apps that support them), there is 0 chance of even that happening. Even if you use an app that supports accessibility, if you don't actually use the accessibility features, the app will still run fine. Even in the 0.00001% of applications that have this as a runtime dependency, just renaming the file will let the app execute with absolutely no consequences, even if its dependencies were not satisfied another time you ran it.

There is absolutely no chance, zero, nil, of causing permanent damage to anything by altering the name of this specific file, or harming your OS, even if you are inexperienced. I totally respect the fact you may not want to try the solution because you don't feel comfortable. Then again, if you are not feeling comfortable doing this, maybe you shouldn't be lecturing on downloading and running licensed or unknown runtimes from the internet. Please, willing to try and dismissing the solution as dangerous, on the basis users or you aren't comfortable are two different things. The OP was comfortable apparently and had no trouble doing it with a little help. In the same way, people shouldn't be doing the alternative either which is even more dangerous. People are comfortable enough getting in the BIOS, altering voltage levels etc. as per the suggestions of others in reputable forums, breaking warranties of stuff that cost an arm and a leg with much more dire consequences potentially, by simply applying the "common sense" rule. Consequently, this is not really an argument. They are also comfortable enough to edit .cfg files, registry entries, page file sizes etc, which are really in the same level of "danger" as this solution. Editing specific registry keys as per the suggestion of someone who knows what they do is not dangerous, and in the same way altering specific runtimes is not. After having explained multiple times what this exactly does and how to resolve potential "issues", I don't think there is any room for discussion on the danger level of this fix. Just say I'm not doing it, or I prefer another way, or simply point to another solution as well, without trying to argue on my solution's validity by saying nonsense. It seems you guys demand respect when you are the ones being rude in the first place.

I've already said what I have to say. You keep this going on by pretending to know and understand the situation, when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, which proves exactly what I've been saying all this time. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

Not be negative or something.. But the way Stathis Z. guided me to, helped!

My fsx dosen't crash og any problem! So thanks aloot Stathis :D

Share this post


Link to post

Np mate, just remember in the very rare case when another application will need the file, it will crash when you open it with an error message saying the ui library is missing. If that happens just rename it to its old name and run the application. If that happens with an application you use regularly, just send me a message to write you and post a windows shell script to rename it automatically each time you run any app that uses it, so that other people can check that it's ok, if you want to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...