You realise that a software developer has absolutely no obligation of allowing you access to any of their code, right?
That’s simply not a part of the software licence agreement between consumer and developer. Therefore, going on a boycott seems a bit out of line
Official Fly-In Friday Invite!
Plus a First-Hand Look at the Taylorcraft BC-12D!
Tomorrow, Got Friends will be joining @SeedyL3205 and @simflightpro for the Official Fly-In Friday Stream! We’ll be showcasing the Taylorcraft BC-12D, premiering the Official Trailer, and announcing our Final Release Date!
Come join us for an awesome backcountry flight in your favorite bushplane, have some fun with the community, and get an inside look at the Taylorcraft directly from myself, Jonx. I’ll be answering your questions throughout the flight, showing off some of the aircraft’s deeper features, sharing some behind-the-scenes details, and exploring the backcountry alongside everyone.
Hope to see a bunch of you there!
Is there a guide somewhere on how to use those methods? I’ve tried to use the debug tools on encrypted Markeplace planes, but the information is hidden and there is only a window that says “this aircraft is encrypted.”
The best guide would be the Official SDK. It explains how aircraft are created, which in turn gives users the knowledge needed to understand how they can be modified.
As a simple example, here is a “Savage Norden Patch” that injects a single parameter:
[MODULAR_MERGE]
auto = true ; Marks to Merge into Aircraft for Patching
[PROPELLER]
thrust_scalar = 20.00 ; 20x Original Propeller Thrust
That one change gives the Norden passenger variant 20x propeller thrust. It is a good example of how easy it can be to create a patch without replacing or overriding an entire source file.
Download this example, drag it in, and test it for yourself…
This is just one example of patching a .cfg file. This same method can be applied to XML, textures, panels, sounds and even models using similar methods. The aircraft itself can also be investigated through the in-sim SDK tools, VFS, Behaviors tools, and other debugging utilities. Especially if you’re looking for a very specific XML Component to patch an animation or something.
Sure, you may not be able to simply open the protected engines.cfg and read the entire source file. But if you know what you want to change, you generally don’t need to.
A lot of community patches completely override an entire .cfg file when they only need to change a handful of parameters. Instead, you can identify the specific parameters you want to modify and inject only those values. This is a much cleaner and more optimized way to build a patch.
Full source-file overrides are usually unnecessary. They can create conflicts with other mods, interfere with aircraft updates, and duplicate large amounts of information that the simulator is already loading from the original package. You’re effectively replacing an entire configuration just to change a few values, which adds unnecessary complexity and can introduce update compatibility issues or performance issues.
Patch only what you actually need to change. In this example, that entire modification is simply injecting 20x propeller thrust.
Many thanks for the detailed answer. I tried the VFS access method it was made available, but of the few planes I tried, most cfg files were uncrypted / unreadable (I think the DC-3 was an exception, but don’t quote me on that, that was over a year ago).
The ability to modify a single setting is indeed a great improvement if it is possible now (of the many mods I’ve written, I only release the ones for “dead” planes for that reason). The “replacing/overloading a whole file” was a horrible system, there’s no denying that.
Still, it looks that, at best, what I can do now with notepad, a google search on the SDK and a few minutes now requires me basically to learn a new job, which I’m not keen to do in my old age. 
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer.
@DoutorFunga One consumer’s choice to buy or not due to the sale terms is not a call to “boycott” in any way, shape or form.
Thanks for the reply! I’ve used that method before, it’s just annoying that we can’t see the original numbers of encrypted aircraft, even through the debugging tools. Regardless, since you’ve already said that Got Friends is willing to provide the files, making mods for the BC-12 would be easier.
Edit: Just to be clear, is viewing encrypted data possible? Ive tried multiple methods that you’ve mentioned, but none have ever worked.
Heya Jonx, thanks for the nice example of a merge-based performance mod.
However, I’ve attempted almost exactly this same thing in the recent past (I tried turboprop power_scalar on the Piper M600, for example), and it doesn’t seem to work for all aircraft. It seems like there’s different levels of encryption and protection for 3rd party aircraft, or the base files aren’t set up for a modular merge, or something I haven’t though of. I’ve tried peeking into the SDK docs and didn’t find anything, but I could easily be overlooking a whole section. Modular merge I found, but not encryption or protection. I know I had the right VFS path, the dev tools did verify that, but it seems like the merge of the new parameter just didn’t happen.
Any additional suggestions on reading material to understand the limits to this approach?
Here are some of my thoughts on merge modding. I know GF has mentioned passing along flight model, etc files but I’m talking in general.
First, as mentioned by @Interurbes above, you can’t see the original numbers via the debugger for encrypted aircraft. Sure, some can be vaguely intuited like fuel capacity, weights, etc but seeing the original numbers is a huge part of a modder troubleshooting what’s going on with this or that odd behaviour in a plane.
Let’s take your thrust scalar example. Someone has decided that a plane doesn’t have enough thrust. Seeing the original numbers lets you discover if that’s due to lack of engine horsepower, lack of friction efficiency, inaccurate prop cx, inaccurate prop lift/drag coef, improper mixture curve, or any of three dozen other items that can impact it but cannot be grabbed from debugging tools.
How about a simple case of twitchiness in pitch. Is that due to moment of inertia too low, control response too high, control scaling set incorrectly, control deflection incorrect, stability/gyro stability incorrect, or any of another dozen things in the flight model?
Without being able to see any of that, it’s pure guesswork on the part of the modder. Blind guesswork.
Simple things like adjusting a jet’s idle thrust or adjusting lift coefficient at the stall become absolutely impossible because you can’t see the rest of the N1 vs thrust power curve or aoa vs lift numbers.
Second, a majority of planes I’ve tried to mod do not have merge modding enabled. They are either in FS20 format claiming FS24 native compatibility or set up for FS24 folder structure with merge modding turned off. No mods possible. This includes a large portion of the default FS24 aircraft and a vast majority of marketplace aircraft I have tried.
Even with the ones that do have merge modding enabled, some have it enabled for the main (“Common”) cfg files but not for the ones in preset. And you can’t force a merge mod onto a preset if it’s not turned on there too. A great example of this is the Carenado 210 as I can merge mod the main file but changing the presets means I lose all of the stuff that’s in each, including individual weights and stations for the different aircraft configs. Complete guesswork on my part to bring those back.
Third, you mention this is how some devs got started. Yes but a huge section of that comes from flying a plane, wondering why it does a thing, and discovering numbers that explain it in the cfg files. Withing being able to see those numbers, most learning to be done from modding completely dries up. I can’t tell you how many times over the last 30+ years of modding I’ve had “AH HA” moments from discovering oddities in the cfg files.
Would you take your car to an apprentice mechanic for new brakes but tell him he can’t look at the car while doing it?
Allllllllll of that is, unless I’m missing some way to see those figures that I’ve not found in now two years of messing with modding in FS24. Man, I would love for that to be the case. Please, someone point out how, through the debugger with encrypted files, I can see specific numbers in the cfgs and tell me I’m an idiot for missing it.
Look…
I don’t want this topic to stray too far from the discussion I originally intended, which is “Got Friends - Marketplace Patching.”
Yes, there are encrypted aircraft that claim to be 2024 Native but are still using 2020 formatting with Merge Modding disabled. There are also developers who won’t share additional information with their community when it’s needed.
But the point of my follow-up was never to claim that Merge Modding is possible on every aircraft, or that you can somehow access the complete source files of everything you own.
The point is that we at Got Friends have personally thought about these concerns while making this transition. We are a community developer, and we always have been.
Because of that, our 2024 aircraft, and all future aircraft for that matter, are built to support Merge Modding because we understand how important that capability is for creating patches.
Additionally, in response to @CpMoustache: if you’re working on a patch and need information that isn’t exposed to you, just ask us. If you need horsepower values, friction efficiency, prop CX, prop lift/drag coefficients, mixture curves, or something else buried inside an encrypted file, ask us here, send us an email, or message me on Discord.
You should know from our history that Got Friends has never had an issue providing additional technical information when someone needs it. We don’t gatekeep.
That’s really what I’m trying to get across here.
It feels like this Marketplace transition is creating this perception that Got Friends is suddenly becoming some gatekeeping, encryption-pushing, anti-consumer developer. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
I completely understand if the Marketplace isn’t for you. Maybe you disagree with Microsoft’s proof-of-purchase system. Maybe you dislike Marketplace encryption. Maybe you simply don’t like the Marketplace in general. Those are completely valid reasons to choose where you personally purchase your products.
But Got Friends isn’t changing as a developer.
We’re still going to support the community. We’re still going to help people creating patches. We’re still going to provide technical information when it’s needed. We’re still going to make our aircraft moddable within the systems available to us.
So when the conversation moves toward boycotting Got Friends products simply because they’re encrypted on the Marketplace, it ignores our history, the way we actually develop our aircraft, and the support we’ve consistently provided to this community.
At that point, it starts to feel less like a criticism of something Got Friends has actually done and more like noise being made simply because we’ve chosen to distribute through the Marketplace.
I’ve also been seeing a lot of claims like the one above:
I don’t know if this user has ever visited our website, but we’ve already addressed this exact scenario. Marketplace owners of the F4F-4 Wildcat can use our Weapons Expansion Pack, which adds functional weapons outside of the Marketplace package itself:
That’s why some of these arguments are becoming frustrating. Examples are being raised as reasons why this transition is supposedly bad for Got Friends customers, even when those examples are completely disconnected from how Got Friends actually operates and, in some cases, are things we’ve already solved.
Supporting Got Friends on the Marketplace and supporting another developer on the Marketplace can be two entirely different experiences.
Different developers make different decisions about modding, community support, expansion packs, documentation, encryption workarounds, and how much technical information they’re willing to provide.
So I think it’s important to judge Got Friends based on what Got Friends actually does, rather than applying every negative Marketplace experience from unrelated developers to us by association.
If there’s a specific concern about how one of our products will work under this transition, ask us. That’s a productive discussion.
But using hypothetical limitations that we’ve already demonstrated solutions for just creates noise around an argument that doesn’t actually reflect our products or our history.
And what about people that cannot technically make purchases in the 2024 marketplace ?
Oh yes and I know that. To be clear, my response wasn’t meant as an anti-GF post as that is not the intent at all. It was more a response in a broad sense to the idea that merge modding is the complete answer as it’s really not.
Valid reason.
That said, I do feel it’s unfair to our team to increase our workload, double our management overhead, and structure the company around goals we never intended to pursue, as explained in our original announcement.
We fully understand that this transition will affect users who physically cannot purchase through the Marketplace, and we are genuinely sorry that some people may no longer be able to access future Got Friends products because of that.
But we also have to make decisions that benefit the majority of our community, improve our production pipeline, reduce unnecessary management, and give our team room to breathe while we continue putting our passion into the simulator.
That direction is not going to change in order to maintain an entirely separate distribution structure for a relatively small portion of users who cannot purchase directly in-game.
It is an unfortunate tradeoff, but it is also a necessary one for the long-term health of our team and the products we want to keep creating.
I would think the “physically cannot shop from the Marketplace” is an issue Microsoft would be highly motivated to resolve, if it’s anything that can be resolved. The majority of those cases I’ve observed typically (but of course not always) boil down to incorrectly using Steam or having tinkered excessively with their Windows instance and in the process removed some critical components that are required for Marketplace functionality. If those aren’t the case and it’s still impossible, I would hope those users have escalated their experiences to Microsoft via Zendesk - I can’t imagine they’re uninterested in accepting anyone/everyone’s money who is willing to part with it.
Zendesk is no help at all. Just basic suggestions.
Xbox support is more serious but could not solve the problem.
It’s not that I haven’t asked and tried…
I’m sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you specifically had not - but you would be surprised the number of people that have massive issues with the sim but have never once raised an official support ticket.
Yes. And I understand Got Friends’ move.
But I am personnally sad that I cannot buy GF planes anymore.
Same for FSReborn (I bought their planes without problem in msfs 2020), and Taog…
I have their H500C only because I agree xbox support to make the purchase for me and they were able to do it on their side.
But, as I said, I will have a new PC and I will see if the problem persists.
I have checked with the bank, the credit card provider, and there is nothing blocking on their side…
What difficulties you have?
R.
My Personal Comment & Observation
I suspect that the inability to pay by credit card is because the company that is providing the product you are trying to purchase is using a third-party security checking service (SCS).
Many SCS’ often have out-dated or totally erroneous data about individuals in their databases. If they flag you as “fraudulent” because there is a data mis-match in their database, there is nothing that your bank or credit card company can do about it.
The company’s help desk can’t do anything about it if the company policy is to reject any purchase request from any user flagged by the SCS. Many companies also will not inform you if they are using a SCS service with an explanation such as “for security reasons we do not discuss this”.
So, in regard to purchasing Got Friends - or other - products on the Marketplace:
You might consider buying an Xbox gift card (often available in game stores, Walmart etc. for $25, $50 etc. amounts) and applying it to to your Xbox account. I think (though I have not tried this myself, so you may wish to confirm with the Zendesk) that this would allow you to purchase from the in-game Marketplace. Of course, the product is unlikely to cost exactly the same amount of the gift card, so you’ll end up with a residual amount in your xbox account (that can be used for a future purchase), but it may be an option some might consider.
/mounts soapbox
My $.02 is worth… even less than that, but I’m giving it anyway. 
I approach this as someone who has been with the sim since the debut in 2020, and who has been BADLY burned by the marketplace in the past. I spent $70 to REPURCHASE the Aerosoft CRJ series simply to not have to deal with the marketplace, after waiting literally months for a patch that Aerosoft purchasers had had forever. If anyone is going to slag GF over moving to the marketplace, it would probably be me.
But I won’t.
First, DRM and encryption is just a fact of life in software. Flightsim is an anomaly because a significant asset (the aircraft) is just texture files and HTML/JSON code (for the most part) - things that normally aren’t encrypted. And that makes piracy even more of a problem. GF has every right to protect their IP and their work from piracy however they see fit. You just have to accept that.
Second… the marketplace has improved dramatically over the past two years or so for the 2024 market. I think the advent of streaming assets - where the actual files aren’t physically on your disc until they’re needed - lets MSFT/Asobo push updates much, much faster now. While I HAVE moved my iniBuilds jets to the iniBuilds manager, that’s just a precaution for me (to insulate against patch delays), not something I feel compelled to do because of frustration with the marketplace. There are still some fundamental issues with the marketplace as a whole - the limits on methods for paying that locks out some countries entirely, the lack of refunds, the use of points instead of direct currency charges for products (without terminally boring everyone, I actually understand the tax and regulatory reasons why Microsoft does this), and so forth. And I’d always rather buy directly from the developer, so they don’t have to take the haircut (15%? I’m not sure) Microsoft takes from marketplace purchases. But I don’t have a burning hatred of the marketplace anymore, and NOW I don’t refuse to buy things that are marketplace-only if they’re good products. That hasn’t always been the case.
So am I thrilled about GF going marketplace-only? No, not really. Will it affect my purchasing decisions? No, not really. I trust them to keep making quality products and supporting them for the foreseeable future.
/dismounts soapbox
This is it for me. Got friends is joining a very short list of developers I’ll patronize through the marketplace because they don’t release buggy messes, support their products when they do need fixes, and they communicate with us. Plenty of much bigger devs don’t.
I’m not thrilled about it, but I’ve decided I don’t have to sweat it, I’ve got bigger things to worry about.