Felix/FFDS wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 6:45pm:


Felix,

As the level of realism comes up closer and closer to the goals of "as real as it gets", the complexity of programming to that high standard likely will just get more and more and more complicated and sophisticated.  It is possible that the needs of this type of work will get steadily harder and harder to accomplish without serious current education in new technologies and tools.  

There likely will be a "lag" as the core FS sim shifts direction and complexity with the resources of a cutting edge company behind it..... while the "old school" approach folks who have given so MUCH to the field so far (unfortuinatley) start to "fade into the background" as highly active developers ......... and the "new school" types ........ freshly coming off of cutting edge formal educations and RW business experience in the commercial programming fields start to show up with their advanced skills and newer approaches and drift into the flight sim world.

It is also possible that this stuff will eventually get so elaborate and sophisticated that it will only be through payware development teams that major add-ons continue to be produced.  At what point of complexity and time commitment do people have to assess how much effort they will actually be able to put into development of free stuff?  Hobbiests can be VERY generous with time....... but if the complexity of the sim gets to the point that the time that used to be necessary to produce 5 add on planes now only created the overhead panel for one plane... well..... that HAS to have SOME impact on the overall productivity picture.

As a ham radio operator, I have seen this kind of parallel happen in the hardware in that field: stuff getting too complex to really have "hobbiest" types work with it anymore.

It used to be that if something was not operating correctly, we got out the oscilliscope, the multi-meter, and the soldering iron and traced the remiss components and unsoldered stuff and replaced it.  Then as the move toward the digitial side of life progressed, we added a few simple digital test instruments and sort of did the same thing but maybe we replaced a pretty basic chip in a socket.  Now,...... repair of modern ham gear is just about nigh impossible without an engineering lab and a gazillion$ worth of gear.  Oh... and a whole new education.

As we have seen even with FS9... the really significant "real as it gets" addons like the PMDG 747-400 are HUGE complex undertakings involving large development teams.  This type of complexity will only grow as the MSF sim grows to allow it to become more complex.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Because as the market for sim products expands, the suppliers of those commercial products will also pop up.  

Right now, home cockpit building is absolutely BOOMING.... and new companies are showing up and filling the support demand.  I personally do not have an "aversion" to payware addons.  After all we must remember that the original sim is a commercial product.

There will always be generous hobbiests that selflessly devote time to "bettering the community" and the hobby.  But it would not surprise me if the role they play takes on a very different tone in the future.

best,

.....................john

I think they are just raising the bar a bit. I do agree that it takes more knowledge and a new learning curve to dive into FSX and what is to come, but I do not see that as much different than going from FS98 to FS2004.

There are still people running the old titles and supporting it with freeware. I do not see that changing in the immediate future but there comes a point where a new direction needs to be addressed and since FSX is still using much of the FS2X engine, its time to draw a line and branch off for the future.

By raising the bar across the board it allows the payware partners more to work with and, with time, the freeware market will follow as it always has in the past.

The amount of time it is taking Aces to ensure backwards compatibility is cutting into the dev time for future product/features and in that I can understand the need for 'out with the old and in with the new"

It's time for that, especially if a completely new re-write of FS11 may occur. By the time FS11 hits the market hardware will take a wild swing upward in ability so spending any time in reverse gear will only net us less in the release.

Daube wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 8:47am:


I'm not mr Phil but let me tell you, creating a Flight Simulator is already extremely complicated... don't expect an all-in-one!

ThePilot_Ace wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 11:39am:


No sooner does a version come out than people want to start wondering "what's next"... 

For all my reservations about "backward compatibility"  etc., I'm optimistic about SP2 and whatever FS11 brings.

I would assume they are in “think-tank” mode for FS11 and as such there can be no discussions or speculations made. In the past we never knew what was coming, when it was coming or what it may/may not do. Phil has done a good job of keeping us informed about FSX, slapping down the rumors and being up-front about things, something everyone should all very much appreciate.

The bottom line with SP1-SP2 is, they did what they could and with all the reverse gear work it cut into the DX10 and features/fixes dev time.

It is my understanding the major difference between DX10 and DX9 now is cockpit shadowing, bloom, some water, and the performance surrounding those areas. In that it is considered a DX10 ‘preview’ instead of a complete DX10 feature rewrite.

Autogen batching and other fixes will benefit both DX9 and DX10.

Interesting about the autogen changes. Getting autogen set correctly has always been the key to having a good balance between blur/performance/visuals. Now that they have changed that area it will be interesting to see how that may affect fine-tuning.

I believe the major reasons for the delay between Acceleration and SP2 free release is the SDK more than anything else. Not only must they ensure everything works with/without Acceleration installed, they must make sure the SDK is also developed correctly, and, there is the language/translation changes that must be addressed. A delay is understandable although I do agree that a 2 month delay seems a bit of a stretch.

I think what most are forgetting is “sometime before Christmas” means anytime after Acceleration has hit the stores and Christmas. That could be 2-3 weeks after Acceleration. I think with the work load, Phil is simply being cautious about making promises.

Remember, the SP2 blog post was 2-3 weeks late so I think he is doing the right thing in not making deadline statements until such time as he has a clear understanding of when everything will be completed.

The ability to do it yourself will be there, as it is now. I am not sure if SP2 makes changes that allows the process of developing carrier ops to have more function(s) or ease in creating but all that is required right now is someone to design the gauges, scenery and code, similar to what Rob Barendregt and Doug Dawson did with FS9 and their carrier ops add-on

Adding to what Daube posts...

Remember, the new Train Simulator and FS-X are sharing common elements....  I, for one, do not find it inconceivable that a land, sea, air, space simulation, (whether a massive "all-in-one"  or four separate "parts"  all sharing a common engine, design base, and "world") can ultimately be developed, given the constantly increasing capabilities if personal computers, both in computing and graphics power.

NickN wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 6:06pm:



Quite possibly, Nick, but, like the cars, they would either be animated scenery objects, OR, like drivable cars, "glorified"  airplanes.


The possibilities are looking "limitless"


On the other hand, from PHil's blog:

Quote: