More FSX Criticism, This Time From Developers

[TSR2]

No slideshow here Peter. xwink

[TSR2]

Hi Legion,

I must agree with a lot of what you have said, however there does need to be a solid stable developing platform. Think of it a bit like Java (I know I hate it, but its a good example)

If you develope software using the Java 1.5 SDK, your software will definately run in the 1.5 or later runtime. HOWEVER, if you were to recompile it using say the 1.6 SDK, it may work better or give you the option for new features, but will only run in 1.6 or later.

The problem for developers with FSX has been that rather than building on the original SDK, many features were changed altogether and this is bad practice.

I have to say I welcome the end of backward compatibility with the caveat that the developement platform is structured and developed properly, thus allowing all developers the oppertunity to progress to the next sim with comparative ease. As I said over a year ago, if they get the SDK wrong they are stuffed.

The only other thing that would be nice to see is a development API which could facilitate new development toold beyond xMAX or FSDS.

[DaveG]

Legion, a lot of what you say is true, however for the humble freeware developer that is not an option. We have to wait until the SDKs are released to the public before we can start thinking about what need to be done to our models to make them work in the new sim. If we are lucky the SDKs will ship with the product (though we will probably have to buy the "deluxe" version to get them) or they may not appear for months after FX-whatever hits the shelves.

[Garry Russell]

Legion

You talk as if FS development is easy

It is challenging enough as it is and a lot more complex than it used to be which is why starting from scratch each time was not the hurdle it is now.

Garry

[DaveG]

At least with FSX you had a fair chance that your FS2004 models would still work. They may not be perfect, missing glass, the odd gauge not working etc, but most were by and large usable. With having to recompile every model for future sims I can see a lot of developers simply not bothering at all, or spend all their time updating old models and not producing anything new. FSX has been out for over a year, and so far I have only produced one true FSX model, and that was a relatively simple update. I've got 2 brand new models on the go, the Mossie which will be 2004 & X, and another which is X only. I haven't even started FSX updates for the Hunters, Anson etc yet. Dev time is so long in some cases that a model can be started for FS2004 and still not be finished by the time FS-XI is out.

[Trev Clark]

Maybe a new platform and a new title (not MSFS) is the way to go, call it Fly! (sorry been done) or something and start from scratch, even combine with boats and trains...Fly, be sick! and wait on a cold platform for hours! seems a catchy title. That would leave our current almost compatable sim platforms to really Fly! with new hardware around the virtual corner. Just a thought .

[TSR2]

Its all about the Dev platform Guys, and without a proper consistant Dev platform as I have suggested, even a brand new sim will be a comercial failure. It must use widely known and understood techniques and would be superb if it had an API, but if the development platform changes each time, rather than eveolving, its a dead duck.

[TSR2]

Its very clear that you have no experience of developing anything yourself Legion. :brick:

[AllanL]

I do wonder what the reaction from corporate users of Microsoft Office would make of the cavalier announcement that two versions from now none of your spreadsheets or documents would be accessible.

There are even suggestions on the avsim forum that, somehow, the need to comply with ISO (programming/quality??) standards hinders Microsft from putting right "faults" that have been introduced by the SP1/2 rounds of update. Now it is a while since I did any coding for a living, but in my current life I have yet to find an industrial standard that stops you from correcting an error.

The files produced for aircraft models and FDs are data files. The faults within FS..whatever are down to the executables and how they utilise the data files. There should be no need to cripple or exclude the old functionality in developing more efficient code files, beyond corporate arrogance.

It always strikes me as odd how a nation that can be amongst the most welcoming and helpful to visitors on an individual basis, can also produce a corporate and political culture of such mind-blowing overbearing authoritarian arrogance.

Have a nice day, missing you already. xsmile

[TSR2]

I've no problem with a fresh sim, but without open and honest development tools, at least 6 months in advance of the release, it will be a very poorly developed product. FS9 was a very mature product with limited expandability. What any new SDK or Dev Tools need to do is take the skills already learned xml etc and utilise the same skills in a new product, that way people won't be put off from giving it a go. xsmile