Does there have to be a difference???LM is different than F1 that's for sure :(

Well Ya...If Flight1 has access to the code then booyah! Otherwise it

Excellent...Congrats guys!

Thanks!It is important for people to realize what Flight1 Tech is, as to not cause much confusion. The company does incorporate some of the same team as the Flight One Software, but is stricty for real-world aviation training and safety technologies. Some of the products here would have no assocation with anything we would list on the entertainment side. We have been doing R&D in training and safety technologies since about 2001, and with the advent of ESP, we can now leverage the Microsoft Flight Simulator core technologies in this area. Where in the past, it has been the entertainment side that has helped provide the technology for the real-world side, it is much more reversed now. Jim Rhoads commitment to real-world projects through Flight1 Tech can provide products and technologies for real-world aviation, and maybe in some cases that can can be leveraged for an entertainment purpose. But the products at F1Tech have very unrelated goals that separate them from entertainment. For example, a few years ago we were able to get FAA FITS approval to a courseware product we released. This would not likely ever apply to entertainment. Our VisPro product would not really be of interest to someone at their PC by themselves. So the technologies are different in many areas.We did post the press release on the simulation sites because there is a lot of people around these sites that are in the training industry, or utilize PC based training as part of learning to fly or to stay proficient in their skills. Plus, we also like to post the information because Flight1 has had many followers for the last 12 years, and we think they would also enjoy watching the progression of how things have evolved over the years.We can now provide our training based customers a 1-stop solution. Our products can include the core ESP simulation itself (as part of the overall solution). This is very much what the press release was about.Hope this clarifies any ambiguity regarding the "Flight1's". :(

I was thinking since Flight1 is now getting into the ESP code game that Aerosoft may want to follow suite. Why build a whole new sim when they can piggy back off of ESP's foundation and take it farther?

Perhaps because as a GAME platform it is old, tired, past its best and in need of throwing away and starting from a clean sheet of paper? Whereas as a SIMULATION platform it is past its startup costs, problems and development issues... Glass half full, and all that?One of the major acknowledged problems with MSFS is that it has HAD to rely on old code to offer the retro-compatibility that we simmers apparently demand. As a result it carried outmoded code from one version to the next, compounding error upon error as it went, getting farther and farther from parity with hardware development as it did so - FSX's inability to take full advantage of the mdoern generation of graphics cards, their huge amounts of RAM and onboard features being a case in point. DX11 being another, (let alone DX10, we don't want to go there...). This was an acknowledged problem even before FSX was released. And FSX is not all-new code, no sirreee.None of these are major considerations for a simulation platform where the platform is not required to be installed on a general-purpose computing platform encompassing laptops, desktops and room-filling server setups. Match the hardware to the software and you have a ready-made MODERN simulation platform with ten years of development left in it, much less commercial lifespan. Why then would Aerosoft or any game developer want to harvest obsolete code when they can start with a clean design, learning from the mistakes and misdirection of FSX?

Perhaps because as a GAME platform it is old, tired, past its best and in need of throwing away and starting from a clean sheet of paper? Why then would Aerosoft or any game developer want to harvest obsolete code when they can start with a clean design, learning from the mistakes and misdirection of FSX?

AMEN

Why then would Aerosoft or any game developer want to harvest obsolete code when they can start with a clean design, learning from the mistakes and misdirection of FSX?

Does this comment apply to ESP? Sorry for asking because I ultimately got lost in your long tirade.If it does I don't think you understand what ESP is. In its core it has nothing to do with video cards or 'obsolete' FS or 'retro-compatibility'. ESP is a object-based (C++) world-rendering simulation platform. It is on a different level of abstraction than any video cards or how you actually want to pipe or render this information on the screen however it is easy to imagine that ESP offers you additional lower layers of support including the video card rendering engine if customer wants one. Many serious big customers use it - Lockheed Martin, NASA Ames (where I work and have seen ESP hooked up to full motion sims, ESP is running on desktop Linux-Intel). None of them would find it cost-effective to develop a 'better' platform on their own. Flight1 Tech shares this view, I guess.

Does this comment apply to ESP? Sorry for asking because I ultimately got lost in your long tirade.If it does I don't think you understand what ESP is. In its core it has nothing to do with video cards or 'obsolete' FS or 'retro-compatibility'. ESP is a object-based (C++) world-rendering simulation platform. It is on a different level of abstraction than any video cards or how you actually want to pipe or render this information on the screen however it is easy to imagine that ESP offers you additional lower layers of support including the video card rendering engine if customer wants one. Many serious big customers use it - Lockheed Martin, NASA Ames (where I work and have seen ESP hooked up to full motion sims, ESP is running on desktop Linux-Intel). None of them would find it cost-effective to develop a 'better' platform on their own. Flight1 Tech shares this view, I guess.

And Michal is exactly correct.

Put simply, if I were to start on a new flight sim, I'd go ground up with it myself. While FSX had good backward compatibility, that alone caused a lot of issues with resources. Up to a point, it is sometimes best to trash old code and start from scratch. Bolting on more and more stuff just winds up becoming bloatware, where if you keep the code optimized, functional, and current, things work better in the end.All in all, congrats on the licence guys!

Also, what is very important to note is that what we require out of ESP is far different compared to what a home user of FSX needs. In many cases, scenery, textures, virtual cockpits, models, effects, etc, will have little importance to certain training-level customers looking at a specific task. The simulation engine is paramount here. Now there may be cases where scenery, textures, etc. are important. And for this, we believe that ESP is still entirely adequate.

Put simply, if I were to start on a new flight sim, I'd go ground up with it myself. While FSX had good backward compatibility, that alone caused a lot of issues with resources. Up to a point, it is sometimes best to trash old code and start from scratch. Bolting on more and more stuff just winds up becoming bloatware, where if you keep the code optimized, functional, and current, things work better in the end.All in all, congrats on the licence guys!

Peter,First of all, thank you.Well sure, if you were starting on a new sim of course it would be ground up. But what you are implying is a massive, massive undertaking. How long has it taken MS to take FS to this point?How many other sims have failed miserably despite that they have had great potential? The depth that FSX or ESP brings is very deep and encompasses an entire world, weather, datasets, aircrafts, etc. etc.It is no easy task and beware of anyone claiming that they will be pulling off anything with the depth of FSX / ESP or beyond in short order. If you have any questions about that ask Tim (Beatle) he is an FS legacy guy and he knows what I am talking about.Even though ESP and FSX are very similar, the customer, purpose, expectations and needs are vastly different. I mean night and day.You would assume that professional use would be more demanding, and it is demanding, but not with the same criteria. As an example, most all professional users that I have met want nothing to do with a Virtual Cockpit. I will say this right way... I am not going to entertain any arguments about why anyone thinks VC's are more realistic and immersive etc. But the reality is that most professional users will have nothing to do with them, have no need for them or purpose. It is these types of entertainment expectations that drive development costs to a level that is barely sustainable for what it costs, what the user (some) is willing to pay and what they seem to want . And these type of things indeed "pads" the compatibility issues that you mention. I could go on and on but I think you get my point.Flight1 Tech serves the professional market and can absolutely meet the expectations of professional customers for many years to come on the ESP platform. We have worked outside the SDK / code base for many years and understand what we need to do and how we can achieve the goals presented to us by the professional market because we know the simulator and it meets the needs and requirements of the professional market. What I say may not sit well with entertainment crowd, but it is where I am going and where I plan to devote my efforts because I understand it, I can meet the goals presented to us with ESP and professional markets, and it is sustainable.I am not speaking for the plans of Flight1 Software, I am speaking for Flight1 tech and the two companies goals are different and do not cross paths. They did somewhat in the past, but that will and is becoming less and less.Jim Rhoads

------------------You would assume that professional use would be more demanding, and it is demanding, but not with the same criteria. As an example, most all professional users that I have met want nothing to do with a Virtual Cockpit. I will say this right way... I am not going to entertain any arguments about why anyone thinks VC's are more realistic and immersive etc. But the reality is that most professional users will have nothing to do with them, have no need for them or purpose. It are these types of entertainment expectations that drive development costs to a level that is barely sustainable and "pad" ---------Jim Rhoads

Jim- re your remarks quoted above, may I again put in a pitch for 2D panels in Flight Simulator, with correctly mating portions for Captain & FO that are suitable for multiple monitors. That is, no overlaps. Or perhaps a full width sub panel incorporating many of the present individual small popups into a more realistic & accurate grouping.Multiple monitors go a long way toward reaching the full potential of Flight Simulator. The monitor real estate is available- we need 2D panels that can take advantage! Alex Reid

Jim- re your remarks quoted above, may I again put in a pitch for 2D panels in Flight Simulator, with correctly mating portions for Captain & FO that are suitable for multiple monitors. That is, no overlaps. Or perhaps a full width sub panel incorporating many of the present individual small popups into a more realistic & accurate grouping.Multiple monitors go a long way toward reaching the full potential of Flight Simulator. The monitor real estate is available- we need 2D panels that can take advantage! Alex Reid

Alex, thanks... But I do not want this to turn into a 2D vs. VC. If so, I will certainly depart this thread. This is not the intention of what I am trying to clarify.Also, not assuming you are trying to do that either. I just know how it easily starts going left. Lets stay on track and all become educated.Jim

Peter,First of all, thank you.Well sure, if you were starting on a new sim of course it would be ground up. But what you are implying is a massive, massive undertaking. How long has it taken MS to take FS to this point?How many other sims have failed miserably despite that they have had great potential? The depth that FSX or ESP brings is very deep and encompasses an entire world, weather, datasets, aircrafts, etc. etc.It is no easy task and beware of anyone claiming that they will be pulling off anything with the depth of FSX / ESP or beyond in short order. If you have any questions about that ask Tim (Beatle) he is an FS legacy guy and he knows what I am talking about.Even though ESP and FSX are very similar, the customer, purpose, expectations and needs are vastly different. I mean night and day.You would assume that professional use would be more demanding, and it is demanding, but not with the same criteria. As an example, most all professional users that I have met want nothing to do with a Virtual Cockpit. I will say this right way... I am not going to entertain any arguments about why anyone thinks VC's are more realistic and immersive etc. But the reality is that most professional users will have nothing to do with them, have no need for them or purpose. It is these types of entertainment expectations that drive development costs to a level that is barely sustainable for what it costs, what the user (some) is willing to pay and what they seem to want . And these type of things indeed "pads" the compatibility issues that you mention. I could go on and on but I think you get my point.Flight1 Tech serves the professional market and can absolutely meet the expectations of professional customers for many years to come on the ESP platform. We have worked outside the SDK / code base for many years and understand what we need to do and how we can achieve the goals presented to us by the professional market because we know the simulator and it meets the needs and requirements of the professional market. What I say may not sit well with entertainment crowd, but it is where I am going and where I plan to devote my efforts because I understand it, I can meet the goals presented to us with ESP and professional markets, and it is sustainable.I am not speaking for the plans of Flight1 Software, I am speaking for Flight1 tech and the two companies goals are different and do not cross paths. They did somewhat in the past, but that will and is becoming less and less.Jim Rhoads

I do agree that they are different targets, I was trying to point out a little response to the above comments about the entertainment aspect of things. As far as the future of entertainment flight sims goes, I personally think it's at this point a toss-up between X-Plane and FlightGear as the two future possible big ones. The main reason for this is actually because they both run on OpenGL rather than DirectX, which means you aren't locked in to Windows.The truth is, that Linux has a great potential as a replacement for Windows, if it were just promoted more and more people developed for it. Because most games now focus on DirectX, that kind of kills that for now, however the fact that X-Plane and FGFS run off OpenGL means that they can in effect run off of Linux and Mac. (Yes I am very heavily a Linux supporter.)Overall though, you have to remember that with enough people developing it, anything can happen, and furthermore, the main reason FSX is such a mess is because of the bolt on issues, in a way, ACES should have just started with a clean slate. Overall, while it would be a massive undertaking, I personally think at this point this is the only option for a successful new FS. And no, I'm not going to be developing my own, I'll leave that to laminar and the FGFS team, the project I'm working on is in my signature, and I wouldn't have time to take on another project.

Alex, thanks... But I do not want this to turn into a 2D vs. VC. If so, I will certainly depart this thread. This is not the intention of what I am trying to clarify.Also, not assuming you are trying to do that either. I just know how it easily starts going left. Lets stay on track and all become educated.Jim

Agreed. Pros and cons both ways. And please stay with us- we all respect & enjoy your comments.Alex Reid

If this licence can only be used for non-entertainment purposes, then what is Flight1 going to do with this ESP?

If this licence can only be used for non-entertainment purposes, then what is Flight1 going to do with this ESP?

I think the news item on Avsim's front page has really caused quite a lot of confusion.The "Flight One Software" that we all know and love is only one division of a larger company. "Flight One Tech" make products for use in the real world aviation industry, and it is this part of the company that is using ESP, and their products and development are strictly for customers in the real world aviation industry. It is Flight One Tech that has licensed ESP for development of its products.The division of Flight One that makes addons for MSFS will NOT be able to use the ESP license to develop addons or products for MSFS.