Jump to content

Archived

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

Dragonmount

What I want to know

Recommended Posts

Will FSX aircraft be importable to Flight? Or will it be so completely a completely different system?
I dont think anyone really knows .. but my guess is that "flight" will not be backward integrated.

Share this post


Link to post
.. but my guess is that "flight" will not be backward integrated.
My guess is that anything from X will work, at least for terrain and scenery. There isn't much to change or improve, other than performance.Planes? That's a totally different ball game.

Share this post


Link to post
My guess is that anything from X will work, at least for terrain and scenery. There isn't much to change or improve, other than performance.Planes? That's a totally different ball game.
Like I said .. I don't think anyone really knows at this point.....

Share this post


Link to post

I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt any add-ons from FSX would work in Flight. It's a new simulator being built from the ground up. It would also be a good thing if there was no backwards compatibility. The codes and techniques that FS9/FSX used are outdated. Starting fresh will allow them to make major steps forward. Sorry is this is a disappointment, but it's the truth.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Will FSX aircraft be importable to Flight? Or will it be so completely a completely different system?
What most remember is Phil Taylors "Taximony" thread where he hinted that FSX/SP2/DX10 Compatible products would likely be FS Next Compatible.Of course Phil moved on and MS is not bound by his statements but it does provide 'food for thought."

Share this post


Link to post
...It's a new simulator being built from the ground up.
It's all speculation, but... I highly doubt the budget is set for a "from scratch" development project. Nor do I feel (noticed no use of "know") that their is the manpower to go in and start from scratch.I don't speak from the plane side, only my experience in scenery work. What are they going to develop that is better than what they have? The underpinnings of the FSX scenery engine is well-built, just poorly tuned. The process of displaying textures or vector data or mesh isn't complicated. Why reinvent the wheel, when all the tire needs is a little more air in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Will FSX aircraft be importable to Flight? Or will it be so completely a completely different system?
No one knows!Why post questions like this...?IT AIN'T OUT!IT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET!IT PROBABLY WON'T BE FOR CENTURIES...I Know nothing about the new sim(except its a new sim) I have no views or thoughts about it.Until more info is forthcoming,or the blinking thing is released.I will keep gob shut and thoughts to myself.Andy

Share this post


Link to post
No one knows!Why post questions like this...?IT AIN'T OUT!IT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET!IT PROBABLY WON'T BE FOR CENTURIES...I Know nothing about the new sim(except its a new sim) I have no views or thoughts about it.Until more info is forthcoming,or the blinking thing is released.I will keep gob shut and thoughts to myself.Andy
you are so funny .. you violated your promise to kept you thoughts to yourself with the contents of your note :(

Share this post


Link to post
Will FSX aircraft be importable to Flight? Or will it be so completely a completely different system?
We don't know and those who do know are under NDA. We don't know if this is FSNext, if Microsoft is using a game engine based on another product, if they started from scratch or if they are just going to slap some lipstick on FSX. We know absolutely nothing and speculation is about as useful as t!ts on a bull. What IS useful is finding out who at Microsoft will be the liaison with the FS Community so that they can understand the frustrations of FSX and the mistakes hopefully will not be repeated in Flight. The worse that could happen is that Flight ends up just like FSX and half of the community refuses to move to it. Then we'll have 50% on FS9, 25% FSX, and 25% on Flight which would destroy the community.I hope that this time they actually LEARN from past mistakes and don't release another simulation that take 4 years for technology to catch up with it just in time for the release of the NEXT simulation. By the time that Flight is released there will be a LARGE segment of the community who will never have adopted FSX so if Flight is like FSX we might as well all start forgetting about learning to program a FMC in a B747-400 and start learning how to level up a Warlock to level 80 in World of Warcraft.

Share this post


Link to post
you are so funny .. you violated your promise to kept you thoughts to yourself with the contents of your note :(
Not really.I have acknowledged that a new sim is in the offing(that is fact)But I will not speculate as to what it is about or how it will or won't perform etc. etc. and mucho etc. HA!smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
By the time that Flight is released there will be a LARGE segment of the community who will never have adopted FSX so if Flight is like FSX we might as well all start forgetting about learning to program a FMC in a B747-400 and start learning how to level up a Warlock to level 80 in World of Warcraft.
As far as I know there are no FMC's in FSX :) Aren't any in FS9 or FS8 either.I hope MS doesn't use resources developing gauges like FMC's - 3PD’s can do it 10x better.

Share this post


Link to post
As far as I know there are no FMC's in FSX :) Aren't any in FS9 or FS8 either.I hope MS doesn't use resources developing gauges like FMC's - 3PD’s can do it 10x better.
please tell that you dont really believe that MS cant make a FMC's as good as any we see today.

Share this post


Link to post
please tell that you dont really believe that MS cant make a FMC's as good as any we see today.
:) I don’t mean to say they don’t have the talent and skill, because they do have...But for me I just don’t think it is money well spent.Considering MS’s higher development costs, their licensing restrictions, and their primary audience I don’t think it’s likely they’ll rival a good third party FMC. So I’d like to see that money invested in systems add-ons can’t reach.I do appreciate having the default GPS in FSX, but honestly I still prefer to use RXP.Saying 10x better is a bit of hyperbole, I just mean 'better'.But I think my point of view is sort of extreme too.I’d like to see MS tackle much less and focus on the core platform…not many would agree with that :)- especially if you use the default GPS and what-not :)

Share this post


Link to post
:) I don’t mean to say they don’t have the talent and skill, because they do have...But for me I just don’t think it is money well spent.Considering MS’s higher development costs, their licensing restrictions, and their primary audience I don’t think it’s likely they’ll rival a good third party FMC. So I’d like to see that money invested in systems add-ons can’t reach.I do appreciate having the default GPS in FSX, but honestly I still prefer to use RXP.Saying 10x better is a bit of hyperbole, I just mean 'better'.But I think my point of view is sort of extreme too.I’d like to see MS tackle much less and focus on the core platform…not many would agree with that :)- especially if you use the default GPS and what-not :)
ic and understand your point . thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
What most remember is Phil Taylors "Taximony" thread where he hinted that FSX/SP2/DX10 Compatible products would likely be FS Next Compatible.Of course Phil moved on and MS is not bound by his statements but it does provide 'food for thought."
As I recall Phil Taylor left Microsoft while FSNext (FSX+) was still being developed. Since then ACES has been closed and Flight announced. I'm not sure that we can read much now into what Phil said then.

Share this post


Link to post
As I recall Phil Taylor left Microsoft while FSNext (FSX+) was still being developed. Since then ACES has been closed and Flight announced. I'm not sure that we can read much now into what Phil said then.
I said as much in my post. I also stated that my post is provided as "food for thought" since most folks are enjoying their speculation.Another thing to remember is that Flight is still a Flight Simulation product and MS has historically made important information available to the third party development community at appropriate times.Big%20Grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I said as much in my post. I also stated that my post is provided as "food for thought" since most folks are enjoying their speculation.Another thing to remember is that Flight is still a Flight Simulation product and MS has historically made important information available to the third party development community at appropriate times.Big%20Grin.gif
I'm not disagreeing, just speculatiingFlight is also a Games for Windows product. Has Microsoft historically made important information available to the third party development community at appropriate times for Games for Windows?

Share this post


Link to post
I do appreciate having the default GPS in FSX, but honestly I still prefer to use RXP.
Which, oddly enough would do absolutely nothing useful in FSX were the default GPS engine absent from the sim... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Which, oddly enough would do absolutely nothing useful in FSX were the default GPS engine absent from the sim... :(
I’d admit there’s a fine line :( The depth of the SDK comes out of MS actually building these kinds of solutions.If MS hadn’t built their Garmin500 GPS and the infrastructure behind it the majority of developers would be setback.So there’s definitely a case for a native FMC…even if I’m not convinced :)The RXP GPS predates MS’s GPS and, as far as I know, still works entirely independent of it.The UPS Appalo GX also predated any native FS GPS methods.So, on the contrary their utility has gone down now that a default GPS engine is present.I’m certainly not against MS developing systems that 3PD’s already offer.But I think it takes resources away from MS’s core tasks too.I wonder, would I rather have a new FMC or a better game engine?

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder, would I rather have a new FMC or a better game engine?
There's no way I'm giving up the FMC in my Cessna! :( Oh yeah, don't need a FMC for a Cessna C172. But making it so it could be developed is paramount IMO. I view the program as a foundation for others to build upon. The foundation needs to be solid and firm, as the majority of the buyers will never expand past that level. Any SDKs open up the niche markets that are so well represented in the forums. It's true in the past, in the present and will be in the future that there will be those who want their niche product thrown into the base package. I don't want to pay for other's niche desires. Let me go find someone who makes an add on for my niche and I'll pay for it if I want it badly enough. Any more, I just want the ability to enhance the sim on my own, because I can't beat the price involved! :(

Share this post


Link to post
The RXP GPS predates MS’s GPS and, as far as I know, still works entirely independent of it.The UPS Appalo GX also predated any native FS GPS methods.So, on the contrary their utility has gone down now that a default GPS engine is present.
Um, actually the FS8 GPS engine came long before RXP was even thought about, IFRC. The only real change that occurred was with the release of FS9, when the first G500 and G296 made their debut. The only real improvement was to the gps database and search engine to provide XML access.Yes, the RXP units are "independent" of the FS gps engine, but were the database not present, there'd be nowhere to fly to and from with it... :( In any event, I'd rather that the database be made "updatable" than for them to spend time coding something such as an FMC/FMS that would only be on interest to a tiny minority of owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, the RXP units are "independent" of the FS gps engine, but were the database not present, there'd be nowhere to fly to and from with it... :(
Lol, my memory is rusty, so I stand to be corrected :)I'm pretty sure RXP’s UPS Apollo was actually introduced for FS7.It just may have used FS data directly; but as I recall it generated a custom database from FS nav-aids…it was built when you first installed the gauge. There was a native GPS at the time but it was very rudimentary.As I recall the GNS came in the dying days of FS7 too, but I know I didn’t have it until FS8. I’m fairly certain the GNS uses a database from the Garmin Trainer - not FS.The navData is updated independent of FS (and at the whim of Garmin)But I'd venture all newer GPS's use the FS database...because there's good reason to do so.So I agree with your Premise -Thinking back I’m starting to feel nostalgic for the very first FMC...PIC767.

Share this post


Link to post

Fr. Bill, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but RXP's GNS units use their own separate database that comes from the standalone Garmin trainer - they have nothing at all to do with FS's internal navdata. If fact you can actually update the database for the GNS 430W/530W by downloading the newer G600 trainer and copying some files over. Jean-Luc at RXP has hinted that they're working with Garmin and Jeppessen on an updatable navdata solution too - he showed screenshots of their GNS with a fully up to date navdata cycle a few months ago...

Share this post


Link to post

I really hope this is a ground up game, FSX looks very outdated even with 3rd party addons.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...