HelloInteresting that the shadow system was ripped out of ESP2 before it was handed over to LMaccording to the main support guy over there.If flight! is using ESP2 code then look forward to 4096x4096 ground textures which Prepar3D can already handle.

Unfortunately, that logic -which while reasonable on the surface- doesn't necessarily apply. Microsoft's NDAs are quite explicit. Anyone who has signed one can neither confirm nor deny that they have signed one.Worse, anyone who does deny that they have, or confirms that they haven't potentially jepordizes their future possibilities of being invited onboard... :(

Or we could go with if cloud shadows are implemented then they'll be available for MS own textures and it won't just be a REX thing. Not sure how any of this still has to do with the Flight store :)

HelloInteresting that the shadow system was ripped out of ESP2 before it was handed over to LMaccording to the main support guy over there.If flight! is using ESP2 code then look forward to 4096x4096 ground textures which Prepar3D can already handle.

Actually, the old shadow system had been removed from the ESPv2 tree before ACES was shutdown (work was underway to create a new shadow system, but it wasn't anywhere near done yet). The shadow system wasn't specifically removed to keep LM from receiving it.And technically, Prepar3d is based on ESPv1, with some of the additional code in ESPv2 back ported to it.Tim

Actually, the old shadow system had been removed from the ESPv2 tree before ACES was shutdown (work was underway to create a new shadow system, but it wasn't anywhere near done yet). The shadow system wasn't specifically removed to keep LM from receiving it.And technically, Prepar3d is based on ESPv1, with some of the additional code in ESPv2 back ported to it.Tim

Hello TimThanks for clarifying those points.What was the ESPv2 code that made it to Prepar3D was it the larger texture support and better landclassing?

What was the ESPv2 code that made it to Prepar3D was it the larger texture support and better landclassing?

The only ESPv2 related code that I know made it into P3D v1 was the Multi-Channel code. The Landclass upgrade was done by our data guy (who also used to be in the ACES studio) using newer/better data sources. Not positive on the larger texture support, but I believe that was new code. There might have been some other v2 code that made it in, but since I work out of my house, I'm not always up-to-date with everything that made it into a specific version :->At the moment, I'm backporting some new SimConnect APIs and there are some infrastructure updates to the Sim1 module that I want to pick up at some point. I'm sure other folks on the team have other selected updates they hope to pull over going forward :->.Tim

At the moment, I'm backporting some new SimConnect APIs and there are some infrastructure updates to the Sim1 module that I want to pick up at some point. I'm sure other folks on the team have other selected updates they hope to pull over going forward :->.Tim

Tim: Will you still be working on your Managed SDK going forward? Don't need a .NET 4 version but it would be nice if both Sims continue to be supported under one library.

If microsoft needs more revenue they should release the SDK's then begin to release/develop addon's of thier own and compete with other developers like pmdg, aerosoft etc.

If microsoft needs more revenue they should release the SDK's then begin to release/develop addon's of thier own and compete with other developers like pmdg, aerosoft etc.

Microsoft could also make money by selling licences to other developers, such as PMDG, Aerosoft etc. It's a common practice.

Microsoft could also make money by selling licences to other developers, such as PMDG, Aerosoft etc. It's a common practice.

How do you know they are not doing it? For what we know, addon developers could be under NDA developing aircraft... 737NG could be in a parallel development for Flight and FSX and we would know squawt about it.

Traditionaly you sell the license to the end user not the developer. Besides what good is an SDK without the actual engine at this point? NDA's are good and all but Flight is at a the stage where they don't want any information leaked. Maybe closer to beta...

Most of the pics we've already seen. Only 2 or three I think were new bottom of page 36.

Traditionaly you sell the license to the end user not the developer. Besides what good is an SDK without the actual engine at this point? NDA's are good and all but Flight is at a the stage where they don't want any information leaked. Maybe closer to beta...

With product licencing the licence is sold to the developer /producer giving certain rights - in this case, maybe, the right to label the product as genuine/authentic Microsoft Flight Add-on. There would stll be a separate EULA.

With product licencing the licence is sold to the developer /producer giving certain rights - in this case, maybe, the right to label the product as genuine/authentic Microsoft Flight Add-on. There would stll be a separate EULA.

Well lets not forget MIcrosoft already tried this with FSX and they didn't have much success selling it at $1000 dollars , and then dropped the price to $500. Seems the price right now is 9.99/month over at Prepar3d and even that hasn't attracted too many developers. The optimal price is free with the "deluxe edition" I think.

Why don't we look at this from another angle....If Flight is (after it's released) to be so good like some here think it will be (and maybe it will) with all the bells and whistles we can all want and are asking for like fantastic sceneries, clouds shadows, airports, volumetric clouds, DX10 (11), Hyperthreading, +++ why is MS bothering with a market place store? I mean if everything we want is included in Flight what more do we need but some payware airplane right? Why would MS share the $$$ with the dev.? So one is to assume that by having a market place store for Flight it's because there is place for improvement by the dev. right? I'm thinking of Aerosoft, REX, Flight1, Orbx, and others who can improve our flying experience.....Again, why a market place store....why not getting our addons the same way we are all getting them now.... what is the advantage for MS to do so.....and what is the advantage for the dev. to go this way....by having to buy are addons online from the store to be downloaded directly to our Flight the dev. will be protected under MS's umbrella and MS will get it's fair share of the sales, no other possible way for somebody to get the addons without paying for them....So to me Flight will have some big performance improvement out of the box when released but if you want to have access to it and have access to the new scenery, airplane, or enhanced environment one can wish of you'll have to login and pay for it, if not you'll get a bare bone Flight,....... you don't attract flies with vinegar right?So to me Flight straight out of the box without login = some improvement over FSX (FSX SP3).

Developers who want to use the Games for Windows logo already have to go through a licencing procedure.http://www.microsoft.com/GFWCertification/EN/US/CertificationProcess.aspx