CorePropdefs.pak - PROOF of AI, ATC, Flight Plans, and !

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

It has nothing to do with people "wanting" Flight to fail, and everything to do with not getting bamboozled. Again. All the proof you need that these files are irrelevant is to look at the stuff related to trains. It has all the logic for track blocks, signals, speed ratings for the rails, etc...Surely we can agree that those files are left over from the defunct Train Sim, right? So then it follows that the stuff about SIDs, STARs, and ATC speed control are left over from the defunct FS11. And again, if those files were actually written by the Flight team at MGS, I highly doubt they would have had an identity crisis and mistakenly put the name of defunct development team (ACES) in the title headers. Use some critical thinking.

[Silver_Dragon 411]

I see it as a waste of time putting all these XMLs and files.Pak in a simple game, it's a waste of development time, download and others if they were not used,I see it more like an ace in the hole for a possible improvement in the future and as a ploy to have part of the work done.Other interesting .xmlsaircraft systems:-static systems-Propellers-Pitot systems-Panels-Lights Systems-Gauges-Fuel Systems-Flight Instruments-Flight Controls-Flight Assistants-Engines-Electric Systems-Door Systems-Crew placements-PhysicsToo complicated to be only a casual game

Edited March 1, 2012 by minoslas

[corinoco 22]

Too complicated to be only a casual game

Exactly.Why put all that work into something that is not going to be used?A previous poster claims it would take half an hour to write all this, which is simply a comment from ignorance.It takes serious time to set up data structures; they aren't the types of things you want to get wrong. Assigning GUIDs to everything is also not a trivial task. Packing it into an installation file is not a trivia task. Passing the file through QA is not a trivial task. It's one thing to be a 3rd party developer, write code from an SDK and upload it to Avsim. it's a whole other world to write a real codebase and distribute it through a large organisations distribution systems. I know - I've done work with Autodesk on components of Autodesk Revit. You don't assign GUIDs for fun - Global truly means GLOBAL - your GUIDs have to be utterly unique for them to work properly. You don't just "use old code" and leave it in sitting in random files - these are well documented recipes for major screwups.

And again, if those files were actually written by the Flight team at MGS, I highly doubt they would have had an identity crisis and mistakenly put the name of defunct development team (ACES) in the title headers.

Polite programmers attribute credit. Also a large majority of the fabled ACES team ended up working on Flight, correct? 30% or 50% or something? (I'm not knocking the ACES team, all credit to them; I'm knocking the view by a certain group of 'hard-core' simmers that the ACES team were some form of highly evovled GODS)How do you think the development team feel coming to Avsim and seeing all this crap about their hard work? It would make me feel pretty bloody dejected! Years of work derided as a console game. People claiming it was written for the Xbox when it clearly isn't (the Xbox has nowhere near enough grunt to run Flight - even the projected Xbox-NEXT has not got the GPU power required.) People calling the developers idiots, or worse.It astonishes me how much people want MS Flight to fail. Do they think MS is suddenly going to say "Oh, well, lets get back to writing FS11 for these nice people who claimed we 'betrayed' them, who called us all sorts of names, who seem to think we work for them, who have carried on like a bunch of spoiled children throwing their toys out of the pram?"MS is much more likely to say "Well, there seems to be some very vocal opposition to Flight, we can see that new users are being harrassed and abused in forums such as Avsim - this could come back to bite us legally, so it is cheaper to just forget this flight simming business as the audience seems to have become very vocally abusive."AND THAT WILL BE THAT, GAME OVER.No more Flight Sims from developers with the resources put the time and money into high quality products; future developers will look at the s##tstorm that MS got into and think "ew, don't want to go there."Maybe that will make the anti-Flight brigade happy.

[Ben Cap 89]

"Well, there seems to be some very vocal opposition to Flight, we can see that new users are being harrassed and abused in forums such as Avsim - this could come back to bite us legally, so it is cheaper to just forget this flight simming business as the audience seems to have become very vocally abusive."

I think after the bashing about FSX made MS not particularly interested in catering to a bunch of grouchy simmers.I think being polite and considerate is the way to go regardless of what you are doing or where you are in life.Most people are more apt to respect you and listen to what you have to say if you have a greater sense of "levelheadedness".

[rtodepart 761]

Exactly.Why put all that work into something that is not going to be used?A previous poster claims it would take half an hour to write all this, which is simply a comment from ignorance.It takes serious time to set up data structures; they aren't the types of things you want to get wrong. Assigning GUIDs to everything is also not a trivial task. Packing it into an installation file is not a trivia task. Passing the file through QA is not a trivial task.It's one thing to be a 3rd party developer, write code from an SDK and upload it to Avsim. it's a whole other world to write a real codebase and distribute it through a large organisations distribution systems. I know - I've done work with Autodesk on components of Autodesk Revit. You don't assign GUIDs for fun - Global truly means GLOBAL - your GUIDs have to be utterly unique for them to work properly. You don't just "use old code" and leave it in sitting in random files - these are well documented recipes for major screwups.Polite programmers attribute credit. Also a large majority of the fabled ACES team ended up working on Flight, correct? 30% or 50% or something? (I'm not knocking the ACES team, all credit to them; I'm knocking the view by a certain group of 'hard-core' simmers that the ACES team were some form of highly evovled GODS)How do you think the development team feel coming to Avsim and seeing all this crap about their hard work? It would make me feel pretty bloody dejected! Years of work derided as a console game. People claiming it was written for the Xbox when it clearly isn't (the Xbox has nowhere near enough grunt to run Flight - even the projected Xbox-NEXT has not got the GPU power required.) People calling the developers idiots, or worse.It astonishes me how much people want MS Flight to fail. Do they think MS is suddenly going to say "Oh, well, lets get back to writing FS11 for these nice people who claimed we 'betrayed' them, who called us all sorts of names, who seem to think we work for them, who have carried on like a bunch of spoiled children throwing their toys out of the pram?"MS is much more likely to say "Well, there seems to be some very vocal opposition to Flight, we can see that new users are being harrassed and abused in forums such as Avsim - this could come back to bite us legally, so it is cheaper to just forget this flight simming business as the audience seems to have become very vocally abusive."AND THAT WILL BE THAT, GAME OVER.No more Flight Sims from developers with the resources put the time and money into high quality products; future developers will look at the s##tstorm that MS got into and think "ew, don't want to go there."Maybe that will make the anti-Flight brigade happy.

I like this post and i wish i had the power to get this pinned .

[n4gix 4,968]

The goal is not to rebuild FSX, because simulator enthusiasts are not the target audience.

You are correct about the above. What you aren't seeing is that in order to keep their target audience's interests, they will have to continuously provide an unfolding and evolving "story." IOW, they will have to keep building more and more into the core product.It is called a strategic vision...

[corinoco 22]

Here's a fun little fact.We all know the a really bad dude reacts to ... meme; Flight has been done to death on it, many times over.Ever wondered what the very first a really bad dude reacts to.. film was?It is THIS: (from the web page http://knowyourmeme....l-a really bad dude-reacts)

Viral InstanceThe earliest known subtitle spoof of Downfall was uploaded by YouTube user DReaperF4 on August 10th, 2006. Titled “Sim Heil: Der untersim”[2] and subbed in Spanish, the video shows a really bad dude fuming over the lack of new features in the demo trial of Microsoft’s Flight Simulator X, which was released in October 2006.

yes, that's right, the first a really bad dude meme was created by the 'hard-core' simmers upset by how FSX was 'dumbing down' the Flight Sim experience, had no new features, etc. etc. etc. YAWN. We've heard it all before.Whatever it is that 'hard-core' simmers catch, I don't want it.I hope a Saitek X52 Pro, rudder pedals and a shelf full of FS boxes stretching back to FS2 for the C64 doesn't count as hard-core. Edited March 2, 2012 by corinoco

[n4gix 4,968]

Surely we can agree that those files are left over from the defunct Train Sim, right? So then it follows that the stuff about SIDs, STARs, and ATC speed control are left over from the defunct FS11.

No. Those files are remnants of the core engine development efforts by ACES when there were still plans afoot to have a single core engine that could support multiple platforms: FSvNext and TrainSim2 as being the two that were currently under heavy development.When ACES was closed, a team was left in place to archive all of the source materials for possible future use. Well, a use was found for them now, and Flight v1.0 is the first of the offspring.I would never be so foolish as to suggest that they represent what will be, but they are definitely hooks that were quite deliberately left in place, just in case.

[corinoco 22]

I think after the bashing about FSX made MS not particularly interested in catering to a bunch of grouchy simmers.

Having just found out that the first "a really bad dude reacts to ..." meme was actually about FSX, I wonder if that had an influence on the demise of the ACES team. Getting yourself associated with a really bad dude, even by accident, is NOT a good marketing idea, and something shareholders would NOT like.I don't know if anyone else here saw it, but the largish war that erupted on Reddit two weeks ago about a Bioware-employed writer has the same stink as what we are seeing happening to MS Flight here.I want MS Flight to succeed for a whole bunch of reasons; but the main one is that it is the last FS franchise supported by a major developer.Once MS are gone, that will be it; do you think they will try 'third time lucky'?

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

No. Those files are remnants of the core engine development efforts by ACES when there were still plans afoot to have a single core engine that could support multiple platforms: FSvNext and TrainSim2 as being the two that were currently under heavy development.When ACES was closed, a team was left in place to archive all of the source materials for possible future use. Well, a use was found for them now, and Flight v1.0 is the first of the offspring.I would never be so foolish as to suggest that they represent what will be, but they are definitely hooks that were quite deliberately left in place, just in case.

I left out the whole ESP common platform stuff for the sake of brevity. I must be missing some nuance in your post, because I don't see how our statements differ: The Flight team did not write those files, ACES did. Therefore, jumping up and down claiming that they PROVE that Flight is destined for awesomeness is, at best, premature.

[Silver_Dragon 411]

To see gentlemen, who in their right mind gets 780 MB of definitions of a database compressed XML in a game that on paper will never use?, For that, I had saved and you would have the "game" lighter and easier to download, for me it is so simple and programming issues in which I worked, the magnitude XMLs is a waste of space, time and effort rather than unnecessary. Unless you have other obvious function.Edit: FSX has only 460kb definition no compressed XMLFor example:

PropPropeller.xml-Diameter of propeller-Min pitch angle-Max pitch angle-Fixed ptich angle-Rated Rpm (usually Redline)-Moment of Inertia of the propeller-Min Absolute Rpm (of prop not entine) for constant-speed governor-Max Absolute Rpm (of prop not entine) for constant-speed governor-Torque effect scalar on the airframe-P-Factor effect scalar on the airframe-Gyroscopic effect scalar on the airframe-Ration of Engine RPM of Propeller RPM---------Min Angle-Max Angle-Min governed RPM-Max Governed RPM---------Power coefficient---------Thrust efficiecy

and repeat the question, for a casual game? really? Edited March 2, 2012 by minoslas

[Great Ozzie 101]

Having just found out that the first "a really bad dude reacts to ..." meme was actually about FSX, I wonder if that had an influence on the demise of the ACES team. Getting yourself associated with a really bad dude, even by accident, is NOT a good marketing idea, and something shareholders would NOT like.

Nice to know Godwin's Law alive and well :LMAO:Could say this is not a valid example of that but the ###### name calling did come up in that deleted thread."just sayin'"In Germany I understand it's serious business... one does not to this day, bring up that name (lightly)... kind of like Harry Potter and "you know who". Had a chess partner wfho lived in former East Germany in all the years we chatted by phone or text... only once talked about "him" and was only because another friend pressed him into a conversation about it.(man i should be in bed)

[Silver_Dragon 411]

A curious....I personally know Dreaper4F and as he says,the meme is escaped from the hands,the do not know nobody or have congratulated for their work but copy everybody and all thel aughs at ease when a new version comes out, is the misfortune of the creator.

Edited March 2, 2012 by minoslas

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

To see gentlemen, who in their right mind gets 780 MB of definitions of a database compressed XML in a game that on paper will never use?, For that, I had saved and you would have the "game" lighter and easier to download, for me it is so simple and programming issues in which I worked, the magnitude XMLs is a waste of space, time and effort rather than unnecessary. Unless you have other obvious function.Edit: FSX has only 460kb definition no compressed XMLFor example:and repeat the question, for a casual game? really?

You don't seem to get it. Flight isn't a new game into which these new definition files were put. Flight is nothing more than a modified FSX and it uses all of the same structures and definitions. The code for flight, as pointed out by others, comes from the Core Platform branch common to both FS11 and TS2, which was under active development until the time ACES shut down. As such, the structures and definitions are the same as for ESP. Thats why you see new and exciting things in it, because the core platform was to be the basis for the new sims. Why else do you think there is so much data about trains, tracks, and signalling systems in Flight's data files? You don't think it's because Flight is going to have uber-realistic trains running around, do you?It's the same with ATC speed control, SIDs, STARs, and most of the other goodies you can find in the data files. It's there because it was easier to leave the extra stuff there "just in case", than to depricate it and write new ones. Its illogical to think that the Flight team would write stuff pertaining to advanced ATC functions and Train dynamics (and not include them), yet leave out far less complex things like working toe brakes, TrackIR support, etc...I'm not saying that there's no chance the new stuff will ever get used, but I'm saying that its mere presence is not some magical proof that Flight is definitely going to have all of these features.

[bonchie 2,305]

Joshua Howard has made his vision for the product clear.I have no idea how you can read his words and then think we are going to start seeing DLC for SIDS, STARS, and realistic ATC. That's not going to make them any money with their target audience and it's not the direction he sees the product going in by his own admission.That doesn't mean Flight can't be fun, that missions aren't cool, and that the planes aren't well simulated (outside of advanced systems). It does speak to scope as to which you can expect Flight to reach for though.It's like looking at Call of Duty and hoping the next DLC is going to be an open world level. It's not gonna happen because it's not part of their design strategy.

Edited March 2, 2012 by bonchie