I thought the same thing when I first dug into the beta. But look again at the headers in those files - they all say ACES at the top. I'm afraid this stuff is just leftovers from when ACES was working on FS11.Surely if this stuff was created by the new FLIGHT team, they wouldn't have plastered the ACES name all over it.

Exactly.  Don't fix it if it ain't broken :). They are remnants of software that was abandoned over three years ago .... the files offer no hope whatsoever.

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.

+1

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by MD83

I dont think this means anything, Flight is just FSX with most of the good stuff taken out, the code is essentially the same just with certain things disabled. And it would make more sense to have these featured included with release and not as an add-on.

Joshua Howard has made his vision for the product clear.

Exactly, and I think the reason for this is clear:Microsoft Flight is a cheap and small scale project for Microsoft.They simply reused their own old code and revamped it to releasea game based on DLC.If it would be anything else they would have put more money in marketing.I am a bit worried about the structure of flight. IMHO the need to sell DLC is a bit toobvious like need the need for most jobs, to own a Maule.If Flight would only be a small byproduct of a greater scheme they would probably worka bit morerelaxed, as an example Everyone who gets so many points and achieves these missionswin a Maule or something like that.

I have a feeling this stuff is just "fossils" from a previous era.

They simply reused their own old code and revamped it to releasea game based on DLC.

My understanding of programming and re-using code is you never throw out "old" code unless you absolutely have to because of the great expense involved in coming up with completely new (working) code.

My understanding of programming and re-using code is you never throw out "old" code unless you absolutely have to because of the great expense involved in coming up with completely new (working) code.

This is correct if you write about released and tested code. The internal code probably contained incomplete and untested functions. You will felete such cases if you don't need them. They have probably removed a lot of compatibility code for older sceneries and files.You always use revision control systems so this code isn't lost anyway, but you can debug much faster in a simplified and cleaned version.But this is the real compiled code. In many cases you don't bother to remove definition and header files. They don't matter anyway and it can take a lot of unnecessary time to determine if you can really delete these files.

Take a look at Flight.exe in something like WinRaR and you will see that everything is new.Lots of nice surprises in there too.Fred.

Before it was released everyone debated about what Flight was going to be. Now that it is out, well, nothing much has changed except we now also have debates about what it actually is. Although it doesn't interest me at all in its current form, I am hoping it becomes very popular, attracts a lot of new people, and as a result develops into something I can be interested in, perhaps in a couple of years.One thing I will never be interested in though is endless meaningless speculation of what Flight will become, because that is something that MS probably doesn't even know at this point. What Flight becomes will be decided largely by how much interest and support it receives.

No, Godwin's Law does not apply!No-one has been called anything, I was referring to a previous case of massive & ultimately unjustified criticism of a new MS product.In that instance the criticism was so harsh it started a meme, and I questioned whether or not that had any influence on the demise of ACES.As an aside, I noticed EA pulled the iOS version of Battlefield 3 in the wake of withering scorn; that's it, no more toys. No chance to let the devs fix any bugs (yes it had bugs. Name something that doesn't), no chance to let the app grow, bam, management decision: ditch it.That's what the modern world is like.Don't like change? You are going to HATE Windows 8!Don't like Flight? Well, if you make your case loudly and clearly enough, MS will take it away so you dont have to complain about it anymore. You won't get FS11 or FSXNext in return, P3D won't be the Great Replacement, and if Xplane steps up as the Great Replacement, guess what, you'll have to buy all your adding again anyway, which is what a lot of the complaints have been about.Hands up all those still using their addons from FS4, FS5, FS95, FS2000 in FSX?Oh, no-one?That's right, they aren't compatible!Using TrackIR with FS4 or 5? No? That's right, not compatible!Any code from FS4, FS5, FS95 in FSX? None? That's right, FSX represented a rewrite of the code!

Don't like Flight? Well, if you make your case loudly and clearly enough, MS will take it away so you dont have to complain about it anymore. Please sir, I want some more.

FIFY

Extract CorePropdefs.pak to a folder and have a read of the XML filesPROOF of AI, ATC, Flight plans and ... dynamic propagating FIRE? Pedestrians? Movable cargo containers? TRAINS!? Dynamic real world weather? Completely customisable weather? Incredibly detailed engine modelling?Ok, I'm really excited by what we are going to see over the next few months! :Drooling:

Many of us, myself included will not convert to flight until those features are offered. If most people don't convert, Flight will not be financially viable to get to the point of having all those features. To me that is the major problem I see with Flight. It is very poorly marketed.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by frankla

Flight is marketed towards a new audience.I don't think many of the 'Old Guard' will convert - those of us 'old timers' who have 'converted' are few and far between it seems.I say converted, not quite, I still have FSX, and will still use it; 'enthusiastic about a new FS paradigm' is a more accurate but harder to type description.I don't think many of the 'hard core simmers' will bother with Flight until they can fly from Schipol to Frankfurt in a 737 freighter, completely on autopilot. In cloud. At night. Anything more exciting might be a bit much for them! :-D