INTERVIEW: LIGHTING AND TERRAIN

[RoboRay 126]

Changes to underlying basic functionality do not have to be big changes to break compatibility.

 

And based on how things are progressing so far, I doubt they have even decided how they plan to reimplement a lot of the functions; let alone be ready to commit now to specific interfaces for 3PD connectivity.

[Kengi 0]

For how long we have to hear is going to be this and that ??

 

still waiting for planes with cockpits !!!

 

I think you have been misinformed. I've been playing since the beginning of April and they've had planes with cockpits since at least then, and I believe most, if not all, of those have been available since Flight was released.

 

Perhaps you don't know how to change the view to the cockpit view. The default key for that is F9. Check your options to be sure you didn't reprogram it.

[Bobsk8 12,794]

Changes to underlying basic functionality do not have to be big changes to break compatibility.

 

And based on how things are progressing so far, I doubt they have even decided how they plan to reimplement a lot of the functions; let alone be ready to commit now to specific interfaces for 3PD connectivity.

 

Why would they want 3PD connectivity. That would be like MS going back to Windows 95?

[1mikel151 71]

Why would they want 3PD connectivity. That would be like MS going back to Windows 95?

 

I really don't get your analogy here. I can think of only 3 reasons why MS wouldn't want 3rd party development connectivty. First would be to control content to avoid the negativity that came out of FSX when first released about poor performance for most. Probably the main reason behind the lack of features that many simmers expected with Flight and didn't get. Let's face it, the main performance killer in FSX with the least amount of user control are addons.

 

Second would be to control the market for addons and keep revenue in house, which is understandable.

 

Third would be that for some very strange reason they actually didn't plan ahead for Flights release and are trying to play catchup with core components and new DLC and as pointed out this will interfere with changes they make as they go.

 

As a 3PD guy, I am really curious if we will ever see the game open for addons.

[RoboRay 126]

MS said from the beginning that they anticipate 3PD participation (beyond the current and previous contract work for certain 3PDs being released under Microsoft's name) eventually... They just are not ready for it yet.

 

Two years, I believe, was the ballpark estimate of when to look for an SDK.

 

And I do believe all three of your reasons are at least somewhat correct.

 

[OMGBBQ32 12]

Same weather system I can really tell. Why? Because I was flying today and it was raining when there were clear skies. This happened and still is happening often for me in FSX.

[Bobsk8 12,794]

I really don't get your analogy here. I can think of only 3 reasons why MS wouldn't want 3rd party development connectivty. First would be to control content to avoid the negativity that came out of FSX when first released about poor performance for most. Probably the main reason behind the lack of features that many simmers expected with Flight and didn't get. Let's face it, the main performance killer in FSX with the least amount of user control are addons.

 

Second would be to control the market for addons and keep revenue in house, which is understandable.

 

Third would be that for some very strange reason they actually didn't plan ahead for Flights release and are trying to play catchup with core components and new DLC and as pointed out this will interfere with changes they make as they go.

 

As a 3PD guy, I am really curious if we will ever see the game open for addons.

 

Sorry my bad, I thought it said P3D ( the Lockheed Sim compatibility) ,rather than 3PD.

[kannwar 47]

It's a nice thought but they are not the same engine, one is old, the other has been updated - true it might still contain legacy code but you're talking thousands and thousands of lines of code which has been redeveloped or tweaked, the dna for Flight is just very different to FSX. Simple using what's been done in Flight and porting it over to FSX would be unreasonable given how big the Flight team is and the ROI such action would provide, so clearly the cost benefit just doesn't add up.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

 

Fair enough makes sense.

 

I guess we have to hope they open up the floor to 3rd party developers sooner rather than later.

[n4gix 4,949]

MS said from the beginning that they anticipate 3PD participation (beyond the current and previous contract work for certain 3PDs being released under Microsoft's name) eventually... They just are not ready for it yet.

 

There is one other reason that has yet to be mentioned. Flight is -by design- a closed and locked ecosystem. It is currently not possible for anyone to "add something new" to Flight, even for testing purposes...

 

How then would any 3rd party develop and test their new content, much less bundle it into a self-installing, streamed downloadable package?

 

The most likely answer is that the Flight team would have to release an "unlocked" version of Flight to licensed/contracted developers who've been throughly vetted beforehand and have signed an iron-clad NDA. Keep in mind that it would only take one careless or (worst of all) dishonest 3rd party developer who allowed this unlocked version to escape into the world wide wasteland to completely destroy Flight as a viable MS product.

 

Developers would eventually submit their proposed new content for the Flight team to test and throughly validate, and then eventually assemble and compile the actual DLC download.

 

I am not the least surprised that Flight isn't opened up for 3rd party development yet, for the simple reason that MSGS hasn't even come close yet to completing the base platform. Consider that there's only a single engine propeller engine model so far, and as is self-evident from the second installment update even it is not yet finalized! ^_^

[Torg Smith 31]

There is one other reason that has yet to be mentioned. Flight is -by design- a closed and locked ecosystem. It is currently not possible for anyone to "add something new" to Flight, even for testing purposes...

 

How then would any 3rd party develop and test their new content, much less bundle it into a self-installing, streamed downloadable package?

 

The most likely answer is that the Flight team would have to release an "unlocked" version of Flight to licensed/contracted developers who've been throughly vetted beforehand and have signed an iron-clad NDA. Keep in mind that it would only take one careless or (worst of all) dishonest 3rd party developer who allowed this unlocked version to escape into the world wide wasteland to completely destroy Flight as a viable MS product.

 

Developers would eventually submit their proposed new content for the Flight team to test and throughly validate, and then eventually assemble and compile the actual DLC download.

 

I am not the least surprised that Flight isn't opened up for 3rd party development yet, for the simple reason that MSGS hasn't even come close yet to completing the base platform. Consider that there's only a single engine propeller engine model so far, and as is self-evident from the second installment update even it is not yet finalized! ^_^

 

If you look at what they are doing with the MetroUI on Windows 8, developers have to submit their applications for a certification check to be made available on the application store. Look at Flight as a mini-Windows. Developers upload their content to the store. Microsoft runs its validation software on it. It gets approved and loads on the store front. No more Flight1 wrapper as it is encrypted by Microsoft in flight.

 

There is benefit to the 3PD in the sense that distribution and copy protection are built in. The downside is that there is no competition in distribution so you are forced into whatever price they want to charge. The Windows Application Store is going to be 70% developer and 30% Microsoft. I do not know what kind of markup retailers normally make on software. The only real problem is that many distribution chains are lost and you have less competition.

[noffa 0]

MSFT has to make more money on Flight than they did on FS, and they way to do that is to "tax" 3rd party stuff somehow. It seems pretty clear that Flight addons will only be served through the Live games marketplace. We've seen this for planes and sceneries already, only they have all been created by MSFT so far.

 

When MSFT are ready they will release some kind of platform that third parties can develop against, presumably more sandboxed than what I understand was the case with FS. This is pretty standard stuff, and not much different from the Android and Apple appstores.

 

The most likely answer is that the Flight team would have to release an "unlocked" version of Flight to licensed/contracted developers who've been throughly vetted beforehand and have signed an iron-clad NDA. Keep in mind that it would only take one careless or (worst of all) dishonest 3rd party developer who allowed this unlocked version to escape into the world wide wasteland to completely destroy Flight as a viable MS product.

 

I don't think MSFT would consider for a minute trusting the entire future of the product to third parties like that. I am sure MSFT has the infrastructure to allow devs to test their code without risking copromising everything.

[n4gix 4,949]

When MSFT are ready they will release some kind of platform that third parties can develop against, presumably more sandboxed than what I understand was the case with FS. This is pretty standard stuff, and not much different from the Android and Apple appstores.

 

I don't think MSFT would consider for a minute trusting the entire future of the product to third parties like that. I am sure MSFT has the infrastructure to allow devs to test their code without risking copromising everything.

I suspect they will have to create such a "Developer's Sandbox" first. It is highly unlikely they would have done so yet, since it would be totally unnecessary for their own, in-house development efforts.

 

Whatever mechanism eventuates, my major point was to posit two plausable reasons for the current lack of third-party involvement.

1. Flight's infracstructure remains a work in progress.
   
2. No SDK currently exists, and is unlikely to exist until the infrastructure is completed.
   

[Bobsk8 12,794]

With the way so many people have been quibbling on the Flight forums about the pricing of Flight add ons and cockpits and aircraft, and so on, saying things like "this is $1 more than that, so I refuse to purchase it" , I think a 3rd party developer reading some of these comments would decide to invest their time in something with a little more income potential.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

Well......... right now Flights main goal appears to be to expand the user-base. I pointed out on another forum that if they can get this product quickly into possibly millions of hands, just a portion of that number sticking around to get into DLC might comprise a significant audience. If that were to happen, I would not be surprised to see the prices of increasingly sophisticated DLC creep up a bit, but probably nothing like the current FSX market.

 

Microsoft seems willing to make their money from large numbers of lower priced sales rather than fewer numbers of higher priced sales..... For now.

 

If the numbers ever get large enough, I could see that being very attractive with some third parties, either the current ones, or totally new ones drawn by potential profits. I just hope no more current ones continue to bulldoze the ashes of hastily burned bridges.

[n4gix 4,949]

If the numbers ever get large enough, I could see that being very attractive with some third parties, either the current ones, or totally new ones drawn by potential profits. I just hope no more current ones continue to bulldoze the ashes of hastily burned bridges.

That, among other reasons, is precisely why I've been very circumspect vis-a-vis my public comments about Flight. My momma didn't raise a fool... :t4013: