I repeat myself (and I really mean it):

... and how that might or might not change in the future is NOT in my hand (and for that reason, I will not discuss it)

Thanks Andras,

These guys are offering viable solutions, ones that "are" present in other simulators, why not Xplane? And, please don't tell me it's a resource / manpower issue, we don't want to hear that any more, from here (today) forward.

Glen

 

I think you don't get it guys. Austin prefers to spend millions in a probably useless fight against a patent issue than dedicate it to XPlane core ressources.. Just a question of priorities.

I think you don't get it guys. Austin prefers to spend millions in a probably useless fight against a patent issue than dedicate it to XPlane core ressources.. Just a question of priorities.

 

Actually, I don't mind him doing that. Patent trolls & animal rescue ( 1.5 mil donation to the animal shelter) are real life issues. Flight sims are imaginary.

 

L.Adamson

I think you don't get it guys. Austin prefers to spend millions in a probably useless fight against a patent issue than dedicate it to XPlane core ressources.

 

As time goes on, I think we'll see more and more opinions like Minos' seen above - but truth be told, there's no evidence that Austin had plans to increase his employee base prior to the Uniloc debacle, nor is there any historic precedent showing him wanting to do so. Laminar has always been a bare-bones development shop, with no aspirations to the contrary.

 

While the lawsuit will drain his personal time away from product development, I don't think we can say there's any basis for our hopes and dreams that he would have spent that legal money on more payroll for developers instead.

 

-Greg

Over time I have come to wonder if Xplane is deliberately following a very old sales model, as in "Always leave them wanting more."

 

If so, I think the the extremely slow introduction of (what some might deem essential) features may be a (probably sound) business decision to maximize long term income. Think about it. Since they don't sell planes or scenery themselves, and the market is very limited, why would they introduce a "complete" product and then watch sales slowly taper off as the market is eventually saturated?

 

It just seems to me that it might be in their long term best interest to always leave us hanging. :unsure:

 

It leaves goals for the next version............

 

Else they end up in the same situation as Microsoft, and wind up trying to maintain a revenue stream by demanding a cut of the add-on market; and we all remember the community decided to have a collective cow rather than accept that............

Devon, I have no doubt this is the "game" he is playing, good for him. But like I have previously said, I will no longer play his game. I want a "finished" product now, that's what I paid for.

 

Give us a finished product to the best of "their" abilities, just as Microsoft has done, and let the 3rd party developers fill the gaps. Then LR can work on the next version, and bring it to market a few years down the road with the wonderful changes they have made. The user can decide whether they want to "upgrade" or not. I don't have any options now, I'm stuck with only what he provides, and it's not good enough.

 

I will not continue to give him money for a half finished product, that's ridiculous. Not "yelling" at you Devon, more mad at myself for believing in him on more than one occasion, it's my fault, and I want things to change. The only option I have is to quit supporting his program. That decision has already been made. If more do so, and his revenue steam starts to dry up, he will be forced to change, or leave the game. It's all about giving the consumer what they want, he doesn't do that, and it appears he doesn't even listen. His mind is already made up, well so is mine.

 

Glen

Time for a petition then?

Actually, I don't mind him doing that. Patent trolls & animal rescue ( 1.5 mil donation to the animal shelter) are real life issues. Flight sims are imaginary.

 

L.Adamson

 

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Jan

Time for a petition then?

 

Ralf, I honestly don't think it would do any good.

 

I would rather just have some way to get / arrive at what we all desire, a complete simulator that runs great. Xplane has half that equation, I want the rest. I would gladly continue to support Xplane, if I had the option to purchase all the missing pieces. It's never going to come from them alone, not to my satisfaction, or time frame. The answer is so simple, if he gave a little (hire / source out), he would get so much more in return, as would all the existing developers involved. Just image Xplane as a full blown flight simulator, the users would come, in leaps and bounds.

 

They don't now, because it's always the same old. You get a partially finished product, every single release. Finish a release, let others fill the gaps, and move on to the next release, it's so simple, it's frustrating. Microsoft did it with so much success, why can't he. He could even continue on for years, and not stop development like Microsoft has. I don't think for a minute Microsoft stopped because the revenue stream had dried up, they stopped because it was time to move on, in a direction that was probably wrong.

 

Glen

 

Donating money to charities, very commendable, good for him.

 

But, don't then turn around and tell me he doesn't have the financial resources to expand his business, that argument holds no weight, nor did I ever believe it.

The only one who can change Xplanes world is Austin, and he is the only one who is "denying reality". The reality is, Xplane's development model needs to change to reach it's full potential, we all know that, it's fact.

 

It's an opinion that depends on what you assume "full potential" to mean.

 

It's all about giving the consumer what they want, he doesn't do that...

 

Obviously enough consumers are getting what they want to keep X-Plane a viable product for two-decades.

 

Donating money to charities, very commendable, good for him.

 

But, don't then turn around and tell me he doesn't have the financial resources to expand his business, that argument holds no weight, nor did I ever believe it.

 

It's all about business. Yes, Austin probably could throw lots of money at X-Plane, but would he make that money back plus profit? Not necessarily. I doubt Austin got to where he is by making bad bets.

It's an opinion that depends on what you assume "full potential" to mean.

 

 

Full potential to me and many others, is offer everything similar to what FSX does (with addons) functionality wise, but with better performance. We have the better performance, we don't have the full functionality, nor the option to purchase it, nor any mention of it in future releases.(?)

 

 

Obviously enough consumers are getting what they want to keep X-Plane a viable product for two-decades.

 

 

True, but it could be so much more, finally a flight simulator we have all been waiting for, for so many years. Xplane continues too fall far too short of this mark. It's a niche simulator, not a full blown simulator. It tries to be, but falls dreadfully short in key areas. We want it to be a full featured flight simulator. If you folks that have been supporting it for two-decades are happy with it, fine, it will continue to be nothing more that a "back seat" simulator. I want it to move to the "front seat", offer everything to make it a complete flight simulator, not something that only attracts a small segment of the market at best. It has to rise to the top, or stay where it always has, second / third best (or worse), and someone else will take Microsoft’s place at the top. It's his decision.

 

Glen

Well, maybe it's been missed that my point was that the "procedural" approach IMO solves the two main problems of X-Plane, namely lack of artists manpower and frequent updates.

 

Alpilotx main objection is that it requires more time and resources (especially in terms of artists) than one might imagine, mainly because it cannot be made automatic as we think.

 

This is where I disagree (although alpilotx is certainly more knowledgeable than me on this matter). Look at the flightgear screenshots and what one man has made: yes of course it's still incomplete, and certainly the author has choosen only the screenshots that show the best results.

 

Alpilotx is probably looking for a "near perfect" result, while most of us would be content with even a barely plausible result.

 

Do the shader framework, add the rules to do pixel postprocessing (this is the most long and demanding part maybe) based just on:

1) time of year; 2) latitude; 3) altitude; 4) slope; 5) default pixel color

 

One will not get perfect results initially, but probably acceptable yes, and then it can be improved from there on. It is true, as alpilotx has remarked, that 3d scenery objects (buldings, trees) are the ones most difficult to "automatize", but those are just a handful of textures compared to the ground textures (the latter on the order of the thousand). And again, look at the flightgear screenshots where the tree colors are NOT PROCESSED AT ALL for snow or autumn, and yet the final results are more than acceptable.

 

I know we're not smarter than those at Laminar and hence they're surely already evaluating this path (as alpilotx has confirmed), mainly my post was to make this idea known among the community and give my thoughts on the matter...

 

Marco

 

EDIT: heck, if I was a shader programmer I would try it myself...

One will not get perfect results initially, but probably acceptable yes, and then it can be improved from there on. It is true, as alpilotx has remarked, that 3d scenery objects (buldings, trees) are the ones most difficult to "automatize", but those are just a handful of textures compared to the ground textures (the latter on the order of the thousand). And again, look at the flightgear screenshots where the tree colors are NOT PROCESSED AT ALL for snow or autumn, and yet the final results are more than acceptable.

 

Well, I must say I agree with alpilotx. I havbe experienced it often enough. Firts you have a simple basic idea that should be easy enough to implement. But while you start to work on it you find an exception and have to add a special clause to get around the problem, then you find another exception and add an additional clause. After a while you see that you will have to rewrite your code, since it gets to complicated.

You start with a simple idea and after a few months you have a very complicated and buggy program. If I even read your description I gtet the very strong feeling that you should either be ready to do everything for such a solution or stop till you have really time to do it. I think at the moment there are other things to do that are either more important or easier to solve. Examples AI + ATC, Crowdsourcing of airports, Update of the OSM data...

For sure, given all the other things that need to improve in X-Plane, Laminar already lacks manpower. The problem is that with a classic approach for seasons there are no hopes since the amount of additional manpower required would be enormous, while with the procedural approach maybe there is some hope... But more manpower at Laminar is needed neverthless.

Look at the flightgear screenshots and what one man has made

 

The thing you have to understand about free and open source projects like FlightGear is they operate very differently from a for-profit business. For one thing, there are really no negative repercussions for missing deadlines, or spending an inordinate amount of time developing a low-priority "vanity" feature. That is to say it doesn't cost FlightGear anything if one guy wants to spend his free time implementing a procedural renderer for ground textures. This is not the case when you have a team of paid employees and limited resources. Sure, Laminar could pull somebody from one area of development and put him full time into solving the procedural texture problem, but that means either the other team members need to increase their workload to fill in the hole, or that work simply doesn't get done.

 

I remember hearing a story about a professional developer talking shop with a hobbyist who was complaining that the professional's code was sloppy unlike the neat and well commented code you find in open source projects. The professional said, "I don't get paid to to write pretty code. I get paid to write code that works and is delivered on time."

 

Anyway, it remains to be seen how well FlightGear's procedural textures work across the entire planet and what their impact on performance will be.