Microsoft - the great enigma? And it's continued failures.

[Guest]

But not only does a new sim need to use all of those principles, it needs to provide a programming interface to its functions, that's what i'm talking about, not html5.

 

I wouldn't use HTML5 as an API to a Flight Simulator?? You lost me there. HTML5 specification hasn't been finalized yet ... and to make matters worse, W3C doesn't expect to finalize the specification until about 2022. What this means is that we're (developers) once again at "open to interpretation" which is one reason why web application development is so slow, so complex, and basically not maintainable long term without excessive resources. The state of web development is still a MESS (can't tell you how many lines of code I've had to write to accommodate all the different browsers that implement HTML differently). But there is no way web technology will or should make it into any Flight Simulator. If you want to write a sandbox application (one with very restricted access to your computer resources) that is client/server based, then sure go with HTML5 -- but ask the dev's working on FaceBook just how much they hate HTML5.

 

Open development, APIs and so on, the Internet is built on these principles.

 

I disagree, I've not yet seen a viable financial model that works with "open development" ... at least not in a capitalistic society. Most of us developers need to get paid to write software because we have mortgages, family, schools, buying food, etc. etc. -- just like anyone else trying to survive and navigate thru life. Unless you mean something else by "open development"? The Internet is built on advertising revenue to support the development costs and maintenance costs ... take a look around at this site ... what do you see all around you? Developers, web sites, etc. etc. can't live on nothing and most of us don't want to work for nothing because nothing doesn't put food on the table.

[goates 576]

 

I wouldn't use HTML5 as an API to a Flight Simulator?? You lost me there.

 

Pretty sure the HTML5 reference was just meant to be an example of an open standard that everyone has access to. A better example might have been the FSX SDK and SimConnect that we can all install and use, vs Flight's completely closed model. In other words, a new sim would have to be open to third party developers to succeed. Which I agree with.

[SteveW 1,792]

Yes it came to mind simply because html5 is basically on everyone's lips when it comes to talking about internet standards right now. I was saying these things have little bearing on the development of the sim. For example, I was hoping for much more in simconnect but to provide access to the internals of the sim without wrecking it takes a lot of work.

[mgh 89]

. In other words, a new sim would have to be open to third party developers to succeed.

 

But that wouldn't necessarily make it a success for its developer.

[SteveW 1,792]

It's got to be good enough to be worth developing for. I said earlier that FLIGHT was probably destabilising the addon arena, not too sure, but if that community is strong when another sim comes along it's good for all. Even MS will sell more OSs for us to run new sims on. Is the PC going to survive? I think there will always be extreme hardware needing a bigger PSU and box I expect there's no end in sight and someone will turn up eventually with new sims.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

What a lot of (presumably new) folks seem not to know is that Trains2 was being built using the same "world sim" that supported FSvNext. The intention was to have multiple titles all using a fully-shared "world sim" engine.

 

Imagine if you would having on-line sessions with planes, trains, automobiles and even ships being driven in real-time by real people!

 

I recall that about Trains Sim 2. The reason why it was taken away from KUJU was so Aces could develop it on the FSvNext platform. We did get ships and cars to work in FSX but not quite the same thing.

 

I never even seen a demo of what they were working on with that Train Sim...Shame it is Vaporware now.

 

But that wouldn't necessarily make it a success for its developer.

 

I always felt the best way to build a business model is to focus on the culture behind it. MSFS had built a tremendous culture behind the franchise over 25 years. For a new project to be a success they will have an ginormous list of wants and needs to satisfy this stubborn community.

[SteveW 1,792]

Just like FSX, they only need provide an improved more flexible sim and let the third party devs handle most of that list.

[Guest]

For example, I was hoping for much more in simconnect but to provide access to the internals of the sim without wrecking it takes a lot of work.

 

There are other ways to get to the internals, but thread safe they will not be -- or more accurately I don't see how they could be thread safe but those with more skills than I might know.

 

I'm actually surprised how much is in SimConnect, I can't think of any game/sim product that has as robust an SDK as FSX. Were you looking at somehow being able to get into the graphics pipe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I think you could do that reliably is with the source code.

 

If FSX had progressed further it probably would have a VERY healthy SDK, so healthy that FSX might have evolved into a "World" simulator that would appeal to more than just Flight simmers ... think 15,000,000+ copies sold vs. 1-2M. But, what could have been is sadly NOT ... Microsoft showed us what they have been showing using since 2000 ... bad executive decisions with little to no understanding of how to grow a product (and that's not just specific to FSX, although FSX is a classic example of that poor decision process).

[SteveW 1,792]

The way FS9-FSX was progressing things were looking good for us, but it's not like they had a bulging peak in the graph through games sales, FS was probably just an irritation in the boardroom.

[mgh 89]

Even MS will sell more OSs for us to run new sims on.

 

I suggest the number of those who'd buy Windows solely to run a flight simulator (and wouldn't otherwise buy it) is so small and unquantifiable that it simply wouldn't enter into Microsoft's assessment of whether it's worth developing a simulator

 

Window 7 sales are over 575 million Microsoft's last quarter earning for Windows were $5.9 billion.

[goates 576]

 

But that wouldn't necessarily make it a success for its developer.

 

Never said it was the only factor that matters.

[SteveW 1,792]

I've got a load of tricks for handling other programs and thread safety, see screenimp on my site which can take a shot of your screen with security lockdown on the system, but when it comes to a commercial product the need for complete compatibility is paramount, so I don't stray outside of what's officially offered in simconnect and the SDK when it comes to FS.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I suggest the number of those who'd buy Windows solely to run a flight simulator (and wouldn't otherwise buy it) is so small and unquantifiable that it simply wouldn't enter into Microsoft's assessment of whether it's worth developing a simulator

 

Window 7 sales are over 575 million Microsoft's last quarter earning for Windows were $5.9 billion.

 

What it was doing was diversifying their operating system with a range of other products to go with it. 10 years ago you bought a new PC with Windows XP, and they offered you a range of Microsoft Products to go with it from MS Office Home to Encarta, Flight Sim. Train Sim. Magic School Bus etc etc etc. The consumer would have a library on the shelf next to their new PC with various Microsoft Products (among other things)

 

Now the market is in the app stores and the trends have changed from desktop PC's to portable computing. Microsoft doesn't want to accessorize Windows 8 with a range of other software like they did historically. Now thew want you to Sign up for a subscription to the latest Office and get the rest from the App store.

[mgh 89]

What it was doing was diversifying their operating system with a range of other products to go with it.

 

Perhaps Microsoft has decided that there's no advantage in doing that and has changed its approach.

[SteveW 1,792]

There is a bigger picture regarding flight simulators since ESP and later LM making P3D out of it demonstrates. A sim is not just for pilot training, let's say an architect could show off a proposed building design within a reasonably accurate mock up of it's surroundings, or software winds testing the aerodynamics of a bridge, it's not such a wild sounding application for desktop simming now. What markets could be covered by a class leading technology like that, with a cut down version for us to fly in?