FSX-SE New Flight Simulator

[BimmerCop 332]

 

OK OK OK, I guess I'll go ahead and ask the question...Can we see your EULA?Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

How on Earth can someone be expected to have written a Licencing Agreement, for a product that does not yet exist? The EULA is relevent to the product that will be vended - why would he be expected to have sat down and written a EULA when he is still in the very early R&D Stage of his project? :rolleyes: It seems that some users have absolutely no intent or interest in the content of threads in this forum, other than to disrupt, cast their negative and destructive viewpoints, and try to assert some sort of superiority over other members, to satisfy their egos.

It seems that some users can't see sarcasm even if it bit them in the &@($*...Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[LeeL 272]

Maybe a suggestion would be that those more interested in the legal aspect of all this stay in this thread and then the rest of us who rather discuss FSNext head over to the blog announced by the OP...

Yes. Good idea

 

Sadly this is going nowhere.

[mgh 89]

It's still the case that you're pointing that out and there have been a number of posts saying the opposite. Unless you're a lawyer specialising in IP law in the US then that opinion has no more weight than anyone else.

 

It's not a matter of  IP law, it's a matter of harsh reality. If Microsoft or Lockheed Martin chose they could send a "cease  desist" letter. If they were prepared to follow it up, could the FSNext developers afford to fight them?

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

This discussion isn't going anywhere. Can we please move back on topic?

[mgh 89]

This discussion isn't going anywhere. Can we please move back on topic?

 

Which is?

[WebMaximus 372]

 

 

This discussion isn't going anywhere. Can we please move back on topic?

 

Which is?

Have a look at the topic, that might give you a hint

[Marcielli 42]

Please do tell me how the "developers" of this new flightsim are going to add support for Simconnect, programmable Simobjects and Shaders graphics and Bones animations which makes realistic human characters possible ?

[WarpD 824]

A new flight simulator has two primary hurdles to deal with:

 

1. Flight dynamics - Don't think anyone's ever made a 100% accurate system yet.

2. Real-time rendering of the world.

 

The first one is mostly about math, lots and lots of math.

 

The second one is so complex as to make flight dynamics seem like 2nd grade studies. You need a render engine that can handle multiple levels of detail (LOD) seamlessly (as in no readily apparent visual disruptions). It has to be fast as well. It needs to support the same basic scenery abilities that FS already has... elevations, land class, etc. There's soo much that goes into just the visual appearance... it's positively huge.

Then you have to add to that scenery all of the navaids that exist on the planet... that requires a lot of data. Then all of the airports that exist on the planet... etc, etc.

 

Flight dynamics... I actually think that's the easy part. :wink:

 

Please do tell me how the "developers" of this new flightsim are going to add support for Simconnect, programmable Simobjects and Shaders graphics and Bones animations which makes realistic human characters possible ?

The way any other developer adds features to software... by programming it.

[HansRoaming 73]

It's not a matter of  IP law, it's a matter of harsh reality. If Microsoft or Lockheed Martin chose they could send a "cease  desist" letter. If they were prepared to follow it up, could the FSNext developers afford to fight them?

 

Are you a lawyer? If you can answer yes then I'd be interested in what area of law could apply outside of intellectual property law so that Microsoft or Lockheed Martin could send a 'cease desist' letter to them. If you're not a lawyer then don't worry about answering.

[HiFlyer 9,374]

Ensign, set Phasers to Flambe and target all belligerents. At the next sign of hostilities, target the aggressor and open fire. (marshmallows are optional)

[(Guss) Kemp 13]

1. You are ready to write a new program?

 

2. You purchased the FSX code and now are adapting it in order to accept FSX aircraft?

 

3. You are gathering a wish list?

 

4. You are wasting time and forum space?

 

5. What is your point?

You may want to be a bit forgiving here but,

 

I recently started this whole flight simulation as a total newcomer and of  course I was very happy to Join this wonderful and helpful community where I could learn new things about the whole deal, If I came across any problems or wanted any advice this was the place to come was my understanding.

 

Now I have heard some whispers about the  various new offerings coming down the line and then I saw this post that looked just like the kind of place I could get some more info or insight, I mean we are all here to help each other and the community as a whole.

 

The post seemed interesting to start but the very first response (yours) left me confused, you made 5 statements each with a question mark at the end so what are they? statements as they read to be or questions as is the end suggestion I will admit I am very confused.

 

I am the worlds worst in matters of written English But the difference between "you are" and "are you" is plain for all, well anyway I will read as statement as intended and so wont bother to read the rest of the post as you are a long time member with far greater experience so I should take your advice if the subject made by the OP is just simply wasting forum space.

 

Thought you could have been a bit more polite but hey what do I know, Just saying.

 

Best regards

 

Guss

[mgh 89]

Back to the topic, in addition to code for flight dynamics and graphics, as already mentioned, an improved version of FSX  needs code for:

 

AI

ATC

Flight planning

GUI

Help system

Missions

Multi-player

Panels & Gauges

Scenery

Sound

Systems

Weather

 

It will also need an SDK.

 

It will have “ALL features of DirectX will be utilitized which is very core to the design, especially tessellation & soft shadows will be GPU based.” and have “...our code base and will be all original textures/models etc...” (post #33)  

 

The developer “... would like to think that in a year there will be a beta available but PLEASE don't hold my feet to the fire!..” (post  #24)

 

All this is to be achieved by “...4 team members with hopes that others will want to join” but “...all have full time jobs so no it's not a full-time project..” (Post #33)

 

FlightGear (an open-source cooperative project0  has taken 17 years to get to its current state, which is generally accepted not to be up to FSX standard.

Are you a lawyer? If you can answer yes then I'd be interested in what area of law could apply outside of intellectual property law so that Microsoft or Lockheed Martin could send a 'cease desist' letter to them. If you're not a lawyer then don't worry about answering.

 

 

Ask the developer

 

 

As far as being able to import other manufacturers items, there is plenty in their SDK's which allows for the understanding of user designed items hence we can make the sim able to read the same items however, there will be a legal side to this which will be addressed accordingly.

 

[HansRoaming 73]

If it's API compatible the the MS SDK should work if the APIs are the same? Dunno a bit rusty here, been a while.

 

I wonder what the market is, for people that want a core engine because they have a ton of add ons, or a generic sim. For me I just want the engine as I use the following

 

AI - VoxATC

ATC - VoxATC, VATSIM (Squawkbox)

Flight Planning - Aivlasoft EFB, Plan G

Multi-player, VATSIM (Squawkbox)

Panels & Guages - Use all add-on aircraft so guessing some default in there, also use reality XP

Scenery - Orbx, FSGenesis, as soon as Orbx World is released will have that, other 3rd party from payware to freeware

Systems - Use all add-on aircraft although some use the FSX system modeling

Weather - Rex & Opus

Config - FSUIPC + WideFS (run laptop with Aivlasoft EFB + Plan G and SB

 

So if they could have a sim that supports the above then I'd buy it as a lot of FSX default functionality I've bypassed.

 

It's a good list, would be interesting to see what others use against it.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Accept fsx as your flight sim and enjoy what your have, X-plane is the future just gonna take time for it to overtake fsx in terms of features. 

[HiFlyer 9,374]

Gosh, its quiet in here...........  :ph34r: