OMG,I actually agree with Joe. I've been saying the same thing for years but usually get shot down in a barrage of MS hiney kissing. This engine has been around forever,it has been modified somewhat over the years but I'd bet I could take scenery .bgl's I created for airports back in 96/97 and they would still work--maybe not 100%. How about aircraft from several years ago? You might not see some props or other eye candy but the aircraft would still fly like it did.I have a boatload of add-ons,many payware. Personally I'd rather MS do a total overhaul of the sim,if that means next year would be out of the question for a release then so be it,I can wait till 07. I got plenty of COF aircraft and scenery to last me another year,year and a half.David

Commercial and freeware developers will get help from MS, just as they have in the past. I'm not worried about that aspect. But what really scares me about a new version of FS is how FSUIPC will need to be redone. There are so many add-ons that use that utility, and we all know that each new FS version breaks FSUIPC since FSUIPC pokes into the core of FS programming. I also don't know if Pete Dowson has it in him to restart from scratch to develop a new version. He was ready to give it up when FS9 was released.So perhaps MS might make the internal addresses known this time, but it'll be revolutionary if they do considering they haven't in the past.I read how people will buy the new version anyway. I can understand that. But think back how long it took for AFCAD, and all the cool utilities we use to get recoded for FS9. I'm not talking about the commercial developers here, I'm talking about the people that take time out of their normal lives to provide us with tools that make FS as great as it is today. MS can assist all they want, but it's unsung heroes like Lee Swordy, Pete Dowson, et al., that take FS to the next level from out of the box (or tin!) and it's not going to happen upon release, or even all that soon after the release.Food for thought when it comes to releasing a new version of FS.Bruce

You pay your money and take your chances!!!Can't win the lottery without a ticket.I want to see LOD modeling in scenery!!! There are some freeware developers doing this type work - Ver Walter Gulfan's incredible Philippines stuff and some more. Haven't see it in payware yet.I just bought a new scenery package - the first I've bought from a "highly praised" developer. Mainly to explore the "state of the art".And was disappointed to see the install routine modify the Scenery.cfg file.It's been two years - haven't these developers learned anything - the first week FS2004 was out I knew to never edit the scenery.cfg. Create a copy and name it NewScenery.cfg - make changes in that file and FS takes care of everything without a problem.The average user not knowing this - okay I can understand - but a scenery developer - sorry people - unprofessional and sloppy.If I tried something like that in my company - I'd be looking for a new job.A big part of my real job is preparing commercial software packages and internally developed software packages to install in a world wide company.

I just want to say how refreshing it is to see this discussion here. Incredibly, it would not be allowed at Flightsim.com.My old machine has it

I'd be happy to see backwards compatibility go if, and only if, it would result in a large improvement in the areas that the backwards compatibility is holding the sim back in. If there's going to be no significant benefit of removing backwards compatibility for FS9-and-earlier addons, then forget it...I would simply keep FS9 installed with my favorite addons, and build my FS10 collection as addons are produced (which probably would take awhile since "upgrading" the addon aircraft would be so much more difficult)..

"It's been two years - haven't these developers learnedanything - the first week FS2004 was out I knew to never editthe scenery.cfg. Create a copy and name it NewScenery.cfg -make changes in that file and FS takes care of everythingwithout a problem.The average user not knowing this - okay I can understand -but a scenery developer - sorry people - unprofessional andsloppy."Interesting, I've done scenery, looked thru many of the scenery design forums and looked thru the SDK and have never seen this. There are quite a few payware addons that add info to the scenery CFG. Where can I find more info on this? As for LODs, I agree they are needed badly, but in the few attempts I have had with them in Gmax, what a painRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

1st Step to FLUIDITY is GET RID OF MIDDLE MEN modules like FSUIPC! Developers need to learn how to access memory of the FS Process itself and we will have the fastest access as possible with addons. Carmine http://forums.avsim.net/images/wave.gif

Hi all,interesting discussion indeed!I don't see much reason for payware developers to hope for full backwards compatibility. Can't speak for others but for me the challenge and fun is in improving and expanding on whatever the MS team throws at us. If there are new features that enhance realism and functionality why would I be opposed? Plus, the better FS becomes, the more popular it'll be, the bigger the potential customer base ;-)What would be helpful, of course, would be a more complete set of SDK docs and utilities sooner after the release of the new version. Supposedly, the MS design team has committed themselves to do just that but I'll believe that when it happens (mind you, I appreciate that publishing SDKs is NOT the primary objective or task of the FS team and ANYTHING they provide to the designer community is gratefully accepted). Having said that I believe that it's the freeware community that would "suffer" more from a lack of backward compatibility. For one, not many freeware designers are on the FS Beta team (and thus miss out on the "early warning") and, probably more importantly, having to re-do complex projects is often not much fun. The thought of having to make new versions of all my landscape and AI projects is not pretty. Then again, I assume that a new and improved version of FS will inspire a new generation of (freeware) designers and thus the cycle continues ;-)Cheers, Holger

A new FS engine has been on my wishlist for a long time now. When MS dev guys were doing interviews prior to the release of CFS3, a few years back they made much mention of the fact that FS2002 made use of a CPU based 3D engine and the then new CFS3 made use of of a GPU graphics engine - hence incompatible file formats between the 2 sims at that time. I assume FS2004 is still based on a CPU based graphics engine.GPU based graphics engines make full use of today's modern graphics cards. Not only that, using the GPU for graphics frees CPU cycles up for other tasks such as running the simulation, AI routines etc.At last year's AVSIM conference the MSFS team reportedly made it known that the next version of FS would be somewhat different from FS2004 to the extent that the SDK's would actually be released ahead of the sim.Meanwhile another year has elapsed, the FS2004 user survey is stil ongoing so FS10 is probably a while away yet.It will be interesting to see what the MSFS team say at this year's AVSIM conference. I think one of their presentations will address developments in technology and how these will affect the future development of MS flight simulators.I think the payware guys will welcome a change just like everyone else.

As a payware developer I can tell you that with the level of detail, quality, and quantity needed for today's market, I think we have no choice but to hope for a substantial leap forward in the next sim. We are not going to stop developing our products for FS9 until the next FS is here, then we'll switch, regardless of how much work may be wasted, that's life, get used to it. Given our development staff's skill sets I would also say we would welcome going away from C++ and more towards .net. <- no discussion about which language to use here please.I can also say as a consumer of FS products and add-ons that I have gotten much enjoyment from all of my add-ons, so I wouldn't consider my money wasted by any stretch.We can all whine and complain about the money spent, but the simple fact is; if we want to advance this hobby to the next level we have to understand up front that we will spend the money knowing full well that our stuff can and will be outdated at regular intervals. I don't want to hear any whining about how much money we've spent in the past, because I've been right there with you all on every add-on. Further more you and I have enjoyed every cent of it...rofl.I'm going to always be right on these posts (sonar--lol) about how the past might have been all for nothing in order to make sure that the point about needing a better engine for FS remains in the forefront. I think we've enjoyed a pretty darn good run here with FS9, but we've taken it as far as we can go. I think that the MSFS team has the same views (not speaking for them of course), it's just a matter of what they may be allowed to do for the next sim. If they had their way I think some of their ideas would blow you all away, as they did us...LOL. We'll see won't we. :-)That's my stomp for the night. As usual, thanks for playing.

Hi Jeff,Considering how small the payware market is in comparison to total sales of FS, this is so unlikely, that I never even thought about it until you mentioned it. ;-)In essence, it is a non-issue. Existing payware will not hold up the next release of FS.The vast majority of FS purchasers (over 95%) have never bought a piece of payware, and not many more even know about freeware, never mind having downloaded it. Believe it or not.A top-selling payware release may sell 2% the total number of copies that a given version of FS will sell, and the average payware release will sell under 1%.The majority of the market for FS is not here at these forums or others, whether we are talking payware or freeware.So, while you may have spent a lot on payware, and as a payware developer, even though you may have never purchased something I produced, I still appreciate the fact that you have spent money on your hobby, the fact is, you are in a very, very small niche of the market.Now, I am not saying that MS will not listen to developers, both payware and freeware, but it is highly, highly, highly (I could add another "highly" or two) unlikely that they will hold up the release of the next version because of this.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Lou,I have actually discussd 'reverse-marketing' the sim with add-ons to certain people.We should talk sometime :-)*Edit, I know you were responding to the other Jeff, but I thought your response we relevant to another idea.*

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!The honest truth is that any improvements in the next version will be a gift mainly, since with the current market share they can be as mediocre as they want almost. I have watched with alarm the dwindling numbers of PC simulations of any kind on the computer shelves. But there is hope. I am increasingly convinced freeware shells are going to have a signifigant impact within the next few years. A lousy freeware product can be improved much easier than a comercial one. Has anyone made the connection between *imbedded code* and *impeded development*?!? Freeware doesn't always have those restrictions, and a group of individuals working in their spare time thru the internet can acomplish amazing things. Then a comercial product must make the choice to improve or lose sales. I honestly think Freeware shells will start to push the bar the way freeware aircraft and scenery developers push payware. And if the freeware shell's EULA allows it, why couldn't many individuals who produce addons with real value port them at a profit to a freeware sim? Remember, databases can be updated. Flight model parameters are specific to aircraft. Freeware meshes, scenery, etc, it's all available already, and *guess what*...If people can get a product half as good for free, MSFS will lose a large percentage of its biggest base... which ain't usWhich is why I say if comercial flight sim *shells* go the way of the dodo...you may not miss them sooner than you think. Cuz guess where all the development potential that made so many comercial sims so great would go???Bets Regards, Donny:-wave

>So perhaps MS might make the internal addresses known this>time, but it'll be revolutionary if they do considering they>haven't in the past.I spoke with someone at MS about this. They want to do exactly the opposite you are suggesting: instead of making the SDK more serious, documented and with an open interface to internals, they want to take more and more the "data driven" route.This means we ( we, the bad developers ) shouldn't put our dirty hands into FS internals. There shouldn't be any need to do this, because "everything" will automatically come from an "easy" and "clean" XML interface, and nothing dangerous will happen to the sim, no rogue pointers hanging around, no DLL with wrong ( guessed by reverse engineering ) parameters calls, etc.That's the idea.Unfortunately, sometimes the real world works different:- No commercial developer uses XML. For many reasons. First, while XML syntax it's easy to learn and reasonably clear to do "dumb" things, like programming an on/off switch ( WOW... ), it becomes cumbersome, ugly, difficult to mantain, to do "real world" tasks, those that are needed to JUSTIFY making a professional payware addon.Another reason why commercial developers stay away from XML, it's because nobody wants to expose his source codes! What about business secrets, or piracy protection, for example ?Last but not least, a standard ANSI C++ source code, that is many thousands dollar's worth in man/hours, will *always* be a company asset. FS could die, MS could quit altogether the PC game market because the X360 will sell like hotcakes, but if you developed, let's say, a complex 747 system simulation in C++, the code will always be your proprierty. It can be converted to other platforms, other sims, other OS, future version of the sim, find its way in other markets, etc.One that writes his precious code using the FS XML gauge framework, is tying itself to that particular version of the engine. If FS disappears from the market, so will your precious and now useless XML "code". But even if MS just changes the XML engine, it can make converting the code a nightmare.I understand the reasoning that, for every good C++ programmer, there are hundreds of XML programmers. The MS data-driven strategy is just that. Better having 1000 beginners than 10 pros.While in theory this should normally work for *usual* videogames, like Unreal or Half Life, were the easier to making mods, the better, FS is a little bit different, because it's the only one with a large commercial group of developer with THIS level of commitment, and they aren's scared at all of having to write in C++, they only problem they have it's just the *documentation* that's not enough, and sometimes it's even wrong or misleading.Sometimes, I feel frustrated by the fact the MS is treating the "community" as a whole, not realizing there are the users, the freeware hobbysts ( some very bad, some very good ), and the commercial *business*, some very bad, some very good as well. But they have very different needs, what works for one kind doesn't for the other.But, when end users complains about a new FS version coming out, they usualy DON'T complain about "losing the freeware". Most of the users complains about losing XXXX amount of money invested in commercial products! And it's the end users that can make or break the product. Everybody will probably remember that FS2004 started its sales slower than usual, because FS2002 was *very* good, people were happy with it, and there were already a lot of good commercial products, so the transition was quite slow.Imagine how you would like a new version of Windows that didn't run MS Office, Adobe CS Suite, or commercial games, or any other C++ professional application. But instead offered a "perfect" backward compatibility with programs written in...Visual Basic!That's exactly the route FS is going: by dumbing down the C SDK, or even killing it altogether, and pushing XML, MS is trying to make the life easier of the "Visual Basic" homebrew guys, alienating the few C++ programmers able to do the difficult things, the things that user feel it's worth paying for.So, dear MS ( I'm dreaming maybe someone of them will read... ), please do not dumb down the SDK! If you don't want to document the whole API, why not use the wonderful technologies you ALREADY possess, like Automation, for example ? Or, if you fear of unmanaged code, hanging pointers, rogue dll modules, why not make the entire FS engine exposed to .NET C# at least ? Maybe it wouldn't be as fast as real C++, but it will be at least a serious language, not that bad joke that is XML gauge "programming"!!Why there's nothing like THIS:http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpgin the Flight Simulation community ?Umberto Colapicchioni

>I want to see LOD modeling in scenery!!! There are some>freeware developers doing this type work - Ver Walter Gulfan's>incredible Philippines stuff and some more. Haven't see it in>payware yet.Well, not many are using it, but some are. I hope none will accuse me of cheap advertising ( it's a three years old product now, btw ), but the Honolulu scenery I did for LAGO, wasn't just the first commercial scenery almost entirely done in Gmax: it also used LOD very extensively, up to the level of having even the *wheels* of the finger gates designed in several LODs. And the LOD was everywere, from the 3d cars in the parking lots, to the terminal buildings, all drawn in 2, 3 and sometimes even more LOD levels.That scenery got high praises when it was released, sold quite a bit, got an AVSIM Bear Award and Honorable mention in the summer of 2002, and I'm quite proud of the fact that it probably started the blossoming of GMax scenery developement. Now, everybody uses and advertize the use of GMax in scenery, but it wasn't like that during mid-2002.Due to the fact PHNL was so much better in performance that *anything* that was available back then, many assumed the GMax was some kind of a "magic bullet" capable of incredibile frame rates by itself.The reality, unfortunately, it's that to do a fast scenery in *that* particular area, with an higher than average default scenery ( HNL area is one of the best, if not the best one, in the MS default scenery ), were the polygonal count is already high even without any addon scenery, it was mandatory to OPTIMIZE IT like ####, otherwise it would have been unusably slow, Gmax or not.It was really a pain in the ...s to include all the LODs for all the objects, THAT'S why everybody hates it and you see it quite rarely. It can double or triple the amount of work needed, and sometimes it's really much easier to tell users stories about FS engine not being optimized, or to simply buy a new computer.And, it's not something that MS can really do much about it. It's the developer's responsibility to optimize their stuff.Umberto Colapicchioni