>In all fairness, it was the way you expressed yourself sending>the feeling/message that some should not be entitled to get>the SDK for whatever reason and that is just wrong. Your post>came across as insulting anyone that could not get great>results and that those should not have access to the SDKs.RE:Well, then I apilogize for in no way I would willfully come out insulting people for any reason!>Everyone should be able to have the chance to design what they>want. Not everyone has the same skills to get the same results>as say, FlyTampa or Flightscenery.RE: I fully agree and understand.>I agree, some sceneries are better than others and some look>great while giving you 2 FPS. Best thing you can do is either>delete it, send a nice, thankful email expressing your>concerns and hopefully the designer will look at it and see if>he can improve it, or learn to design it for yourself.>>Regards, Michael>KDFWRE: Thanks, Mike, for the advice.

>I believe it was the manner in which it was said. Many>payware and freeware authors put many, many hours into their>work, and they and the users of said add-ons most likely have>taken offense to the wording of the original post.>>Ian.What a world we live in. But I fully agree and understand. But since I did NOT intend to do that, then I APOLOGIZE!Dito

>>the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out>>there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some>>despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have>had>>downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my>>FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and>some>>of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like>>when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my>>Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now>>laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)>>>>From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond>>what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come>>forward.>>Everybody gets access to the SDKs. They're available for>download.>>During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party>add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs. >It is a broad sample of professionals and hobbyists, across>all areas. It is not a small sample. They are all under NDA,>so don't bother asking who they are. :)>>It is limited to a sample strictly as a bandwidth issue. >Our metal bandwidth, that is. >>Cheers,>>JasonEdit:"metal"="mental"

ditopilot, I can understand what you mean, when you download some crap, install it and it ruins some parts of FS.Some people have 2 versions of FS installed, 1 for installing new add-ons and seeing if it works before installing it into their main FS.This is where it would be great if there was a "standard" way for people that made add-ons that used some kind of FSX-master-install software, so that every add-on looked the same upon install and could easily be removed WITHOUT artifacts.The best you could do until further, is to uncompress the files into another directory and then look it over before copying it into the FS directories. Some files are .EXE files and self installing so that is harder, in which case, a 2nd install of FS on your HD would help.No need to apologise for your emotions, I understand your frustrations well........

In case anyone glazed over during reading this thread - this is a very important statement in my opinionDuring development, a representative sampling of 3rd party add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs.Many 3rd party developers had to take back door / reverse engineering routes to make their products work with FS2004 - after the sim release and before the SDK's came out.Many of those which barely work with FS2004 are still available today. Helping get those 3rd party developers ahead of the power curve is essential in my opinion.Even today some of the greatest scenery designers, including the ones mentioned above, have yet to learn how FS2004 works as a total airspace system, and how changing the airport can mess-up the flying part of FS.Let's hope they learn more for FSX.

A few comments / points:1) Regarding un-uninstalable stuff... This is a two-pronged issue and it comes down to uninformed people on both ends... or, if one party is informed then they just got lazy. On one hand, every user should be educated to install to a temp folder, look at what's going to be overwritten, and back it up *before* installing!!! Second, developers would be wise to follow the examples of Holger Sandman, who documents his work until the readers eyes bleed so that you can find a way to fix almost anything that may go wrong... and the example of the VistaOz team, who used a backup / swap out system for the Voz switcher. It would be nice if 3rd party content creators all used self-installers that automatically backup any files that are overwritten but many of us, yours truly included, don't know where to get them or how to use them with our creations. So, in that respect, even *I'm* uninformed!! As Homer Simpson says: "DOH!"2) The above reply includes:*** "During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs."Many 3rd party developers had to take back door / reverse engineering routes to make their products work with FS2004 - after the sim release and before the SDK's came out.Helping get those 3rd party developers ahead of the power curve is essential in my opinion.***AMEN!I'm busting my own rear end learning all I can to get AHEAD of the curve. The more people there are who can generate good content for FSX when it comes out, rather than a year down the road, the better off everyone is. It doesn't matter if you're going to develop missions, scenery, aircraft or terrain... you need to at least already understand the general principles of what you're going to be working with before it releases publicly. A week after it's on the store shelves is not the best time to start educating yourself about how to create things for the sim!IE: What techniques should we brush up on? VBScripting, C++, XML tag based work or XML Formatted Tex coding based logic? Will we be working more heavily with alpha channel blending and will we get normal (bump) mapping? Should I start research on a master's level thesis on extended bmp formats from 8 to 32 bit or will FSX support psd, png, jpg, tga or xcf formats directly, making our lives a little easier?Those who know can't say and those who need to know in order to start polishing their skills ahead of time can't find out. What's wrong with this picture?What this point comes down to is that developers like ourselves need some sort of official statement not about the secrets of what will be in FSX but rather a statement that reads: "Developers would do well to focus their efforts on (XML or C, bmp or other formats, alpna and or bump mapping, etc. etc.)."3) "During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs."How does one throw his or her hat in the ring to have a chance to be included?Just my own thoughts...Scott / Vorlin

>ditopilot, I can understand what you mean, when you download>some crap, install it and it ruins some parts of FS.>Some people have 2 versions of FS installed, 1 for installing>new add-ons and seeing if it works before installing it into>their main FS.>>This is where it would be great if there was a "standard" way>for people that made add-ons that used some kind of>FSX-master-install software, so that every add-on looked the>same upon install and could easily be removed WITHOUT>artifacts.>>The best you could do until further, is to uncompress the>files into another directory and then look it over before>copying it into the FS directories. Some files are .EXE files>and self installing so that is harder, in which case, a 2nd>install of FS on your HD would help.>>No need to apologise for your emotions, I understand your>frustrations well........Hi,Thank you so much for understanding my frustation (and yes, I also now understand the reaction of others as explaned to me above)!Also, from what VORLIN wrote, despite the beating I got in sharp words (words cut deeper than knives!), the subject itself is worthwhile discussing and I hope that some good may come out of it. I'll try to figure out exactly how to follow your recomendations in other to protect my FS from possible damage to it before installing an add-on to the "main" one.Be blessed all!

"Many 3rd party developers had to take back door / reverse>engineering routes to make their products work with FS2004 ->after the sim release and before the SDK's came out."...and many of those developers were on the SDK Beta for FS 2002 and FS 2004.The SDKs have not been (and probably will continue not to be) a magic bullet. This round will/should be better, but still not a magic bullet.

The insult was all on the part of the original poster...

IE: What techniques should we brush up on? VBScripting, C++,>XML tag based work or XML Formatted Tex coding based logic?>Will we be working more heavily with alpha channel blending>and will we get normal (bump) mapping? Should I start research>on a master's level thesis on extended bmp formats from 8 to>32 bit or will FSX support psd, png, jpg, tga or xcf formats>directly, making our lives a little easier?>>Those who know can't say and those who need to know in order>to start polishing their skills ahead of time can't find out.>What's wrong with this picture?>>What this point comes down to is that developers like>ourselves need some sort of official statement not about the>secrets of what will be in FSX but rather a statement that>reads: "Developers would do well to focus their efforts on>(XML or C, bmp or other formats, alpna and or bump mapping,>etc. etc.).">>3) "During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party>add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs.">>How does one throw his or her hat in the ring to have a chance>to be included?>>Just my own thoughts...>>Scott Well, new features are in development. Not "Everything's finished and ready to ship ment." I guarantee you that if we told a bunch of people to do X in good faith, and ended up having to ship Y, that you'd be a tad upset.That being said, we have stated that we work hard to ensure backwards compatability for SDK compliant add-ons for up to two versions. That is not an ironclad guarantee. That is a goal.Seeing what we've managed to do over the last 7-8 versions I've worked on, I'd say that our track record is decent. As for what to focus on... well *you* did a pretty good job of laying out areas to focus on.I wouldn't worry about xcf formats. In fact, I generally wouldn't worry too much about image file formats, as we have always provided conversion tools for things we roll on our own, and if we're using something off the shelf, they have their own toolsets.The important thing is that the source art is good. :)At a minimum expect that we will continue to support the previous file formats to the best of our ability.Hope that helps,Cheers,Jason

1) "Also, from what VORLIN wrote, despite the beating I got in sharp words (words cut deeper than knives!), the subject itself is worthwhile discussing and I hope that some good may come out of it. I'll try to figure out exactly how to follow your recomendations in other to protect my FS from possible damage to it before installing an add-on to the "main" one."I apologize for any offense, none was intended at all. I carefully thought about the wisdom, or lack of, using the word "ignorance" in it's literal form in my previous reply. I scrapped the idea, thinking it would too easily be misinterpereted and cause offense... so I went with "Uninformed" instead.The real point was, and is, that if you understand how these things work and you remember to not trust every developer to take care to ensure that they don't overwrite your files permenantly then you can protect yourself by installing to a desktop folder first and then copy / paste each section into FS. Anytime it asks if you want to overwrite, say NO and write down the file name. This gives you a list of things to back up. Once you've done that to protect yourself, then go ahead and let those files be overwritten.Most developers do at least remind the users to backup their files before installing. Some go the extra mile and list specific files to backup in their readme and a few even go so far as to have the self extracting installer do it for you. But there are always a few here and there, usually people who are just starting out, who either don't know to do one of these things or don't think it's necessary... and those are the times you need to take care of it yourself.2) "Well, new features are in development. Not "Everything's finished and ready to ship ment." I guarantee you that if we told a bunch of people to do X in good faith, and ended up having to ship Y, that you'd be a tad upset."LOL... yea, been there. On either end of that one at one time or another. There have to be some basic things though... I understand that there will be changes up to 5 minutes after the deadline to start burning DVD's and / or CD's... that's the way life always is!3) "I wouldn't worry about xcf formats. In fact, I generally wouldn't worry too much about image file formats, as we have always provided conversion tools for things we roll on our own, and if we're using something off the shelf, they have their own toolsets."XCF is just the native format of my favorite editor... but from what you wrote above, I think you understood that already. I use it for storage of raw works in progress so I can edit individual elements in layers.I asked because the conversion tool, specifically Imagetool, does do a great job but some tiny details come up and bite you sometimes. For example, the PSD format saved by Gimp is not importable into Imagetool. Neither is Targa but I tracked that one down to the fact that Gimp only saves Targa Image format while Imagetool only imports Targa Raw format. This caused some headaches since both label their respective menus as simply "Targa". I imagine that the PSD issue is a version mismatch but haven't tracked that one down yet.The ability to reliably transfer layers and alpha channels without loss in the process is critical to getting good results. DXT bitmap ruins alpha channel info from Gimp's PSD format and if you use a seperate alpha image to import into DXT bitmap then you can combine them successfully... but then it resizes your original to a standard mipmap size upon saving. This wreaks havoc on materials needed to produce a gauge at 300 pix, which seems to hold it's quality after being scaled in the sim better than any other size.If the sim were to handle even just one common format that handles alpha then that could help avoid conversion headaches.4) Normalmaps / bumpmaps . I hear tell that they are coming. Please tell me they're coming in a way that's big, strong and fully capable! LOLThanks for the feedback!Scott / Vorlin

which brings up an interesting question I haven't heard much about in a while, How goes GMax, or what will be the 3D tool of the future?Any recent developments?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>>the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out>>there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some>>despecably looking 18 century flight simulator (e.g I have>had>>downloades some stuffs: gauges, etc from 3rd paties into my>>FS9 and made my flying experience somewhat unpleasant and>some>>of them I still could not remove from the system. Looks like>>when I dowloaded them, I gave them the right to jump into my>>Media Center Computer and quickly ran into hiding and now>>laughing at me since I can't smoke them out!)>>>>From 3rd party developers we expect (far) above and beyond>>what FSX brings out of the box. Who is up to the task? Come>>forward.>>Everybody gets access to the SDKs. They're available for>download.>>During development, a representative sampling of 3rd party>add-on makers are invited to beta test the SDKs. >It is a broad sample of professionals and hobbyists, across>all areas. It is not a small sample. They are all under NDA,>so don't bother asking who they are. :)>>It is limited to a sample strictly as a bandwidth issue. >Our metal bandwidth, that is. >>Cheers,>>JasonPlease invite me... :-)

One point I'd like to make is that without SDK's we'd have no 3rd party developers there, it'd make it impossible for the new developers to learn, and stretch ideas in new directions that the SDK's provide us with to expand on conceptually while still following the conventions outlined in the SDK's...I would not have been able to have created nested effects for the F-14 Tomcats if it hadn't been for the SDK's, nor would I have been able to have created photoscenery for my homecity, nor would I have been able to add autogen to it, nor would I have been able to do some concept work with animated wildlife (incomplete, but I tested the theory and it worked)...Anyway, question I have, primarily to Jason... Any chance of a plug in for photoshop to be able to edit DXT (or a new format) based BMPs natively in Adobe Photoshop?

>One point I'd like to make is that without SDK's we'd have no>3rd party developers there, it'd make it impossible for the>new developers to learn, and stretch ideas in new directions>that the SDK's provide us with to expand on conceptually while>still following the conventions outlined in the SDK's...>>I would not have been able to have created nested effects for>the F-14 Tomcats if it hadn't been for the SDK's, nor would I>have been able to have created photoscenery for my homecity,>nor would I have been able to add autogen to it, nor would I>have been able to do some concept work with animated wildlife>(incomplete, but I tested the theory and it worked)...>>Anyway, question I have, primarily to Jason... Any chance of>a plug in for photoshop to be able to edit DXT (or a new>format) based BMPs natively in Adobe Photoshop?If all goes as is current (which is not a promise), yes. In a way.We're supporting DDS files, and there's a Photoshop exporter available from Nvidia. This does not break backwards compatability (we still support our older extended BMP extension).It's not really a new file format, more of a new extension name.