2 minutes ago, sightseer said:

I think the new sim is two sims in one.  The OFFLINE version is the target for Orbx and all the others and the online version will have all the new bells and whistles (streaming scenery).  both will have updated code/graphics/weather etc

That'd be fine by me I guess.

My main concern is just "not enough changing" under the hood.

To me this will be a huge bummer if the underlying code is still so similar to the old that very minimal add-on dev changes are needed.

It's been freakin' FOREVER since FSX - It's time for a ground up overhaul.

8 minutes ago, sightseer said:

I think the new sim is two sims in one.  The OFFLINE version is the target for Orbx and all the others and the online version will have all the new bells and whistles (streaming scenery).  both will have updated code/graphics/weather etc

Thats a real possibilty. Now, there was a guy last week posting at OrbX (in Portuguese !) to know whether OrbX would consider doing his country. Do you think that Mozambique would be left to the truncated or in the online version ? Not a avery popular destination 😃 ! We dont have, of course, the answer but I want to say that maybe even the online version  may have holes.  

2 hours ago, Flamingpie said:

That would be really bad. I hope you are very wrong. I am hoping for an entirely NEW sim. Please, MS, don’t make this an FSX v2.

I'd like to throw a big bucket of ice cold water on this.

The BGL and MDL formats, along with the .cfg files are just data. They can be compatible with a new 'engine'. Our older FSX sceneries and aircraft could either be used 'as is' or easily converted for use in the new sim. The new development team knows the old file formats and can make them available if desired, along side any data improvements for the new sim. The core is not controlled by the data. The data is accessed by the core.

4 minutes ago, domkle said:

Thats a real possibilty. Now, there was a guy last week posting at OrbX (in Portuguese !) to know whether OrbX would consider doing his country. Do you think that Mozambique would be left to the truncated or in the online version ? Not a avery popular destination 😃 ! We dont have, of course, the answer but I want to say that maybe even the online version  may have holes.  

 

I really think the online version will cover the entire globe.  its the resolution that will change.  some areas (government) will be obscured (for lack of a better word -- 'faked' maybe?)  So Mozambique should be in the online version.  If its on the map, it should be there.

3 hours ago, rhumbaflappy said:

I'd like to throw a big bucket of ice cold water on this.

The BGL and MDL formats, along with the .cfg files are just data. They can be compatible with a new 'engine'. Our older FSX sceneries and aircraft could either be used 'as is' or easily converted for use in the new sim. The new development team knows the old file formats and can make them available if desired, along side any data improvements for the new sim. The core is not controlled by the data. The data is accessed by the core.

That is true, yes. But the issue here is, that when people are talking (and claiming/hoping) that Microsoft will make FS addons backward-compatible (and why so many are 'stalling' about the idea), is that they most likely don't mean the simpler addons, which 'only' rely on MDL and BGL files. Most complex addons rely on some DLL files, which are complied... Which is where the problems begin...

21 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

That is true, yes. But the issue here is, that when people are talking (and claiming/hoping) that Microsoft will make FS addons backward-compatible (and why so many are 'stalling' about the idea), is that they most likely don't mean the simpler addons, which 'only' rely on MDL and BGL files. Most complex addons rely on some DLL files, which are complied... Which is where the problems begin...

Hi Anders.

It's not entirely impossible for those 32-bit DLLs to be accessed, but that would be a higher level of difficulty. Same thing happened with P3D when it went to 64-bit. And some of those DLLs accessed offset memory values in a 'non-authorized' manner. Things built following the SDK from FSX should easily be usable, if that's the direction the development team wishes to go, but SimConnect usage might not be available. FSUIPC usage is a definite no-go (unless Peter comes out of retirement, or finds a replacement to write the code).

Microsoft should ensure that all sim DLLs going forward are fully managed code - that should eliminate a lot of sources of instability, as well as ensuring a broader developer audience.

Cheers!

6 hours ago, Paraffin said:

The problem here is that Orbx is only interested in scenery for popular flying areas, not the rest of the world. I can't blame them for that as a payware business strategy, but these are also parts of the world like the USA, UK, and Europe that already have good data for MS to work with.

Not so much, I think, for the UK. If you look at  Microsoft Earth View - Map 3D, which looks as though it could use some of the source data that may be in the new sim, there are a lot of cities in the US and parts of Europe which have 3D coverage but only 2 in the UK (and London isn't even one of them!).

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by vortex681

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

Not so much, I think, for the UK. If you look at  Microsoft Earth View - Map 3D, which looks as though it could use some of the source data that may be in the new sim, there are a lot of cities in the US and parts of Europe which have 3D coverage but only 2 in the UK (and London isn't even one of them!).

The UK will not save Orbx from losing many potential sales.  Azure and satellite imagery is going to be such a relief to have, it will satisy 99% of the players.  Orbx will probably do better instead going to a larger library of airport-only sales.  And Microsoft could probably have their own paid addon library of airports anyways.  

Edited July 27, 20196 yr by Heli

If you see the complaints about ORBX Washington download size that covers an area smaller than NAPNW version then downloads and storage are going to be an issue for some, California you could be looking at VFR scenery over 500GB.

13 hours ago, Flamingpie said:

That would be really bad. I hope you are very wrong. I am hoping for an entirely NEW sim. Please, MS, don’t make this an FSX v2.

It quite possible technically they develop FS2020 with an entirely new Engine (supports multi-core, GPU RTX ray tracing reflections/ DLSS etc) that supports the Legacy Aircraft and even Legacy scenery formats. Then it's backwards compatible. 

2 hours ago, Greazer said:

It quite possible technically they develop FS2020 with an entirely new Engine (supports multi-core, GPU RTX ray tracing reflections/ DLSS etc) that supports the Legacy Aircraft and even Legacy scenery formats. Then it's backwards compatible. 

It kinda depends on what you mean by 'backwards-compatibility'. 

If you mean, that aircrafts and sceneries will work - or could be made to work - with the new sim, with developer modifications and re-compiling source code, then I have a strong feeling that, that is not what the majority of users in here want/mean, when the term 'backwards-compatibility' is mentioned. And I kinda agree here... that would mean the same backwards-compatibility as P3Dv4 has with regards to FSX.

I have a feeling, that when are people are thinking 'backwards-compatibility' that previous addons will (more of less) flawlessly and smoothly install directly into the new platform - which would require that the new platform supports and consists of legacy coding and files/folder structure... 

Personally I really hope that everything from the past is ditched and they start completely fresh. 

Edited July 28, 20196 yr by Anders Bermann

 

 

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

  

Personally I really hope that everything from the past is ditched and they start completely fresh. 

Two remarks, Anders :

- "Everything" is a big word. Terrain, aerodynamics, I/O, modeling; lighting and so on and so forth. In all human matters, revolutions generally go to an ugly end. Let's be careful in what we wish. At the end of the day, I want something I enjoy playing, not a monster of endless tweakings. That is what bothers me much more than to give up my addons.

- I suppose that MS did its announcement after the architectural choices were already made the foundations laid out and that the building is already well advanced. Which makes our discussion a little theoretical (but interesting nonetheless).

 

Yes, but the problem with evolution is that, well........that's what P3D is for. It's time for a revolution with Microsoft Flight Simulator, and with a gap of thirteen years since the last version, this is the perfect time to do it.

Edited July 28, 20196 yr by Christopher Low

Just now, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but the problem with evolution is that, well........that's what P3D is for. It's time for a revolution with Microsoft Flight Simulator, and with a gap of thirteen years since the last version, this is the perfect time to do it.

LM focused v4 on the 64-bit plateform conversion that the airliner community was screaming for (loosely speaking). My feeling as a GA/WB flyer was that the evolution was not enough for me to abandon v3. 

The time for a next step has come, that I agree, v5 and/or FS20.  And I hope for a very substantive evolution (terrain, aerodynamics and lighting). Do we need a whole new engine ? I don't know. But I don't trust people willing to rush into the unknwown for the sake of a "revolution".