No SDK (unpopular opinion)

[aaronkia 23]

When the new sim eventually launches I am actually hoping they do not release a SDK for developers to simply port over products. I'm sure many many people have spent thousands in total on their current sim (don't worry, I am one of those people too) but I believe this would really be a backwards step for something that is meant to be one giant leap forward for us.

If it is something being developed to last at least 5-10 years then I hope that developers are forced to completely redevelop their products from the ground up again and really utilise current/future hardware and optimise the new sim's technical features to the max instead of importing an often old and already outdated product that is based on something many years old, perhaps even from previous sims that are almost extinct.

I believe for FS2020 to be a real turning point then we need to say goodbye to our current add ons and allow developers to fully focus on developing products that are completely optimised for the future of flight sim. 

 I realise this is probably unpopular opinion and the thought of having to (re)spend on add ons doesn't bode well with many (myself included) but just my two cents.

[Holdit 551]

I'm pretty sure an SDK will be needed, whether it's for porting over older products or building news ones from the ground up?

In any case, there's nothing stopping you from enforcing a brand-spanking-new-only policy on your own purchasing.

 

The level of neophilia exhibited by some AVSIM posters never ceases to amaze me...

 

 

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

I can see the arguments on both sides. Imagine if PDMG airliners could be used right now. Don't they have pretty good textures and so forth? 

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

3 minutes ago, Holdit said:

In any case, there's nothing stopping you from enforcing a brand-spanking-new-only policy on your own purchasing.

The level of neophilia exhibited by some AVSIM posters never ceases to amaze me...

There's also nothing to stop you from sticking with P3D. But like I said, I can see the arguments on both sides. It seems like there's certainly portions of old products that could be transferred over.

[aaronkia 23]

As consumers do you think the inability to port over existing products might actually encourage new developers to come out of the wood work and provide competition to the already established developers? Competition can only be a positive for us as it would drive developers to create even more impressive products.. 

14 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

I can see the arguments on both sides. Imagine if PDMG airliners could be used right now. Don't they have pretty good textures and so forth? 

Imagine if PMDG redeveloped their products to take advantage of new features and we were given a product of exceptional performance, features and graphics..

16 minutes ago, Holdit said:

The level of neophilia exhibited by some AVSIM posters never ceases to amaze me...

It's this exact thinking why our current sims are outdated and lacking behind.. sometimes it takes a neophilic person to drive a bit of change, Paul.

Edited October 16, 2019 by aaronkia

[andyjohnston.net 617]

"I don't like it, so *NO ONE* should have it!"

[F737MAX 5,509]

47 minutes ago, aaronkia said:

When the new sim eventually launches I am actually hoping they do not release a SDK for developers to simply port over products. I'm sure many many people have spent thousands in total on their current sim (don't worry, I am one of those people too) but I believe this would really be a backwards step for something that is meant to be one giant leap forward for us.

Hang on! If MS don't release a SDK, how can any 3rd party develop anything that is compliant with how MSFS works?!
 

18 minutes ago, Holdit said:

In any case, there's nothing stopping you from enforcing a brand-spanking-new-only policy on your own purchasing.

True, however allow me to play devil's advocate.

Some developers are likely to want to take the minimalist option of porting across and charging full price for the 'privilege'.
By not allowing backward compatibility to enable simple ports, all developers would need to design products that use the functionality of MSFS as it is meant and not a reuse of their simplified add-on via the implied MSFS legacy module.
That way products are fully compatible and allow simmers to experience MSFS as it should be.
 

[aaronkia 23]

2 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Hang on! If MS don't release a SDK, how can any 3rd party develop anything that is compliant with how MSFS works?!

Sorry, should've made it more clear. I mean't an SDK that wouldn't allow the porting over of existing products, and not future products developed by 3rd party developers specifically for MSFS which of course would be great.

3 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Some developers are likely to want to take the minimalist option of porting across and charging full price for the 'privilege'.
By not allowing backward compatibility to enable simple ports, all developers would need to design products that use the functionality of MSFS as it is meant and not a reuse of their simplified add-on via the implied MSFS legacy module.
That way products are fully compatible and allow simmers to experience MSFS as it should be.
 

Exactly this!

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

Wouldn't allowing easy porting help helicopter fans get some quick products up and running before more complex products hit the market?

[TravelRunner404 596]

1 hour ago, aaronkia said:

but I believe this would really be a backwards step for something that is meant to be one giant leap forward for us.

The big difference is that a port from FSX to P3D looks like it belongs.  At the end of the day, despite all the under the hood, new code, blah blah blah, default P3D still looks like 2002 FSX, even if you drop $1500 worth of Orbx in there it's still has the early 2000s feel.  So when you port old addons they fit right in. 

The graphical leap to the new MSFS is significant enough that old stuff will probably look fish out of water bad.  However, it's not the developers fault if we buy it!  I think it's funny that everyone thinks the old developers have to save the day.  I am sure some will adapt, some are probably tired of making peanuts and won't do much, and maybe some new youthful start up will embrace the jets and the newer SDK and bring us an incredible A380.  Who knows.

[Dominique_K 10,133]

1 hour ago, Holdit said:

 

The level of neophilia exhibited by some AVSIM posters never ceases to amaze me...

Weren't we newbie once, Paul  😉 ?

PS I am also horrrified by what he proposes 

Edited October 16, 2019 by domkle

[Claviateur 789]

I think they mentioned MSFS has some code from FSX as well as legacy flight dynamic mode as far as I understood.

This means backward compatibility is highly probable either with an SDK that allows coversion or not.

Maybe by simply loading an FSX aircraft model, it will probably load and flies in MSFS without errors, but, probably not optimized to the best visual look and performance and its flight dynamics behavior might be the ESP one...

This also means that 3rd party developers will adapt their models to the new platform without worrying about recreating many complex add-ons from scratch (dev budget). They can optimize and adapt for sure and this is possible if the good practices of the new engine are applied. Usualy 3rd party commercial group do that without any problem.

Same goes for scenery. 3D is 3D no matter in what sim object format you export it to. But then you have to adapt the material specs to the new engines (1 texture sheet vs multiple or other specs). And the airport ground overlays must be done using the new SDK.

This is the case of X-Plane 11. Many commercial add-ons were adapted from ESP (FSX and P3D) to X-Plane 11 especially scenery. Creating a scenery or aircraft from scratch for every platform is not very profitable for any commercial group I think... 

This brings me to say that unfortunately, and usually, the adapted add-ons that are not well converted, are usually the freeware stuff. 

So I am not worried about complex commercial add-ons being adapted in a cross-platform process... It's the freeware (adapted) material that might be a jungle of mixed bag...

[Randy Christian 0]

My wish: Let us help develop the SDK. Each of us has our own niche interests and could be very helpful. Things that might not be released initially, but could easily have a placeholder for future releases.

[Jim Young 2,356]

This topic has been discussed several times.  As stated by the former developer of FSX, Hal Bryan, MSFS2020 will be backward compatible (see "What About My Third Party Aircraft" - http://inspire.eaa.org/2019/09/30/an-inside-look-at-microsofts-newest-flight-simulator/).  I would suspect compatible with FSX/SP2, FSX/Acceleration and maybe FSX-SE.  To me, it does not read compatible with P3DV4.5 add-ons but it might as many of the techs are part of the Aces Team building FSX. 

In the same paragraph referenced above, Hal indicates the SDK will be "polished" and "expanded" with "post-launch updates".  So doubt there will be much of an SDK at launch.  I heard rumors that third party developers are working with the MSFS team to develop products soon after release or, like Carenado/Milviz products, were added to P3D as defaults.  We will never know until release next year.

[Holdit 551]

2 hours ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

There's also nothing to stop you from sticking with P3D. But like I said, I can see the arguments on both sides. It seems like there's certainly portions of old products that could be transferred over.

Strange, I don't recall saying that I had no interest in the new product.

It's not the enthusiasm for the MSFS that causes me to shake my head in wonderment, but the seemingly-instant intolerance for anything even relating to a previous product which, in the case of P3Dv4, was only the day before yesterday being touted as "the future". The AVSIM bandwagon effect...I saw it with Orbx scenery, with P3D, then P3Dv4, and now it's gathering up a head of steam once again.