We have nothing to fear from compatibility.

[Dutch727 543]

I've noticed an undercurrent of concern on these forums as some dedicated simmers have started to notice that MS/ASOBO seems to be building in quite a bit of interface compatibility with previous versions of the MSFS franchise, specifically FSX.

I'm writing this to alleviate some of your worries, speaking from the perspective of 40+ years as a software developer, the last 10 of which has been in the Flight Sim software business.

While we all recognize the greater the compatibility with FSX/P3D the less effort, time and cost it will take for developers to port their products to the new sim (a good thing) there's a worry that the same interface means there's the same engine underneath, or at least lots of compromises.

That's not necessarily true.  For example, I run Windows 10 and that's worlds different from Windows 95, yet programs written for the Win32s environment in Win 95 will compile and run on Windows 10.  It's underlying interface is almost completely compatible with 25 year old programs even though everything under the hood has been redesigned and rewritten.  

It's not particularly hard - it's done all the time - to write a software interface that translates input and output from an old engine to work with a new engine with (if you are careful) no serious compromises.

I don't know any details about the new simulator, I'm just saying there's no reason to panic if you see, for example, the variables in the SDK are the same as those for FSX.  That doesn't mean the FSX engine or some variation of it is still trapped inside MS2020.   It really doesn't work that way.

I hope this is reassuring to those that don't get into the bits and bytes but just want a completely new fast modern simulation engine.

Dutch

 

[shivers9 1,174]

38 minutes ago, Dutch727 said:

I hope this is reassuring to those that don't get into the bits and bytes but just want a completely new fast modern simulation engine.

Dutch

Thanks for taking the time to share your experience and opinions. It is always nice to hear from folks who actually have a clue!! We could use a lot more of that around here!!

[MatthewS 761]

3 hours ago, Dutch727 said:

It's not particularly hard - it's done all the time - to write a software interface that translates input and output from an old engine to work with a new engine with (if you are careful) no serious compromises.

Sorry but this is a little naive.

In the worse case you need to completely "emulate" the behaviour of the old engine because you can't simply translate API calls.  This also means you need to ensure the same presumptions (and hacks) used by developers with the old engine will still work under your emulation.

So contrary to your opinion, this IS hard and when something is hard it requires a lot of effort to implement correctly. 

Asobo don't have unlimited resources do they? Thus resources need to be spent on backward compatibility rather than moving the platform forward.

All IMHO of course.

Edited January 28, 2020 by MatthewS

[Ian S 214]

That does indeed provide some re-assurance. What is less certain is the pricing policy adopted by various developers - new sim = new product, or a reasonable conversion fee based on the time and technical expertise required for the task.

[lzamm 143]

4 hours ago, MatthewS said:

In the worse case you need to completely "emulate" the behaviour of the old engine because you can't simply translate API calls.  This also means you need to ensure the same presumptions (and hacks) used by developers with the old engine will still work under your emulation.

 

In the worst case yes, but a flight sim is pretty modular.  It all depends on where you put the "hooks".  The flight model, in particular, is pretty stand-alone, in fact in Flight Gear you can specify which engine to use and even in FSX some developers used external flight models.  So while I think we'll be seeing a lot of FSX/ESP in the new sim - the last video actually contained a list of ESP simulation variables on the screen - that's not necessarily a bad thing.  

[Victoroos 205]

The less backwards compatibility the more the platform finally moves forward, right? And isn't that what we want?

4 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

Asobo don't have unlimited resources do they? Thus resources need to be spent on backward compatibility rather than moving the platform forward.

All IMHO of course.

 

[MatthewS 761]

9 minutes ago, Victoroos said:

The less backwards compatibility the more the platform finally moves forward, right? And isn't that what we want?

Yes, if they are wasting resources on backwards compatibility instead of devoting those resources to moving the platform forward.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

My only worry is SOME developers selling their ported over addon with the same features and flaws into the new simulator. And probably a price which is not anymore a good indication of an entertainment only game.
That's why i prefere a clear cut with the past.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Pastaiolo

[lzamm 143]

4 hours ago, Pastaiolo said:

That's why i prefere a clear cut with the past.

But we've already been told that won't happen.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

At that stage, I don't see any reason why we should have retro-compatibility.

Early on, in Summer, I was on an evolutionary stance. After all, what we have is not so bad (PMDG, A2A, FSL, Milviz etc.). I was looking forward for some ameliorations only. I am not fond of revolutions in general. I feared and still do in a way, that the new FDE architecture would  probably take time to stabilize.

The videos where the Asobo team explains in some details their vision and their work have changed my mind entirely. So have the feedbacks from those who have actually played the sim. Sorting out the hype and cautious in nature, I am now convinced that they are on something worthy of the inevitable early pains of a new flight engine.  

I sympathise with those for who  buying a new aircraft is a financial burden but they will still have an excellent P3D to play with their older aircraft.

Asobo spoke of having a dual mode for benchmarking the new FDE architecture. That would be a mistake in my opinion, to release FS20 with this dual mode, an endless source of complaints. Among many things, I am not convinced that the aircraft designed for P3Dv4 would be compatible with a FSX FDE mode. The tweaks of developers to shoehorn FSX/P3D aircraft into the new sim would be only worse. I have not the software competence of the OP but the experience of a gamer/simmer...

MS should indeed make a clear cut with the past.

 

[nickhod 425]

14 hours ago, Dutch727 said:

I don't know any details about the new simulator, I'm just saying there's no reason to panic if you see, for example, the variables in the SDK are the same as those for FSX.  That doesn't mean the FSX engine or some variation of it is still trapped inside MS2020.   It really doesn't work that way.

Asobo said in various videos that it's massively overhauled and updated version of the FSX engine, with large parts rewritten. It's not a completely new engine with a compatibility layer.

I recall in one video they said that they started trying to put aircraft in their in-house engine, but realised that starting from scratch wasn't viable.

Personally, I still wish they hadn't built in any backwards compatibility and forced 3rd parties to do significant reworks of their products, with a view to improving quality.

[adino 263]

So..backwards compatibility = No buy!

right?🙄

[martin-w 3,235]

46 minutes ago, nickhod said:

 

I recall in one video they said that they started trying to put aircraft in their in-house engine, but realised that starting from scratch wasn't viable.

 

 

They also said that much of the old sim was optimal, so there was no point starting from scratch because they would be just re-coding what was already there.

[Quasimodo 505]

So when many developers re-release the aircraft in their hangers and say they are started from scratch and are completely different from versions you already bought for FSX and P3D and that's why you have to pay the full price yet again instead of an update fee, you'll know they are spinning you a yarn. 😁

[shivers9 1,174]

7 hours ago, Victoroos said:

The less backwards compatibility the more the platform finally moves forward, right? And isn't that what we want?

 

We all like it when things move forward but on the other side of the coin is "If it an't broken don't fix it" assuming of course that fixing "it" does nothing to improve the program. It is silly to assume that all of the old FSX/ESP coding is bad or out dated. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by shivers9