3 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

Ah but here's the trouble: I'm not naive, I have experience in software development and a deep knowledge of 3d hardware and APIs.  

Also, I don't see a response to any of my technical questions.  Do you concede that you do not know the answer or shall we continue this charade?

Providing 100% backwards compatibility in FS2020 for every FSX/P3D add-on is not a trivial task and not a matter of just writing a simple "API wrapper".

How does an API "wrapper" cope with undocumented "hacks/features" that developers have used in FSX/P3D add-ons or with resources that are not supported in the new engine? It can't.

Where there is no equivalent "API" you need to emulate (in a "compatibility layer") every nuance of FSX/P3D that has been relied upon by developers in the past, if you don't then you can't have backwards compatibility.

So, once again, you simply play "straw man" and fail to prove you actually know anything.

Your notion that backwards compatibility is just a matter of writing a simple API "wrapper" is naive, or "ingenuous" if you prefer.

 

Edited January 30, 20206 yr by MatthewS

2 hours ago, Pastaiolo said:

The fact they implemented this doesn't mean at all that the products you had in FSX/P3D will come for free.

PMDG is the prime example of it. Even moving from FSX to P3D didn't raise many compatibility issues (especially in the first versions), and because of the different purpose of P3D price was increased.

Now with MSFS, what do we know is that you will have to pay again for the same plane. This is a fact. Did you know it?

Did I say this scenario will happen?  No.  "give me..." is clearly a statement of preference, or a request.  

I'm done with this argument with you, there's nothing left to say.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've just misunderstood my intent, and leave it at that.  

 

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

Providing 100% backwards compatibility in FS2020 for every FSX/P3D add-on is not a trivial task and not a matter of just writing a simple "API wrapper".

How does an API "wrapper" cope with undocumented "hacks/features" that developers have used in FSX/P3D add-ons or with resources that are not supported in the new engine? It can't.

Where there is no equivalent "API" you need to emulate (in a "compatibility layer") every nuance of FSX/P3D that has been relied upon by developers in the past, if you don't then you can't have backwards compatibility.

So, once again, you simply play "straw man" and fail to prove you actually know anything.

Your notion that backwards compatibility is just a matter of writing a simple API "wrapper" is naive, or "ingenuous" if you prefer.

 

First of all, I never said that "backwards compatibility is just a matter of writing a simple API wrapper" - this is your over-simplification i.e. STRAWMAN

I simply noted the technical distinction between full-blown emulation, and a wrapper.  You've taken this off in the weeds somewhere, because you've presumed I'm just some keyboard warrior with no knowledge of flight simulation, software development, 3d graphics, etc.  

 

Are you aware that Asobo has stated they are developing:

1) an SDK: https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-reveals-tentative-flight-simulator-sdk-release-dates-and-more/ 

2) a legacy mode for existing 3rd party aircraft originally developed for FSX/P3D:  http://inspire.eaa.org/2019/09/30/an-inside-look-at-microsofts-newest-flight-simulator/

From the above link: "Microsoft is incorporating a legacy mode that it expects will provide near-complete backward compatibility, so those of us who have huge libraries of old favorites won’t be starting entirely from scratch."

 

If you care to have your opinion respected by appealing to your authority as a "software developer", how about you answer the following questions in order to establish your expertise, rather than just expecting anyone to just take your word:

1. Do you work on this project in a technical capacity?
2. Have you seen the code of MSFS?
3. Have you ever worked on a development team of a flight simulator?
4. Written code to generate 3d graphics in real-time?

Given the fact that you've ignored my pointed questions several times now, I doubt you'll answer these.  

9 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

First of all, I never said that "backwards compatibility is just a matter of writing a simple API wrapper"

Ok great, so we are in agreement then.  100% backwards compatibility is not just a matter of writing a simple API wrapper.

 

9 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

From the above link: "Microsoft is incorporating a legacy mode that it expects will provide near-complete backward compatibility, so those of us who have huge libraries of old favorites won’t be starting entirely from scratch."

Also great, if Asobo are not trying to make FS2020 100% backwards compatible that's less time they're wasting on "legacy mode" instead of moving the platform forward.

Edited January 30, 20206 yr by MatthewS

7 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Ok great, so we are in agreement then.  100% backwards compatibility is not just a matter of writing a simple API wrapper.

 

Also great, if Asobo are not trying to make FS2020 100% backwards compatible that's less time they're wasting on "legacy mode" instead of moving the platform forward.

 

Great, now that this misunderstanding is out of the way, can we get on?

I guess you two are not compatible.....

On 1/31/2020 at 12:15 PM, Christopher Low said:

I guess you two are not compatible.....

hahaha, that tingled me in the morning 😄