Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL

Microsoft ESP - Flight Simulator's engine licensable for serious applications?

Recommended Posts

Guest wjotten

Good. Maybe someone will get it right, and perhaps Microsoft is hoping someone will too, because Microsoft surely hasn't or can't. My opinion.bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Beetle

>Well, some of us aren't Little Miss Downer all the time, so>we can say "Woo good job core team!"I can't share your enthusiasm. What is to be congratulated here? IF there is some benefit to FS enthusiasts down the road, it will be because some third party improved or enhanced what is being offered right now (i.e. FSX). However, if MS wrote all the code and therefore knows this platform better than any other entity, and STILL there are the multitude of issues that still exist after two service packs, how great a product can we expect from a third party when essentially they are beholden to a core platform that, while in my opinion is better than any other consumer-aimed flight sim out there, but still has a host of problems.Also, I wonder if enabling the FS engine as a third party platform took developer time away from what "could have been": fixing and polishing the existing engine, possibly with a third service pack. If that is the case, as a flight sim enthusiast, I would be a bit miffed.He might sound like "little miss downer" to you, but his sentiment is shared on these boards, and I would venture to guess that I am not the only one who does so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ok, great, but reality check: ESP has nothing to do with us. Some people just need to understand this before they get all excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Actually-getting approved for FAA use has more to do with>getting approval for the flight controls (hardware) and>paperwork almost more than anything.>>Xplane got approval this way.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg>Forum Moderator>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Not exactly true Geof...The hardware and software must be accepted together, both meeting specific criteria.Jim RhoadsFlight1 Aviation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cbuchner1

Cockpit builders who go (semi-) professional might want to use this.Anyone who intends to ship a product (including FSX) that needs a more professional touch may want to use this. After all, you can completely "hide" the game aspect of FSX and present your own UI.If the SDK can be used standalone or if there are trial versions available that offer limited development possibilities without having to shell out 5*$800 + 1*$99 first then it *will* affect some of us.Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes-true. I meant that the hardware and paperwork is every bit as important .I wouldn't consider xplane as having fewer deficiences that fs-and the version of On Top that I used which I believe is also approved with proper controls has the rudders disabled!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_

"After all, you can completely "hide" the game aspect of FSX and present your own UI."I'm quite intrigued with this, as I've not read it in the press release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find this both simpler and less useful and all should avoid making any assumptions until interested parties take the time to dig into ESP and the ESP SDK come Jan 1.We expect a small number of solution providers to provide a complete hw-sw package solution for vertical applications. With that as the expectation, we support a single ESP installation per machine. We do not expect to see branding "collisions" with this approach between competing vendors because:a)we are starting small.b)we expect each vendor to sell complete hw-sw solutions.Note ESP is a binary license, we are not selling the source with ESP. Again, people need to look at what is being provided and not start making random assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think you will find this both simpler and less useful and>all should avoid making any assumptions until interested>parties take the time to dig into ESP and the ESP SDK come Jan>1.Phil, unless I'm totally mistaken, would this be a very simple, easy to understand way of stating what ESP actually is?ESP is a complete "World Environment" sandbox. Everything else must be programmed by the licensee's own development team.As a hypothetical example, could one (eventually) develop their own custom "Ship Simulator" game title and distribute it under license?


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bill,<That's not really the market we are targetting with ESP v1. You can certainly use it to create things other than just flight simulators eventually, but the first version, being based on the FSX engine (which is basically the Core platform thing that Phil's the PM for now) is mostly being targetted at Flight related activities because as a studio, that's what we have the most experience with :->.As to the can you create a new "game" title and distribute it, that's not really what this program is about either (since its been mentioned that the volume license price is estimated at $799 a machine, that would be one really expensive game :-> ).The kinds of markets we are expecting our solution providers to be in would include aviation training (both private and military). I know, I can hear the "but its not FAA approved" mantra going out there, but most of the folks in this market don't care about "logable" time, they just want to teach some specific skills (could be inter-craft or intra-craft communications, navigation, pre-mission training, etc).Another possible market for some enterprising future solution provider out there might be to combine a motion platform from one company, some custom scenery from another company, custom aircraft from a 3rd company, maybe some custom missions as well, and then sell the combined package to an arcade or similar entertainment venue, which could in turn charge X dollars for Y minutes on the system (or they could have several systems and do MP type stuff with them). Heck, there are folks out there that will pay $20 to $40 bucks for a "virtual roller coaster" experience which is completely passive, imagine offering an interactive flight experience to that same market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I already did that with http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...ore-on-esp.aspx, eg "ESP is a separately versioned, side-by-side application. With an SDK that targets that separately versioned, side-by-side application. And issues like:1) Branding ( being brand neutral ), 2) EULA ( licensed for commercial purposes that are expressly forbidden in the FSX consumer EULA ), and 3) IP ( commercial reship rights for all content ) taken care of for the commercial customer to take the platform, add their solution, and ship it in volume. "Most of the content provided in FSX is present in ESP, now with commercial reship rights. That is the canvas commercial developers will start with. ESP has a EULA that enables you to ship your solution commercially. We found many organizations were already using FSX in violation of the entertainment-side EULA. ESP is a vehicle to convert them from gray to white.The UI is only "simply reskinnable" meaning you cannot reconfigure dialogs or add controls or anything like that. And there is only 1 version of ESP per machine enabled given we expect complete hw-sw vertical solutions.The source code is not provided, so you cannot develop your own "Ship Simulator" unless it works within current platform capabilities or what can be accomplished using the SDK or developer cleverness.What you could do is exploit existing platform capabilities to provide solutions to vertical industries. An example is familiarity training in the military. You could take recent ( like after a bombing raid ) satellite imagery, use the Vexcel/Virtual Earth techniques to create 3D objects from them, use the SDK to create custom mesh and terrain textures as well, use those assets to generate a custom scenery for a mission area and then use that scenery area and the ESP platform to train your troops for a sweep of the area so they would have a 3D mental image of the area ahead of the sweep with the most recent craters being accurately modeled. Or do something similar for pilots being tasked to a new airport in a global hotspot and make scenery developed similarly to the above available to pilots so they had more than just charts to familiarize themselves with the new airport. And they can practice in 24/7 with variable weather conditions.There are lots of scenarios like this that are possible within the existing capabilities of the platform. Repeat - ESP v1.0 is targeting scenarios already enabled by the base platform. Modulo work by 3rd parties ala what PMDG and other top-end developers do today to extend the existing systems.And, as I said, we are keeping it small at first. We are not going to be working with hundreds or thousands of developers, yet, like we do on the entertainment side. The solution providers, of course, are free to work with who-ever to generate content for their solutions. That is where the initial opportunity for current developers is, partnering with ESP solution providers. It is much, much harder to crack the government and military markets than you think. John Venema of OrbX talked about this problem at DevCon/FanCon where he couldnt get the Australian military to work with him even given how excellent the OrbX scenery is because OrbX is too small and wasnt on any approved contractor lists. If you havent worked in that space before, it is a different beast.Small steps at first, larger steps later. It is all part of the process of growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I thought I already did that with>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...ore-on-esp.aspx,Actually, you did cover it quite well. I was looking to provide a less verbose, more easily comprehended, unambiguous, and simple statement suitable for all age and educational levels... ;)I really can play the part of a dummy quite well you know. (-:


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ingenious ! no idea just how many how many companies are runningflight sim within those big pilot training simulators but for the price of a hours rent they will be able to licence their own worldto build on and perhaps the spinoffs will add to our "entertainment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...