Sign in to follow this  
snekgiant

Microsoft Culture?

Recommended Posts

I found this article to be very interesting about IE8; after reading it, it reminded me of some of the discussions that are posted on this forum about FSX. http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9053821Could some of the problems that concern the coding and backwards compatibility and what not, be more of a Microsoft Culture of doing things than any particular programmer, team, group or code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I found this article to be very interesting about IE8; after reading it, it reminded me of some of the discussions that areposted on this forum about FSX.http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9053821Could some of the problems that concern the coding and backwards compatibility and what not, be more of a Microsoft Culture of doing things than any particular programmer, team, group or code?It's a fine line that Microsoft Program Managers have to walk when releasing details prior to RTM. Most would like to be forthcoming, but have seen what happens when they release details of proposed functionality or features that is subsequently cut from the product (the "magic screenies" is a case in point).Hachamovitch was quoted as saying: "For IE8, we want to communicate facts, not aspirations. We're listening to the feedback about IE, and at the same time, we are committed to responsible disclosure and setting expectations properly."- Change "IE8" & "IE" to "FSX", and that comment pretty much reflects what Phil has been trying to do throughout the release of SP1, Acceleration & SP2, IMO.- Skydrift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a half hour long discussion on Channel 9 about IE8 and its development and passing the Acid2 test. From the sound of the development staff there, and they spent quite a long time talking about it, IE8 will maintain compatibility with the bugs of the past so it doesn't break old web pages, but still be forward thinking and support standards, too.So I don't see where that is similar to the breaking of compatability of FSX. To be fair, IE8 I imagine has a much larger development staff with a whole lot more time to get things done in.I do wonder why, however that backwards compatibility was broken mid-stream. Then again, I am also wondering what the real breakage is. The W key doesn't really bother me (though I imagine it does bother others), and if the VCRain thing just needs the FS9 textures or the update recently released to fix it, what other problems are there for aircraft? Neither of those are a problem for me, I still have FS9 loaded. I've fixed the broken transparency issues myself of a couple of aircraft, and they seem to work fine with Acceleration installed.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't care less about backwards compatabilty from FS10 to 11. Aces shouldn't worry about it breaking it. We've had to buy all new programs(ASX, GEX, UTX, etc) anyway, and if you want add-ons that take full advantage of FSX's featurs you have to pay the standard price of admission anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my take on it.1. I don't tend to fly the default aircraft. Their flight characteristics are typically too "mushy" or skittish.2. I use FSX to practice my real world flights, to see what the runways are like, and what the surrounding landscape is like and to practice procedures. I also like to try out and fly other aircraft, especially older aircraft.3. I started to design scenery back in FS4. Fortunately, I hadn't gotten into it too much when FS95 came out. Then Airport was starting to get good and Airport 2.0 was around the corner. And I made my home airport and I was starting to get into it. Then FS98 came out and I had to redo it. And I pretty much lost interest. Then FS2000 came out and totally changed everything, and I didn't even bother to upgrade, especially given the change in hardware requirements. I didn't come back till late 2004.4. Now I'm in the mode that I'm sort of keeping up with hardware. So at least that's not stopping my upgrading. But I do have a whole lot of time invested in the aircraft I download and get working to my satisfaction. It's upsetting when they don't work anymore.5. Then again I would like to see the FS franchise continue to improve.But, as in everything in life, there are never any sudden increases in functionality. Who in their right mind would EVER believe that a change from DX9 to DX10 would allow users to see an 8X improvement in speed. Are you crazy? Perhaps some function might have been increased by 8X, but overall, each upgrade in software brings with it other baggage that keeps it nice and slow.And I can't stand all these people running around saying "Oh, if backwards compatibility is broken or unheeded, it'll solve all our problems". "If FS could be completely rewritten, it'll be the fastest thing on the planet". If it were that easy, it would have been done LONNNGGGG ago, and there would be a thousand competitors out there doing the same thing. I'm sorry to say you are all setting yourself up for huge disappointment and another round of hateful forum posts blaming people for what failures they are for not meeting your totally unrealistic expectations.Plus, anytime software is rewritten, it literally takes years to reach the same level of functionality as the previous platform. So say goodbye to some functions that are very important to you (like custom textures on the ground, for instance).There is no magic bullet folks.Point is, I happen to support backward compatibility, understand that functionality from 3 versions ago can be dropped, and am willing to compromise for increases in functionality. And expect honesty on why functionality is dropped, and what can be done to fix it.I still don't understand what happened in this whole VCRain texture thing. If all it took was to include the FS9 textures, why wasn't that done? Why were they dropped in the first place? If I understand why, it makes it a whole lot easier for me to accept.But in the end, I wanna fly my planes.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

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