tuned in to read the thread that started with Francios' ideas...

[martin_ktpa 0]

What you've been compiling with the SDKs since FS2002, 2004 and FSX are DirectX models (.x). Those are in plain text format and there is no law saying they have to originate from within Gmax or 3Dsmax. The more functionality ACES ties to Max the harder it becomes, but basically you can use a DirectX exporter from any other 3d Modeler. Such things exist for the free Blender and others. It may not work right away (especially with the FSX compiler), but some of these exporters are open-source so it is only a matter of ACES documenting things and a 3rd party coder will make it happen.http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/archive/i...php/t-1622.htmlPS: How did SCASM ever come along? Wasn't that completely reverse engineered from studying the BGL format? Was the file format documented back then?

[scott967 62]

WRT terrain, the current sdk tools take very accessible formats, GeoTiff for raster and Shapefile for vector as source inputs. In vNext, all that is needed is to swap out the sdk tools as long as the same source formats are used. For 3d objects, the 3dsmax/Gmax/FSDS3 discussion is right on. And the difficult problem has been getting ground level objects that are detailed or high-res enough to meet users and devs needs. The "AFCAD" sdk bglcomp black-box runways, taxiways, aprons, and associated lights are considered too limiting for payware or higher-end freeware. I can see that the concept behind bglcomp was probably to provide a tool that a general user could very quickly get up to speed and running with, but maybe combining the visual and non-visual airport data in the single bglcomp tool was not the best approach for the long run. Yes, if you separate them you have the problem of keeping both in sync but I think that's doable.scott s..

[scott967 62]

I don't have earlier documentation, but the FS98 scenery sdk provided full documentation for file formats and opcodes for writing bgl code which could be converted to binary using assembly language techniques, which I guess is what SCASM did/does.scott s..

[Mace 1,896]

>>PS: How did SCASM ever come along? Wasn't that completely>reverse engineered from studying the BGL format? Was the file>format documented back then?Manfred Moldenhauer was good, was part of the reason I suppose. :)All of those... FSASM by Adam Szofran, SCASM by MM, BGLGEN by Hiroo Umeno, etc. a lot of it came from reverse engineering and who knows how else. Some of it still goes on today with tools like AFX, and also with the traffic bgl decompilers.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

3DVia is useful for building very simple shaped buildings, at this point, and not much else, and even then, only for importing into Virtual Earth.You can't even launch the app from your desktop.SketchUp is MILES ahead of 3Dvia (and, I'm a MS a really excited user!) It's really a shame there's no way to get a SketchUp model into Flight Simulator X.

[n4gix 4,947]

>What you've been compiling with the SDKs since FS2002, 2004>and FSX are DirectX models (.x). Those are in plain text>format and there is no law saying they have to originate from>within Gmax or 3Dsmax. The more functionality ACES ties to Max>the harder it becomes, but basically you can use a DirectX>exporter from any other 3d Modeler. Actually, there is quite a bit more to it than straight DirectX. ACES has a more highly developed and specialized version that's used for input to XtoMDL.exe...

[decapod 1]

>3DVia is useful for building very simple shaped buildings, at>this point, and not much else, and even then, only for>importing into Virtual Earth.>>You can't even launch the app from your desktop.>>SketchUp is MILES ahead of 3Dvia (and, I'm a MS a really excited user!) It's>really a shame there's no way to get a SketchUp model into>Flight Simulator X.Getting a sketchup model into FSX just requires a bit of Ruby programming.I wrote a sketchup exporter for MS Train Sim 1 - however, I really would not recommend using Sketchup for anything but the simplest models, it is not designed for game models and poly counts can easily go through the roof.OTOH, 3D Canvas Pro is a cheaper (not free) alternative to 3DSThere is already and exporter for FSX, though it still needs a bit more work to add some extra functions.http://amabilis.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/704...241#12410443241ACEs are aware of this software, I gave them a demo at Devcon last month.

[Guest grapesh]

>SketchUp is MILES ahead of 3Dvia (and, I'm a MS a really excited user!) It's>really a shame there's no way to get a SketchUp model into>Flight Simulator X.MS will need some community tools for its new simulation platform (ESP) that can be used to produce a content, either freeware or payware. I'm sure Google has something similar to ESP in its sleeve... who knows? Anyway, I like where things are going (ESP), but I'm not certain though if MS won't kill a great idea in its crib by imposing a headache of proprietary limitations and making up a complexity where the simplicity should rule. Cheers,=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Thanks for the info. Here's the thing though:99.5% of all scenery in FSX is extremely simple. The exceptions are obviously aircraft models.What about the folks who just want to create buildings? 4 sides, a roof, and 3 textures. Simple, simple, simple.That's where a program like SketchUp shines. The learning curve for SketchUP is extremely short. The learning curve of most 3D modelling tools conversely long because they try to be everything to everyone.I would venture to say that if there was a way to get SketchUp models into FSX directly (by exporting as a .bgl file) ... modellers would create the entire world of buildings for Microsoft for free.Or ... alternatively ... if there was a way to export 3DVia models as .bgl files, hey, 99.5% of the building scenery problem is solved.I just don't get why there isn't an easy way for me to create building scenery content for FSX at no cost to ACES. That business justification seems rather compelling to me.

[decapod 1]

>99.5% of all scenery in FSX is extremely simple. The>exceptions are obviously aircraft models.>>You're right, just as long as people don't think they can build complex models with it - and they will try.The MS Trains Sim 1 sketchup export has produced some really nice models.There are also a few texture stretching issues with sketchup behaving differently from other 3D packages, but thes can be got around.Once I've finshed with the 3D canvas exporter, I might have a go at writing something - it could be a long way off though.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

That's too bad the thread got deleted. I for one would like to see the "open source" concept stay alive. It does boggle my mind that some end users don't want it, afterall, we could fix a lot of existing problems with DX10 Preview and ultimately try to keep the FSX community alive and interested in more.And I'm pretty sure Microsoft could figure out ways to make money from it also as well as us 3PD's.Especially those of us who could get it working on the XBOX360 ;)

[PhilTaylor 45]

The FS engine as open source is not going to happen, this is wishful thinking. And its entirely unlikey the XBox publishing team would allow any open-source engine publishing on the closed platform that is XBox. Besides, anyone who doesn't have an XDK and a license cannot publish on that platform, and dont mention XNA Creator's Club as that is so limited in functionality as to be not useful for this discussion. The cost for an XDK is non-trivial btw, as is a license cost. And there is no method today that I am aware of that just lets any random developer make an add-on for any random game - all add-ons are made by the original licensee. So there are business model problems too.Plus I believe there is quite a bit more work to migrate the FS engine to a console platform than you think, since both conceptual, design, and development work are involved. It is not just porting over the code.

[N400QW 205]

Well said Phil. It's about time that unrealistic expectations were put to rest:-)

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Exactly Phil, A LOT OF WORK and why this would never be a random developer. If Microsoft did provide open source it would be far to much of a task for any single random developer to get it moved to XBOX360. And yes, none of Microsoft development tools and licenses are trivial -- I'm WELL aware of that.Of course this would have to all be negotiated with legal departments, and that is probably about as far as it would get based on Microsoft's history with open source topic.But ask yourself this, what's better for the community, Microsoft controlling it's demise on the PC, or a slew of creative folks doing their best to keep it alive, fix it, and make it a better experience. Since you've confirmed that SP2 is it for FSX, why would you not want some "random" developers to fix and grow FSX beyond what can be done with the current problematic SDK?If you want to ensure control create a position to manage submissions from developers and compensate the developers if deemed worthy. There aren't exactly millions of us waiting to submit, so it isn't like you'll be overwhelmed. But this is one of many methods available, I'm certain you folks could figure out a way to make it profitable, still retain some control, and also keep the interest alive.The only wishful thinking I have Phil, is that I want to see FS grow on the PC platform.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Just trying to save the series Ron in whatever way I can, the goal is to keep it alive so it's unfortunate you see that as unrealistic.