Should 3rd party developers be held to the same standards as the Microsoft Flight Simulator Franchise?

[bob.bernstein 0]

The world rewards innovative products (nonstandard), and yet so many people view standards as protection against bad quality. Interesting, don't you think?In my business, aerospace manufacturing, and in my flight Sim development experience, I would say that being forced to be creative within boundaries imposed by standards reduces innovation and lowers the "delight" factor of the output.If we explore our thinking beyond the short-term, and consider the consequences inherent in our ideas, we may see less call for standards. After all, standards only lead to excellence, if the standard creator understands what future excellence is possible and ensures the standard allows for that future excellence. It is precisely this truth that led developers to use techniques outside the boundaries of the SDK. Isn't the SDK, a form of standard? So when developers need techniques beyond the SDK to achieve excellence, should they forgo those features, produce standard product that is safe? Of course, some do this, and the standard setters praise that approach. I suspect the marketplace penalizes those products however, because a secondary standard is actually imposed on products. You see this standard imposed in both formal and informal reviews, that is the "delight" factor which is more likely present in innovative (nonstandard) products.As a temporarily retired scenery designer, I refer you to Portland scenery for FS 2004, and Emma Field. Everyone has their own personal favorites, but I suspect we all agree that these products were examples of the delight factor I refer to. These products use nonstandard techniques.Standards only seem like a good idea, when nonstandard products dissatisfy. Non-standard products that satisfy are never recognized to be nonstandard. Once Standard Products are required, nonstandard products that delight will be sorely missed.Bob

[PhilTaylor 45]

Quote:"Furthermore, to which 'standards' do you refer? Aces insists that 3PD adhere to a business and moral code to the community that all non FSX native aircraft be labled as such, to that I say Bravo!!! But (and this but has a big BUTT) why is that moral standard then nonexistant when it refers to the MICROSOFT website showing the fake DX10 shots touting them as the new FSX for DX10? Then again, maybe the Microsoft stated FSX minimum system requirements of 1Ghz CPU, 32MB Ram Video Card,and, 256-512MB of RAM accurately reflects the TRUE requirements of FSX?"There are several flaws with these two statements in general,the DX10 image and the box requirements, and the overall argument here.DX10 image on Vista GfW page:If 1)I had never talked to the magic screeneis2)I had never talked to SP2-DX10 while it was in-process, or made the post I made about SP2-DX10 before availability3)I had never talked to the effort to try to remove that image (*)and that image continued to exist in isolation, then yes I would call it fair to bring this up.However, simply quoting the existence of that image does not accurately reflect events since:1)I did try to set expectations about SP2-DX10 ahead of time2)I did set the record straight about SP2-DX10 with my post about what it contained3)I have stated that removing that image from the GameForWindows site has proved to be hard (*) and not something I or Aces control.Box requirements:Box requirements are essentially a min-spec. What you need to run at all, not what you need to run well. And that has always been true in the sw industry, this is not news.True FSX has humongous requirements, but when you are potentially renderng 100s of thousands of objects that is where it sits.Again if no one had ever talked to the issue with the box requirements, or if we had not updated them for Acceleration I could see this fixation on them. However, we have talked to them and Acceleration did update them. Going back to old news and acting like there has been no public discourse since is not accurate.Overall argument:Do 2 wrongs make a right? I think that is more key than the issue with the DX10 image or the box requirements.Essentially you are saying because Aces made mistakes, that means any discussion beyond that is moot, right? Have I not been out here talking to our mistakes? Since just past RTM? Lo these 18 months and 1000+ posts?From your post, it seems not, that there has been no attempt to talk to either of these 2 issues or a series of other ones that I have attempted to address. Is that really accurate? I think when issues are framed like this, with no reference to the debate since the original offense, that is really unaccurate and of questionable fairness. Yes, a mistake was made. But also yes, an attempt to address it was made. Not making any reference to it, how is that fair?I brought up the issue of accurately labeling products because I see end-users struggling because of this lack of clarity in the case 4 I cited on my 2nd bloc post. It puzzles me that trying to voice this concern causes other end-users, whose vested interest is in more clear labeling, would argue otherwise. The world seems turned upside down to me when I see that. (*) I forwarded the last thread from the community on the DX10 image on the Vista GfW page, and the GfW team assures me that sometime soon they will remove that image. And they did so every day last week. And it still isn't done. Believe me, it wont be soon enough for me. But I can only wait for them to make this change, I cannot make it myself. And this isnt the first time I have discussed this.

[mgh 89]

"Now the question can easily be regurgitated thus: "how is that the developer's fault? "Surely, if they we are instructed to build our 'buildings' on ground that can barely support its own weight and then must support the enourmous weight of our highly complex addon's, what are we to do?" More so, the concensus of the vocal 3PDs here has been to Aces: "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!"No one instructed developers to do anything. Developers themselves chose to develop their products. Surely if, as you suggest, developers knew that thet would be problems for consumers ("WE TOLD YOU SO!!!") then they have no one else to blame but themselves when consumers complain about those problems. Developers need to accept that they have to work within the limitations of FS as it is, not as they would like/wish/hope it to be.In financial terms what is the benefit to Microsoft of add-on developers? How much additional revenue is generated for Microsoft because of the existence of developers - given that first time purchasers are unlikely to be aware of the existence of developers add-ons until after they've bought FS? How many bought FS only because a particular add-on was available? : DISCUSS.

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

Bob that was one succinct argument you put forward, and is proved by a number of techniques in service now , the most important of them being 2048 x 2048 textures and subsequent to that the remapping to eliminate multimaterials , none of these methods were employed in

[N400QW 205]

"So my question is should 3rd party payware developers be held to the same standards many of us imposed on the ACES team and FSX?"The short answer is yes 3PDs are held to the same if not a higher standard than MS in that they are required to deliver satisfactory performance and feature sets within their product lines:-)It is interesting that those standards are or will soon be met by those who care about their content while coordinating newer techniques that do "step outside the envelope"In our case, a number of never before used techniques are included in a number of already released FSX products and it seems that a number of 3PDs are in the process of exploring other techniques as well. It is exciting to see what may be accomplished as we all look at the new platform with a fresh viewpoint:-)One should never assume that because it "ain't quite ready for prime time yet" that it is not "right around the corner":-)

[yellowjack 28]

There is another aspect to this discussion and that is the consumers use of these flightsim products. If consumers neglects to manage their PCs such that the PC Flightsim performance is bound to be below par then all the good will and hard work of all developers may be "Spitting in the wind". So I think that some recognition of the need for consumers to accept reponsiblility for the environment in which the flightsim products are to be operated is valid. This factor may be abused by any developer to apportion the blame for a performance issue straight back at the consumer in a knee jerk fashion. There is also an opposite reaction from consumers that all problems must be the developers. I suspect that the truth, as is usually the case, lies somewhere in the middle. So the mud flies and will continue to do so.Long live the catch cry of the user Knight "It can't be my PC it runs other software great".and Long live the catch cry of Developer Knight "It can't be our software we tested it".

[SimNutt 0]

>"So my question is should 3rd party payware developers be>held to the same standards many of us imposed on the ACES team>and FSX?">>The short answer is yes 3PDs are held to the same if not a>higher standard than MS in that they are required to deliver>satisfactory performance and feature sets within their product>lines:-)>>It is interesting that those standards are or will soon be met>by those who care about their content while coordinating newer>techniques that do "step outside the envelope">>In our case, a number of never before used techniques are>included in a number of already released FSX products and it>seems that a number of 3PDs are in the process of exploring>other techniques as well. It is exciting to see what may be>accomplished as we all look at the new platform with a fresh>viewpoint:-)>>One should never assume that because it "ain't quite ready for>prime time yet" that it is not "right around the corner":-)>>>>Thanks for your reply. Great news! Its good to here that companies such as yours and others are exploring newer techniques in an effort to provide more satisfactory performance and features within the limits of FSX!BTW I'm eagerly (yet patiently) awaiting your next project:-)

[N400QW 205]

"If consumers neglects to manage their PCs such that the PC Flightsim performance is bound to be below par then all the good will and hard work of all developers may be "Spitting in the wind"."So I think that some recognition of the need for consumers to accept reponsiblility for the environment in which the flightsim products are to be operated is valid." Ha ha, are you actually advocating that users should be held to a standard?:-) Would such a standard include at least a baseline level of competancy as it relates to proper PC setup and use?Would you then advocate that PC Hardware/Driver setup 101, FS9 101, and FSX 101 be completed before users would be allowed to post about the incompetancy of 3PDs and Microsoft?What a novel idea:-) :-) Before anyone bashes...this is a joke folks:-lol :-lol

[Guest JIMJAM]

The entire PC hardware requirements/standards needs to be overhauled.I am not going to rehash this over but I have access to just about any hardware I want to play with and 2 freinds who would be considered "gurus".Even so, I am so upset and just plained tired of trying to get some games to even run,much less well, I actually bought a PS3 last week.When simply checking one box in a options menu can CRASH your system or whenever tech support are trying to explain registy edits TO BEGGINNERS just to play a game, somethings WRONG.Many many years ago I was complaining about having to upgrade my 20 mhz computer to a 25hhz for $3000 in order to play Microprose f-19 stealth figher.Now here I am with a multicore 2+ghz computer still complaining.Bottom line is I only run FSX on my computer and use the PS3 for my shooters,GTA4 ect.Its sad but like Crysis, some games you need a specific hardware setup along with a specific settings just to run.After tackling FSX and Crysis, I think I could rewire the space shuttle:-bla Ok Im done......Aerosoft wheres my F-16......FSD- Where is my MU-2?Where is FSCargo for FSX?Where are my Xanax?*:-*

[yellowjack 28]

No, I am merely suggesting that whilst users should accept that they may need to clean their own house to get performance gains. Developers should examine problems and ensure that it they are user issues and not just use that as an excuse to blow users away. At a personal experience level I reported an issue with an add on I had purchased and received the response that the add-on had been developed according to FSX standards therefore it was my problem. A couple of months later a fix appeared at the developers site to the problem I had reported. I was lucky in this case because the developer at least looked at the issue and produced a fix, although I discovered it purely by accident.

[bob.bernstein 0]

Ty, Chuck...I find that many initiatives are well intended to solve the now problems without realizing that they will excite un-intended consquences that will result in tomorrows problems that will spawn tomorrows initiatives...and on and on.So much for succinct!LOLB

[Ted Striker 338]

Bashes?...Heck sign me up! I would love to take some classes like that. I was actually thinking of starting a thread requesting some good recommendations for literature on just those topics.I've been banging my head against the wall trying to understand all the hardware for a new build. Every answer yields two more questions. *:-* I feel like I'm going for a second degree in computer engineering at the Avsim Hardware Forum University courtesy of honorary professors Nick, Sam, Gary, et al..:-lol Hey maybe you're on to something there Ron. Microsoft could add those courses to the minimum requirements of use. :D P-12C posted a request for suggestions for new missions. Here's one: If you want to move your sliders move than half way to the right you need to pass the computer upgrade and optimization missions first. If you don't have the right hardware/configuration you don't pass and no slidee...Just trying to add a little humor here also,Ted

[Mike T 208]

Hi Phil:"If 1)I had never talked to the magic screeneis2)I had never talked to SP2-DX10 while it was in-process, or made the post I made about SP2-DX10 before availability3)I had never talked to the effort to try to remove that image (*)"1) Absolutely without a doubt you did ineed speak to the magic screenies here at Avsim, and I am sure at the other FS sites too. However, do you then reconcile the number of hits received on that sill existent magic screenie website and the number of people who go down to Best Buy, GameStop, Circuit City, Electronics Boutique, et al, with the number of people you hope to educate on the forums? Can you be certain that your points made here telegraph to your potential customers looking at those magic screenies with no knowledge of Avsim? Can you be sure that your box clarifications here translate to the person reading the pre-acceleration box specs that are pervasive on 99.9% of websites referencing FSX?2) See point 1.3) Why would it take the better part of a year to simply remove inaccurate, and misleading screenshots from a Microsoft website??? Large corporations move slowly sometimes, to be sure, but can this really be justified in any way shape of form? In its most raw and most ugly form one can successfully argue that those screenshots are false advertising irrespective of what you have said here in these forums. One would have thought that Microsoft would have been falling over themselves to take them down...All your other points concerning this go back to my first bullet point. IS there also press stressing that those fake DX10 renderings are NOT INDICATIVE of what was delivered in the DX10 preview? Has that been make clear on the MICROSOFT websites? If not, then my point is as valid as it was when it was made. The semblence of impropriety exists despite your efforts.In regard to your box requirements, I am taking that information from the MICROSOFT websites as well as the websites of many of your distributors and resellers. As it were, I've seen where Microsoft sent immediate cease and desist orders to websites that were hawking free 'Vista Skins' for XP thereby exacting their will overnight. Why has the same zeal not been applied in this case to ensure that the updated box specs are distributed uniformly and with the same insistance?"I brought up the issue of accurately labeling products because I see end-users struggling because of this lack of clarity in the case 4 I cited on my 2nd bloc post. It puzzles me that trying to voice this concern causes other end-users, whose vested interest is in more clear labeling, would argue otherwise. The world seems turned upside down to me when I see that. "Phil, when I look back on FSX up until now, I have NOTHING but admiration for YOU and your TEAM. Without a doubt you and your team have done the best with what you had. I am not so jaded that I do not realize that external forces play a huge part in your decisions as well as your actions. But you yourself defined my ultimzte point in your sentance above when you stated: "..end-users struggling because of this lack of clarity in the case..." 3PD mislabling is but one of the things that are opaque with FSX and I submit that the points made above do indeed add to that fog and MUST also be cleared away.I fully understand and commend the fact that you have been championing having those inaccuracies fixed but that does not change the fact that they still exist. However, apparently, Yoda does not give points for trying!Regards,Mike T.

[N400QW 205]

Mike, it is easy to agree with the point you make but a word in Phils defence may be in order. He has already stated that he has no control over the MS Marketing Machine.While it may appear that Phil could use the past mistakes as an excuse, it is clear that Phil can do no more about the MS Marketing arm than you or I.There are a number of issues we've all had to face with regard to proper information being diseminated, and of course we still await a reliable definition of what constitutes FSX Content from Phil, but to lay the Marketing stuff at his feet may be expecting too much:-)

[N2056 33]

Chris, I'm fairly new to the 'business side' of the game, but I have been tinkering with developing for years...I can tell you that the turn of events regarding FSX has truly been difficult for those of us that push polygons around for the enjoyment of all. I fully agree that if I make something that I want you to spend money on it has to be good...but I really think that many people really don't understand what developers have been dealing with. Here's the basic scenario...Once you take the FS9 model file on a ride thru the FSX compiler any custom animation is gone until you re-write the xml code, and it is a different dialect from the one you knew...so there's something to learn again. Next up would be the fact that animations that used to be done automatically by just using a certain name on the part are gone. Now you have to go animate all of those with keyframe animations. Textures? Hey...new rules on those too! Lighting got changed, alpha layers don't work like they used to...it goes on & on like that. The SDK is better this time, but there were a lot of changes made. And let's not forget that the whole ballgame got changed when performance is now determined by 'drawcalls' that originally became known about 10 months ago, and not by the number of polys in the model...yet another thing to conquer that became known well after FSX was released. Now consider the number of existing planes from FS9, and the amount of work needed to get each one up to 'standard'. I have done it commercially on a plane that had over 1000 parts, and I can tell you it's a lot of work! I fully believe in giving people a good product...but I'm afraid that the community will need to have a bit of patience while developers get this all figured out. Things changed with FSX, and not all of the changes were known at the start. Many developers had no knowledge of the changes in advance, and as such released so called 'port overs' unaware of the changes made. I cannot speak for everyone, but certainly I can know that many of my poly herding brethren know what I am trying to say. Based on some things I have seen, it will be good in the end!