Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

N400QW

FSX content taxonomy

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The problem I have with your suggestions, is that I think there is a significant FSX sp1 user community, and as I read your taxonomy, there is nothing to indicate sp1 compatibility. I am aware of things that work in sp2 but not sp1, because of simconnect dependency for example. Of course, your stated goal is WRT sp2, so by definition sp1 compatibility is not important (for this taxonomy) but I argue it is important to users.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil. We've copied your blog post to the FAQs section of our support forum in order to help clarify these questions for users.Glad to see that we finally have an "overview" from you and it is hoped that better understanding flourishes through the community.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,I really have no input to this discussion but wanted to thank you for providing me a new word for my vocabulary. I even went to the following website to get more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy. Learn something new every day! I'm sure you'll have more. I just have to continue reading your blogs...Best regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Scott here! How can you say, anything that doesn't run in FSX SP2 is FSX incompatible? When it runs fine in FSX RTM/SP1? Is not FSX RTM/SP1 still versions of FSX? I think you need to break this down more. Something on the order of this.FSX Native - Built with FSX SDK runs in all versions.FSX RTM/SP1 Native - Built with FSX SDK runs only on FSX RTM/SP1. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen anything native yet for SP1 that doesn't run in SP2.)FSX SP2 Native - Built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX SP2.FSX Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs in all versions.FSX RTM/SP1 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX RTM/SP1.FSX SP2 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX SP2. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen anything from FS2004 run on SP2 but not RTM/SP1)FSX Incompatible - Doesn't run in any version of FSX (FS2004 only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,I agree with your argument from a purist point of view but I think it misses the point. I mean, it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I think this taxonomy is a good step. I feel sure that some 3PD's got unwarranted bad press simply because they labelled their product in a manner which was inconsistent with consumers expectations without themselves ever meaning to 'deceive' the consumer about the true nature (compatibility) of the product."Well said Terry. This goes to the heart of what we've been trying to communicate all thru this process.There are 3PDs who are working to bring content to market which is fully FSX/SP2 compatible yet they've been falsely accused of "hoodwinking" users or expected to provide such at no cost.":-(Bring DX10 compatibility into the picture and it's easy to see why folks have been frustrated and confused.We agree that FSX/SP2 is the highest/best course for FSX devs and of course an FSX/SP2 aircraft which is also DX10 compliant offers added value for the consumer as we all move forward.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Phil:This taxonomy is a pretty good idea. I'd like to see it taken a step further, though. In my reviews, I have to include a statement as to what versions of Flight Simulator the product is compatible with. It usually just ends up as a string of acronyms: FS9, FSX SP2, XP SP3, DX9, DX10. It just looks like jargon, or a listing of chess moves, or something.What I am hunting for is a user-friendly system of naming these things that is intuitive and simple. A taxonomy implies that the naming system is logical, which is very good. Where I am buffeting and stalling is that the systems being described come off as confusing acronyms, but also that many of the acronyms are very similar. Still, things like "good", "better", "best" are kind of the same way, in that how much better is better than good? How can I describe a utility with "cherry on top" status without launching into an explaination of "good", "better", and "best"? My reviews are long enough as it is. I think this is a good idea, and right now I don't have a better idea. No, maybe I do... how about an icon-based rating system like movie or video game ratings? Those ratings still use acronyms like PG-13, G, R, E10+ and so on, but they also have little pictures that describe the rating quite clearly. This is the modern digital age, if we can have emoticons, we can also have FSXicons. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,I like the idea of an "instant icon" consumers can look at and get an immediate impression about how a given addon was constructed:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188485.jpgHere is a suggestion: why not have a badge system, sort of like this one I came up with while thinking about your "movie rating" metaphor.These badges instantly denote which SDK the add-on was constructed with, which version of Direct X it supports, and which version of FSX it is compatible with.I believe I covered all the bases here, but pipe up if you can think of something I missed.I hope the boys in the legal department won't mind us borrowing their graphics to help educate consumers of their product. What say you, Phil?Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea Kevin but it may be better for 3PDs to come up with their own "badges" while following Phil's overview/taxanomy as a guidline:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Kevin's idea, one official set from MSFS that we all recognize. A different set of icons from each developer could be confusing if they are not done well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS legal may not like your idea. My suggestion was to follow Phil's outline but leave the graphics stuff to the 3PDs to avoid difficulty:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yike'sLet just hope that after all this is sorted out, the point is taken how important that vNext has ONE logo, that being FSXI.Then everybody can focus on "one" version ..I'm still trying to figure out what SP2 did to my CH-53 that "is" a FSX native model (released right before SP2) . As after SP2, my landing lights no longer shine on the ground. Wonder what sticker that model should be?Regards'Garett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as graphics are concerned, I am looking at my Acceleration box, and I see icons fromnVidiaGameSpyBoeingIntelPC DVD4 Microsoft iconsESRB, the trademarked icon I am most interested in.I am no legal expert, but on the other hand here we see examples of standardized icons on the Microsoft box. It's not an impossible dream.Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is that the 3PD community had better solve the marketing problem in a very transparent way rather quickly - or Microsoft will by enforcing its IP rights.Some developers are telling customers not to update FSX. I mean ... wow. That has obvious implications for a brand Microsoft has spent 25 years and I would suspect well over a billion dollars building up.What would you do if it were your brand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Bob. We have to keep this simple.The 7 different flavours by one poster above and the 11 different icons by another poster point to the problems FSX had when it first came out. Essentially, FSX was a little crippled to start with but with good efforts by Aces from RTM through SP1 and SP2 and associated SDK's we now have a pretty good title (albeit without backward compatibility). By inference this means 3PD software that works with these earlier 'versions' of FSX but not with the final SP2 version, are really working in a 'work in progress' FSX rather than the final product. Over the remainder of FSX's life, we should not view these products as compatible with FSX, because if we do then we have to 'de-rate' our FSX application to make them work. According to fsxmissionguy:.That to me is fundamentally wrong. It's not the applications responsibility to configure itself for deficiencies in an addon. It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>My impression is that the 3PD community had better solve the>marketing problem in a very transparent way rather quickly...That is why we've been asking Phil for his taxanomy. Absent his latest outline confusion ran rampant and accusations flew.It is certainly time for 3PDs and users to lay aside the confusion and understand what is being said. Since FSX/SP2 is considered highest and best then the goal for development is set.DX10 Compliance for FSX/SP2 content should also be considered a valid and valued plus for users as well.In our view, folks will continue to move towards DX10 hardware and Vista OS in order to obtain next gen DX10 features.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TAXONOMY, as opposed to TAXIDERMY.RhettE8500, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my goal was to do something "informal" that would have value to the community and to 3DPs, and avoid anything "official" that would get lawyers, marketing, etc involved. so while this *is* interesting and creative, I think the community needs to sort this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>my goal was to do something "informal" that would have value>to the community and to 3DPs, and avoid anything "official">that would get lawyers, marketing, etc involved. >>so while this *is* interesting and creative, I think the>community needs to sort this out.Ha ha, that is why I used "FSX/SP2 is considered highest and best" Phil.:-) "Considered" may be enough to keep us all out of "hot water":-)It is hoped that the community can develop a consensus along the informal outline you've offered and confusion will begin to wane:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have to agree with Scott here! How can you say, anything>that doesn't run in FSX SP2 is FSX incompatible? When it runs>fine in FSX RTM/SP1? Is not FSX RTM/SP1 still versions of FSX?>I think you need to break this down more. Something on the>order of this.>>FSX Native - Built with FSX SDK runs in all versions.>>FSX RTM/SP1 Native - Built with FSX SDK runs only on FSX>RTM/SP1. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen>anything native yet for SP1 that doesn't run in SP2.)>>FSX SP2 Native - Built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX SP2.>>FSX Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs in all>versions.>>FSX RTM/SP1 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on>FSX RTM/SP1.>>FSX SP2 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX>SP2. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen anything>from FS2004 run on SP2 but not RTM/SP1)>>FSX Incompatible - Doesn't run in any version of FSX (FS2004>only) What he say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the content compatibility line now sits at SP2. and that is where all 3DPs should be aiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Ron, you and I are in agreement here :-)Thanks Phil, this has been a great assist to the community:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites