Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Microsoft

Recommended Posts

I saw a post on simflyers support site that made me start thinking. I will let you read the post and than I like to put out a question to you simmers....Hi Keith, Dave,thanks a lot for this input.Just for this AI thing we have expanded our team by John, who is solelydealing with this AFCAD stuff.Of course AFCAD still is a young tool and not everything is full yunderstoodwhen using it (a fact, Keith, that obviously you also are noticing whendescribing your problems with it).Just like you we also have to find out things by experimenting - thereunfortunately is no SDK or documentation from Microsoft directly. So theresults of our work depend on- how good (whatever that means) we - John - are doing these modifications- how good (whatever that means) AFCAD is able to compile thesemodifications.This compilation process of AFCAD is a part of fixing to which we have noaccess at all - we have to rely on AFCAD to "do it right".AFCAD on the other hand is (as stated above) no official MS tool, so LeeSwordy (AFCAD author) also has to find out things by trying and testing.Please bear in mind: MS obviously don't want users to modify these tracks atall (otherwise there'd be an official SDK) - so I think considering all thatthe results are more than good at the moment.Anyway - we are permanently working on improving them - but we cannotguarantee to find out all the things that Microsoft doesn't want us toknow......The only option to prevent all these problems from the start would be to"squeeze" our sceneries into the default parking, taxiing and runwaydimensions and sizes - but after comparing the real airport maps with thedefault FS2002 ones you surely will agree with us that this is no option.CheersWolfgangThe question is why is Microsoft so tight lipped about there SDKs. Microsoft developed FS2002, but does not support it themselves with any add-ons like they used to. I thought I read somewhere before the release of FS2002 that Microsoft was encouraging add-ons by third party developers. Are we just supposed to be happy with under developed scenery and somewhat out dated airplanes. I would think Microsoft would be helping in the development of third party goods to sell there FS2002. Does anyone out there have a clue what Microsoft is thinking. I do not care if I buy add-ons from Microsoft or a third party company so long as they work well and they add on to the FS2002 software. If anyone has a answer please post it I am looking forward to your opionions. David AlbrightFAA Flight dispatcherSingle and Mult-engine rated pilot

Share this post


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

MS has always been tight lipped about their SDK's (and not just for MSFS), unless your on the Beta team you won't know anything until its released.I think the release of the FS2002 SDK's does demonstrate MS is still supporting 3rd party developers. But obviously some developers want more information that MS is willing to give them, that frustrates some add-on developers.MS got out of the add-on business after FS98, probably wasn't worth it for them.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what Microsoft means by the word "add-on" is aircraft or scenery/mesh. With FS2002, this point of view has been expanded to ATC sounds, autogen, traffic (there are SDKs for it). That's what they encourage.What they don't encourage is modifying existing scenery (which is what AFCAD does for example. They'd prefer you to make a new scenery on top of the existing one), or accessing other data which was not supposed to be modified (which is what FSUIPC does for example).In other words, you're supposed to create and add, not modify FS2002's core. Look at the SDKs, they come with compilers, not decompilers. In fact there's a good reason for that. Decompiling a program is not allowed. It's copyrighted and you agree to that in the EULA (I think).On the bright side, they don't mind us doing it, as long as we find it all out on our own. It's not just that they don't want to give info (although FSUIPC's author is or has been in contact with MS, according to the manual). I guess they can't really do it with all the copyright problems.Well that's the way I see it anyway.__________________________________________________________EricUPDATED: List of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a software developer, I might add that MS's position is far from unusual. Indeed they might even be considered more open than many products (some of which do not provide *any* sort of SDK).They are not going to provide source for anyone -- non-disclosure or not. No one who sells software can afford to do this, which is why open source projects are all freeware. MS provides pretty decent SDK tools, just perhaps not as quickly as most third parties would desire (they are saying the SDK will come shipped with CFS3 so they at least recognize the problem).

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