Jump to content

rhumbaflappy

Members
  • Posts

    3,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Reputation

113 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

6,091 profile views
  1. Config path for Steam Edition: “%AppData%\Microsoft Flight Simulator”Config path for MS Edition: C:\Users[user name]\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCacheThe file is called userCfg.opt and the last line shows where you put the content folder and the community folder is inside that. InstalledPackagesPathThe SDK installation creates an environment variable MSFS_SDK which contains its install path.
  2. Config path for Steam Edition: “%AppData%\Microsoft Flight Simulator”Config path for MS Edition: C:\Users[user name]\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCacheThe file is called userCfg.opt and the last line shows where you put the content folder and the community folder is inside that. InstalledPackagesPathThe SDK installation creates an environment variable MSFS_SDK which contains its install path.
  3. I believe you'll find a new, undocumented file structure.
  4. Hi all. I mapped my refresh button as CTRL+z as that combo is so easy to hit. 🙂
  5. Wrong forum. This is for Flight, not FSX.
  6. SBuilderX will work with Flight Simulator if the same format and names of the command line tools is the same. Likewise ADE will most likely then work as well. SBuilderX works with Flight School and with MS Flight, as well as P3d. Dick
  7. Hi Martin. I would also not recommend in-simulator tools. Far better to just provide tools and info as the Lockheed-Martin P3D, and provide a bit more info as to file structures. We have plenty of tool makers. We just need the basics to build on. I'm guessing you're still using resample, shp2vec, bglcomp, the 3dsMax toolkit. Just pass those along as they were in FSX or P3D. As a group, we'd rather not spend time back-engineering. If you release tools and info over time, that's exactly what would happen. I think Raimondo Taburet has already done this with Flight School scenery, and is selling some addons... Share what tools and info you have and the developer community will quickly develop products (both commercial and freeware). And addons will drive more sales for the simulator. As far as mission-building goes, I believe you had Jim Keir on staff for Flight School, if so, you do have the expert. If he can get a comprehensive in-game mission builder going, it certainly would work. Dick
  8. Yes. We need as complete and comprehensive SDK as possible. We need 'transparency' from DTG in that you should deliver file format information and as many tools as possible for content creation. Don't worry that some topic may be too complicated. We seriously have hundreds of geniuses developing scenery, and one or two will figure it out and deliver the info to the rest of the crowd. This is exactly how we have been discovering and disseminating development techniques since the earliest of Microsoft's FS series Also. To really invest in this topic on an SDK, we right now need to know how much of Flight Simulator will be based on FSX file formats, and exactly how much latitude and protection will developers have concerning ownership of their content creations. We also need to know how those content creations are to be included in the sim. For example are they to be submitted to Steam or Dovetail, or can we upload to libraries such as AVSIM? Can we sell our creations without the need for Dovetail approval or compensation to Dovetail? Without these answers, few serious developers will venture into the process. We want to know in what we are going to invest our time and money. Given enough 'transparency' from Dovetail, and assurances that it will be worth our while, an EARLY and comprehensive SDK will allow developers to quickly bring content to Flight Simulator. Addon content = user enthusiasim. This was the reason Microsoft's Flight failed. No addons = no enthusiasim. Dick
  9. At a minimum, we need all the tools and functionality of FSX SDK. If the familiar tools of resample, shp2vec and bglcomp are used, then scenery can easily be created (perhaps SBuilderX could be altered to accept any new variables used by those apps). More transparency to file structures would be appreciated. Then we could develop better tools. Blender has been mentioned as an alternative to 3dsMax as a means to create models, and that would be an excellent idea. Again, more info on file structures would allow toolmakers to develop Blender plugins if Dovetail cannot. Concerning models, it would be great if we have conditional display used. This is absent from FSX scenery objects, but it's inclusion for all objects would be great for Flight Simulator. I understand this is not an SDK concern specifically, but a core principle of the display engine. Dick
  10. Hi Martin. If you really want to see the scope of developers for FS9 and FSX (all of whom would be interested in Flight Simulator development) You need to visit fsdeveloper.com. Hundreds of developers of both freeware and commercial FS projects. It is the primary resource and community for FS9 and FSX developers. You should probably post there for insight into the community needs for Addon development. Dick
  11. It will be interesting to see if Dovetail is active in preventing addons to Flight School, or if they turn a blind eye to it. Dick
  12. Hi Steve. Does this mean we can have a slew mode for scenery builders? Dick
  13. Any content relying on DLLs from FSX will not work in DFS as those are compiled as 32-bit. Anything dependent on SimConnect or FSUIPC will not work for the same reason. This eliminates most (if not all) aircraft. Some scenery could work (at least terrain), as it is unlikely Dovetail would go to the effort to change the BGL file format for terrain. However, that might obscure the scenery by using zip files or encryption. Scenery objects might work, but I have my doubts. Anything that is distributed with a 'console' to enable features of scenery will probably not work. Generally speaking, DFS will not be backwardly compatible. They definitely took the easiest path to release a new sim, and I predict it will be very profitable. Most simmers just want the series to continue. Dick
  14. C++ gauges for FSX aircraft are 32-bit dlls. So unless some runtime conversion is used, there won't be backward compatibility for those aircraft. And runtime conversion would be CPU intensive. Dovetail did not buy the terrain from Microsoft, as Microsoft licensed it from 3rd party sources. They have bought the water, roads, mesh from Navtech or other 3rd party sources... so if it looks the same, that's because Navtech's data is the same. Not much Dovetail can do about that... they do not have the resources to create their own data. That would take years of man-hours. The shame about loosing Flight as a base is that it just was much more versatile, and more quickly rendered. 64-bit is not quicker than 32-bit... in fact it runs slower in my estimation. And good memory management would solve most (if not all) problems associated with memory exhaustion. We're getting 64-bit because so many forum posters are wanting it, as if it is a cure-all for rendering problems. I don't think it is... it's a marketing pitch. As far as Windows 10, I believe they are only guaranteeing the new sim to work for that OS, and not supporting any problems that may arise with other operating systems. DirectX11 is a nod to system owners that do not have a DirectX12 card... and perhaps Windows7 users will get a pleasant surprise to find Flight Simulator runs on their systems. All that said, I'm very much looking forward to DTG's new Flight Simulator. I'm glad the series continues. I'm glad 3rd Party developers will get a chance to bring their skills to the game. I think a lot of 3rd party FSX content will not work 'as is' in the new game, so I hope the 64-bit, Directx11 incarnation blows us away, rather than being a retread of FSX. Otherwise there is little incentive for large numbers of users to switch to the new sim, and invest in new content. Meanwhile, as this is the Flight forum, I think it's 'so long' to a great sim. Such a shame it is never going to see it's full realization. Thanks to Steve's efforts, we can still bring it on once in a while and even enjoy a bit of new content. Dick
×
×
  • Create New...