rich135

The added budget for legal would increase the price of the product to $4995.00 USD.

:-beerchug

> We were enraged when Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 came out...Mothers Against Terrorists? Got a website?Trolls.

Both 2D and 3D are supported in FSX.

It will be interesting to see if the protocols used for the new sharing capabilities are open and flexible. Could this be the foundation for third parties to develop alternative ATC plugins that can actually drive traffic, or WidevieW-like capabilites with syncronized traffic and weather? Fingers crossed...

<<>>Right on. As stated in another thread (no pun :)) by someone who would know:tdragger: <<>>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=1918&page=

In a nutshell, .NET simply adds an abstraction layer on top of existing Windows API's to increase developer productivity and code safety. Typically when performance is critical, you look to peel away the layers..NET utilizes the same underlying API's (Win32, GDI+, DirectX). Managed code typically requires additional overhead to produce "safe" code. Both .NET and managed code would decrease performance relative to assembler and unmanaged C++ to access the same lower-level APIs. The .NET runtime (DLL's) would also consume more memory that could be potentially used by the sim. We could also speculate about Just-In-Time compiling and the potential for studders, but probably a topic for another day.Regards,Rich

ACES recently commented in a previous thread:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=3691&page=tdragger: "Just so you know, we looked at the capabilities of the processor awhile back. It's general purpose processor that is great for games that feature collisions and explosions but doesn't really offer much that would help FS (at least right now). I'm sure if it gets traction in the marketplace we'll take another look."

"Who is up to the task? Come forward"Me. :-)

"I think with only a few screenshots, some videos, and little more, we really are not sure what is coming."Right! Perhaps these shots are showing a geographical area for which the scenery has not been updated. We have already seen screen shots with much higher quality and detail. I would not expect every area on earth to have the same level of detail. This is where third parties will add value.Rich

Wow. Adds a third dimension to the age old question: renting vs. owning vs. simming?Best Regards, Former C172 Owner :-)

The seasoned cynical software devloper would anticipate that in the persuit of "real as it gets", the FS team will ultimately toil to implement both, with all the quirks. And at the exact moment this is achieved, the ICAO will move to standarize on one system. :-)

Good point. Not to sound like a former president, but it depends on what you mean by "reports". :-) If the sim downloads a METAR that reads 20005KT, the important thing is that the simulation act upon the airplane from 200 true. Of lesser importance, ATIS, ATC and airport advisory services should report the magnetic equivilent; if that is not too difficult.With respect to input into the sim, true is probably better since METAR, TAF and winds aloft are true. I retract my earlier vote for magentic.

Magnetic, to match runway headings and ATC... low and slow is when it counts the most. Forecast winds aloft are true, but in my experience they never seem to reflect reality; so in this case wrong == real. :-)

<><>Isn't that the Window's registry? Careful what you ask for. :-)

Looks like Project Magenta is very close to releasing a G1000 and Avidyne cockpit. Looks nice. You'll probably need a 2nd rig and monitor.http://www.projectmagenta.com/products/gagc.html

<>It is clear from this post that some favor VC and some favor 2D. But nobody has explained why 2D has to to dissapear in order for VC to improve. I have built my own panels (like Magenta) using WideFS, so personally I do not care as long as FSUIPC still works. But I am sure many who favor 2D would be very unhappy if 2D was removed from the core.

Thanks. That is a cool suggestion.Rich

<><I am just trying to understand here, are those in favor of changing what we have advocating a solution for the masses, or not?

<>You raise a good point Peter. I believe human beings enjoy "multiple means" of accomplishing a task. That is why I the only "feature" I advocate on these forums is greater extensibility.Here are two quotes from: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/02/the_art_of_crea.html"Give people something concrete to chew on. Communities can

Thank you for clarifying Peter.<>Based on the responses thus far, I think many interpreted it that way. For example,<"Finally dump the 2D" suggests to me that to achieve something better, you have to abandon something. I am not suggesting 2D panels and multiple monitors are the solution. Rather, I am very pleased with what we have now, and would like to see these features remain. Improvements are certainly welcome too.Regards,Rich

I use mulitple displays and 2D panels exclusively. I question the assertion that continued support of 2D panels is hindering the improvement of 3D panels.

> And what was the miracle we performed?The "X" commandments, of course. :-)

Thanks for asking, tdragger.The recent thread concerning FSUIPC addresses most of the concerns and the dilemmas around it. I would gladly invest heavily in high-end hardware, but would feel better knowing that the interface between systems was supported by MS. I do use FSUIPC and WideFS now, and have some experience writing software based on it. While Pete and others do a wonderful job, I have always been concerned that at some point, FS cannot keep internals the same just so FSUIPC will work. You are in a much better position to understand how changes in FSX might affect FSUIPC and WidevieW. Any insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated.ThanksRich

A highly extensible FS is a good thing. Should MS invest lots of effort in this given all the other requests for features? I think so. More folks can be part of the solution, allowing MS to focus on the engine. If I only had one feature request it would be, "Help us to help you. If a third party can do it, don't waste your limited valuable time on it."If you have programmed FSUIPC and WideFS, you know your are kind of skating on thin ice. As Pete has said, its getting harder and harder to support with each new version of FS. Is "memory mapping" a good idea when you don't have the source code? Should MS keep everything in the same place to maintain compatibility with FSUIPC? I think this method is going to run its course (if not already).But there is a dilemma. Pete can issue fixes and enhancements every week. Based on past history, MS updates will be measured in years. So perhaps we need a transition period where both native API's and FSUIPC are supported. Tough call, but native API's are the safe bet in the long run.