[jhb] Re: FS Scenery
- From: "Paul Reynolds" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:37:34 +0100
My two-penneth Bones...
If you hark back to the FSX SP1 and SP2 roll-outs you will recall there
being issues with third party vendors, backwards compatability and adherance
to the SDK. Mattias Kok being particularly outspoken if my memory serves me
right. I would also suggest that the closure of Aces was as a direct result
of Microsoft senior execs insisting Flight Simulator adheres to Direct-X
whereas Aces wanted to move away from it having seen the advances in
graphics engines being used elsewhere.
I recall something saying that MS were looking at managing how add-ons were
authorised; add-ons having to be verified by MS and commercial developers
would only receiving authetication under licence. A licence that would only
be granted if said product adhered to the SDK/Direct-X no doubt. They were
also keen to point out at the time that they were aware of the active online
community and not-for=profit developers and did not want to discourage them.
I'm assuming the EULA will therefore enforce non-commercial licencing and
potentially the 'Add to Library' would include user verification that said
add-on is either non-commercial or MS licenced. They may also build in
SDK/Direct-X compatability checks here and reject any add-on failing the
test.
As for Vatsim and IVAO, I'm not so sure, I think thwey may well use the game
zone to expand the missions element to include combat, SAR and air racing
but whether they would build in their own version of Vatsim/IVAO I'm not so
sure. I suspect they recognise these as being the domains of the serious
simmer and that many are also the budding developers of the future so may
well leave them alone.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Fossil
Sent: 12 August 2011 18:49
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: FS Scenery
It's hard to predict what the Impact of Microsoft Flight will be. I suspect
the key issue will be with how they implement the gaming engine.
I assume this will not just be multiplayer as provided in earlier sims
otherwise MS would not be plugging the "immersive and gameplay" issues so
much. As online gaming requires a good following to be popular MS must have
some plan for users to see a decent amount of aircraft in the skies. A user
in remote regions can't just hope that other pilots may connect so there
ought to be decent traffic levels worldwide by default and I assume this may
be by adding more AI flights. This alone isn't any different from FSX so
there must be something else to keep the user attracted to the sim and keep
playing.
My other thought was that the AI engine in FSX already provides "protection"
for the pilot in that AI recognises his aircraft and won't crash into him.
There is no such protection when flying multiplayer so with other online
pilots flying about it is up to the individuals to see and avoid others.
This is where VATSIM and IVAO score because any ATC available should be
capable of resolving any conflicting traffic.
I can only guess but maybe there's an ATC engine in the new product that is
more intelligent and can resolve conflictions between both AI and any active
pilots. It is only that level of control that would really take users away
from IVAO/VATSIM - anything less would just result in the free for all
approach that was always found in MP flying and made it less than
satisfactory.
Of course it is very probable that I might be barking up the wrong tree and
Microsoft is working on a more "immersive" product through other ideas. If
current gaming is more about exploration, collecting items, killing dragons
and solving puzzles it could well be that MS have a plan to make the new
product work along similar ways. Maybe the new program is task orientated
with pilots flying a set structure of routes (like the early ATP sim) and
gaining rewards/promotion as these progress. If such an idea is in the
pipeline it would certainly appeal more to those who like gaming for the
rewards gained through progressive use of the game.
We can only guess though. The Microsoft Flight pages don't exactly give any
clues away and the videos/images are remarkably uninformative.
bones
bones@xxxxxxx
http://woodair.net
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Frank Fisher
Sent: 10 August 2011 10:46
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] FS Scenery
I have and use the original V1.0 Horizon scenery, many hours were spent
downloading the updates for Mesh and Watermasks etc, these updates are too
big to put on DVD unfortunately.
I also have the free Nightlight disc to go with them.
I never took advantage to upgrade to V2.0, which locks me out of the V3.0.
(more expense which I resisted)
The photo scenery has been rendered to AIO format at a huge 65gb, and
growing when scenery updates include trees. Takes an hour or more to copy to
a spare drive for backup.
With shallow pockets, my expenditure on FS is only for FSC updates.
If you have the V2.0s hang on to them.
I have not had problems installing FS9 after FSX, done it several times.
But there is a utility which restores the FS9 path if needed on the
Justflight site.
I suspect the new Microsoft Flight may be the death knell for Vatsim/IVAO,
the FSX gaming mode has had an effect by making newcomers think it is the
only way to fly online, as Gerry says, us oldies are probably going to be
the last of the true online flyers. A pity, as I am only just getting into
my stride.
If installing FSX, do not forget to install the SP1 and 2, these essentially
upgrade FSX to run in Vista/Win7 and 4 core, as well as clean out any bugs.
The basic FSX was written initially for WinXP and single core.
Frank
Other related posts:
