GAME OVER for detailed airport ground ? UPDATE 5

Post Reply
OSS-J.Nielsen
Posts: 51

Post by OSS-J.Nielsen » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:26 pm

ROFL, unbelievable...it doesn't matter how many times we've said it even when it's been right under the posters nose...

In the beginning, IT WASN'T (that's short for WAS NOT) BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY that we needed or wanted.

As a matter of fact, backwards compatibility does not keep us moving forward. It moves us backwards in terms of performance issues for the end user.

We cannot keep having new versions of simulators and expect to have the performance and new features that we all would like to have while worrying about backwards compatibility.

New, faster, and better hardware MEAN NOTHING, if we don't or refuse to take advantage of it. The same goes for DX10 or any other newer graphics interface.

Having the same level of detail or better yet (god forbid), an even greater level of detail DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT WE USE THE OLD METHODS. Old SDK's are merely a stop gap that creates more work and longer dev times, meaning; more posts in forums by customers wondering where the next product is, claiming the developer is a liar...lol.

It means we have to come up with new ways...or just 'a way' of doing what we need to do in the new sim.

It amazes me to this day why the people in this community DO NOT and WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. :?
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:40 pm

Ruahrc wrote:I've actually never even flown FSX myself so I can't really say- but my guess is that it has to do with backwards compatibility. The core of the FSX engine is probably still the same one FS2002 (and FS9) just with some additional enhancements (i.e. the pixel shaders and higher ground resolution, etc). MS could have easily made a FSX that looked even better than it does now and runs faster, but the cost would be that NONE of the old addons or scenery would have been compatible. That is why it seems like "other" games like Half Life 2 always look way better than flight sim. They don't need to make sure HL2 is compatible with HL1. But for flightsim it is different, and I think that they simply are nearing the limits of the engine.

I think a similar thing happened back when FS2002 was released. FS2000 was a real crappy sim that nobody liked, and was likely a derivative of the older FS98 and FS95 (both of which had roots in the old DOS FS5 version!) that was simply reaching its max. With FS2002 MS rewrote most of the game engine with all-new terrain, rendering, and weather components. Autogen was first used, too. The result was that FS2002 was a fantastic sim that also ran pretty well considering the upgrades in graphics it received. Maybe a similar thing will happen with FS11 where it might get a major overhaul.

But again this is all heresay as I don't even own a copy of FSX :) These are just my best guesses going off of what I have heard/read, combined with my previous FS experience.

Ruahrc
Intersting, you keep touting the great things about FSX but have never used it.
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:52 pm

OSS-J.Nielsen wrote:ROFL, unbelievable...it doesn't matter how many times we've said it even when it's been right under the posters nose...

In the beginning, IT WASN'T (that's short for WAS NOT) BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY that we needed or wanted.

As a matter of fact, backwards compatibility does not keep us moving forward. It moves us backwards in terms of performance issues for the end user.

We cannot keep having new versions of simulators and expect to have the performance and new features that we all would like to have while worrying about backwards compatibility.

New, faster, and better hardware MEAN NOTHING, if we don't or refuse to take advantage of it. The same goes for DX10 or any other newer graphics interface.

Having the same level of detail or better yet (god forbid), an even greater level of detail DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT WE USE THE OLD METHODS. Old SDK's are merely a stop gap that creates more work and longer dev times, meaning; more posts in forums by customers wondering where the next product is, claiming the developer is a liar...lol.

It means we have to come up with new ways...or just 'a way' of doing what we need to do in the new sim.

It amazes me to this day why the people in this community DO NOT and WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. :?
I'm with you on that, a new sim from the ground up is what we need. I'd be more than happy to buy a thousand dollars worth of add ons all over again for a more advanced game engine.
OSS-J.Nielsen
Posts: 51

Post by OSS-J.Nielsen » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:53 pm

Paavo,

A new sim from the ground up is a whole different argument from what we're talking about...or, were talking about.

Eventually, yes, a new re-write WILL have to happen, because there's always someone else out there just waiting, or developing a new one, in the wings. When and if ACES does that it will require a miracle of forward thinking and a ton of guess work if they're going to want to take advantage of any hardware changes, other issues, etc.
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:22 pm

OSS-J.Nielsen wrote:Paavo,

A new sim from the ground up is a whole different argument from what we're talking about...or, were talking about.

Eventually, yes, a new re-write WILL have to happen, because there's always someone else out there just waiting, or developing a new one, in the wings. When and if ACES does that it will require a miracle of forward thinking and a ton of guess work if they're going to want to take advantage of any hardware changes, other issues, etc.
I was never for backwards compatable if it hurts the sim, and if the same add ons can be made better and run better, then I'll happily spend my hard earned money on them. I've been a hard core gamer since the days of pong and the Atari 2600 ( currently PC and 360 ) and flight sim is so far behind current games it's sad. I find it funny when people ( not you ) talk about how cutting edge fsx is, maybe for flight sim it's cutting edge, but compared to the current and upcoming ( Crysis ) games it's feels like an N64 title.
OSS-J.Nielsen
Posts: 51

Post by OSS-J.Nielsen » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:37 pm

Yeah, I remember those days also....lol.

I feel sorta the same way you do but for different reasons.

FSX is actually a good sim, but...lots a reasons, no need to did all that up again.

You also can't compare FS to Crysis as much as we wish we could. Those 2 are just apples and oranges even though you'd think that we could eventually make a sim like that, or could have and maybe should have made one. Should have is more the area where I fall in. There was no hurry for FSX when VISTA was pushed back, IMO.

FSX should have never been released as a DX9/WinXP title, IM MY NON EXPERT OPINTION. I knew it was going to cause more problems then it was going to solve. As soon as VISTA was pushed, so should FSX have been. There would be no need for multiple SP's. The FS customers would have more easily been willing to make the OS/hardware switch. There's all kinds of reasons that you would think, at the very least, from a business and marketing perspective, for not releasing the DX9/XP version.

Any who, as usual, just like in the real aviation community, we have to take the long and hard way around. In another year, we'll all be finally onto FSX in my estimate, if, we've got enough good addons for it. The performance issues will most likely be solved (for the lack of a better term), or knocked down enough to where most of us can use it without much hassel...Knock on titanium. :-)
Ruahrc
Posts: 91

Post by Ruahrc » Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:41 am

paavo wrote:Intersting, you keep touting the great things about FSX but have never used it.
I fail to see where in my previous post I said anything good about the FSX engine... please point it out to me as it was definitely not my intent to do so.
OSS-J.Nielsen wrote:ROFL, unbelievable...it doesn't matter how many times we've said it even when it's been right under the posters nose...

In the beginning, IT WASN'T (that's short for WAS NOT) BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY that we needed or wanted.
As a developer backwards compatibility is usually more of a bad thing then a good thing- I agree with you (and again, had alluded to that fact in my previous post). But, most consumers do care about it, and the unfortunate thing is that backwards compatibility will probably be a part of any new FS, much as it is a part of nearly every OS upgrade. However, like you said, a complete re-write could advance the sim to such a significant degree that maybe it is worth doing. I will use Apple's transition from OS 9 to OSX as an example. OS X had very limited backwards compatibility, but was able to advance the Macintosh OS platform so far forward that MS has been playing catch-up ever since.

Ruahrc
skydvdan
Posts: 2121

Post by skydvdan » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:40 am

Ruahrc wrote:
paavo wrote:Intersting, you keep touting the great things about FSX but have never used it.
I fail to see where in my previous post I said anything good about the FSX engine... please point it out to me as it was definitely not my intent to do so.
Ruahrc
I don't think Paavo said (or meant) anything about the engine. You just threw that in yourself through interpretation maybe? I think what he's saying is that it's unusal that one would speak so highly of a program that they've never used. You have to admit it is kind of odd to write pages and pages about a sim that you don't own or have never used. I was slightly taken aback as well when you revealed that little nugget. :wink:

*Still just sitting back and reading.
Ruahrc
Posts: 91

Post by Ruahrc » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:02 am

That's true, although I still don't see where I have spoken highly of the sim anywhere. Yes I have said that I liked the move to a round-earth model but one does not require personal time/experience with the sim to formulate an opinion on that. Besides that (the round earth), I don't see where I said anything else good about FSX. In fact I was stating that FSX is in many ways FS2002 with a graphical upgrade- how that can be interpreted as "speaking highly of" is a stretch for me to see.

Ruahrc
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:58 pm

Ruahrc wrote:That's true, although I still don't see where I have spoken highly of the sim anywhere. Yes I have said that I liked the move to a round-earth model but one does not require personal time/experience with the sim to formulate an opinion on that. Besides that (the round earth), I don't see where I said anything else good about FSX. In fact I was stating that FSX is in many ways FS2002 with a graphical upgrade- how that can be interpreted as "speaking highly of" is a stretch for me to see.

Ruahrc
Sorry if I upset you, I really don't care about this anymore, so it's a moot point.


Image
skydvdan
Posts: 2121

Post by skydvdan » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:57 pm

paavo wrote:
Ruahrc wrote:That's true, although I still don't see where I have spoken highly of the sim anywhere. Yes I have said that I liked the move to a round-earth model but one does not require personal time/experience with the sim to formulate an opinion on that. Besides that (the round earth), I don't see where I said anything else good about FSX. In fact I was stating that FSX is in many ways FS2002 with a graphical upgrade- how that can be interpreted as "speaking highly of" is a stretch for me to see.

Ruahrc
Sorry if I upset you, I really don't care about this anymore, so it's a moot point.


Image
Lighten up Francis. :wink:

Image
OSS-J.Nielsen
Posts: 51

Post by OSS-J.Nielsen » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:00 pm

Ruahrc,

The only reason why customers care about backwards compatibility is because we told them to as a justification or reason on our procedures for making our exisiting "models" work in the next new version using old SDKs'.

I hope you understand the difference here, because, it sounds like you aren't really familiar with FS development and it's SDK's

I'm not downing you for that, but when you dig up an old post and sound like an expert, you should at least be informed and paying attention and have your terminology and timlines correct. There's already way to much false information and rhumors floating around the net, we don't need more.

You need to realize that 99.9% of FS delopment is done in 3ds/GMax and PhotoShop (or eqiuvalent). the other 1% is SDKs which take up 99.9% of the dev time.

That's somewhat of a generalization, but I think you can see that we could have, in theory, actually had products 'foward compatible' for at least the last 2 versions. That's the way it should be, but now, we have to go back (or should I say--they) and almost completely re-model or re-do a product for FSX, then try to intefrace it through the SDKs.

Now obviousley that last statement depends on whether or not you're doing a scenery or aircraft to determine the level of agrevation for the new product.

In any case, as it is now, progress is being made in these areas, and soon all should be well in hooosville again, so it's all really a moot point, as another poster recently said. :wink:

I really hate to portray this is a big deal, when it's really not any more. There's just a few nagging issues left over for some developers (mostly aircraft side of the house), but, I don't feel like it's going to be the end of the world for FS. If that happens, then you all can flame me like a big dog.

Until then we have both FS's for the time being and great scenery developers like my friends here at FlyTampa and numerous other places. Try not to let all this bust your melon, ok?
Ruahrc
Posts: 91

Post by Ruahrc » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:17 am

Seriously, I still don't see what all these arguments against me are about, especially when it has been concluded that we essentially agree about almost everything we have been arguing about (except maybe other than the round earth)!!!

To begin with, I don't think customers care about backwards compatibility only because you (either as an individual or as a group of developers) convinced them to, but rather because they spend a lot of money on addons and want them to carry over to the next version of the sim, because their addons represent a significant investment into a hobby.

I may not be as much an "expert" as you but I know I am more knowledgable than the average simmer when it comes to FS and development, and have even released a number of freewares on avsim (albeit very simple ones) and even this very forum. I only say this because I still have yet to be provided with examples in which I have either made false statements or provided incorrect facts about a sim. To the best of my knowledge, everything I said about the FS9 earth model and its limitations is correct, and if I have made an error there please point it out to me, rather than throw out baseless accusations regarding my knowledge (or apparent lack thereof) about FS. Everything else I have said I have clearly delineated as my opinion only, because I freely admit that I know nothing about FSX's technical workings. I find it hard to see where "rhumors" and "false information" is being tossed around here.

And I am not sure where terminology or timelines come into this but again nobody has yet provided a quote from my posts that has shown to be inaccurate. Heck not even my opinion-related posts. So unless you have some real examples, please stop trying to discredit me because it does neither you, or anyone else, any good!

I understand and agree with your point about the SDK and development. Go back and read my earlier post (the big one about the round earth), and you will see that I even agreed with that position from the very beginning! Here I will even spare you the trouble: The OP is on page 17 I believe.
Ruahrc wrote:Now I can understand that it may not be possible for FT to convert their existing sceneries to FSX because they are using a different design method to create their ground textures, and I can also understand where they would not really want to go through the effort to re-do those parts from scratch, just for FSX. I too will freely admit (as I have said before) that I don't use FSX and yes it is because many of my addons (like FT) don't work in FSX. But the fact remains that although the round earth model is what's preventing our favorite sceneries from FS9 from being converted to FSX, it is not that it is impossible to recreate those sceneries in FSX. Rather the developers choose not to (and who have every right to make that decision). I do also agree that it would appear that FSX is a more difficult sim to make scenery for, but whether or not this was good/bad/expected/inevitable is a philosophical question that is way beyond the scope of this post:). And don't forget that things can always change. These methods that were used to create FS9 photorealistic ground were not known when FS9 was released, and were only developed after people had a few years of experience working with the FS9 scenery engine. Don't expect advanced techniques or clever "work-arounds" like this to appear right after the release of FSX either.
The whole reason I even posted in here was so that I could explain to paavo the "distortions" I was talking about. He kept saying how he wanted examples of how the flat earth was bad and so I tried to explain how it affected flying in FS9.

So let's just all agree to mostly agree and give it a rest before this gets much more out of hand.

What really busts my melon is that I am looking at having to do a full reinstall of FS9, which I am REALLY not looking forward to- but it is looking like the only solution to my problems (OOM errors) right now.

Ruahrc
Ruahrc
Posts: 91

Post by Ruahrc » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:20 am

Double post
Last edited by Ruahrc on Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply