Hong Kong Performance in FSX

[martin[flytampa]]

I am glad, you are giving us options.

I guess this will be your favorite selection page

[psolk]

Hmmm... I put my credit card in this little slot on the front of my computer and I keep clicking the install button in Martin's post but nothing is happening... I even saved the .jpg to my desktop and hit install from there but still nothing

I am putting in Dual Velociraptors as we speak in preparation

Can't wait guys!!!

[virtuali]

This may sound strange to some, but I have a big problem with Addon development based on non-public insider information.

If you are meaning what I think you are, that's not how it is.

I know that several developers mistakenly think that, since we worked with Microsoft, we "must" have an unfair advantage, like getting additional information comparing to what has been published on the SDK.

Well, unfortunately (for us), this is not the case. AT ALL.

Even when working on the F/A-18, which is a *Microsoft* product after all, EVERYTHING that was done a little bit out of the beaten track, like the use of alpha-blended GDI+ for the HUD (never done before in FS), or the direct readout of navdata in the radar screens without having an external database, or the use of custom events to intercept mouse clicks in the VC, was ENTIRELY researched by us.

ACES never told us anything that wasn't already published in the SDK and, the only support we eventually got (remember, with the F-18 we were working on *their* product) was something along the lines of me telling "look, I discovered this and that, can I use it safely ?", and they only said Yes or No, but not more than that, and not before it was already established we knew about that feature already.

And, this was when working on a *Microsoft* product. You don't really think they are helping now, even with small bits of info, for an *FSDT* product ???

We did animated custom jetways in FSX with the SAME "bad & incomplete" SDK documentation everybody had. And, with a lot of trial and error and common logic about how it might have worked...

In fact, our method is not even the same as presented in the recent video tutorial from ACES that appeared online. They suggest to connect bones to vertexes, but we never did that, we have a different method, still based on bones but different which, incidentally, works as well.

So please, let's stop the conspiracy theories. Yes, the SDK documentation, particularly for the jetway, was bad, but that doesn't necessarly mean that we got additional help.

We are accustomed to disassemble and reverse-engineer FS since FS4, directly from Assembly code, without any source code and without any comments or docs of any kind, and we did this for years. Do you really think we'd stop at something "just" because a document is a little bit less clear than it should ??

[paavo]

This may sound strange to some, but I have a big problem with Addon development based on non-public insider information.

If you are meaning what I think you are, that's not how it is.

I know that several developers mistakenly think that, since we worked with Microsoft, we "must" have an unfair advantage, like getting additional information comparing to what has been published on the SDK.

Well, unfortunately (for us), this is not the case. AT ALL.

Even when working on the F/A-18, which is a *Microsoft* product after all, EVERYTHING that was done a little bit out of the beaten track, like the use of alpha-blended GDI+ for the HUD (never done before in FS), or the direct readout of navdata in the radar screens without having an external database, or the use of custom events to intercept mouse clicks in the VC, was ENTIRELY researched by us.

ACES never told us anything that wasn't already published in the SDK and, the only support we eventually got (remember, with the F-18 we were working on *their* product) was something along the lines of me telling "look, I discovered this and that, can I use it safely ?", and they only said Yes or No, but not more than that, and not before it was already established we knew about that feature already.

And, this was when working on a *Microsoft* product. You don't really think they are helping now, even with small bits of info, for an *FSDT* product ???

We did animated custom jetways in FSX with the SAME "bad & incomplete" SDK documentation everybody had. And, with a lot of trial and error and common logic about how it might have worked...

In fact, our method is not even the same as presented in the recent video tutorial from ACES that appeared online. They suggest to connect bones to vertexes, but we never did that, we have a different method, still based on bones but different which, incidentally, works as well.

So please, let's stop the conspiracy theories. Yes, the SDK documentation, particularly for the jetway, was bad, but that doesn't necessarly mean that we got additional help.

We are accustomed to disassemble and reverse-engineer FS since FS4, directly from Assembly code, without any source code and without any comments or docs of any kind, and we did this for years. Do you really think we'd stop at something "just" because a document is a little bit less clear than it should ??

Cliffs Notes version: The SDK sucks.

[Manny]

I am glad, you are giving us options.

I guess this will be your favorite selection page

Thats right.... How did you guess?



Manny

[paavo]

I am glad, you are giving us options.

I guess this will be your favorite selection page

Thats right.... How did you guess?



Manny

I'm surprised nobody else commented on this very unique feature included in Kai Tak. I prefer the non sdk mode since it looks a million times better, however it's great to have a choice and hopefully this will appease everybody.

[skydvdan]

This may sound strange to some, but I have a big problem with Addon development based on non-public insider information.

If you are meaning what I think you are, that's not how it is.

I know that several developers mistakenly think that, since we worked with Microsoft, we "must" have an unfair advantage, like getting additional information comparing to what has been published on the SDK.

Well, unfortunately (for us), this is not the case. AT ALL.

Even when working on the F/A-18, which is a *Microsoft* product after all, EVERYTHING that was done a little bit out of the beaten track, like the use of alpha-blended GDI+ for the HUD (never done before in FS), or the direct readout of navdata in the radar screens without having an external database, or the use of custom events to intercept mouse clicks in the VC, was ENTIRELY researched by us.

ACES never told us anything that wasn't already published in the SDK and, the only support we eventually got (remember, with the F-18 we were working on *their* product) was something along the lines of me telling "look, I discovered this and that, can I use it safely ?", and they only said Yes or No, but not more than that, and not before it was already established we knew about that feature already.

And, this was when working on a *Microsoft* product. You don't really think they are helping now, even with small bits of info, for an *FSDT* product ???

We did animated custom jetways in FSX with the SAME "bad & incomplete" SDK documentation everybody had. And, with a lot of trial and error and common logic about how it might have worked...

In fact, our method is not even the same as presented in the recent video tutorial from ACES that appeared online. They suggest to connect bones to vertexes, but we never did that, we have a different method, still based on bones but different which, incidentally, works as well.

So please, let's stop the conspiracy theories. Yes, the SDK documentation, particularly for the jetway, was bad, but that doesn't necessarly mean that we got additional help.

We are accustomed to disassemble and reverse-engineer FS since FS4, directly from Assembly code, without any source code and without any comments or docs of any kind, and we did this for years. Do you really think we'd stop at something "just" because a document is a little bit less clear than it should ??

OMG. If it doesn't apply to you and your company then why do you feel it necessary to respond? I don't see the words FSDreamteam or Cloud9 anywhere in Martins post. Obviously something isn't right. You always feel the need to jump in here with your little snippets of "wisdom" to try to not seem like the bad guy. Just give it up. Opinions are pretty much set in stone about you and your friends. You guys make nice products, most, including me, will admit that, but there are some of us that don't like some your previous business practices and we have long memories.

[B777ER]

Glad I got FS9. Install, fly with any aircraft, enjoy.

[paavo]

OMG. If it doesn't apply to you and your company then why do you feel it necessary to respond? I don't see the words FSDreamteam or Cloud9 anywhere in Martins post. .

That is a really good point, what Martin said was kinda buried in a thread about Kai Tak FSX performance, does that mean virtuali is constantly monitoring what Martin says, just in case it might have something to do with C9 or dreamteam ?

[skydvdan]

Even when working on the F/A-18, which is a *Microsoft* product after all, EVERYTHING that was done a little bit out of the beaten track, like the use of alpha-blended GDI+ for the HUD (never done before in FS), or the direct readout of navdata in the radar screens without having an external database, or the use of custom events to intercept mouse clicks in the VC, was ENTIRELY researched by us.

ACES never told us anything that wasn't already published in the SDK and, the only support we eventually got (remember, with the F-18 we were working on *their* product) was something along the lines of me telling "look, I discovered this and that, can I use it safely ?", and they only said Yes or No, but not more than that, and not before it was already established we knew about that feature already.

We did animated custom jetways in FSX with the SAME "bad & incomplete" SDK documentation everybody had. And, with a lot of trial and error and common logic about how it might have worked...

Do you ever hurt you shoulder patting yourself on the back?

[martin[flytampa]]

If you are meaning what I think you are, that's not how it is.

No-no, I didn't mean that specifically at you, Cloud9 or FSDT. It was a remark about something that has been upsetting me in general.

I have several examples, my favorite, without mentioning any names was yet another Avsim thread where several developers were "venting frustrations" at Aces, then one of these developers got a private help-session with Aces and returned to the forum with a big apology and praise. Whatever actual help/fixes are exchanged in such private sessions often doesn't get posted to public, especially when it involves 3rd party payware wanting to capitalize on insider know-how somehow.

Sorry if my reply looked like a shot at you, wasn't meant to have a specific target... if anyone ACES and the person responsible for writing that specific Doc.

[martin[flytampa]]

Just to add: I have nothing against you or others learning by disassembling, re-engineering etc. It may also have been that way in early versions of FS but that type of development honestly doesn't interest me. I started designing Addons only when FS came with a working & nice SDK (FS2002) and if in future it goes back to not having a nice SDK I will be leaving as quick as I came. Not that it matters, I just don't have the nerves & time to deal with that type of methodology.

[virtuali]

OMG. If it doesn't apply to you and your company then why do you feel it necessary to respond? I don't see the words FSDreamteam or Cloud9 anywhere in Martins post.

VERY SIMPLY, because there's nobody else, who offered IK jetwas animations in a released FSX scenery. AND, of course, because Martin replied about the inside information, to a question that specifically mentioned us.

You always feel the need to jump in here with your little snippets of "wisdom" to try to not seem like the bad guy. Just give it up.

You, instead, always feel the need to jump *at* me, regardless of what I might be saying. It's getting old, so just give it up.

[virtuali]

Sorry if my reply looked like a shot at you, wasn't meant to have a specific target... if anyone ACES and the person responsible for writing that specific Doc.

Maybe the jetways question triggered a generic venting need on your part on the generic issue of bad SDK docs an insider help sometime offered to unnamed developers. In this case, we might very well vent together, because we never get any private session, or anything like that and of course, I fully agree that the SDK has lots of problems.

However, the user question was specific about why custom animated jetways are missing in your scenery, when we have it since quite some time.

If you replied just about the bad SDK, it would have been different, but the additional comment about developement based on insider informations, in reply to a question that specifically mentioned us, made all the difference.