• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

mention of FS11 SDK

BJamieson said:
I agree with Jed,



Oh, and I will be SOOOOOO gutted if I don't get 'frothy waves' visible from 3 miles at 5'000 ft. I mean, WHAT kind of simulator IS THIS ???? ;)

B
Click to expand...

Lavatory dumps, I say, what kind of "flight simulator" can it be without the possibility of "blue ice" ??
 
Two other comments w.r.t. this idea of no backwards compatability in FSXI:

Comment 1:
Personally, I hope that all developers/development companies will - gently - start educating their users / customers that the products they have today will not be compatible in FSXI.

For example, each time one uploads content to one of the flightsim sites like Avsim, I'd suggest that the readme includes a statement along the lines of:
"This product is designed for FSX only. It is not guaranteed to install, work or function in any future version of Microsoft Flight Simulator."
(Obviously, one would replace "FSX" with "FS9" or "FS9+FSX" as appropriate)

I know that Phil mentioned that FSX-SDK created content may be able to be ported to FSXI in some manner, but IMO, it would be better to let users know that products won't work in FSXI. Why's that, you may ask?

If we determine down the road that it's really easy to port content to FSXI, wonderful. In 2009-10, we can surprise & delight users/customers with pre-FSXI content that works in FSXI for little or no cost - In $$ terms to them, & in resource & time terms to us. We are all very happy flyers... :D

But if we suggest today that FSX-SDK created (or other) content will work in FSXI, and subsequently find that it won't without basically re-creating it from scratch - and so decide not to - then we are asking for another "magic screenie" event with very irate & complaining users/customers. :mad:

Plus, on a somewhat selfish note, I would prefer to spend my limited time learning about all the new stuff I need to do to create FSXI content, rather than spend time fixing older content to work with the new sim. :rolleyes:

Comment #2
Now that the ACES team are starting to focus on the next version of the FlightSim, I believe now would be a great opportunity to provide feedback w.r.t. what functionality & tools the development community would like to see in the future version. Note that I'm specifically talking about we want to see as developers, not stuff like "I'd like this plane or that airport in FSXI".

For example, some ideas that have already been requested for new (or returning) functionality are:

  • Adding seasonal textures/triggers to objects
  • Permitting weather-dependent custom terrain textures
  • Adding conditional animations on objects (e.g.: hangar door animation)
  • Ability to tag a polygon as a "ground poly" and set z-ordering to create custom runway/ground textures.
  • Ability to permit effects to show through transparent objects (e.g lighthouse glass)
  • Ability to create empty LODS

For scenery, there is already a wish-list forum (FS wishlist) in the Developers coffee house where you could add ideas/requests for the ACES team.

I'm not sure where ideas for other areas - aircraft, missions, multiplayer, ATC, audio, AI (livingworld), effects, flight characteristics, SimConnect, weather, etc. - would go. perhaps Arno or one of the other forum moderators could advise?

- regards, Jed
 
Oh, and in reply to Felix w.r.t.:
"Lavatory dumps, I say, what kind of "flight simulator" can it be without the possibility of "blue ice" ??"

Surely that is already in FSX, sir? Simply repaint the flour bomb blue and away you go, - so to speak....:D

- Jed
 
Hi Jed,

That is a good idea. I think I'll create some threads where we can collect such suggestions. Then we can send them all together to the ACES team one day (doing that could be one of my MVP duties to the community :)).
 
That's a great idea. The only problem with lists like that is, they get so LONG. I'm afraid we'll "over-suggest" and a lot of great ideas will get lost in the shuffle.
 
Agreed, and frankly I doubt if long lists are of much use to ACES by themselves. They are more useful if relative importance is included. One way to do this is as follows:
  • Allow a defined timeperiod for suggestion submissions (e.g. one month)
  • At the end of the suggestion period, make a single list of all suggestions of all types (Scenery, Aircraft, Missions, etc.) that everyone can read & review.
  • Then, allow each participant 100 points with which to rate suggestions.
  • Participants can then "buy" their most important suggestions that they feel ACES should work on in FSXI. It's each participants choice how they want to "spend" their 100 points. They can "buy" one suggestion for their entire 100 points, or "buy" 100 suggestions for 1 point each, or split their 100 points amongst as many suggestions as they like - but they only have 100 points to spend. This makes participants really consider what is most important to them, and to rate the relative importance of each suggestion.
It's easier to do this exercise in person with Monopoly money, but on-line we could just post each of our "puchase" requests in the forums for all to see.

Then we just add up the amount of points "spent" on each suggestion to see which are considered the most important to the community - and this is provided to the ACES team.

Thoughts?
- regards, jed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top