• 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.

What constitutes "FSX compatible" aircraft?

S

Simon853

Messages
516
In some of the darker, dingier corners of the internet I've seen discussions about what constitutes an "FSX compatible" aircraft.

So, what's peoples' opinions on how 3rd party aircraft should be described?

Should for example, and aircraft only be described as "FSX compatible" if it supports multi-cockpit?

Or is using FSX only texture techniques like bump-mapping sufficient?

Should an aircraft loose a claim to FSX compatibility if it exhibits the curious problems related to clouds and props (drawing order is wrong, you can see no clouds through a blurred prop texture) if a model is ported from FS9 incompletely?

But, if it runs and functions adequately, is that enough to claim FSX compatibility, or should it be termed "FSX compliant"?

What are your thoughts?

Si
 
You're right, that is discussed on the darker, dingier side of the internet. :D

In fact it has been discussed so much, that I don't want to discuss it.

Suffice to say, I tend to favor "ironclad" rules about what "FSX compatible" means or doesn't mean. You either are, or you ain't. :)
 
It makes sense, it works, and it lets everyone know the position of any addon. That is all that is required.
 
I hadn't read that. It makes sense. But I wonder where an FSX native aircraft fits into it that doesn't support multi-cockpit?

Si
 
If it is made using the FSX SDK then it is native - just because it doesn't have all the possible available facilities, bells and whistles cannot change that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top