Jump to content

Product Compatability


Hiflyer

Recommended Posts

This is about something I have seen again and again, most particularly in the Flightsim add-on industry. Often, you will find scenery's/products that overlap: For instance, somebody will come out with an airport, which then sits on somebody Else's photo-scenery, which is using yet another persons mesh........

The startling part about this to me, is that again and again, I hear the developers saying "I haven't tested for compatibility with" (place name of product here) "Because I don't have that product."

On smaller, and perhaps more obscure products, this might be more understandable, since obviously its not possible to test everything, but on major and popular products that are highly likely to come in contact with each other, it becomes harder to see why there is no apparent mechanism in place to provide free copies of products between reputable developers for compatibility/testing purposes.

At that point it would become possible for developers to add blurbs like "Fully compatible with product X!" both to ease the minds of potential purchasers, and cut down on forums full of "I just purchased (place name of product here) and now everything's horrible! Waaaaahhhhh!!!"

Followed by anguished Afcad-hunts, developers pointing inquiries at other forums, and unhappy customers wondering why their developer is expected to buy (and is apparently to poor to buy) copies of products that are very likely to come into contact (and possible conflict) with their own offerings. (and vice versa)

A solution can't be that hard, can it?

Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a solution would be much harder than it may at first appear.

The problem is that one developer/publisher could too easily become dependant/reliant on what another may or may not be doing. Product X may be tested and found compatible with Product Y today but what if the Product Y dev decides to change something in a patch? This could potentially leave Product X non-compatible and now the Product X developer/publisher is obliged to issue a patch. Now imagine you are Aerosoft who publish hundreds of products, all of which could potentially become non-compatible overnight. Where does this leave Aerosoft? Certainly not in a place they want to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a solution would be much harder than it may at first appear.

The problem is that one developer/publisher could too easily become dependant/reliant on what another may or may not be doing. Product X may be tested and found compatible with Product Y today but what if the Product Y dev decides to change something in a patch? This could potentially leave Product X non-compatible and now the Product X developer/publisher is obliged to issue a patch. Now imagine you are Aerosoft who publish hundreds of products, all of which could potentially become non-compatible overnight. Where does this leave Aerosoft? Certainly not in a place they want to be...

A point, but I think only if all other developers remain static waiting on Aerosoft. (which this post was not pointed at specifically by the way)

At some point you would think a certain synergy would develop, IE, certain "base products" that most can agree are the standard bearers that all other products are likely to encounter at one time or another. I am sure that we can all think of some obvious contenders.

How many serious (and even semi-serious) simmers don't have an enhancement for the default scenery textures? How many don't have at least one cloud/weather enhancement product? Why shouldn't mesh builders provide flattens for highly popular airports? etc.....

How many "major" Ai packages are there, and why can't there be some "standard" for their afcads to aim at.............

I am sure there are business difficulty's, but from the outside it seems, at least from reading developer replies on their various forums, that the main difficulty is a lack of formal communication between developers..........

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it becomes an issue of "remaining static and waiting on" Flight1 due to UTX and GEX. This is no better than if others had to wait on Aerosoft. No company in their right mind would ever willingly put themselves in such a position, all the best intentions notwithstanding. Microsoft's (out of the blue) ACES Studio closure taught everyone that particular lesson.

Let's get specific: As per AVSIM's Luxembourg Airports review and the issues it has highlighted with Flight1's UTX EU - the double autogen etc. I would indeed like the two to play nicely together BUT only if this does not then introduce issues with the default FSX (which I suspect may be the problem here).

Mesh suppliers provide a product which is highly accurate in the real-world for a product (FSX) which is actually very inaccurate (much more so than most people realise). Providing flattens even for popular airports (hundreds of "popular airports" in Germany alone) means they would have to make their mesh inaccurate on purpose in lots and lots of places by hand (it probably takes 10 to 20 minutes PER airport to do). It is totally counter intuitive and as a result it will never happen (at least not on any noteworthy scale). In my opinion, mesh products better than (approx.) 19m are a waste of time due to how badly they expose the mess under FSX's skirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it becomes an issue of "remaining static and waiting on" Flight1 due to UTX and GEX. This is no better than if others had to wait on Aerosoft. No company in their right mind would ever willingly put themselves in such a position, all the best intentions notwithstanding. Microsoft's (out of the blue) ACES Studio closure taught everyone that particular lesson.

Let's get specific: As per AVSIM's Luxembourg Airports review and the issues it has highlighted with Flight1's UTX EU - the double autogen etc. I would indeed like the two to play nicely together BUT only if this does not then introduce issues with the default FSX (which I suspect may be the problem here).

Mesh suppliers provide a product which is highly accurate in the real-world for a product (FSX) which is actually very inaccurate (much more so than most people realise). Providing flattens even for popular airports (hundreds of "popular airports" in Germany alone) means they would have to make their mesh inaccurate on purpose in lots and lots of places by hand (it probably takes 10 to 20 minutes PER airport to do). It is totally counter intuitive and as a result it will never happen (at least not on any noteworthy scale). In my opinion, mesh products better than (approx.) 19m are a waste of time due to how badly they expose the mess under FSX's skirt.

However, what could be done is...

Take aerosoft for example is develeping and add-on airport and there are three well know and

used mesh addons / scenery addons.

What could be done is a small patch for anyone who owns three the different meshes to use if

they used.

In gereral if the mesh terrains are at all acurate they should have a similer layout anyway so too

much editing shouldn't be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it becomes an issue of "remaining static and waiting on" Flight1 due to UTX and GEX. This is no better than if others had to wait on Aerosoft. No company in their right mind would ever willingly put themselves in such a position, all the best intentions notwithstanding. Microsoft's (out of the blue) ACES Studio closure taught everyone that particular lesson.

Interesting. I would have thought that companies were making these adjustments anyway. Certainly there are numerous examples of developers coming in after a release to clean up some particularly egregious scenery conflicts, including with the product you mentioned. Making it easier and quicker for that to happen, rather than waiting for a developer to have some extra pocket change to buy a problem product, (if they ever do) seems an obvious step towards a solution.

Let's get specific: As per AVSIM's Luxembourg Airports review and the issues it has highlighted with Flight1's UTX EU - the double autogen etc. I would indeed like the two to play nicely together BUT only if this does not then introduce issues with the default FSX (which I suspect may be the problem here).

Certainly what I am suggesting is not the solution to every problem, but I there are several ongoing/current problems out there right now that could be solved a lot more quickly if designers had more consistent and timely access to other designers products.

Mesh suppliers provide a product which is highly accurate in the real-world for a product (FSX) which is actually very inaccurate (much more so than most people realise). Providing flattens even for popular airports (hundreds of "popular airports" in Germany alone) means they would have to make their mesh inaccurate on purpose in lots and lots of places by hand (it probably takes 10 to 20 minutes PER airport to do). It is totally counter intuitive and as a result it will never happen (at least not on any noteworthy scale). In my opinion, mesh products better than (approx.) 19m are a waste of time due to how badly they expose the mess under FSX's skirt.

And yet, those products remain popular and are constantly dropping to finer and finer accuracies.....

What I am talking about would simply not work if only one or two companies were habitually working together, but as I said, at a certain point a general standard would likely emerge almost spontaneously as everybody became more familiar with other scenery designers habits and could keep some of that in mind when designing their own scenery's. As it is now, everybody is developing their own version of the wheel, leaving newbies completely bewildered as to why (for instance) their new airport is hanging on the edge of a cliff, or why there is a 747 driving through the middle of the control tower.....

Total chaos is not good, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishful thinking.

All products should be tested on ONLY a DEFAULT setup of the sim, with appropriate allowances made for OE patches (i.e. FSX pre-SP1 is NOT the same default product as FSX post-SP2). After that, unlessa product is specifically stated to be compatible, it's the computers owners problem, and nobody elses.

If you think about the sheer NUMBER of possible combinations it can become an astronomic number of permutations in short order.

Just take these, very basic, permutations:

1: FSX, FSX SP1, FSX SP2/Acceleration

2: Windows XP, Windows XP SP1, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP 64, Windows XP SP3, Window Vista (32-bit, 64-bit, all flavours), Windows 7 (32-bit, 64-bit, all flavours)

3: Hardware: Motherboard, CPU, RAM, Soundcard, GPU, drive setup, drivers installed.

4: Possible `snakeoil` tweaks, non standard modifications to drivers and installed programs, startup menu options etc. etc...

Even before you add on the permutations of a non-standard FS installation, no two of which are identical you ALREADY face an impossible task. Millions - BILLIONS - of combinations.

Your thinking is unrealistic, and yet another symptom of the creeping malaise that afflicts our society, the obviation of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The very necessary role of the simmer is to be sure and certain that what they install on their machines is correct for THEIR application. If in doubt, check first, make backups, install to a temporary location first etc. etc.

The only - ONLY - possible exception to the `just blame everyone else` mentality would be a compulsory `works, or your money back` guarantee from the industry, who also have to share some of the blame for foisting substandard, under-tested piles of poop on the folks, then expecting them to wait while they may, or may not, fix it, faff with with it - or even in some cases, just finish it...

It's software, and no matter the developer excuses it is equally childish to pretend YOUR software will work on MY system, when YOU have no knowledge of it individually. Therefore the excuse that it works on everyone elses box simply is not tenable and should be avoided at all costs, and acceptance of the basic premise that if it doesn't work on that customers system, they are entitled to their money back would go a long way to making the `industry` act less like a `hobby`.

Personally, once I accepted that it was MY responsibility to be aware, cautious and careful when making purchases, that everything I buy was probably going to cause me grief of some type or another, that nothing I buy will ever actually meet my exacting standards, and that all the people who design stuff for Flight Sim are poor programmers, the quicker I came to accept that I can't be dissatisfied, only pleasantly wrong... :unsure:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general standard is already there (the SDK) but beyond this there are so many way to skin a cat and still remain (mostly) within standards - who's to argue one approach over another? To stick with the cat analogy this kind of exercise would be like trying to herd cats...

I think the jury is still mostly out on whether high definition (10m or better) mesh products for FSX are popular. FSGlobal 2010 is not what I would term high definition.

aerlingus: This would not be practical for developers. If it was they would have done it by now. Take just 1 edition of a German Airfields collection of 15 or so airfields. 15 x 3 = 45 extra files. No go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishful thinking.

All products should be tested on ONLY a DEFAULT setup of the sim, with appropriate allowances made for OE patches (i.e. FSX pre-SP1 is NOT the same default product as FSX post-SP2). After that, unlessa product is specifically stated to be compatible, it's the computers owners problem, and nobody elses.

If you think about the sheer NUMBER of possible combinations it can become an astronomic number of permutations in short order.

Just take these, very basic, permutations:

1: FSX, FSX SP1, FSX SP2/Acceleration

2: Windows XP, Windows XP SP1, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP 64, Windows XP SP3, Window Vista (32-bit, 64-bit, all flavours), Windows 7 (32-bit, 64-bit, all flavours)

3: Hardware: Motherboard, CPU, RAM, Soundcard, GPU, drive setup, drivers installed.

4: Possible `snakeoil` tweaks, non standard modifications to drivers and installed programs, startup menu options etc. etc...

Even before you add on the permutations of a non-standard FS installation, no two of which are identical you ALREADY face an impossible task. Millions - BILLIONS - of combinations.

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing......... Certainly I was not discussing varying processor speeds, operating systems and etc, only the hopefully simpler, problem of (for instance) taking a quick check that a given scenery is not causing (for instance) double objects with a very popular scenery in the same area, etc.

Your thinking is unrealistic, and yet another symptom of the creeping malaise that afflicts our society, the obviation of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The very necessary role of the simmer is to be sure and certain that what they install on their machines is correct for THEIR application. If in doubt, check first, make backups, install to a temporary location first etc. etc.

Perhaps unrealistic, but some solutions require a knowledge of the Sim that it might also be unrealistic to expect from a more casual user of these programs. It may be all well and good to say "learn the program" or something similar, and that's fine: as long as you are willing to write off all of the other possible customers who just want to fly and have either no time or no interest in learning the minutia necessary to solve these issues themselves.

The only - ONLY - possible exception to the `just blame everyone else` mentality would be a compulsory `works, or your money back` guarantee from the industry, who also have to share some of the blame for foisting substandard, under-tested piles of poop on the folks, then expecting them to wait while they may, or may not, fix it, faff with with it - or even in some cases, just finish it...

It's software, and no matter the developer excuses it is equally childish to pretend YOUR software will work on MY system, when YOU have no knowledge of it individually. Therefore the excuse that it works on everyone elses box simply is not tenable and should be avoided at all costs, and acceptance of the basic premise that if it doesn't work on that customers system, they are entitled to their money back would go a long way to making the `industry` act less like a `hobby`.

It would be interesting to see that happen.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Folks,

I too immediately thought about Simons comment of the amount of permutations there would be if there was a lot of scenery for an area.

You have different landclasses different meshes. Would take forever and a day to do and not only that you would be paying for the cost of developing something that you don't use.

The only criteria as Simon points out is that it works with the Default installed Simulator and nothing more, if they chose to do more then thats a bonus.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Folks,

I too immediately thought about Simons comment of the amount of permutations there would be if there was a lot of scenery for an area.

You have different landclasses different meshes. Would take forever and a day to do and not only that you would be paying for the cost of developing something that you don't use.

The only criteria as Simon points out is that it works with the Default installed Simulator and nothing more, if they chose to do more then thats a bonus.

Which immediately made me try to think (off the top of my head) of any areas that had a huge amount of overlap.....

I was very deliberate in saying that more obscure scenery's would probably be on their own, and that I was limiting the question specifically to very popular scenery's that were likley to have conflicts. Almost anyone nowadays might expect their scenery's to encounter Gex (for instance) and might want to check beforehand for easily avoidable gross abnormalities.

Somebody doing a major Swiss airport scenery, likewise might want to take a quick check against both Gex and Switzerland X just to make sure. The possibility of numerous permutations seems to actually be relatively small, since there are really not that many major players whose products both cover the same area and do it in such a way that conflict is likely.

I can actually think of only a handful, and in that case it seems only sound business practice, since if you make a product that is very likely to be used in conjunction with an already popular/widespread product for which there might also be a conflict, then it would seem to be in both parties interests to grease the path for those products to work reasonably well together and possibly drive some additional sales for both......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, leaving aside the outside permutations, (although I really don't see how you could ever leave out these items, they are more important than anything going on inside the sim) consider these `internal` FS functions, NONE of which require the use or obligation to obey the SDK:

1: Mesh settings. Not addon mesh, just whatever slider settings one chooses to use and what level of meterage - just because the terrain is installed as 76m doesn't mean the slider can't be moved to 152m or 38m. Ditto the mesh detail slider. There are several dozen options here, even allowing for auto-setting of consequent sliders when one chooses the highest levels. There is NO DEFINED LEVEL OF LOD IN FLIGHT SIM. Not in the sim, not in the SDK...

2: The obvious case that you seem to miss that an area that is of interest to a particular simmer might have a variety of competing addons for the simmers hard-earned. Mesh, ground texture replacements, autogen settings, or even modified or replacement autogen, two or even three representations of the airfield/airport and surrounding terrain. These are expressly designed to be separately selectable or de-selectable using the menu system. Are you seriously suggesting to undermine the simmers choice and dictate to us what combinations of addons are to be acceptable? A very slippery slope, no matter the mesh resolution... :rolleyes:

3: How the corresponding addons are installed, and in what sequence - And THAT is most definitely one of those `simmers individual responsibility` issues as controlling the mesh and addon installation order can affect to a massive degree what is seen `out the window`. Again to give but a single example - UTX. One must create ones own `sandwich` in the scenery menu to get the correct layering, depending on what other addons are installed eitehr at time of installation, or later.

4: Define `widespread`: Just because it's `widespread` doesn't mean I have it, or you. Are you trying to suggest that competing addons should be made compulsory in order to guarantee compatibility? Not happening. Not ever. Catering to the minority or catering to the majority is equally exclusive and divisive, the only difference is the number of people you p*** off... :angry:

5: Do you mean the basic or patched version of the scenery, mesh, terrain or textures? C'mon, you cannot seriously be suggesting that Aerosoft be held accountable for their scenery item, which worked perfectly well with Product X v1.0 not working with the revised v1.1. Not only is that laughable, it's also not even legal!

And that is why it is, and shall always remain the simmers informed choice that drives addon usage. And that's with equal emphasis on both `informed` and `choice`.

As every hardcore simmer knows - usually from frank and unhappy experience - you don't just throw all your addons at the sim and expect them to work, you have to TAKE CHARGE and make things suited to your own application.

The buck stops with you and me, not the developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

I too immediately thought about Simons comment of the amount of permutations there would be if there was a lot of scenery for an area.

You have different landclasses different meshes. Would take forever and a day to do and not only that you would be paying for the cost of developing something that you don't use.

It's even worse, if we promise compatibility for example on a box cover and the other party changes something we are royally screwed. You can more or less be assured all Aerosoft addons work together, we also test all with FSUIPC because that's such a vital bit of kit. There are also a a lot of projects, some even commercially and expensive that cover far more then what you see. Exclude files that are way bigger then should be, objects with 200 mile visibility that wreck framerates into the next country etc. It's hard enough for us to work around the bugs included by MS!

We do have some standards that help compatibility. We are VERY reluctant to overwrite standard files, even if our versions look way better as it could very well be somebody else uses the same files we would change their product, not nice. We also try to keep all naming very clear, so not airbus_light.fx but Aerosoft_AirbusX_light.fx. That way another developer who uses a less refined name will not mess up our aircraft. In the same way we try to keep all our files in their own folder and not to use default folders as \addon scenery, \gauges and \sound. It all helps to avoid one addon messing up another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, leaving aside the outside permutations, (although I really don't see how you could ever leave out these items, they are more important than anything going on inside the sim) consider these `internal` FS functions, NONE of which require the use or obligation to obey the SDK:

1: Mesh settings. Not addon mesh, just whatever slider settings one chooses to use and what level of meterage - just because the terrain is installed as 76m doesn't mean the slider can't be moved to 152m or 38m. Ditto the mesh detail slider. There are several dozen options here, even allowing for auto-setting of consequent sliders when one chooses the highest levels. There is NO DEFINED LEVEL OF LOD IN FLIGHT SIM. Not in the sim, not in the SDK...

As a starting point, with no other guidance, I would think that the base setting that came with the Sim would be the minimum compatibility level of most other meshes, unless specific guidance was given to the contrary. Aerosoft scenery for instance usually comes with a recommend level of settings for best performance, though most people will experiment to find the best sweet-spot for their own machines.....

2: The obvious case that you seem to miss that an area that is of interest to a particular simmer might have a variety of competing addons for the simmers hard-earned. Mesh, ground texture replacements, autogen settings, or even modified or replacement autogen, two or even three representations of the airfield/airport and surrounding terrain. These are expressly designed to be separately selectable or de-selectable using the menu system. Are you seriously suggesting to undermine the simmers choice and dictate to us what combinations of addons are to be acceptable? A very slippery slope, no matter the mesh resolution... :rolleyes:

No.... the market itself usually does an excellent job of weeding the wheat from the chaff. Word of mouth, past buying experience, customer support (some of it on the very issue raised here) all have a pretty Darwinian effect on who is in the "top ten" scenery or etc designers of choice, and which scenery's are in most common use. (even a simple poll could likely determine that with some accuracy) I would suspect that a list of such companies, which also have products in the same area with a possibility of conflict would be relatively compact.

3: How the corresponding addons are installed, and in what sequence - And THAT is most definitely one of those `simmers individual responsibility` issues as controlling the mesh and addon installation order can affect to a massive degree what is seen `out the window`. Again to give but a single example - UTX. One must create ones own `sandwich` in the scenery menu to get the correct layering, depending on what other addons are installed eitehr at time of installation, or later.

Actually, though it would definitely go on the list of "most popular" add-ons, I myself would have to regretfully exclude UTX due to its very unpredictability with other sceneries. I had another thread asking about Multiple FSX installations, specifically to address the issue of scenery's that might not particularly play nice together. In fact a recent Aerosoft scenery had to have an update to correct for duplicate buildings from UTX...........

4: Define `widespread`: Just because it's `widespread` doesn't mean I have it, or you. Are you trying to suggest that competing addons should be made compulsory in order to guarantee compatibility? Not happening. Not ever. Catering to the minority or catering to the majority is equally exclusive and divisive, the only difference is the number of people you p*** off... :angry:

Again, the market does that better than any individual ever could. As for catering, the market always caters to where the most people and money are, and I wouldn't expect that dynamic to change for the flight Sim community. If it did, then there would certainly be less threads regarding FS9 vs FSX development......:blush:

5: Do you mean the basic or patched version of the scenery, mesh, terrain or textures? C'mon, you cannot seriously be suggesting that Aerosoft be held accountable for their scenery item, which worked perfectly well with Product X v1.0 not working with the revised v1.1. Not only is that laughable, it's also not even legal!

Again, no. Taking the initial point to extremes has lead to that assumption. My original question about why scenery-sharing was not more common between developers to perhaps cut down on predictable incompatibilities remains outstanding, and a bit buried beneath some complexities that seem a tad.... unnecessary. The impression I am getting is that its simply not anything anyone wants to be responsible for, which is also fine, since that does answer my question, and perhaps also explains some things about the way the flight Sim market works that seemed puzzling.

Keep in mind, I am a relative (if enthusiastic) newbie to the FSX flight Sim market, though not to flight-Sims themselves, which I have used since childhood. Coming from the outside, there are numerous...... quirks to the way this market seems to work which seem to be accepted practice, but appear more than a little odd, especially in the way customer service/satisfaction is viewed and handled across the various companies, and very obviously on this particular issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least you understand why it isn't going to happen.

Now the bigger question as to why it is allowed to be like this is because, simply, developers are amateurs. ALL developers, not just aftermarket ones. MS ACES are the biggest set of amateurs of all for failing to define exact standards and creating an SDK which is nothing of the sort, it's merely a bunch of notes.

In the industry I work in, there are exacting qualitative standards not only for the products, but also for the nomenclature, bureaucratic support even how those products should be stored and shipped. OK, so it IS life and death, or at the very least commercially necessary, in my industry but this kind of model, this business structure, this de3velopment platform, has existed for decades in the software industry and is the very basis on which Windows and every other operating system is built on - common modules, commonality of approach, standardisation of interface.

And despite being part of the mighty Muckrosoft monolith, ACES failed to address any of these issues with successive editions of the simulation product, so are truly amatuerish in their approach.

Hopefully `Future Sim` might address these issues at the core level before history repeats itself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://simflight.com/2010/02/22/good-news-for-fsaddons-vancouver/#more-11268

I'm sure Mathijs won't mind an `offshore` reference here to show that although the idea is unworkable in the `big picture` there are certainly opportunities for developers to work together.

However, neither side mentions high quality mesh, GEX, UTX or other addons for the coverage area so this, I hope, gives some idea of the scale of the problem when no common standards exist - and the simmer has so much opportunity to choose, and choose wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://simflight.com...ver/#more-11268

I'm sure Mathijs won't mind an `offshore` reference here to show that although the idea is unworkable in the `big picture` there are certainly opportunities for developers to work together.

However, neither side mentions high quality mesh, GEX, UTX or other addons for the coverage area so this, I hope, gives some idea of the scale of the problem when no common standards exist - and the simmer has so much opportunity to choose, and choose wrong.

Its apparently a formal agreement, but I also see some designers now gravitating towards "Informal" associations, where you see cross-mentions of each others products on the various forums, and use of the others products to display their own favorably. My take on it was that such groupings of mutual interest are a natural phenomena that was probably beneficial overall (at least for customers) but was also a bit haphazard and sporadic, hence my original question.

I could probably link to 15 sites who have had multiple customer inquiries just within the last month about compatibility with one or another new scenery, with some people holding off on purchasing until an answer or fix was available. This also was a spur to my original question.

It seems that a organized solution might be desirable, but considering the situation, not likely. Which does not mean that natural associations will not continue to grow organically......... (just very slowly)

EDIT: Come to think of it, I will post a link of my own.. http://www.fsdreamte...hp?topic=2809.0

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Its apparently a formal agreement, but I also see some designers now gravitating towards "Informal" associations, where you see cross-mentions of each others products on the various forums, and use of the others products to display their own favorably. My take on it was that such groupings of mutual interest are a natural phenomena that was probably beneficial overall (at least for customers) but was also a bit haphazard and sporadic, hence my original question.

I could probably link to 15 sites who have had multiple customer inquiries just within the last month about compatibility with one or another new scenery, with some people holding off on purchasing until an answer or fix was available. This also was a spur to my original question.

It seems that a organized solution might be desirable, but considering the situation, not likely. Which does not mean that natural associations will not continue to grow organically......... (just very slowly)

EDIT: Come to think of it, I will post a link of my own.. http://www.fsdreamte...hp?topic=2809.0

And both of these products will most likely not end up in a boxed and extended release. Downloads are easy to update but believe me that the resellers of boxes hate it when the product is updated soon after they put it in store. Some (many of ours) updates are almost as large as original product and then the customer buys a box and needs to download the product. Both of the companies also are pretty small and then it is all a lot easier to handle. And in the end it is just an agreement to keep two products compatible, it does not include the myriad of other mesh, texture, road, water enhancements, it does not even cover other actual scenery that covers the same area. Welcome nevertheless but of limited value.

As you know we are very open about our plans and inform our competitors often even earlier. That helps a bit. You also got to understand that though a product like Mega Airport Amsterdam will do well with customers who already have other scenery of Holland, the average customer for that product will not. Compatibility with other addons is not an issue for those customers. Never think that the people who write here are average customers, our standard customer does not even know that we got this forum. He just buys a box in the shop he likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never think that the people who write here are average customers, our standard customer does not even know that we got this forum. He just buys a box in the shop he likes.

I must admit it surprises me that someone who consciously buys payware addons for MFS, which means (s)he cares more than an average gamer (who 'plays' MFS right out of the box), at the same time will not be interested in learning more about the area (s)he wants to enhance with the addon and/or search for flightsim forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And both of these products will most likely not end up in a boxed and extended release. Downloads are easy to update but believe me that the resellers of boxes hate it when the product is updated soon after they put it in store. Some (many of ours) updates are almost as large as original product and then the customer buys a box and needs to download the product. Both of the companies also are pretty small and then it is all a lot easier to handle. And in the end it is just an agreement to keep two products compatible, it does not include the myriad of other mesh, texture, road, water enhancements, it does not even cover other actual scenery that covers the same area. Welcome nevertheless but of limited value.

As you know we are very open about our plans and inform our competitors often even earlier. That helps a bit. You also got to understand that though a product like Mega Airport Amsterdam will do well with customers who already have other scenery of Holland, the average customer for that product will not. Compatibility with other addons is not an issue for those customers. Never think that the people who write here are average customers, our standard customer does not even know that we got this forum. He just buys a box in the shop he likes.

We are at the point where we are possibly whacking away at a dead horse, (poor horsee!:P) since it seems clear that the idea is considered unworkable in the "large picture"

I agree that there are roadblocks, while still suspecting that such deliberate cross-cooperation is likely to become increasingly common, if only because I can think of few natural market situations in which such associations of convenience do not proliferate, especially amongst those whose products naturally complement one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit it surprises me that someone who consciously buys payware addons for MFS, which means (s)he cares more than an average gamer (who 'plays' MFS right out of the box), at the same time will not be interested in learning more about the area (s)he wants to enhance with the addon and/or search for flightsim forums.

IIRC from a MS report back in the late-FS9 days, 95% of the FS customer base never install addons, modify the installation, or participate in any kind of forum or network communication. Default users are the vast majority.

Of that remaining 5%, most are `box customers` as Mathijs notes, leaving just 1% or so who are active participants in the sense of addon downloaders, installers and users, forum viewers and flight sim modifiers. Not including developers...

On that basis, ANY decisions or demands made in any and all forums are unlikely to ever represent a quorum, much less a majority opinion!

Given that small sample size, (and I don't see any reason for it to be anything but smaller with FSX, given the ACES departure, no further promotion and only basic support available now) it's a bloody marvel the industry exists at all, much less can agree on anything `common` or `universal`! :blush:

Mathijs obviously won't give us sales stats or commercial information, but the number of active FS users, when you consider `active` to be the likes of you and me, as well as `box` buyers, can be measured in just tens of thousands worldwide, not hundreds of thousands or millions. And that's before you consider the impact of piracy on marginal sales of niche-orientated products with generally-speaking, small market penetration probability.

:unsure:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at the point where we are possibly whacking away at a dead horse, (poor horsee!:P) since it seems clear that the idea is considered unworkable in the "large picture"

I agree that there are roadblocks, while still suspecting that such deliberate cross-cooperation is likely to become increasingly common, if only because I can think of few natural market situations in which such associations of convenience do not proliferate, especially amongst those whose products naturally complement one another.

From the same vantage point I think I see the opposite - but I accept it's the glass half empty argument - that given the proliferation of product that repeats the same old, same old all over again (how many 737's and 767's can an industry take goddammit!?) and the need to defray development costs in the current depressed market, that these `localised` agreements may continue, but will never become the norm.

After all, if you select one mesh provider as your airport `partner` and tailor your exclude to specifically suit their bumps and undulations you actually reduce the sales penetration for your own product, not increase it, among would-be customers who have purchased a.n.other mesh, for which the product is not optimised.

Far more likely, I suggest, is that the role of `combiner` will be devolved to the customer base, perhaps with some `behind the scenes` input from the developers to allow access to code. That way the developer maintains the `independent` stance, while at the same time avoiding the myriad of technical incompetents beating a path to their door when they can't even manage to layer the scenery .cfg properly or fail to realise that if the mesh is optimised but a higher detail is already installed, the sim will use the higher detail regardless unless it's switched off via the same .cfg... but simmers still see the benefits of collaboration.

And I don't think it's a dead horse discussion. It was a valid, if naive question. If you revert to your original concluding line:

A solution can't be that hard, can it?/quote]

you now see that it is... and as with all good topics, we've all learnt something!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, there is now a "Compatibility forum" at the Orbx website, that as far as I can tell is new.

Nice serendipity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time as they announce the release of Twin Oaks and Darrington Muni, wherein it expressly states:-

This is an Orbx FTX airport, and as such a copy of Orbx FTX NA BLUE Pacific Northwest must be installed prior to use.

So serendipitous? No. Commercial developer realising the limitation of their product and attempting to exploit it? Probably.

Simmer needing to do their own research before buying?

Definitively...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use