Chance to tell Dovetail Games what you want from new SDK.

[Gman]

Maybe DTG are not prepared to be hampered by the way things have been done before, given that FSX kind of died, and Flight failed spectacularly.

Huh?
No argument that thanks to Microsoft's mismanagement, Flight! failed spectacularly, but I find it hard to agree that "FSX kind of died".

FSX may have been kicked to the curb along with ACES by Microsoft, but not only has it been rolling along ever since gaining new (and old) users, it has been resurrected and enhanced by Dovetail. I have a piece of crap computer and due to whatever they've done, FSX-SE runs pretty darned well.

In fact, as of March 2015 PCPilot reported that since launch in December 2014, Dovetail had sold over 200,000 copies of FSX-SE, that was over a year ago and FSX is now nearing the start of its second decade. When one considers how many folks are still flying and developing for FS9, I would imagine there is still a lot of tread on the tires of FSX.

If Dovetail Games has the resources to come out with two in-house followups to FSX-SE, I doubt it is because of any failure to achieve their goals with FSX-SE. It just needs to be kept in mind that FSX-SE was a turnkey operation, which just needed a new marketing strategy and a few peaks and tweaks based on the differences between current computers and the computers back in 2006. Beyond that, the developer base and tools for FSX-SE were already well established.

This time, they will have to stand on their own two feet and take baby steps. In other words, they can find many do's in the FSX business model (read traditional 3PD support), and many don'ts in Microsoft Flight business model (suicidal corporate greed cutting out the 3PD).

Just sayin'.
Gman

 

[toprob]

In fact, as of March 2015 PCPilot reported that since launch in December 2014, Dovetail had sold over 200,000 copies of FSX-SE,

...which they did by stepping outside the existing fightsim community and going to Steam. From comments on the flightsim forums, many sim users were as aware of Steam back then as they are of Reddit today I totally agree with all your points, but I still maintain that a simulator is a difficult thing to sell, FSX might have been killed by Microsoft, but it still makes it kind of dead. Yes, there are 'plenty' of FS9 fans, but our concept of 'plenty' is a game creator's concept of 'insignificant.'
If DTG want to do really well, then they need to do a lot better than the existing fsx-based sim market. They need to get gamers. I think that a lot of people here (including me) would cringe at the gamer label.
The fact that Lockheed Martin have a reason to develop Prepar3d outside making money from selling it to enthusiasts, means that it's a better bet for longevity, but it also means that the direction they take might not be the one we -- people who sit at home in a dark room, not playing a game -- really want or can benefit from.

 

[HiFlyer]

All of which is why I thought it was 50/50 Whether DTG would show up here.

Though now that people are explicitly asking, the chances are higher.

 

[Gman]

...which they did by stepping outside the existing fightsim community and going to Steam. From comments on the flightsim forums, many sim users were as aware of Steam back then as they are of Reddit today

Just as DTG made a few significant changes to FSX-SE to take advantage of modern computers, they also took advantage of modern Internet download speeds, which would have been tough back in 2006. Another thread which has been banging around here at FSDeveloper recently talks about a new flight simulator (Aerofly 2) which is marketed at Steam via downloads, and I have lost track of how many gigabytes it is up to now, but the initial download was 31 gigabytes, so downloading from Steam is not necessarily a "flightsim community" standard issue. Remember, DVD's were an innovation back in 2006 and were not the norm for the "flightsim community" which had previously used CD's. Steam is a marketing innovation since it is able to advertise new products to its members, but its main innovation is in the distribution of large software downloads.

While I have no clue what Reddit is about, I am about as far from being a "Gamer" as one can be, but long before DTG came out with FSX-SE, I had several titles of Half-Life and Portal at Steam, given to me by my son, and I would not consider him a "gamer" per se either.

Glad you mentioned P3D, which also proves that FSX never died, like FSX-SE, it was simply updated and renamed. I have a feeling that FSX and it's variants will be around for a long time.

Cheers
Gman

 

[katina12]

I'd like to see some real information about how the whole "user generated content" thing is actually going to work. Over at Avsim that has been asked and there has been no real response. The words in the EULA gave me much concern as it sounds like anything you make can be used by DTG in any way the want. Your work becomes their intellectual property. I'd be happy to offer what I'd like to see in an SDK, but at the same time if it turns out I'll never use it what's the point?

dtg eula is quite strict regarding User generated content:

9.2 If you create UGC or make UGC available to other users (even if the UGC you make available was not created by you) then you agree (and shall be responsible to ensure that any other creator or owner of that UGC agrees) that: (a) any part of the UGC which comprises or incorporates any of our Intellectual Property Rights (such as our lakes or equipment) remains our property; (b) we have an irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, payment free right to take any actions we consider appropriate (including without limitation to copy, reproduce, market, advertise, modify, adapt, merge, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or create derivative works based on the whole or any part of the UGC), and all consents (if any) required under intellectual property, data protection and privacy laws worldwide, for that use, in respect of any UGC which includes portions of our Intellectual Property Rights;


the UGC must be designed and used for personal entertainment and not for any business purpose or for any commercial purpose such as, but not limited to, training, marketing or advertising;

 

[hairyspin]

Am I alone in thinking if DTG get hardly any answers to the SDK question, they'll assume there's no real interest? Give 'em some thoughts to chew on and we'll see how the licensing/rights/IP/EULA/cease-and-desist/resistance-is-useless matters pan out. Answering Martin's post isn't going to irreversibly handcuff your future immediately!

At this moment he's had 29 replies to his poll. Sheesh...

 

[=rk=]

I think Dick's suggestion to take the questions to the Avsim forum was so's we woodn't be spinnink our wheelz here, so to speak - a few more pages and Martin won't have anything to add.

I will observe that in regards to this situation and the eula, the whole thing boils down to content. It strongly reminds me of when Google retired Building Maker. It happened just when I was getting into scenery design and for maybe a year, I was able to open software that formed and photo textured 3d buildings right out of Google Earth and then those could be submitted for inclusion in Google Earth 3d layer. It was fantastic and inspiring and I went around populating the virtual planet thinking I may never accomplish anything in real life, but at least my son can see the structures I recorded - not. Apparently the "free" rendering required far too much administration so Google went to a 3d algorithm. It took them 4 years to replace all my carefully made buildings at the Salem Airport, my avatar being representative of my proudest example - yes it's a humble building but it was a big step for me.

The way I see it, Martin faces the same dilemma and I wouldn't envy him. He has direct statistics from FSXSE about what people use and how much value is added to their products after the initial sale. I think he would like to offer a simulator that does not need enhancement, I think I would. We are in the minority opinion here. We are saying, "yes, it's too big a job, let us interpret much of the world and machinery for you, you work on the physics, the SDK and selling the thing and we promise that we will get along well with each other and you, so your job will actually be easier." It seems like we might want to sweeten the offer.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Martin is going to have a tough job here. I think he's well out of his element regarding 3rd party design. It's easy to meet your job objective by saying "Would tell me what you want in an SDK?". But the question is absurd. To really find out what's needed, you need to study the development processes and make a rational decision. He doesn't have the time for that. We have thousands of posts here, and how could he possibly read and make sense of them?

But if he does come here, we can, perhaps, take what was available in the FSX SDK, and relate to him what changes or additions are needed. To me, it's seems were going to get a 64-bit FSX, so the old SDKs can be a basis for discussion. (He should clarify that). Note, he's not asking what features we'd like, but what SDK info and format and tools we's like.

 

[GaryGB]

It strongly reminds me of when Google retired Building Maker. It happened just when I was getting into scenery design and for maybe a year, I was able to open software that formed and photo textured 3d buildings right out of Google Earth and then those could be submitted for inclusion in Google Earth 3d layer. It was fantastic and inspiring and I went around populating the virtual planet thinking I may never accomplish anything in real life, but at least my son can see the structures I recorded - not. Apparently the "free" rendering required far too much administration so Google went to a 3d algorithm. It took them 4 years to replace all my carefully made buildings at the Salem Airport, my avatar being representative of my proudest example - yes it's a humble building but it was a big step for me
.

Just a brief digression to clarify that one can still see original custom 3D models in Google Earth (aka "GE"):

GE Menu > Tools > Options... {3D View tab} > [Terrain sub-section] > un-check "Use 3D Imagery (un-check to use legacy 3D buildings)"


Yep, they look better than the LiDAR / IFSAR-derived 3D buildings !

GaryGB

 

[Diverskii]

Great to see this sparked a lively discussion. I was worried people would not be interested.

The main reason I posted was so that you guys, the developers, get an input. The /r/FlightSim subreddit mainly consists of screenshots. I love it for that, but I feared the users of reddit would not be the developers like we have here.

So, hopefully DTG will come here and speak to us (that was my ultimate aim). If not, then we'll have to go to reddit/avsim.

 

[Paul Domingue]

dtg eula is quite strict regarding User generated content:

Just got caught up with this thread and my ears have perked up. I do not have any Dovetail games at this time so a few questions.
Is the quoted section of the EULA from a general one encompassing all their games or a specific one?
If specific to FSX SE would someone be so kind as to post a link so I may read it in its entirety?
Thank you

 

[N2056]

That looks like the chunk I read in one of the Flight School threads. From what I have read around the net that is a standard DTG policy.

 

[katina12]

Just got caught up with this thread and my ears have perked up. I do not have any Dovetail games at this time so a few questions.
Is the quoted section of the EULA from a general one encompassing all their games or a specific one?
If specific to FSX SE would someone be so kind as to post a link so I may read it in its entirety?
Thank you

TS2015 and Flightschool Eula:

http://www.dovetailgames.com/site/fromassets/100_5127_190516100613.pdf

http://95.131.68.27/support-assets/cd14752be27536c3318915218b4576dd/EULA TS2015.pdf

 

[DTG Martin]

At AVSIM, I asked Martin (of Dovetail Games) to visit us here. It would make more sense to ask SDK inquiries here.

And here I am rhumbaflappy! You didn't think that we would talk about an SDK and not post here did you? Come have your say. I have created a thread here -

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/th...-flight-simulator-official-discussion.437797/

- Martin

 

[vololiberista]

Yes, there are 'plenty' of FS9 fans, but our concept of 'plenty' is a game creator's concept of 'insignificant.'

"Insignificant!" huh? lol. At least my involvement with the aviation industry is not. And, I might add avsim will by the end of August at the latest be graced with two 350mb part a and b downloads for a new VC10 panel in FS9.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

OK everybody. DTG Martin is here to listen to our SDK needs for Flight Simulator. Welcome Martin!

I pinned the SDK thread to the top of the forum for better access. This is the opportunity for all to ask for information and tools in the SDK.