<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Backward compatibility</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx</link><description>I just finished reading a couple pretty extensive threads on AvSim on how important customers think backward compatibility (specifically to accomodate third-party add-ons) should be when designing the next version of Flight Sim. It's actually nice to</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Backward Compatibility In Flight Simulator</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx#458814</link><pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:13:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:458814</guid><dc:creator>Random Thoughts</dc:creator><description>Over on his blog, tdragger (a PM on the team) posts a great response to a thread on the AvSim forum regarding backward compatibility in Flight Simulator. So of course, I need to add my rather overpriced 2c. Although never...</description></item><item><title>re: Backward compatibility</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx#459493</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:03:08 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:459493</guid><dc:creator>OwenHewitt</dc:creator><description>Hi Mike,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Excellent points you bring up and make in the post above.  I agree that FS cannot be fairly compared to any RPG or FPS for many reasons. People often overlook the many, many calculations that are being performed to make the whole experience fluid.  Each gauge, though interconnected thru the game engine, must act independently. It's a highly complex environment, and I'm sure with further advances, it will become that more complex in the future &amp;lt;G&amp;gt;.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Regards,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Owen&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;******&lt;br&gt;Owen Hewitt&lt;br&gt;Dreamfleet  </description></item><item><title>re: Backward compatibility</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx#460004</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:36:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:460004</guid><dc:creator>Mike_T</dc:creator><description>Mike:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;FS:COF is the best version of MSFS to date.  As a self professed &amp;quot;hard core simmer&amp;quot; it is the solid core on which all my complex 3rd party add-ons are run.  As the saying goes: If the foundation is solid so is the house.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As such, I've invested a great deal in MSFS to get it to the point at which it exists today. Hi Fidelity 3rd party weather engine, highly complex airliners, realistic 3rd party airports and sceneries, etc. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;With that said, it is obvious that MS tries to keep compatibility as much as possible as you go across versions and that is great especially with a winner engine that is in FS:COF.  I'd like to see that trend continue.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;For me I'd like to see your team focus on taking the ATC, Weather, and flight dynamic modules to the next level...whatever that may be.  If there are optimizations to the current engine that can be effected that would be great too but at the end of the day, so far so good.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I would like to take this opportunity to THANK YOU and the rest of the FS TEAM for the MSFS francise. It has become an endearing part of my lifestyle and, I simply enjoy the hours I spend with it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Regards,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Mike T. &lt;br&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Backward compatibility</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx#482494</link><pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:52:36 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:482494</guid><dc:creator>lnuss</dc:creator><description>Thanks for addressing this subject. I knew the sim is complex, since it has to mimic the real world over large areas, and includes so very many things going on at once: aircraft, gauges, scenery going by, control surfaces moving, perspective, and so much more.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But you've brought up several things I'd not considered, such as the fact that so many games have a very limited area AND distance to portray. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Glad I discovered yyour blog. But I WOULD like to ask for one thing to be improved in the next version of FS: Multiplayer.  We used to have the tracking view, which was wonderful for a friend and I to put on airshows for each other (among other uses). And positioning error seems greater than it was in FS98, with other players' aircraft sliding into the ground or above it, or even sideways, even while sitting still for a while. Internet delays? Yes, this accounts for SOME of it, but far from all the problems I see. It makes formation flying much tougher than it should be, when the lead aircraft starts sliding around in ways the pilot doesn't generate.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;That being said, I still thoroughly enjoy the experience of flying wherever and whenever I want, replicating real world flying or doing things I'd not consider in the real world, such as flying for miles at treetop height (or lower), buzzing downtown office buildings, low level aerobatics almost anywhere, and much, much more.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks to you and your team for the many hours of enjoyment every month.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Larry N.&lt;br&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Backward compatibility</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/backward-compatibility.aspx#512977</link><pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:07:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:512977</guid><dc:creator>Dan Martin</dc:creator><description>Like I've posted at Avsim may people don't understand just how complex something like flight sim really is I can only guess at all the math for say just doing the weather I would guess a great gaggle of people spend a lot of time &amp;quot;playing&amp;quot; around with fluid dynamics I.E lots of calculus. And then to get the above into a form that the gammeing engine and then the rendering engine can work with must take a huge amount of time and effort I for one am greatfull that such a team can be put together to create something like FS and am looking forward to what you have up your collective sleeves.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;          Dan Martin</description></item></channel></rss>