Freigeben über

FSX Content Taxonomy

  • Artikel

Goal:

Let’s create some definitions for FSX content, so users and third-party developers (3PDs) alike can understand the landscape when discussing if/how content works in SP2.

First, a disclaimer:

I am not sure my say-so solely defines what is and isn’t so, I am simply trying to develop a common taxonomy albeit one that makes logical sense. I do not speak for MS business development, legal, or marketing here as I am only a dev team member.

However, lacking any true authority I will present some definitions and let the community judge if they are useful.

Issue:

What is “FSX content”?

More explicitly:

a)how does a 3PD know what to use to develop content and how to label it?

b)how does a consumer understand what to expect?

Solution:

I propose there exist three “buckets” of content and labeling should take this into account:

1. FSX-native

2. FSX-compatible

3. FSX-incompatible

1) FSX-native

If a product is built using the FSX-SDK it is "native" by definition.

There is a natural good, better, best hierarchy here wrt versions of the SDK, with a cherry on top:

Best:

Using the FSX-SP2 SDK is obviously best, as it gets you DX10 features and is the most up to date release. And this should be the preferred approach.

Better:

Using the FSX-SP1 SDK is obviously better, as it incorporates fixes to the tools since RTM like the fix for the double vertices in XtoMDL.

Good:

Using the FSX-RTM SDK is good, but I would hope that 3PDs would prefer the better solution at least. I say that because the lifetime of the RTM SDK was on the order of 7 months and the SP1 SDK has been out 12 now.

Cherry on top:

The cherry on top is using the Acceleration SDK to get the advanced Acceleration features (carrier oriented, helicopter oriented, race oriented) when running on Acceleration.

DX9 versus DX10

Content should be labeled as "supports DX9 only" if it does not support DX10.

2) FSX-compatible

If it isn’t rebuilt using the FSX SDK it cannot be "native" and can only be "compatible". By “compatible” I mean with the latest revision of the platform, SP2.

Basically, this is anything that works in SP2 that isn’t authored with a flavor of the FSX SDK

With that said, labeling previous generation product that renders correctly in SP2 as "FSX compatible" seems fair to me.

3) FSX-incompatible

This is anything that renders incorrectly in SP2

Summary:

This should not look surprising, and I hope it turns out to be useful to both end-user customers and 3DPs.

Note this blog post is based on a similar discussion on avsim.com and has been adjusted based on feedback on that thread.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    May 07, 2008
    PingBack from http://www.travel-hilarity.com/travel-airline-tickets/?p=1161

  • Anonymous
    May 10, 2008
    Well, in addition to having compatibility issues between the addons and FSX, FSX itself appears to have it's own compatibility issues with windows. I am finding that FSX is not fully compatible with Vista 64 bit. Having recently installed FSX onto a Vista 64 bit home premium I note that the specular textures no longer appear to show - in "normal" or DX10 preview modes. Or is it a DX10 thing? Anyone else have this?

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008
    Phil I have published a table on the SIMFLIGHT Forums under FSX taxonomy can I get your input to make sure that the table is correct?  I can send you a copy in Word if you let me have an email address. Thanks PeterH

  • Anonymous
    May 13, 2008
    Peter, use the weblog mail function and I will reply to that one, you have a good start!