Backward Compatibility In Flight Simulator
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 a box feature, it has always been important to us on the team to maintain backwards compatibility going two versions back for scenery, aircraft, AI, terrain - basically any content that the end-user can add onto the product. Sometimes a few things will break, but that break results from well thought out trade-offs.
Most of those add-ons are graphics related (scenery models, placements, aircraft models, etc...) but some are other forms of data like flight models. I'm going to talk about the graphics stuff here.
A lot of the conversation on AvSim seems to imply that we are trading-off increasing the visual fidelity of the product for supporting some old models. Nothing could be further from the truth. The engine is architected such that the core rendering engine is abstracted and the 3D model and database system access it by well defined internal APIs. When we revise the graphics engine we do so without breaking the fundamental way that the object system (and any other client such as weather) accesses it. What we may do however, is provide new features in the graphics engine that can only be fully taken advantage of by newer models that specify new parameters such as bump maps, skinning information, specular maps, etc... There's a whole bunch more visual juice than that - you'll just have to wait to find out what...
Of course, newer models can take advantage of that, but what about old content? Content that might not map well to the newer system? Well, it goes through a translation. Sometimes that translation is static, sometimes it happens on the fly.
Other issues that are interesting to deal with are those old forms of content that effectively say "Here's a triangle, ohh, here's another one. Here's a new texture. Errr, go look at the airspeed. Here's another triangle." Modern graphics systems really like "Here's 5000 triangles and a full definition of the material, go and be excellent". Of course, this is the current architecture.
Other issues to do with backward compatibility include visual consistency. If everything in the world is now bump mapped, specular mapped, squishing and swirly and making cups of tea at the drop of a hat, the old content is going to stick out like a sore thumb if rendered naively. So we do things to alleviate those issues.
So, in conclusion, it's not a matter of old content giving us a backward compatibility boat anchor around our ankles. It's a matter of us thinking though carefully how to push old content though a new pipe.
Now, for the other issue.
I've lost count of the amount of times that I've read on forums "Why can't Flight Sim look like my <insert FPS de jour here>?" I wish we could, and we're striving to make the visual fidelity of the product on a par (or better) with the best graphics engines out there.
But you have to recognize our constraints. Flight Simulator allows you to be anywhere on the planet, at any time of day, in any day of the year, at any altitude (or attitude for that matter). Most other games have your eyes approximately six feet off the ground at a fixed time of day in a well constrained location. Everything is prelit and stage-crafted for that visceral experience.
I'm not trying to make excuses here, but you can't compare apples to pot roast.
And if you'd like to help out, I'm hiring.
2 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Backward Compatibility In Flight Simulator.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.steve-lacey.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-bar.cgi/539
There's a thread over at Avsim.com with some interesting points about what people expect between releases... Read More
So last weekend I had my rear in gear and ripped a couple of CD's (music all legally purchased)... Read More



Hello,
I agree on the FPS point.
One thing that I note is that they have great skies, well sky boxes, that most often represent a couple of ambiances like day and night, maybe sunset, with no transition.
If you look at the sky today, it looks way different from what it looked like yesterday at the same time. There's so much different aspects of the sky, I wonder if one will ever be able to simulate it fully one day :)
Posted my résumé on careers website btw, don't hope much, but who knows ;-)
Happy Landings and keep up the great work !
Matt
Hi Steve,
Between you and Mike G. you two gents are setting a wonderful new precedent. You are actually letting us see something we once thought was impossible. I hope in the future you guys continue to let us have a glimpse into the wonderful world of FS development at MS. It is refreshing and truely exciting to hear from you and Mike. All the best to the entire FS team!
Cheers,
Jason
Hi Steve
From past corrospondence between us I know how much you do for our hobby.
Thanx for u're commitment
Cheers
Jaco Smit
I would hope that the default aircraft textures and virtual cockpits are looked at. 3rd party add-ons appear to have an edge over MS in this department. We all eagerly await the next release.
Is it possible that you guys could make a COMBAT add-on for the FS series? We are really missing it bad...
Thanks
We have been having a discussion about this in the FSX forum at SOH and appreciate the explaination. The community is awaiting any news about FSX and looking forward to the release later this year.
Thanks for sharing with us!
Canelo_Kid
http://www.sim-outhouse.com
I am extremely excited to see that the visual environment seems to have undergone a much-needed overhaul in Flight Simulator.
I cannot wait to install it on my computer, but I do stress that from the looks of it, the virtual cockpit of the default Bell JetRanger looks like it is the same one from Flight Simulator '04. Please, if you could, update it. It is grossly inaccurate in terms of the chin bubbles and instrument panel's overall shape.
Oh, and for us who like to make water landings in helicopters, please include a default Bell JetRanger package with floats! It is an oft-missed feature. Same goes for the standard, how about a wire-strike kit?
Anywho.. I digress. You guys keep breaking the mold otherwise. Keep up the good work!
nice :)
;))