From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: FS wish list
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:26:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.123341.23047@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>In article <18598@mindlink.bc.ca> Andrew_Tuline@mindlink.bc.ca (Andrew Tuline) writes:
>>I've heard surprisingly little talk about the rumours of FS upgrades
>>for the coming year.  
>
>I really think we're burned out.  Knick-nacks are nice, but what we really
>want is a new simulator, especially with so much other neat stuff coming out,
>and surpassing MS FS in many ways..

Agreed.

>Aaaah, so you want to open up the architecture for *PC* users, eh?  I'd
>like to see a device-independent architecture, which will allow full in-
>terchange of all files among all supported platforms, and this utterly
>myopic concentration on the PC platform and, indeed, on specific "packages."
>
>And let's get rid of these ridiculous DOS suffixes, while we're at it,
>and describe the files for what they are.

I think what we are looking at here is a totally new generation of flight
simulation software.  The next step appears to be a *user-defineable*
package, where the pilot can choose specific configurations of both the
flight environment and perhaps even the flight model.  Imagine being able
to change your instrument panel by drawing your own gages or rearranging the 
layout, or even selecting from a variety of flight equations, each one more
complex than the previous, allowing users to choose the level of realism they
wish to use at the expense of frame rate or graphics capabilities.
   Perhaps a modular system would be best, where a basic package would
come with the simulator, and then add-ons similar to the PC packages
could be purchased for expansion of the system.  Of course, it would be
be nice to see these developed for the Mac, too....something which BAO
has either been reluctant in or incapable of doing.
   Also, a Flight Simulator Development Kit which would allow the creation of
application files.  You could create your own weather generator or modify
the routines for dynamic scenery.  THis would require serious programming
knowledge, but for those with the skills, the sky would be the limit.
   Realistically, however, there are several problems with such a program.
Releasing a development kit would create competition for the already-existing
BAO/Mallard product, and like most development kits or language compilers,
it would probably carry a high price-tag.  It might not be in the best interest
of MS or BAO to release such a product.
   A modular design would be great, but it would be possible to end up in a
situation where too many features are stripped from the main simulator, then
the modules sold at exorbant prices.  Imagine, ffor example, having to pay
$30 for a weather generator, dynamic scenery base, scenery designer, sound
upgrade, ATC, etc...  Note that this is somewhat of a problem already, and
a more flexible/modular architecture could inflame this.  It's a great idea
from a marketing point of view:  you keep the base price of the simulator
really low so a lot of people buy it, then you reel them in with flashy
extras and zonk them on the price.
   But, a package like this would still have plenty of merits, and it would
be something I'd purchase if it were available.  The technical details of
creating it would be trivial...all you need is a bunch of overlay programs
to connect with the main module, and you have a dynamic piece of software.



-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h