CorePropdefs.pak - PROOF of AI, ATC, Flight Plans, and !

[corinoco 22]

So? Over the years I have spent several hundred dollars on FSX addons. Also on my car, cats, dinghy and several thousand on Lego.Earn money, spend it on something you enjoy! Some people buy cigars & fir coats; I fly planes in sims.If MS had ditched all these addons, why keep the files? Seriously - it costs money to host big files, leaving superfluous stuff is just burning money. Why did they add a new GUID for every single feature I mentioned? Why bother with GUIDs if not as placeholders for future code?Sure, they might not, but the capability for massive expansion is built into the core of Flight. How can that NOT be exciting?It is SO STRANGE that so many people are going to great lengths to nitpick and scorn; if you want FSX, stick with it. Stay with your 10fps sim while Flight gets better, and better and better..

You are getting too carried away.

So? It's called 'enjoying myself' and 'having FUN'!

This is way too detailed for flight simulator

Why? Have you seen the section on engines? Why the heck would a mere 'console game' model cylinder head temps individually? Why would the turbo waste gate rates be important to a mere game? Surely just throttle% would be enough for a 'game', right? Why bother with starter motor torque?

They stripped FSX down to its bones, and adding it all back slowly with proper and modern programming code to support modern hardware better and future proof the product.

Yes yes, a thousand times yes! Someone out there understands what a rebuild from the core up means.Sorry about the snarks, the Mopey Mob are getting to me tonight!

[g_precentralis 191]

So? Over the years I have spent several hundred dollars on FSX addons. Also on my car, cats, dinghy and several thousand on Lego.Earn money, spend it on something you enjoy! Some people buy cigars & fir coats; I fly planes in sims.If MS had ditched all these addons, why keep the files? Seriously - it costs money to host big files, leaving superfluous stuff is just burning money. Why did they add a new GUID for every single feature I mentioned? Why bother with GUIDs if not as placeholders for future code?Sure, they might not, but the capability for massive expansion is built into the core of Flight. How can that NOT be exciting?It is SO STRANGE that so many people are going to great lengths to nitpick and scorn; if you want FSX, stick with it. Stay with your 10fps sim while Flight gets better, and better and better.

Actually, its not exciting at all, capabilities are not exciting, features are.My car have capability for 300km/h but I can drive it only 160km/h... my car is not exciting at all. The present exhaust system and carburetor are only placeholders for new twinturbo and Axle-back exaust... Edited March 1, 2012 by g_precentralis

[Kinetic2080 5]

Ai Traffic DLC makes sence... but would people pay for DLC to add car/boat/pedestrians? (Only 1$ per pedestrian :lol: )-

[g_precentralis 191]

I guess we can expect something like this:AI airplanes DLC packAI routes DLC packAI boats DLC packAI MEGA DLC PACK with 30% discountAI liveries - 2$ per liveryATC towers DLC packATC approach DLC packATC new voices DLC packATC mega DLC pack 25% discountWeather presets - 2$ per presetRL weather 5$ per mounth Airport handling taxes - reasonable prices :LMAO:Lets stay tuned for few months and see what MS going to serve us.

[Attila 2]

You are losing sight of the stated direction for Flight. It's primary goal is to bring in new people who have no comparisons to make with previous versions of flight simulators, so everything they get is new for them. The goal is not to rebuild FSX, because simulator enthusiasts are not the target audience.There are a few features in Flight, a nod to the people in this forum, to dangle the carrot of possible future additions. The files you found are proof of nothing, except that they exist. It is logical to think that they are remnants of the FS11 conversion and nothing more.Also, if the missing features are ever added back in, it will not be because of all the people who adore Flight in its current form. It will be because of the people who are leaving this forum in droves, driven off as unwanted elitists, entitled dinosaurs who are not moving with the times.With their voices silenced, MS will eventually remove all remnants of FS11 and all traces of what Flight could have been will cease to exist.

[Kinetic2080 5]

I guess we can expect something like this:AI airplanes DLC packAI routes DLC packAI boats DLC packAI MEGA DLC PACK with 30% discountAI liveries - 2$ per liveryATC towers DLC packATC approach DLC packATC new voices DLC packATC mega DLC pack 25% discountWeather presets - 2$ per presetRL weather 5$ per mounthAirport handling taxes - reasonable prices :LMAO:Lets stay tuned for few months and see what MS going to serve us.

Maybe I would consider buying a AI Birds DLC, if it added challenge (birds in the engine) at take off ^_^-

[MrSpeaker 122]

Stay with your 10fps sim while Flight gets better, and better and better..

The only reason your flight runs so well is because there is nothing to it, its just one small contained level, with a simple aircraft. If MS starts adding in features like what we see with FSX you will be flying a 10 fps sim again if you have a rig that can only push fsx to 10fps right now.

[Paavo 2]

Sure, they might not, but the capability for massive expansion is built into the core of Flight. How can that NOT be exciting?

Every version of the MSFS has had traces of stunning capabilities never fully implemented. FSX autogen was envisioned as an extremely complex system of different definitions, all coming together to form a building or a bridge (look up "procedural scenery"). Unfortunately, in case of autogen buildings, ACES managed to implement definitions for roofs only, and what we really got were the old FS2002-style four-corner boxes as buildings, with the only innovation being the ability to choose roof type from tens of different classifications, many of them being dependent on cultural region. Pretty useless.To return to MS Flight - what you are seeing is nothing more than a collection of XML files describing abstract data structures. I haven't even seen any proof of them having been implemented. And mind you, drafting these structures takes half an hour, and is the easiest part.

Why? Have you seen the section on engines? Why the heck would a mere 'console game' model cylinder head temps individually? Why would the turbo waste gate rates be important to a mere game? Surely just throttle% would be enough for a 'game', right? Why bother with starter motor torque?

We haven't seen FS11 and thus it is impossible to tell if these features are leftovers from FS11 waiting to be deleted or new features waiting to be implemented.With regards to trains, just take a look at FSX road traffic. It had to be extremely dumbed down (cars don't even turn smoothly on intersections, but make instant 90-degree turns) to limit hit on FPS. MS Flight files have definitions for advanced tracks and complex behaviour. Unless trains become vehicles themselves, such complexity is a clear overkill with very severe FPS penalty. Having a bit of background in Train Sim, this looks like a further development of what Train Sim used to have, not something belonging to a flight simulator. You simply don't need different types of horning behaviour on trains in a flight simulator. Edited March 1, 2012 by Paavo

[bonchie 2,305]

All you are seeing is old hints at "what might of been" had Microsoft not completely changed the direction of FS and fired ACES. This is their old development, made clear by the fact that their name is in it. FS11 was going to be really exciting.If anything, these revelations are depressing, not exciting. All you need to do is go read the latest interview with the head developer to see FLIGHT's direction isn't even close to using what's in these old leftover XML files.

Edited March 1, 2012 by bonchie

[nudata 10]

Another set proclamations of fact. At least "something" is under the covers to offer a glimmer of hope. How it is interpreted depends upon the maturity of the person and their bitterness toward Microsoft. Unable to wait to see what develops we continue to see posts claiming fact from interpretation. After being very bitter that another arcade game was being produced, i hope - MAYBE that is not the case?????In the meantime I am going to take a real hard look at Flight and keep my fingers crossed.

[HiFlyer 9,374]

The only reason your flight runs so well is because there is nothing to it, its just one small contained level, with a simple aircraft. If MS starts adding in features like what we see with FSX you will be flying a 10 fps sim again if you have a rig that can only push fsx to 10fps right now.

I am not sure how that follows. Even a cursory glance at CPU/GPU loads shows the flight engine as being much more efficient in its use of modern hardware, and much less CPU bound. The FSX/FLIGHT engines are demonstrably enough different even at this point that blanket statements like that would do much better backed by some actual numbers.

[Attila 2]

I am not sure how that follows. Even a cursory glance at CPU/GPU loads shows the flight engine as being much more efficient in its use of modern hardware, and much less CPU bound. The FSX/FLIGHT engines are demonstrably enough different even at this point that blanket statements like that would do much better backed by some actual numbers.

Flight makes better use of GPUs, but it also maxes lower powered devices rather easily, because of the added ground detail. So, if you were to load AI textures, models and add some cpu-bound features like real-time weather, AI traffic and ATC, most systems would be taxed and fps would drop to 30, just like it does with FSX. It remains to be seen if the missing features will ever be available and what cpu/gpu hit will be the result.

[rtodepart 761]

I too will continue to use Flight and also keep my fingers crossed in a positive way . it looks like no matter what is there to prove for more of a simulator in the future some folks just dont want Flight to get anywere and keep trying to make it look as bad as possible . In my case since i flight for a living my views of a home simulator may be diferent who knows . If i could ill have CAE come over to my house and set up the rest of my flight deck solutions set up but thats alot of cash . By the way go to CAE.com if you are not familiar with who they are....

[Barnstormer1 0]

Obviously, many things changed from the beginning of Flight development. From what what was going to be to what is or what is going to be. Not sure I would read too much into those pak/cfg files.

[HiFlyer 9,374]

Flight makes better use of GPUs, but it also maxes lower powered devices rather easily, because of the added ground detail. So, if you were to load AI textures, models and add some cpu-bound features like real-time weather, AI traffic and ATC, most systems would be taxed and fps would drop to 30, just like it does with FSX. It remains to be seen if the missing features will ever be available and what cpu/gpu hit will be the result.

Which is why numbers would be better. I have no idea, for instance how much of the load could or is now being handled on the GPU, though we do already know that unlike FSX, FLIGHT! happily supports multiple GPU's.Beyond that, we have no firm idea (well, at least I don't) how heavily multiple CPU's are being supported and in what way, so again expecting direct correlations with how FSX handles such things may be premature.At this point I will just wait for the Guru's to arrive with their Guru meditations. :Nerd: Edited March 1, 2012 by HiFlyer'