Microsoft Phasing Out ESP Simulation Platform? 101
Ian Lamont writes "Overlooked in last month's news about Microsoft laying off the entire Flight Simulator dev team is the news that Microsoft's ESP development team has been gutted as well, and the future of the platform is in doubt. ESP is oriented toward industrial use, and lets companies build 3D simulations for flight and other applications. Late last year Microsoft announced big plans to expand ESP to other verticals, such as real estate, city planning, and law enforcement. That looks increasingly unlikely. Even though Microsoft declined to comment on ESP's future, companies which invested in the product are angry, judging by some of the comments on an MSDN thread. As noted by one user, 'my company used it for a solution and invested time and money into getting it approved and purchased. Microsoft sure handed us a raw deal for taking a gamble on their platform.'"
ESP (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably saw the closure before it happened and all left, forcing MS to close the department.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ESP means End Software Patents and is run by the FSF. Microsoft decided not to participate in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sex...
VB6 (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft sure handed us a raw deal for taking a gamble on their platform.
It is as if I hear a million VB6 developers screaming all at once...
Re:VB6 (Score:4, Insightful)
MFC, OCX/ActiveX/COM/DCOM, ATL, VisualJ, FoxPro, ...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
.Net, Silverlight, .... all will pass.
Re: (Score:1)
In contrast with Free Software, which will stay for as long as one wants (and has the ability or money to maintain it, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay MS enough, I'm sure they will continue the project.
Re: (Score:1)
True (perhaps... they may decide to just shut it down, regardless of money). But if you only have the ability, you're screwed.
Re:VB6 (Score:4, Funny)
This reminds me of this classic [hornlo.org] by Ron Burk:
First, there was the Windows API and DLL Hell. Revolution # 1 was DDE remember how hot links let us create status bars showing the current price of Microsoft stock? About that time, Microsoft created the VERSIONINFO resource, which eliminated DLL Hell.
But another group within Microsoft discovered a fatal flaw in DDE: they didnt write it! To solve that problem, they created OLE (which was like DDE, only different), and I fondly remember a Microsoft conference speaker proclaiming that the Windows API would soon be rewritten as an OLE API, and every control on the screen would be an OCX. OLE introduced interfaces, which eliminated DLL Hell. Remember in situ fever, and how we dreamed of the day that our applications would all be embedded in a (apparently very large) Word document? Somewhere in there, Microsoft got the C++ religion and MFC emerged and solved all our problems again, but with inheritance. Well, OLE wasnt going to take that sitting down, so it re-emerged as COM, and suddenly we realized what OLE (or was it DDE?) was really meant to be all along and it even included an elaborate component version system that eliminated DLL Hell.
Meanwhile, a renegade group within Microsoft discovered a fatal flaw in MFC: they didnt write it! They forthwith corrected that problem by creating ATL, which is like MFC, only different, and tried to hide all those fascinating details that the COM group was trying so hard to teach us. This stimulated the COM group (or was it OLE?) to rename themselves ActiveX and issue hundreds of pounds of new interfaces (even new versioning interfaces, which eliminated DLL Hell), along with the ability to make all our code downloadable via web browsers, complete with user-selectable viruses (ha try to keep up with that, you ATL weenies!). Like a neglected middle child, the operating systems group cried out for attention by telling us all to get ready for Cairo, some weird crud that they could never really explain, let alone ship. To their credit, however, the operating system group did introduce the concept of System File Protection, which eliminated DLL Hell.
Meanwhile, another group inside Microsoft discovered a fatal flaw in Java: they didnt write it! That was remedied by creating J, or Jole, or ActiveJ (honestly, I cant remember the name), which was like Java, only different. That was very exciting, but Sun sued Microsoft under some archaic law that limits the amount of crapulence any one company can ship in a year. This was clearly an attempt to stifle Microsofts freedom to create products that are like other products, only different, and resulted in the creation of The Microsoft Freedom to Stuff Money in the Trousers of Congressmen Network (newsletter and $14.75 T-shirts available). Remember the J/Jole/ActiveJ program manager pounding his shoe on the table and insisting that Microsoft would never abandon his product? Silly wabbit! All this could mean only one thing too little attention for the ActiveX (or was it COM?) group. This incredibly resilient herd of API gushers came back strong with COM+ (shouldnt that have been ActiveX+?), and MTS. (I have no idea why theres no COM or Active or X or + in MTS they totally shocked me with that one!) They also threatened to add yet another + onto all their buzzwords in the very near future.
Around that time, someone was yelling about Windows DNA and the Windows Washboard for a while, but that died out before I ever figured out what it was. At this point, Microsoft had been watching the Internet for several years with growing unease. Recently, they came to the realization that there was a fatal flaw in the Internet: well, you probably know what it was. And that brings us up to date with .NET (pronounced like doughnut, only different), which is like the Internet, only with more press releases. Lets be very, very clear about one thing: .NET will eliminate DLL Hell.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure you realize that even lowly MFC is still being advanced in VS2008 and VS2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Popularity != Quality.
epic fail.
Re: (Score:1)
> Anything you've actually done comparable to designing something as complicated as an operating system?
Yup
> AND breaking complicated software encryption for the past 20 years by using a disassembler and some brains.
Been there, done that. Still do it for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why the layoffs?
I really think that many companies are taking advantage of the economy and using it as an excuse to lay off employees without having to take any blame or responsibility.
I am not singling Microsoft out, either. I have seen many companies making great profits laying off (or right-sizing) people and pointing to the economy.
We can't be missing much... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're far wrong...
Just in the summary: "platform" (twice), "oriented toward industrial use", "expand ESP to other verticals", "my company used it for a solution". I didn't even get into the articles because I lost interest.
All management-speak, as far as I'm concerned, and I've never heard of the thing, and it's in a highly-specialist area. I don't think I could really care less, unless it were made by Microsoft... oh... whooops.
(Is it just me, or is making a "solution" a negative thing as
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even have a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_ESP [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You could check their official website though. It's not as if Wikipedia contains everything.
http://www.microsoft.com/esp/ [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it does [wikipedia.org].
Re:We can't be missing much... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be amazed by how much industry-specific software is out there. This kind of software has 25 customers, with 100 users each, and each of them pay $1-2M for the licenses. It is the polar opposite of Microsoft Office. And therein lies the problem...
Like any industry we use a ton of this stuff at work. I've always found that you're better off finding a successful vendor that specializes in this kind of work than buying something like this from a big software house. When you go with the specialized vendor the product probably makes up 30-100% of their revenue. With the major software house the product makes up 0.001% of their revenue and their main focus is on stuff that comes in boxes on the shelf of Best Buy or wherever. Usually this kind of stuff starts out in small companies and gets bought out by a big company. They invest minimally (nothing truly innovative - mainly support for database/OS upgrades), and milk the maintenance contracts. Eventually everybody abandons them and they drop the product entirely.
Sure, you also take a gamble with a small company. However, with small companies I can sit down and talk to their development team and they actually have a vision for where their product will be in five years. They actually come up with new ideas. If you get in early you can actually build goodwill and form a partnership and get discounted rates. Or, you can pay full retail by waiting until they're already popular, but then most of the risk of being abandoned goes away. Just make sure the core development team isn't about to sell out - it helps to get to know them and their motivations a little.
Sure, if you're talking commodity software (software used in ANY industry - webservers, email, development platforms, etc) just go open source. However, you'll find this isn't much of an option when you get to industry-specific stuff (with some exceptions).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully this will be less true in the future. At $1m-2m/license, there's no reason why buyers couldn't set up a consortium and have to have their boutique software written for them and release as free software. The problem of free riders this would create would probably be outweighed by the benefit of knowing the software will stick around.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would that work?
You set up a consortium, come up with all the features you'd need in your software. Then you hire someone who's willing to acquire all the specialized knowledge needed to make specialized software, and begin making it. Lots of the features your consortium came up with won't be possible, leading to lots of meetings and debates in order to find a working compromise.
That will take a while, and in the meantime members of this consortium will change their minds on some of the features, some
Re: (Score:2)
you'll find this isn't much of an option when you get to industry-specific stuff (with some exceptions).
Hopefully this will be less true in the future. At $1m-2m/license, there's no reason why buyers couldn't set up a consortium and have to have their boutique software written for them and release as free software. The problem of free riders this would create would probably be outweighed by the benefit of knowing the software will stick around.
When software costs $1m-2m/license, it's usually because it cost nearly that much to develop. Although I imagine that the specialized software business is indeed profitable, I don't think that companies would see dramatic cost savings. Somebody would still have to pay.
The laws of economics suggest that as long as there are a sufficient number of software firms, and there is a competitive bidding process, the customer shouldn't be paying terribly much above what it would have cost them to produce on their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The big issue is leadership. You need it to make good software.
When 10 guys decide to live on hot dogs for three years to make a software product, that is leadership. If what they make does well they all end up owning islands, otherwise they end up having to get regular jobs.
When Google decides to take over the mobile phone OS market with an open source offering, writes 95% of it themselves, and then uses it as a platform to make money on value-adds, that is leadership.
When some guy in his spare time inve
Re: (Score:2)
So, while I agree that what you suggest could work in theory, it won't work in practice. Companies would rather spe
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't digested the "what we have does not work, and an interesting idea that might fail is better than what we have now, which is already failing or failed" realities of the situation yet.
Not only have I digested that, but I agree with it.
This whole system is going to crumble to ashes and dust, and a new social order is going to take its place
That is what I don't agree with.
and most people aren't ready to stop pretending things are ok just yet...
And this is why I don't agree with it. :)
I was pointing
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for $1m-2m licenses is that it takes a lot of money to develop complex custom software for small number of users.
Of course, there's also a margin for profit for software development company, but usually it's not large enough to justify re-development.
Re: (Score:2)
Who outside of the military uses simulators? I'm just asking, not commenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial airline pilots do, it's part of their continuous training. Aviation students do as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
except that by Microsoft OFFERING the solution, now those 10 small vendors are closed up shop. Microsoft always enters new markets "at a loss"... ie put the current players out of business. Then chooses not to deliver.
Good work building anything else off your work because whatever vendor you do use will just get sued for patent infringement... just because Microsoft dropped the product doesn't mean they won't stop others from using things LIKE it.
Re: (Score:1)
(Is it just me, or is making a "solution" a negative thing as it suggests you had a *problem* in the first place, rather than, say, a need, or a requirement?)
So you're admitting software, and by extension computers, tend not to be solutions for some real problem, but rather something to fill some vague need, or a requirement for something that's yet to be defined?
Great, the more people admit that, the sooner we can concentrate on using computers on problems they really are a solution to, and ban them from everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
No... it isn't a *problem*. You want / need computers. That's not a *problem*. Now, if my computers explode, crash or otherwise don't work... that's a *problem* which is in need of a solution. Computers make some things more efficient... unless that efficiency is a *problem*, a computer is not the *solution* - and even then what you're selling me is a computer, not a "solution". What if your solution doesn't work? Are you then going to find me a non-computer solution? No. You'll do nothing more than
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of the term is that the term "solution" is supposed to apply to things that satisfy a need in a way that goes beyond the simple delivery of hardware of CDs.
For instance, if you need a quad core server with 32GB RAM, that's a product you go and buy.
If however you've determined you need a document management system, you could do that yourself, or you could go with a "solution", meaning you go to some company like say, Ricoh, and say "We need a document management system". And they give you a
Re: (Score:1)
I get what you're saying, I think.
Computer systems, the way they're being sold to people, are not solutions. But that's my problem with them - they're not useful, unless there's some problem they at least help solving. They're not even being advertised as solutions anymore, there's no need to. They're totally selfserving.
My point was that the overuse of computer technology without clearly defined purpose leads to computers becoming self serving, leading to more overuse through habituation.
X-Plane developers picking up MS customers (Score:5, Informative)
I am also interested in knowing how long ESP will be available because my company used it for a solution and invested time and money into getting it approved and purchased. Microsoft sure handed us a raw deal for taking a gamble on their platform. It sounds like X-Plane is the way to go from now on. This is the last time I gamble a product's success on Microsoft. Every gaming studio Microsoft touches seems to sink like the Bismarck. http://www.x-plane.com/ms_to_xp/ms_to_xp.html [x-plane.com]
The X-Plane site itself is offering deals for the abandoned ESP customers:
http://www.x-plane.com/ms_to_xp/ms_to_xp.html [x-plane.com]
http://www.x-plane.com/ms_to_xp/esp_to_xp.html [x-plane.com]
http://www.x-plane.com/order.html [x-plane.com]
I like the comment "X-Plane 9 (temporarily $39.00 to let in all the new MS users)."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When X-plane ships 24,000 real-world accurate airports, hi-res DEM and regional terrain textures for the entire globe, 7,000 unique landmark structures and features, full ATC for human and AI traffic, and an SDK that doesn't require the equivalent of native fluency in several extinct languages to use in order to develop commercial-grade dev or art content... ...let me know. ; )
Re:X-Plane developers picking up MS customers (Score:5, Insightful)
It has a development team, that good enough for you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never really trust someone whose licensing includes dongles.
I was part of the ACES team (Score:5, Informative)
Flight Sim WAS ESP. When the team behind Flight Sim - and therefore Flight Sim itself - were canned, ESP was part and parcel of those cuts.
The fact that anybody thought ESP still existed as anything more that a couple of my former coworkers sitting at desk and tying up loose contract and licensing ends... well, that's only because Microsoft carefully obfuscated how much overlap ESP and FS had.
ESP is dead and has been since ACES closed on January 23rd, 2009.
Take the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you said MS?
Re: (Score:2)
(This seems like a good place to ask a question)
To what extent can Blender or other FOSS projects fill the emptiness?
I've heard rumours... (Score:4, Funny)
...that MS is planning on open sourcing the entire code base as abandonware, so customers don't have to worry.
It'll be released right after hell freezes over.
competition (Score:1)
it would be a shame if MS stopped ESP for two reasons: their presence has driven down prices, and they provide a fair amount of content.
There are several alternatives though, such as x-plane, cryengine, vbs2, delta3d (open source), or the more expensive Vega Prime.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I plug mine? I just finished version 1.0 and I'll be uploading it later today (as soon I get some web pages done...)
Check it out on Monday morning: http://www.topaz3d.com/ [topaz3d.com]
TLA's (Three Letter Abbreviations) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... if you don't know what ESP stands for, then why do you reply?
I reply because I'm getting tired of people expecting that the whole world knows what their 3-letter-abbreviation stands for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esp [wikipedia.org]
ESP, in my field, is an Electrostatic precipitator. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft isn't working on cleaning up exhaust gases though. I guess it is the "Microsoft ESP - A visual simulation package produced by Microsoft", as found at the bottom of the 3rd (!) list of ESP-abbreviations on wikipedia.
Thanks.
It takes only a few characters to actually spell it out, and explain it, but it takes a minute to google it.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
In theory, ESP stood for "Enterprise Simulation Platform". Officially, it was just "ESP", because there was some rule against using acronyms as product names.
Before it was called ESP it was referred to as Montauk.
Re: (Score:2)
My car has an ESP button. I've never pressed it - but I do hope it stands for "Ejection Seat - Passenger".
Re: (Score:2)
Extraneous Software Personnel.
Shafted by Microsoft? (Score:2)
A bunch of people getting shafted by Microsoft after believing their promises? Say it ain't so!
Flightgear (Score:4, Informative)
If you're looking for an alternative to Flight Simulator there is always FlightGear [flightgear.org].
Hey, Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Why do software companies always fire the programmers yet keep the PR people and the executives which have served them so badly?
Re: (Score:2)
No idea..
Why is it whenever there is bad news Microsoft always brings out the women spokesperson? Have you ever noticed that?
Re:Hey, Here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
She's the only one with the balls for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Because executives are the ones who chose who gets fired maybe?
When you deal with MS and like (Score:2)
You invest in technology = you gamble; Main producer of technology decide to drop it = you loose;
Where is that point you getting angry? It was your decision to build upon commercial, closed source. Deal with that.
What a shame (Score:2)
I had Microsoft's Flight Simulator on my C=64, and even though it ran like a snail (1 megahertz), it was a very-detailed and surprisingly fun "game" to play (ditto Elite which was like a space simulator). It's a shame that, 25 years later, the FS software has come to an end. I wish Microsoft would not be so shortsighted as to kill a piece of computing history, just to save a few dollars. Layoff some of the webtv developers instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I had Microsoft's Flight Simulator on my C=64...
So did I (actually, it was subLOGIC Flight Simulator back then, before Microsoft bought it). It's what got me excited about flying in the first place (I have a private pilot license now so I can fly for real). I still have my photocopy of the manual (of course I didn't actually buy the game), which is incredibly detailed and even teaches some cool aerobatic maneuvers.
Looking at Flight Sim X, the game has come a long way since those days. Hopefully it at least gets sold so it can continue.
ESP? (Score:2)
... and leaved only AH in Windows Vista IPSEC?!
Seriously, please make acronym decryption while posting.
Which is why closed is a gamble (Score:2)
'my company used it for a solution and invested time and money into getting it approved and purchased. Microsoft sure handed us a raw deal for taking a gamble on their platform.'"
Which is why closed is a gamble. If they had the source, they could hire some programmers to keep it ticking over (porting to new platforms etc), or pay some IT company to do it for them. You can't kill software when the source is free to all.
Not that simple (Score:2)
Its not much good having the source for a project, particulerly a large one. You also need people who understand it. This takes time and costs money. Then, perhaps more importantly, you need people clever/interested enough to take the project forward. Again this is hard to acheive.
As Microsoft and other companies have learned, you can't throw people and money at a project and be certain of success. The people have to be motivated (money != motivation) and *wanting* the project to succeed.
There's probably ju
Re: (Score:2)
Having the source for a large project is useful, I use source.winehq.org all the time when msdn fails me.
Also money == some motivation. If I wasn't paid I wouldn't be working on what I am now for fun.
If the source is out there, it can always be resurrected, or at least used as reference for a reimplementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why closed is also more of a gamble for the developers themselves. If it had been Open Source, the developers could simply move to any company interested in continuing to use the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but if it's open-source and you've got the source, it's at least possible. It's up to you whether it's worth the cost to move things forward, put together the neccesary team, throw sufficient money at developers to code for you. But you do get to ask and answer that question for yourself.
With closed-source code, you don't even get to ask the question. If you have the team, if you have the money, if it's worth it for you to take over the project yourself because it's just that critical to your business
Shame on them (Score:2)
Well now, people are again starting to understand why people hate Microsoft. What, did you expect them to look after you rather than themselves.
Don't worry, next time they promise you something, they will really mean it, honest, you can trust M$.
Audience Response Systems (Score:1)
Another Argument Dispelled (Score:4, Insightful)
With a proprietary package, it is take it or leave it with a limited amount of options.
Certainly both approaches (OSS and closed) have there pros and cons, but with OSS I am better able to hedge my bet against obsolescence.
Road Map (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, don't worry. Unlike these fly by night open source people, proprietary software has a road map...
a blank page showing Bumf*kt Arizona and a tag, "You Are Here".
Definition, please (Score:2)
ESP? (Score:2)
Xenix (Score:2)
Those of us who depended on Microsoft Xenix and had the projects we were using on dumped when SCO took it over were immunized against depending on anything Microsoft does decades ago.
Train Simulator 2 (Score:2)
Also overlooked was the death of Train Simulator 2 [tsinsider.com], which was to be based on the FSX platform, i.e. ESP. ACES was also developing this. They had a fair bit of work done already, and were even hinting at doing a release by year end, though I think that was somewhat optimistic.
I'm sure the ultimate goal was to further ESP so they could sell it to railways. That would be where the real money would be made, because a train sim game probably wouldn't sell well enough. Maybe they realised that North American
Re: (Score:2)
What?
It was cancelled on 04, but I though Ubisoft grabbed it in 07?
Damn, I was going to get that for my son.
I wonder if the development can go back to kuju?
Welcome to CLOSED. n/t (Score:2)
Nobody was listening to RMS?
hm (Score:2)
Kind of a bad economic time to expand into buildings, eh?
But it Has the Support of a Big Company (for now) (Score:2)
This compares to companies that trust in open source... You never know when the company that's at the centre of open source development is going to go belly up, leaving customers with nothing more than the source code and the ability to support the product themselves for as long as it's important enough to them.