I am trying to run 767 PIC under FS2000 and Win XP. Howver I am experiencing problems with it. I have patched the system to 1.1I notice the patch for FS2002 claims to add support for XP but I do not have FS2002, just FS200. Where is the patch to add XP support for 767 PIC under FS2000 to be found ?Matt Penfold

A patch for the FS2000 version PIC with WinXP does not exist. PIC will still work, but there are some issues. Sorry.

So if I have this right, someone went to the trouble of making it sure it works with FS2000 and someone went to the trouble of making sure it works with Win Xp, but no one thought of making sure it worked with both ?

There are quite a few people that used PIC with FS2000 and WinNT-based OSes. It does work. There are some minor issues, but it does work.The patch for FS2002 (that was free) also incorporated some fixes for those using NT-based OSes along with the compatibility for FS2002.Regardless, what "problems" are you having? Perhaps, if you would take the time to expand on these issues, someone might be able to offer help.

FS2002 preceded XP...someone went to the trouble to make sure it worked under FS2002. No guarantees have ever been made about PIC working in Windows XP. The fact that it does is just gravy.Patch 1.1: Designed for Windows 9x and FS2000 (no Win2K support)Patch 1.2: Designed for Windows 9x/Windows 2000 and FS2002 (not backwards compatible with FS2000)

Actually I think you have the wrong the way round.FS2002 has only been availible in the UK this year. Windows XP has been availible for oer 12 months

Unfortunately, neither I nor the PIC team have much control over the distribution practices of Microsoft. The core of the PIC development team lives on this side of the pond, so they patched based on what they had to work with.I don't really see the relevance of your post. It doesn't change the reality that PIC was never designed for either Windows 2000 and certainly not XP (good heavens, we are talking about a product that is nearly 3 years old!). The fact that the FS2002 patch included Windows 2000 support at all was pure gravy! JPS. Go pick up your PIC 767 box - nowhere will you find Windows 2000 or XP mentioned. I kinda think we should be counting our lucky stars that we have any version at all - THREE years later, mid you -that works in both FS2002 and Windows XP...and without paying an extra dime. Snubbing 3 yr old software for not supporting an OS that wasn't even a consideration at the time (hardly anyone even *considered* Windows 2000 as a gaming platform back then) is pretty silly.

It no longer matters, the product has gone back to where I bought it and I have had a refund.

Well if does work it does not work. However I would expect a note on the box to that effect. I realise that the PIC are not in charge of distribution of the product, but someone is, and if the product does not work with FS2000 and XP then a sticker should be placed on the packaging to that effect. Edit: In fact under UK law the lack of such information is not legal.Further Edit: I would also point out that I have more than one piece of software that is MORE than three olds and works just fine under XP.

Huh? You aren't making any sense. If I develop a product for Windows XP today - Copyright 2002 - and then market that product as supporting Windows XP. Three years from now, Microsoft releases Windows Enterprise NC-1901A and suddenly my software no longer works: are you suggesting I am engaging in deceptive marketing practices for not having the forsight to put a sticker on my box saying that my product is not compatible with unforseen operating systems??

>Further Edit: I would also point out that I have more than >one piece of software that is MORE than three olds and works >just fine under XP. Well, guess what...PIC isn't one of them. This isn't a word processor we're talking about...we're talking about an integrated panel that was designed to integrate with a product that is now FOUR years old that uses technologies that until recently, haven't even been fully supported in an NT-based OS.The PIC team has generously...free of charge, updated the panel over the course of TWO YEARS since its release as Microsoft has evolved their flight simulator and their operating systems. The fact that you can't mix and match your old simulator with the new OS is just something you'll have to cope with.Do you have any idea how silly you sound? Ah, nevermind...likely, you do not. I suggest you return the product for a full refund as you will undoubtedly be disappointed when PIC does not work "as advertised" when you mix Windows 95 and FS2010.

If you continue to sell the product, yes.It is not my fault you fail to understand UK consumer law. Nor, to be fair, is it the PIC teams fault. It is the fault of their distibutor and their distributor's retailers. Remember I bought this product a full year after XP went on sale in the UK so for the problem with XP compatibilty not be known is laughable. Indeed, in this very thread it has been admitted there are known issues.

First to address the isse of a patch. The only patch I can use is 1.1. This is more of a bug fix than a patch offering increased functionality. I regard bug fixes as part of what I pay for when buying software.With regards me sounding silly, well clearly getting XP support into the product is not impssible, it has been done, albeit only for FS2000. Also it would seem that your skill in customer support need some work. If this is the way the PICteam wish to treat customers who have bought their product (and paid money I would point out) then they are not a developer I wish to have to dealings with.If there are real technichal issue that prevent FS2000 and XP working together with 767 PIC then I would understand. To date I have seen no such claim.Well Done Jase. You cost PIC money. I hope you are proud.Edit: One of the programs is a development environment/compiler, the complexities of which make 767 Pic seem trival.

I would have thought you'd been around too long to get suckered into a troll like that. LOL Nice to see you around again Jase.Wade

I think you are one of the developers of this product. Of so, can you explain why you let people like Jason provide you tech support, when all they have succeeded in doing is losing you money ?