I always thought that the only difference between FSX SP2 and Acceleration was a few new aircraft, scenery and missions. Having used SP2 for the first time I see a lot of bugs in misssions and other places that weren't present in Acceleration. It makes me wonder if there are even more differences between the two. Seems to me Acceleration fixes more bugs than SP2. Anyone know? This could mean for instance that tweaks work differently in SP2 and Acceleration.

I think ACC is pretty much the same as SP2, except for some scenery and aircraft, as well as support for moving aircraft carriers, which if I recall correctly don't exist in FSX with only SP2. Also some addons, mainly figther aircraft require ACC, probably because of the HUD.

It is a free upgrade for FSX without having to buy Acceleration. It includes an upgrade to DX10 Preview as well as some other improvements. It was coded differently so that you cannot use the aircraft or anything that comes with Acceleration with it. Here's a link directly from the lead developer of FSX -http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/10/02/acceleration-and-sp2.aspx.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Well, Phil's post didn't really answer my question, but I suspect that Acceleration does more bug fixing than SP2.

There is a difference. I know there is a difference.

 

With my old computer I would get constant crashes from ntdll.dll.

 

I installed MSFS Acceleration, and all my errors went away.

Well, Phil's post didn't really answer my question, but I suspect that Acceleration does more bug fixing than SP2.

 

No. They are the same except that Acceleration has some missions and some new aircraft. SP2 was only coded so you can't use the addon stuff that came with Acceleration. SP2 is free. Acceleration WAS around $20.

 

Best regards,

Jim

I am with Summer on this... I bought Acceleration and saw a much improved experience. Don't ask me why as I can't say... But on my old PC it made for no more CTD's and better frames... Maybe I am dreaming but it was worth the $$ to me... Now on my new PC I am just as happy.. Works like a charm.

 

Jeff

Accel also has extra scenery objects which end up missing if you only have SP2.

No. They are the same except that Acceleration has some missions and some new aircraft. SP2 was only coded so you can't use the addon stuff that came with Acceleration. SP2 is free. Acceleration WAS around $20.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

I've been flying some more in SP2 and finding more bugs and unstability. (Suddenly missing gates in missions, missing progressive taxi arrows, unstability after long time use, even though higmemfix is added to cfg, and then some...)

 

No doubt now that there are differences beyond added missions, scenery and aircraft. Acceleration is more stable and bug free on my computer.

If I was to buy Acceleration ? and I have SP2 , can I just download it on to my FSX ?

 

Regards Shaun.

If I was to buy Acceleration ? and I have SP2 , can I just download it on to my FSX ?

 

 

 

 

The preferred way to do it, would be to uninstall SP2,then install Acceleration.

 

Regards.

Yes, they are different. Like others have said, crashes and errors have disappeared after installing Acceleration. They are not marketed as being different, but my experience has been otherwise. And yes, I have re-installed FSX, SP1, SP2, several times.

I have no doubt that the users of acceleration 'feel' that something is different. I also have no doubt that FSX properly installed with SP1 & 2 also 'feels' perfect. To be fair and scientific to all, some painstaking testing needs to be carried out and the results published.

 

All this talk of mine is superior to yours is pure speculation and smells of spin doctors and voodoo.

 

 

 

I have perfect fsx deluxe + SP2, stable, no problems at all, no crashes, no freezes. Acceleration was unstable for me - but maybe is just about how i instaled fsx. Last time i tuned my windows 7 and instaled fsx very carefully, UIAutomationCore.DLL is just placed in fsx folder for example, not in system folders or registered etc... I didn't installed wilco planes or other old planes that may cause instability, DLL conflicts etc. I folowed Nik's guide for Windows 7 tuning and Word Not Allowed's guide for FSX, but more carefully then last time with acceleration.

So, it's about different instalations, i don't think that acceleration is more or less stable then SP2, it's only about planes and misions. Maybe some different scenery textures if i remmember well.

I have perfect fsx deluxe + SP2, stable, no problems at all, no crashes, no freezes. Acceleration was unstable for me - but maybe is just about how i instaled fsx. Last time i tuned my windows 7 and instaled fsx very carefully, UIAutomationCore.DLL is just placed in fsx folder for example, not in system folders or registered etc... I didn't installed wilco planes or other old planes that may cause instability, DLL conflicts etc. I folowed Nik's guide for Windows 7 tuning and Word Not Allowed's guide for FSX, but more carefully then last time with acceleration.

So, it's about different instalations, i don't think that acceleration is more or less stable then SP2, it's only about planes and misions. Maybe some different scenery textures if i remmember well.

 

Well, I don't tweak at all (except for highmemfix) and there is a difference. That said, no crashes, just small bugs here and there that appears to be in SP2 and not in Acceleration.

 

I have no doubt that the users of acceleration 'feel' that something is different. I also have no doubt that FSX properly installed with SP1 & 2 also 'feels' perfect. To be fair and scientific to all, some painstaking testing needs to be carried out and the results published.

 

All this talk of mine is superior to yours is pure speculation and smells of spin doctors and voodoo.

 

Thanks for you constructive contribution.