In the meantime A2A responded to my question about P3D 2.0 support:

 

 

It seems they only support P3D 2.0 as long as it is completely 100% compatible with FSX. In other words: when P3D 2.0 requires some specific changes, they won't have a look at it, at least not in the near future. It is up to LM to keep the A2A products compatible, so to speak.

 

So in fact this means they do NOT support P3D 2.0 actively. Slightly disappointing: I was thinking A2A would be thrilled by the new possibilities. Well, luckily the plane works fine so far. ^_^ Although I do have a DME that 9 out of 10 times refuses to work. But that also seems to happen in FSX.

Reading between the lines on this, I feel its a commercial statement to ensure they keep existing customers sweet. Just my opinion, but if I don't take this into account I cannot fathom why a developer would shun a new platform that appears to have a future. Unless of course they simply don't have the resources and are making wild statements they know they can make a u turn on.

Eh, not really. A2A is not a giant corporation and they probably can't afford to support multiple platforms.

 

So A2A managed to build an amazingly detailed aircraft like their C172 but cannot make an installer for Prepar3D 2.0 and fix the bug when you check the cockpit mipmaps box? Come on.

Eh, not really. A2A is not a giant corporation and they probably can't afford to support multiple platforms. Here's the hierarchy from the easiest to accommodate to the more difficult.

 

1. FSX Acceleration/Gold Edition DX9 only

2. FSX ,but also DX10 compatible (look how much resistance there was even to this minor change)

3. FSX and P3d 1.4 (initially most vendors ignored P3d like it was the return of the Black Plague)

4. FSX and P3d2 (probably the main target platforms for the next year or so).

5. FSX, P3d 1.4 and P3d2 (why bother with P3d 1.4 at this point?)

6. FSX, P3d 1.4, P3d2 and XP10. (any 3rd party vendor has my best wishes for being so committed to flight simulation)

 

Besides,A2A will come around to your way of thinking eventually as they are a progressive bunch. I remember when a number of 3rd party vendors said that they would NEVER support the use of their products in P3d. Look where that kind of thinking ended up.

I'm not disagreeing with their business stance, I'm just surprised that they are saying LM needs to fix anything they break in A2A's product line. Although, as far as the 172 goes, there doesn't seem to be anything broken at all.

Well, A2A just lost a customer, as I was planning on purchasing their C172, just as soon as they released the next update.  But I refuse to purchase any addon from a company that is unwilling to officially support P3D2.  I own A2A's Piper Cub and have been very happy with it, but their lack of official P3D support would mean that there world be no official support for my purchase, if something didn't work correctly.

Well, A2A just lost a customer, as I was planning on purchasing their C172, just as soon as they released the next update.  But I refuse to purchase any addon from a company that is unwilling to officially support P3D2.  I own A2A's Piper Cub and have been very happy with it, but their lack of official P3D support would mean that there world be no official support for my purchase, if something didn't work correctly.

 

They've lost me too. I was planning to purchase their C172 in the future (as it seems like the ultimate add-on to me), but they seem too lazy to deserve my money.

 

Should have gotten the Carenado C172.

They've lost me too. I was planning to purchase their C172 in the future (as it seems like the ultimate add-on to me), but they seem too lazy to deserve my money.

 

Should have gotten the Carenado C172.

To be fair, you would be missing a trick. The A2A 172 works perfectly in P3D for me.

 

To be fair, you would be missing a trick. The A2A 172 works perfectly in P3D for me.

 

Not willing to give my money to someone who is too lazy to fully support Prepar3D 2.0. The A2A C172 lacks a Prepar3D 2.0 installer and you need to tick off the cockpit mipmap checkbox for the add-on to work.

To be fair, you would be missing a trick. The A2A 172 works perfectly in P3D for me.

 

BUT, what if something doesn't work correctly for me?  Am I going to get any support from A2A?  Or are they just going to blame the problem on LM?

 

This is also a matter of principle.  Like all 3rd party developers, A2A needs to decide if they are going to also support P3D2 or just FSX, and it looks like they are not (yet) ready to support P3D2. They are currently trying to have it both ways (by not 'officially' supporting P3D2).  So, at this point, I see no reason to support A2A (by purchasing their aircraft), since they do not support the flightsim platform that I am using.  For me, this means that I'm going to shop elsewhere for my P3D 3rd party aircraft.

So A2A managed to build an amazingly detailed aircraft like their C172 but cannot make an installer for Prepar3D 2.0 and fix the bug when you check the cockpit mipmaps box? Come on.

The VC mipmaps bug is something that LM did and apparently no one involved in the P3d2 beta program caught it, because it affects a lot more than just A2A aircraft. Creating an installer for P3d2 may involve more than just adding an option that automatically finds the P3d2 installation from looking at a setting the Windows registry. In the mean time the A2A C172 flies beautifully in P3d2 and that's all I care about. A2A will eventually figure out that they will have to adjust to LM and not the other way around. Give them some time to do so.

Well, A2A just lost a customer, as I was planning on purchasing their C172, just as soon as they released the next update.  But I refuse to purchase any addon from a company that is unwilling to officially support P3D2.  I own A2A's Piper Cub and have been very happy with it, but their lack of official P3D support would mean that there world be no official support for my purchase, if something didn't work correctly.

They lost a customer in me too.  

 

 

A2A will eventually figure out that they will have to adjust to LM and not the other way around. Give them some time to do so.

 

Why should A2A need any time to figure that out? Lockheed Martin's the world's largest defence contactor - whereas A2A's what?

Why should A2A need any time to figure that out? Lockheed Martin's the world's largest defence contactor - whereas A2A's what?

 

A2A are a very small niche player in a big market. If they want to continue and build opportunities on that (i.e. continued income)  .......... they need to pull their heads out of their backsides.

 

No choice really, but that's a challenge all small companies have to face on a constant basis. You either rise to the challenge, or die trying ......... or just die through your own egotistical belief of self importance.

Hmm... I actually appreciated A2A's response on this.  I thought it was very intelligent and well put.

 

I think LM is definitely benefiting from FSX compatibility - they go so far as to pitch this compatibility as a feature on their website:

 

 

Prepar3D furthers the development of Microsoft® ESP™ while maintaining compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator X, allowing many thousands of add-ons to be used within Prepar3D.

 

They have stated their intentions in keeping true to the FSX SDK, while extending it.  Thus, I don't think it's an unreasonable stance for a developer to take to expect LM to ensure that this compatibility stays in place, and fixing issues when compatibility breaks.

 

I read this more along the lines of A2A wanting to build a single product, one that works in FSX as designed and which should work in P3Dv2 if proper backwards compatibility is maintained.  This is actually to our benefit as consumers, since we only have to purchase one product to use on two platforms.  There are other developers out there that are planning support for both platforms separately, but by doing so, are offering the sale of two different products.

 

Now, I'm sure that A2A are not dummies.  If either enough of their customer base moves to P3Dv2 to warrant a separate product, compatibility or no, or if P3Dv2 eventually contains enough new extended features for them to pursue development for the sake of realism, I'm sure they will do so.

 

I don't read that there was any self importance showing through in A2A's statement.  If anything, they verbalize a concern for a prematurely fractured community, which I personally think is a very real threat.  It might not be as much of a threat to the bigger developers, A2A perhaps included, but it will definitely pose a threat to all of the smaller developers who might not be able to afford to develop for the smaller customer a fractured community provides.

 

[EDIT]

 

I actually intended on addressing the posted topic before I got carried away! :lol:

 

I had tried the AM tweak, it did nothing for me.  But then, I never saw blurries like that without it either.  In fact, I spent a lot of time in the F-22 at low level, just because flying it like that without the blurries was so impressive!!  I do believe I posted something about how much that impressed me in one of the early threads here after release.  ^_^ 

Pretty sure its AFM=14 for me but not sure how to check if HT on/off? How can i access BIOS to check status of HT?

Take a look with "task-manager/performance/CPU" and you'll see. I guess HT is on so 84 would be the right choice.

Spirit

PS:

Why is this thread so mixed up with A2A planes? The topic is (was) Affinity Mask!!! You can't open a new thread for the A2A or whatever plane?

Spirit