Hi Phil,First off thanks for the great work AND being so visible in the community.Just a quick couple of questions: Are any of the connectivity issues being addressed in SimConnect and also any work on the weather engine?Thanks again!John

Unfortunately we are trying to avoid feature adds. By definition the putative purpose of a patch is to address issues with existing features. Yes, MS as a whole doesnt always abide by that rule but it should be the starting point. I feel pretty strongly, though, that unless there is a huge reason it shouldnt be deviated from. It helps keep the focus where it should be.Plus we have so much worthy stuff to work on before we get to that, it just isnt going to make it before our cutoff date. If we didnt have a cutoff date, we would never ship.

Scenario 1:FSX RTM or SP1 end-user has not installed the redist.3rd party dev avoids the redist when building his product.life is goodScenario 2:FSX RTM or SP1 end-user has not installed the redist.3rd party dev takes the dependency the redist when building his product. 3rd party dev installs the redist.life is good because of meets-standards installer experience ( install all dependencies first )Scenario 3:FSX RTM or SP1 end-user has not installed the redist.3rd party dev takes the dependency the redist when building his product. 3rd party dev does not install the redist.life is bad end-user did not provide air cover for a sub-standard installerScenario 4:FSX RTM or SP1 end-user has installed the redist.3rd party dev takes the dependency the redist when building his product. 3rd party dev does not install the redist.life is good since end-user provided air cover for a sub-standard installer

Yes, some SimConnect work is in the patch. Yes, part of that is weather but I cant promise all weather system updates are done. As far as connectivity is there a list of these from the community to speak to?

>Someone posted a suggestion for running the traffic on multiple >threads; other people no doubt have had the same thought about >auotgen. Is such a thing even possible, to separate one aspect of >the engine from the core to take advantge of newer cpu >architecture? Well, given enough time you could tweaze apart almost anything to make it multicore.We did a set of perf analyses across a representative set of scenes, and used the profile information to guide our implementation plan. The sim engine part of the traffic isnt the problem, its the rendering as the traffic count goes up. Hopefully the better batching of objects we put in enables more people to move the sliders to the right.Thats not to say we arent doing some multicore, just not there.

Phil,Thats good news. The main source for the most pressing issues would be Peter Dowson. His forum: http://forums.simflight.com/viewforum.php?f=54I guess the problem I've seen cropping up the most are conflicts with firewalls (Zone Alarm in my case). I think the other issues are related to having more than one addon connected over a network -- though I'm not sure exactly what is involved there.ThanksJohn

"Saying "better instancing to reduce Draw calls" without the underlying analysis isnt telling you much is it?"Actually, that is saying a lot, and I'm glad to hear it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

I don't know what your definition of rewrite is, but all the Carenado aircraft I own, for one, transferred directly to FSX with very little modification (only thing I did was set up FSX.cfg to see them (I put them in a different directory than simobjects/airplanes) and added thumbnails. There are others. But perhaps you meant scenery addons. Since I don't own any (payware), I can't comment. But most of the features of the scenery addons I wrote have transferred well.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

This isn't exactly new content. The variable approach lighting fs?.cfg value is a feature that was removed between FS9 and FSX.I imagine the color of the lighting is something that should be fairly easily handled by the community?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

I'm sorry, but what is VS 2005?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Visual Studio 2005.

Hi Phil,Thanks for the reply. I sent you a PM regarding this.