SP1 question

[Guest drix]

>http://www.steve-lacey.com/blogarchives/pr...sim/index.shtml>It'll make you feel better!That gave me a good laugh for sure. Yes, I went off topic.I haven't flown a single flight because of the lack of detailed airport scenery and support for the only aircraft I fly in Fs9. ..Among other issues.... Hoping for the best in SP1....

[LAdamson 240]

>>http://www.steve-lacey.com/blogarchives/pr...sim/index.shtml>>It'll make you feel better!>>That gave me a good laugh for sure. >>Yes, I went off topic.>>I haven't flown a single flight because of the lack of>detailed airport scenery and support for the only aircraft I>fly in Fs9. >Yes, that video is one of the best, and I like the "a really bad dude" one in second place! :-lolFortunatly for me, my favorite FS2002 and FS9 aircraft was completely redesigned for FSX where it's flight characteristics are even better!My favorite airport's are those that come along with FlightScenery's FS9 Portland, but I prefer to fly the Mountain West area, which covers thousands of square miles in FSX. L.Adamson

[Alvega 2,124]

Hi PhilIs the alt+tab bug that prevents third party addons like FS Commander to run in fullscreen mode going to be fixed with SP1?Best regards.

[Guest stew286]

phil Forgot one question.Have you addressed the Autogen drain on the cpu or have you managed to recode it to multithread thru d3d.As autogen is a yey or nay some people do like towns to have life but near a Major airport it has to be a definitive nay.Complaints about round earth tuh next they will want global warming effects.stu

[Niwotian60 0]

>Complaints about round earth tuh next they will want global warming effects.>stuStu,Before you made this sarcastic comment, did you take any time to actually understand the problem? 3rd-party meshes (such as the FSGenesis meshes I run) use recent real-world survey data to provide a higher granularity of terrain elevation detail to FSX, which should be a good thing. Unfortunately, in FSX runways apparently have to be planar (I don't know the exact details); they can't bend with the terrain. This ends up creating runways that are elevated from the surrounding terrain with the appearance of being built on top of a longitudinal mesa. it looks ridiculous and creates some hazardous landing conditions when the runway is slick.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Intel Quad Core QX6700/2.66GHz (water cooled @ 3.20 GHz), 2@8800GTX/768MB nVidia (SLI), 4GB RAM, 2@160GB Raptor HD (RAID 0), Razer Barracuda AC-1 Audio, Dell 3007 30" Monitor (2560x1600)FSGenesis USA Landclass, NA & World Meshes, MegasceneryX Hawaii & Phoenix,RealAir SIAI-Marchetti SF260, Aerosoft DHC-2 Beaver & MyTraffic X, WWII Fighters,TrackIR, CH Yoke Pro USB, CH Rudder Pro USB, CH Flight Stick USB

[GHD 21]

>>... they can't bend with the terrain. But they can be made to blend with the terrain, see for example the UK2000 Bristol Airport.George

[PhilTaylor 45]

Is it possible we are confusing 2 issues:1)new aiports authored for FSX, which can be authored to blend 2)old airports authored for previous versions, that dont blend well in all cases.There are existence proofs for 1. As my blog stated, while we added some support to auto-RoundEarth correct in SP1 - in some cases airports authored with the old techniques cannot be made to blend well without extra work. That extra work is some auto-tesselation for long runway polygons that we couldnt get into SP1. Its complicated by the fact that when you auto-correct you can cause z-fighting in the z-buffer unless you re-tesselate. In that case reauthoring is the only fix.Anything over 1000m in a single poly will likely start causing some issues. Something like 100m polygons should be ok. Extra bonus for tuning the z-values of the polygons to maintain distance from the base mesh as the curvature increases with distance from the starting point, done during the authoring process. Yes, this means authoring with RoundEarth in mind.

[scott967 62]

Obviously it's easier to create and uv map a planar surface, but it should be possible to replace with curved surfaces. The question is how many polys required to prevent the z-fighting effect. I'm not a max user, so have no idea. It seems like the technique in sp1 should at least make things a little better without massive rework.scott s..

[Mace 1,904]

>Does "later in April" mean the 2nd half of the month, or any>day in April that falls after the 1st?Geez man. :)RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest Challenger604]

Hello. Amusing to read all this. Regarding downloading a large patch, what kind of download speed (MBPS) will I get from the server? Looking forward to any improvements with FPS.

[Mountain Man 142]

>Phil, I think he means an option to download the patch not as>one, but fragmented into several smaller files fore people>with dialup connections. It will be the same setup, only with>a little wrapper that adds the chunks togehter into the>original setup.exe. I remember very well the frustrating>moment when starting a setup after downloading for many hours>only to see that the download was corrupted and to start it>all again.>>Regards>Haven't you folks ever heard of a download manager? I couldn't have survived without one back in my modem days. Google for "download manager" and you should be set.

[Guest FairDeal]

"I know this isnt small, but dropping payload is painful ( since we like to fix things ) and hopefully this size will be ok for the majority."

"Finding the right level here is a challenge, we think we have balanced "download size" vs "cost to produce" at a reasonable level.""The main question I get from this discussion is, can we make a CD available for those who ask. I am investigating."Phill TaylorSenior PM, Graphics and TerrainAces Studio, MGSI don't understand why there should be any question as to whether the "FIXES" (note that ACES representatives are themselves admitting these are FIXES to a defective product), are provided to customers in the same format as the original product. To comment that 200mb should be ok for the majority is simply not good enough.Although many or possibly most would have no problem with a 200mb download, some will. Some may use FS entirely Off-line.It seems to me that ACES should be considering all current customers when correcting a defective product rather than what they have assessed as a cost effective majority.

[JSkorna 137]

These same people got the FS9.1 update OK, correct?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[Guest FairDeal]

What's the relevance? How does FS9.1 update have anything to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying because FS9.1 update was received by download, precedence is now set?And I assume NO, not all users of FSX would have got the fs9.1 update. I'm sure ACES and the MS "bean counters" are at least hopeful there is some fresh blood in the market.The fact is, that there is a proportion of the market (albeit small) that due to geographic location do not have a choice of high speed internet. The proposed FIX even at 200mb could be restrictive. My point is, this is a FIX, should it not be freely available to all who have purchased the product or denied to some because of geographic location.

[Guest tcable]

There has been enough precedent set with other titles that 200mb is doable- even over dialup. Sure it'll take a while but there are too many other apps with patches that are much larger out there.Heck, your OS service packs come in at over 250mb.