2-D Cockpit View Bug in SP1?

[PhilTaylor 45]

We are investigating how to get this fix broadly available in the DX10/SP2 timeframe and when I can state publicly what the plan is, I will.

[PhilTaylor 45]

FWIW, this bug was created by fixing the night/taxi light issue post Beta4. So we tried to do too much there. I can only say that we received a lot of feedback from the beta community to fix the lighting bug, and despite our good intentions in responding to that feedback - this unintended consequence slipped thru.As I said in my other reply, we are investigating how to make this fix broadly available in the DX10/SP2 timeframe and when I can talk to that publicly I will.

[n4gix 4,947]

>I don't understand why some people are bending over backwards>to Microsoft...my experience with FSX has been extremely poor>since RTM, and this is echoed in the posts of thousands of>other frustrated users all across the web.I suspect that's because many of us have enough maturity* to understand that more is accomplished through cooperation, colloboration and polite discourse than through confrontation, condemnation and public temper tantrums.In simpler terms, the old adage about "catching more flies with honey" is demonstrably validated yet again. ;)* NOTE: "maturity" in the sense intended is NOT limited to mere chronology.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Do you know something I don't ?I only repeat as fact those things that have been made public knowledge. I read a lot though, from an extremely large number of sources... Or, perhaps it's just that I'm more observant? :)

[Guest mimarsinan]

Thanks for the update, but I really don't see why I had to whine to hear this basic explanation, and why the details of the timing for the fix are still classified as top secret ;)Broken process, people...

[Guest mimarsinan]

I don't see how pointing out quality issues with the product - objective things like this 2D view and not subjective things like performance which are harder to measure - amount to immaturity.In fact, for the simple explanation that we get here regarding the origin of this bug, it took more than five weeks of waiting and quite a bit of whining.We can even say that this "secretive" attitude fosters whining and complaining in the community - exactly contrary to the goals of cooperation.Instead of trying to score subtle points [the chronology note - its ironic that you would go ahead and engage in the very same kind of discourse that you appear to protest against ;)], maybe you can take a step back and look at what I am really trying to say here.The process is broken, its fostering the exact attitudes you don't want, and I don't think you can really blame the community for it.

[Guest tmilton]

As someone who makes FS videos, and is a multiple monitor user, this SP1 view bug especially damaged my experience with FSX. I, like many of you, was unpleasantly surprised when our 2D views were suddenly obstructed, when for decade they had worked just fine as a reliable feature in all previous FS versions and even in RTM FSX itself.But the main point now is that ACES acknowledged this was a bug, and will be fixed. Sure, it would be better to have been informed about this a bit earlier when the bug was first reported, but it's better late than never. I know that many are upset about this SP1 view bug, but let us step back a bit and appreciate that Phil took the time to tell us. Don't forget that ACES is under no obligation to tell us about anything; that is absolutely their prerogative. We should appreciate that they have been open about other aspects and issues involving FSX, and that they have chosen to address the SP1 view bug in a candid manner as well.I do agree, however, with the point that secretive attitudes do more harm than good when it comes to bugs in the software that seriously hinder user experiences. Even though some complaints may seem like whining to some ears, it is part of the feedback. Discussing these complaints and problems in the open between developers and users is a brilliant move because it fosters a sense of community which can help solidify the loyal base. The fact that problems are openly discussed enhance the feeling that the developers care.No doubt ACES had a full plate right after SP1 was released with other issues such as the blurries. Again, it's better late than never that the SP1 view bug was addressed, and we should thank Phil that it was acknowledged and it will eventually be fixed. :-)

[PhilTaylor 45]

because in general the MS way is to have a fully baked plan before we start talking.because in the past there was zero communication, and we are just getting used to this ourselves.because my time has been spent more on driving DX10 and other community issues; like OOM and blurries.because I didnt have full data until this week on this one. because I am still waiting for full data on the other things I think I need to talk to in the context of what and where DX10 will install and what it will contain. because there is no process in the world that is going to let you know what we are doing before we decide. So you do have to wait until thist gets sorted out and I can speak accurately.

[Guest mimarsinan]

I think everybody appreciates straight talk and candor...its great to hear you guys are opening up and are now communicating. I think that can only help and never hurt.My hopes remain high you will soon see the benefits of an open beta program also.

[Guest tmilton]

>1. It was working.>>2. It got broken.>>3. It will be fixed.Hmmm..., now that's correct, but that's the complete opposite of what you went around saying earlier. Why did you change your story a complete 180 degrees? Both you and JSkorna went around previously telling everyone this incorrect version of the story instead: 1. It was broken2. It got fixed3. To bring back the feature, it has to be broken again^Note how this version is the complete opposite of the real explanation.JSkorna and n4gix were incorrectly insisting that the obstructed 2D views in SP1 were supposed to be there and that we were never meant to be able to toggle off the obstructions. They insisted that your ability to toggle off the cockpit textures in pre-SP1 FSX was a really a bug, and that SP1 fixed that bug by preventing you from toggling off the textures! Here is JSKorna's post earlier in this very same thread:"OK, here's the scoop: Something was broke in FSX, it was fixed in SP1 and this is the result of the fix. You were never supposed to see what you did see in FSX: the SP1 view should have been there all along."Phil has now debunked that by confirming the SP1 view behavior was indeed a bug, and was NOT supposed to be a part of FSX, neither pre, nor post SP1. Thanks to Phil, we know that JSkorna's "You were never supposed to see what you did see in FSX: the SP1 view should have been there all along." is completely false. Many of us did not buy into this story because frankly it did not make any logical sense, and if you read, you'll see that we said so in our posted replies to this. What I want to know is why did you insist on telling this false story, and why the 180 degree change now? You guys are fairly knowledgeable, so why disseminate fallacious information?

[n4gix 4,947]

>What I want to know is why did you insist on telling this>false story, and why the 180 degree change now? You guys are>fairly knowledgeable, so why disseminate fallacious>information?1) We were misinformed (as were many others both at ACES and in other dev forums).2) We were corrected.3) We now acknowledge and post the FACTS.Many things are never as straight forward and simple as they appear when viewed in retrospect. As ACES themselves discovered through their investigation, "feature A" got broken because "feature B" got fixed. That the code for "feature B" isn't directly related to the code for "feature A" masked the proximate cause for several weeks, which is why even Phil couldn't make a definitive statement until recently.What further compounded the issue was that many never even considered "feature A" to be a purpose-designed "feature" to begin with! :)Never confuse anyone's mistake as heresy. If one recants, then one is no longer a heretic. Even so, we no longer burn heretics at the stake...:-newburn

[JSkorna 137]

It was true at the time and has evolved to this point where we are at today.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Guest tmilton]

>Never confuse anyone's mistake as heresy. If one recants, then>one is no longer a heretic. I doubt anyone saw it as "heresy", even if you meant this metaphorically. ;-) We just saw this mistake being vigorously promulgated, and then no explanation whatsoever by you as to why the story was later suddenly changed.No one accused you of being a heretic, we just never saw you "recant" the misinformation. We never saw an admission by you that a mistake was made. We just saw you present the new information as if that's what you were saying all along.Not that I'm comparing you to George Orwell's world where new "truth" was thrust upon the people even when it directly contradicted the old "truth", and they were supposed to accept this as the prevailing truth all along without even questioning why the old and new versions of the story were so blatantly conflicting.Bill, you and JSkorna are generally well informed people, and I truly enjoy reading your posts. I have picked up a lot of important information from you, and I am highly appreciative of that. Reading your input on forums, I tend to agree with you 95% of the time. But the SP1 view issue was one case where your original explanation seemed so far-fetched, absurd, and strained credulity to the point where many of us questioned and outright rejected it. That original explanation monumentally defied one's sense of logic.Everyone makes mistakes, it happens to the best of us. Admitting that mistakes were made earns admiration for your sincerity and candidness, whereas slyly changing stories in a 180 degree fashion without a "recant" makes one seem dodgy in a public arena. Thank you for admitting that your original explanation was flawed. Now that is a true recant in your latest post, and your explanation behind it is appreciated. Your level of expertise in this hobby of ours has always been impressive, and your willingness to share it with is respected. Keep up the good work. :-)

[Guest RWRik]

>Is there a workaround for this? I uninstalled the patch and it>started working again. I reinstalled the patch and it stopped>working again. So, please advise.I installed SP1 when it came out and immediately noticed it caused this view problem. I did the same thing you did and uninstalled SP1 right away. I have since been using FSX without SP1 because the new view problem caused too much of a defect for the way I use FSX.I dont have a powerful computer so I had to give up the speed improvememts of SP1 in order to continue having the normal 2D views like their supposed to be. I hit on this thread when I was searching for an answer and fix for this problem. Im glad to find out that Microsoft says this bug will be fixed later on. In the meantime has someone found another workaround (besides changing the eyepoint) that will give clear views with SP1 in 2-D cockpit?

[JSkorna 137]

Raise your seat above the textures.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/