2-D Cockpit View Bug in SP1?

[Guest RWRik]

I tried raising the seat but that is pretty much the same thing as changing the eyepoint. It also changes the VC eyepoint too and thats not good. Thats why I asked if there was another way to get rid of the cockpit textures in 2-D. Is there?Im also now confused if this view problem is a bug or not? The microsoft's man says it is a bug but a couple of people here have said its not a bug at all and that we are not supposed to get clear views in 2-D.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,We have learned from the Microsoft Man that it is a bug.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Guest tmilton]

>Im also now confused if this view problem is a bug or not? The>microsoft's man says it is a bug but a couple of people here>have said its not a bug at all and that we are not supposed to>get clear views in 2-D.It's definitely a bug introduced with SP1, the 2D view system was never meant to behave the way it does with FSX SP1 (the inability to toggle off the cockpit textures). This bug hampered many simmers, especially those who make FS videos, and display the sim on multiple monitors (like me). Installing SP1 made it impossible to get unobstructed views of the outside scenery as it was normally done. Your confusion probably results from incorrect statements you read earlier from a "couple" of people in this thread. The incorrect information being spread was that:1) It was the original release of FSX had the bug. 2) SP1 corrected the bug - by not allowing you to have clear unobstructed views.Frankly, the only 2 people who spread this wrong information were n4gix and JSkorna, not only here on Avsim, but they did so on other sites as well. If you read this thread completely, you will see n4gix (Bill) graciously admitted that he made a mistake, and that is admirable of him. As for the other one, JSkorna, well... we'll leave it at that.Just to clarify about this view problem so there is no further confusion, Phil from ACES has confirmed:This particular view bug was not present in the original release of FSX, and SP1 caused the this bug (and not as it was incorrectly alleged that SP deliberately caused this to appear).

[Guest tmilton]

>Microsoft Man LOL, sounds catchy. :D Speaking of the Microsoft man, Phil from ACES had mentioned earlier in this thread that their policy is to wait until they can properly investigate the cause of a bug and get all the facts before announcing that cause.That is an excellent and sound policy by ACES, and it prevents the spread of false information. It was most unfortunate to see a couple of people on their own accord so actively disseminating incorrect information all over the internet.The allegation that the new 2D view problem was not a bug and was deliberately coded by SP1 was false information. This erroneous information was definitely NOT released or spread by ACES. As Phil said, they did not not have the full data on this problem at that time, and ACES would not do something so irresponsible as to throw a silly and unverified explanation out there. What is interesting is that many of us who heard this explanation immediately rejected it, on the basis of common sense - that absurd explanation simply defied one's sense of reason and logic.Spreading incorrect information about FSX does a great disservice to this enthusiast community, and I would advise all to check and verify your information about these important issues - straight from ACES themselves before unleashing it publicly on forums. ACES shows great restraint and responsibility in waiting till they get whole facts before releasing it to the community, and so should we.

[n4gix 4,947]

>If you read this thread completely,>you will see n4gix (Bill) graciously admitted that he made a>mistake, and that is admirable of him. As for the other one,>JSkorna, well... we'll leave it at that.Why not be just as gracious and stop rubbing salt in the wounds?Although I suppose it hardly matters, since I've decided to pretty much quit investing time here... :-ukliam

[OMillerJr 0]

My thoughts exactly, time to give it a rest.Bill, would you take a look at my post on the Aircraft & panel design forum about the GPS cumulative distance and see if you could give me some direction please.

[Guest tmilton]

I sincerely regret that you perceived it as "rubbing salt into the wounds", as that certainly was not my intent in the slightest. Indeed as I mentioned before, I think you are generally knowledgeable and I always respect that. The main point I was trying to make was for all of us (and that means ALL of us), and that is we have a responsibility to make sure that the information we dispense to our community is solid, accurate, and verifiable.If this means checking with the product's developers (ACES in this case), for confirmation of the story's authenticity before posting it, then that is the responsible thing to do, as it is in everyone's best interest (for both the poster and the readers). We all will agree that no one enjoys being misled by sloppily derived information which subsequently turns out to be so blatantly false.If the info can't be confirmed from ACES themselves, then the author should clearly state that it has not been verified and should be careful not to give the impression that the info is irrefutable established fact or imply it comes from ACES themselves. Being more careful and responsible about this, I think we will all agree, benefits us far more than rushing to post unreliable information and propagating these detrimental inaccuracies amongst our community. This is an important point and is not directed at anyone in particular - it applies to all of us, including me.

[JSkorna 137]

It is too bad I cannot reveal my source. It is the same as Bill's in the above thread.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[n4gix 4,947]

>If this means checking with the product's developers (ACES in>this case), for confirmation of the story's authenticity>before posting it, then that is the responsible thing to do,>as it is in everyone's best interest (for both the poster and>the readers).How do you suppose I became so "knowledgable" to begin with? As are a number of other devs, I am frequently in direct contact with my friends at ACES. As I took pains to point out earlier, my friends at ACES were (at the time) as mistaken as I and at least one other was... Flightsim development is my full-time job; this is not just a hobby for me. ;)

[Guest tmilton]

Yes, I can see that software developers may not know immediately what caused a bug to appear and can be mistaken, but there are 2 problems with what you're saying:Point 1:Your original explanation : The ability to have unobstructed views in FSX was a bugTrue explanation from Phil: The ability to have unobstructed views in FSX was NOT a bugYour original explanation : SP1 fixed the bug by removing your ability to have unobstructed views.True explanation from Phil: SP1 caused the bug by removing your ability to have unobstructed views.The story presented by you, and the story presented by ACES' Phil is so completely opposite, I have rarely seen two explanations so diametrically opposed.Yes, developers may not initially know the cause of a bug, but seeing the 180 degree difference in the two stories above, ACES cannot be that clueless to have come up with your original explanation as you allege. Something does not add up here. I'm sorry, but this story has major problems with plausibility. Especially when Phil himself said that ACES did not have all the data at that time to even determine the cause of the bug. Point 2:It's understandable if a developer finds a bug and does not initially know the cause. But the main problem with your story is not the alleged mis-diagnosis of the bug by ACES (as in Point 1). Even if we take your word for it that ACES did come up with the initial false explanation, the main problem with your story is that you said that ACES deliberately coded SP1 to eliminate unobstructed views. Do you think a developer would not know what they coded deliberately? I can understand ACES not knowing initially what caused a bug, but not knowing whether or not they deliberately made a change to the software? If they deliberately coded SP1 to remove the ability to have unobstructed views, then why in the world would they change their story, as you allege?Why would ACES say they deliberately coded to remove unobstructed views, and then flip-flop their story and say they did not? How could they not know what they coded with their own hands? See the problem with both points above? Even leaving Point 1 aside which by itself is a huge stretch for plausibility, Point 2 shows that a sane and intelligent person would have to ignore reason and shove aside logic to accept this "ACES deliberately coded SP1 to eliminate unobstructed views and then later ACES discovered they never did" story.

[Paul J 349]

Oh for crying out loud! :-fume Milton's post and his nitpicking on his other posts is what makes this forum such a pissoff sometimes. It's a bloody hobby. Get over it and move on. Jim and Bill contribute more in one day than you do in a year.

[Guest tmilton]

Paul, I'm sure they're quite capable of speaking for themselves. ;) If you prefer not to read my concerns, then please move on.

[Guest tmilton]

>How do you suppose I became so "knowledgeable" I don't doubt your knowledge, and I have never implied that you have a lack of it, but the fact is you cannot know everything about FSX. The only ones to have full knowledge of FSX are the developers of FSX. The fact is you aren't a developer at ACES, neither a member nor their spokesperson. You don't have the full knowlege or data that ACES has, nor can you claim so. If you had full knowlege as a true member of the ACES team, this unfortunate fiasco with releasing misleading information to the public would never have happened. Phil clearly said ACES did not have have all the data at that time to make a determination as to the cause of the bug. ACES has proved its sound judgment, restraint, and responsibilty by waiting until the investigation was complete and all the facts were known before releasing information to the public. You, I'm sorry to say, did not act in a similar responsible manner.Instead of pointing the finger at ACES for the origin and spread of this false information, remember that NO member of ACES nor Phil irresponsibly jumped the gun and publicly spread this inaccurate story, but you did. The bottom line is they are not responsible for misleading the public in this case, you are.Ultimately this basic point can't be emphasized enough: please show more responsibility when posting info. We've all been the victim of false stories, some of which can even cause damage to a certain extent. We all remember the plethora of false stories, rumors and innuendos that thrived as FSX was being developed. Some of these people even claimed they got the scoop straight from Microsoft and ACES. Maybe a few even did, but miscommunication, incomplete facts, and inadvertent distortion can easily happen when you are not an actual ACES member, when you do not have all the data to truly proclaim with authority the real facts.There is a reason for the NDA that Microsoft slaps on its beta testers and others. It's to prevent people from leaking untested, incomplete, misleading and potentially harmful information out there. It's precisely to avoid fiascos like what has happened here which needlessly mislead the public. As I've said before, spreading misinformation does our community a great disservice. Again, the lesson we all should take from this is to please be more careful next time to prevent unfortunate incidents like this. Thanks.

[Paul J 349]

Yes I'm equally sure: it's just a possibility that they are too busy working to waste more of their time with another reply to your arrogant lectures on how we should all "behave responsibly". Jim put it correctly: "Stuff happens". One line.1). I'll decide when to "move on",and. . 2). Don't "wink" at me.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Paul, I'm sure they're quite capable of speaking for>themselves. ;) If you prefer not to read my concerns, then>please move on.Congratulations!You've accomplished what up until now no one else has......convinced me that it's time to move on. I had hoped to reach 4,000 posts before leaving, but I've far better uses for my time.Bye!