>I really can't see why Microsoft would not be prepared to do>this>>we currently get from elsewhere>>Betas of complete OS's (Vista)>Betas of hardware drivers>Betas of games not even released yet>Betas of game patches>>So why not (since FSX was not really in a complete fit state>(wasn't that far off) to be released in the first place) ->allow us to make an informed choice to whether we wish to>install Betas of SP1 ?>>I'd be more than prepared like others on here - to install FSX>6 times during the Beta SP1 process - its not much effort.>>If SP1 was additional to the game - ie for IL-2 Sturmovik>where new patches included new planes etc - then fair enough ->one waits for it to be released - patientally.>>But when SP1 fixes stuff that should not have been there in>the released product - then in my opinion (right or wrong) its>a different matter. They do! lolol

where is it downloadable from then ?

I agree 100%Everyone who wants to should be able to access the lastest fixes, no matter if Microsoft deems it "finished" or not. I don't see why Microsoft would release beta versions of Vista... but not do the same things for FS fans waiting for a patch (for a long time now) to fix the product they have already bought.

are you kidding? releasing beta versions of everything? you do realize how much beta these products go through first before you even see the public beta? What video game company releases betas to the public? why would you expect microsoft to do any different?

(1) Many many PC developers release public "open" betas of their software(2) This is a BETA PATCH - not a beta of a full program if that makes sense

There is a big change that for instance a certain beta will give huge problems to some configurations. Just imagine what will happen if EVERYONE gets a beta that sort of screws up the install and requires you to install everything all over again. How many posts do you think will be posted, filled with angry garbish...? People who take part in the beta testing know bad or strange things can happen. But the average Joe doesn't like strange things and will start screaming like a little baby about the bad things MS/Aces is doing to him...I really don't mind they wait until the patch is FINISHED.

The appearance of a topic such as this tells us exactly why that would be such a bad idea. The choice of a beta tester should be someone who is prepared to give of their time to benefit their fellow simmers. Seems quite obvious that Looking after Number One is the only motivation for this person.What skills do you think you have when you obviously didn't even get accepted to the beta team in this instance? Did you even apply?Allcott

My skills as a beta tester on other products are completely unknown to you - so before you comment choose your words much more carefully in future, and avoid personalising the topic. The topic of conversation is "should the betas be released to joe public"I don't for one minute really believe your first comment either.Mark.

well said Mark...this idiot makes snide comments on nearly every thread he joins in on...very rarely does he offer any valuable help to anyone...just the same sarcasm as seen on another thread he posted today.. steve

I was taken to the virtual woodshed for just asking for a list of the things that were to be fixed. I will never again make the same mistake of crossing the line into any critical area about Microsoft. Watch out you are now a target.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

...and to everyone-let's get back to the topic of the thread and not let this go south please.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

The principle reason why a beta test is not normally "open to the public" is simple. It boils down to a matter of control!For any testing to be of value, there must be a system of controls in place to ensure that there is a bug submission system in place and that testers supply enough information for the programmers to validate the reported bug through replication.Also, beyond a certain point, having too many "beta testers" becomes counterproductive, since the odds are that there will be too high signal-to-noise and legitimate bug reports would be buried in chaff... ;)

Since we've already waited this long I personally don't care much, but the remedy for this concern is simple, if not for now then for the future. Correct me if I'm wrong but the current system is that testers log in with distributed passwords, allowing them to download each successive beta. Why not make late betas public but keep a control set of such testers - perhaps given access slightly earlier for a head start - who are then allowed to post their bug discoveries for ACES directly using passwords? Everyone else would not be able to post, in order to keep things sane. Granted, there would no doubt be some starting public threads pointing out issues anyway, but these could be safely ignored as most likely redundant if the control group was large enough. Major faults would become apparent one way or another, and certainly an avsim public - the largest relevant collective I know of - might be looked to by ACES (if they found it hard to ignore an additional public resource) as ready to give these major faults preeminence over minor glitches. Is this too easy? Really does not seem so to me.

Hi Bill,The reason we get post's like this is because after laying out

DaveI can't wholly agree with you regarding new hardware and FSX - it's all relative and the results seem to vary enormously.I too bought a new PC ('old' PC needed replacing soon anyway...) and loaded FSX on it with very acceptable results, albeit with some sliders not set to max. My only 'frustration' is the current lack of quality aircraft add-ons, but I'm sure they will emerge soon.Here's my main point. I'm still running XP and will wait for the many 'bugs' to be ironed out of Vista before going over to it. Why don't FS fans use the same patience regarding FSX? Immediately after it's release (literally within minutes), there were lots of horror posts regarding it's performance problems, yet people seemed to 'follow like lemmings' and then moan about their results.Others, more sensibly, seem to be waiting for SP1 etc before leaping in, and they'll do well to wait for further reports post-SP1 too.It'a all a matter of common sense and patience. I'm utterly convinced that, in time, FSX will live up to all the hype and expectations - and remember that in it's early days, FS9 (as well as it's predecessors) had teething problems too.Given SP1's imminent release, it won't be long before 'the jury's back'. Toni.