It seems that all the payware and freeware is very slow in coming out compared to previous versions of FS.....What is the slowdown?Paul

SP1!

Oh..Hey, we became members of this forum just about the same time!

We are all hoping that SP1 is what is holding them back. I want my fsx dodo and some more photo real scenery from megascenery!________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

Reasons.1) Some developers are holding back.2) Many developers have patched their FS2004 product to FSX. What I don't get is developers like FSD have up graded a few their planes to FSX; but I don't remember seeing them being reported here.

Then spend more time in the forums. The main reason developers are holding back is that they get slaughtered if they don't provide a patch for free, get slaughtered when they do and it has problems in FSX, and no developer wants to reinvent the wheel for a third time after SP1 forces whatever changes - Gary Summons has already indicated that he will need to patch his Extreme sceneries to work with SP1, and it is known he is on the Beta team. For all the other developers who aren't, they have to wait. No choice.And then there is the simple fact that not everyone can use FSX, not everyone wants to abandon FS2004, and there's still money to be made marketing addons for the old sim. So why change?Allcott

>Then spend more time in the forums. >Do we have to memorize all posts or spend hours by searching to avoid comments like this? I don't know about how BOPrey feels, maybe he don't mind, but I can imagine people getting upset by being told that they don't spend enough time in the forums. Maybe you don't mean any harm Allcott, but it might happen that you scare people from using these forums by this attitude of yours.Take care!Eagle

>Then spend more time in the forums. >Some people may actually have a life besides reading every single post on avsim.com... :-roll :-waveshocky :-hahhttp://img7.exs.cx/img7/5379/Banner21.jpg

To defend Allcott here a bit, I find I do have to make blog posts out of things I post here because the same question does get asked over and over. It does get a little tiring when there is a search function precisely to make existing information available.Maybe there needs to be a global "useful information" sticky that worthy posts get added to, so they dont get lost?For instance, my post about Water 2.x and how much it cost. MauiHawk asked for that info to be called out more on my blog. How many people saw that and now understand why Water 2.x is such a killer, and why Water 2.lo is sometimes a good compromise?I dont see worthy information like that being kept around.PS. I try not to get attitude about it and see what I do as a service, but occasionally at my keyboard I *am* flinging my hands up in the air and giving a deep sigh. There have only been a few of my posts that are overly terse or potentially readable as harsh but thats because I usually read them 2-3 times before I send. And I went thru the D3D-OGL wars on the frontline and understand where I made mistakes in my conduct there and am trying not to do that again :-). Understand others *can* get frustrated at repetition and let it thru. Its usually not personal, just exasperation.

That's OK. Thnx for your comments. I don't really give a rat if developers are holding back or not. If they are, it is their lost. The future is in FSX, and I see opportunities in it. I like very realistic addons (planes), and I have my hands full with them for the next few months.

You are right Phil it's not so much what alcott says but the way she says it, ofcourse I do understand that if the same questions get asked over and over again it's tiring :-) :-waveshocky :-hah

http://img7.exs.cx/img7/5379/Banner21.jpg

I get annoyed by ludicrous signatures that don't benefit anyone at all, but you don't find me bitvhing about it. I'm in a fortunate minority in that my work permits me to spend time camped on the forum, watching threads develop. But usually with other things on the go. Lots of things. So the number of times the same questions come up, often within hours of the previous one, interests and annoys me in equal measure. For that reason - and for precisely the reasons Phil outlines above -it's reasonable to expect people to use forums productively, and to seek answers to questions that almost always have been posted before. My advice to spend more time in the forums was an indication that this is the best resource for finding out about new releases and upcoming releases. Like for example the FSD update which has been done to death, not ignored, in this very forum. So it was a bad example to start with, and actually revealed the quality of the research before posting. At this point in the products life, would anyone care to speculate whether it is actually even TRUE that addons are slow to come on stream? We all seem to assume that is the case, but where is the evidence? If you count all the port-overs and patches, I'd actually bet the opposite is true: At this point - seven months or whatever, there are actually more addons available for FSX than there were for FSACOF at the same point in its lifespan. Allcott

Actually, a very large part of the "problem" is that very often the "Subject" entries aren't very descriptive of the content of the message. If they were more cogent to the content, it would go a long ways towards helping folks find answers simply by scanning the Subject lines... ;)For example, I frequently see something like, "Subject: OK, here's the deal..."That just isn't very informative, eh? In fact, the Subject line of this very thread would be more cogent had it been: "FSX - Why the Delay in Add-ons?"

I don't see why a patch has to be free if the underlying Operating System (in this case FSX) is changed. There is nothing wrong with developing for the old sim and not join the bandwagen of FSX addons. At the end, developers are going to decide themselves what makes the most business sense.

>I don't see why a patch has to be free if the underlying>Operating System (in this case FSX) is changed. There is>nothing wrong with developing for the old sim and not join the>bandwagen of FSX addons. At the end, developers are going to>decide themselves what makes the most business sense. Yes, another good reason for not rushing - sit back and see what commercial potential exists. While it's always nice to get something for nothing, there shouldn't ever be an obligation on a developer to provide a patch from one version to the next, unless it was promised in the initial contract. I suppose it all depends on the amount of extra work needed, if it's just a prod and a poke and push it out the door then do it for free, but that's what most of us thought FSX was going to be like, whereas it turns out the differences are more important than the similarities. The round earth has caused quite a lot of problems for airport designers. And the extra work and effort involved in `just` porting an addon over obviously affects some developers and some products more than others. And if they have to put hundreds of man hours in, why should it be free?Then there is the difference between just making something work and actually taking advantage of new opportunities. Carenado have a simple porting system, but their products are NOT significantly altered or enhanced for FSX. On the other hand DreamFleets Archer III has gone back almost to the drawing board for FSX. Both ways are `right` but one is here, now, the other isn't. Should that be a criticism? I don't think so.Allcott