Yeah, an aircraft editor for the average user seems silly to me. Some people might like it, but I'd much rather have a scenery editor if I had to choose.Once I get some cash again, I'll probably go for the new version of EZ-Scenery for FSX (I forget the name). I don't know how well it works, though. But I like EZ-Scenery.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

There is a side thread topic that has emerged that is promoting Microsoft to develop easier tools for beginners. I'd suggest if you want that idea to get focus that you put it in a seperate thread.This thread was about backward compability.Easy tools for "average joes" makes no difference to the backward compatibiliy discussion. The implication that you don't have "average joe" scenery now is wrong. Much has been released for fs9, and much likely works ok in fsx. Freeware has always been produced that remained within the sdk limitations. Problem is, its easily forgotten. When developers break the boundaries and create something spectacular, its what people value and what people remember. Its just not what people want to talk about. Look at this thread, and find the freeware sceneries by average joe's being discussed....(oops sorry, trick question, there wasn't any) And freeware by average joe's won't be what people want to talk about even if new tools get produced by microsoft, cuz creative experienced folks will create something no one has every experienced before, that won't be backward compatible, but the future seems far away and who cares, and wow its cool....etc etc etc... How many times have you heard that "so and sos" scenery sets a new "standard" for scenery (when really that standard can only be reached by busting the sdk limits). And the next version will come and somebody will say...how come the really cool scenery doesn't work, and no one will say its ok cuz my average joe sceneries do work.It just doesn't work that way.Best,Bob

Bob,While I completely agree that freeware sceneries are rarely the talk of the town, I still think you're underestimating the overall value of an easy all-in-one scenery editor for average airports. For example, with a click and drag of the mouse I would like to be able to mitigate add on mesh vs airport elevation conflicts, or remove the blasted thermal at KSEZ (ez landclass doesn't work), or add and arrange scenery objects without having to slew around awkwardly. If there were an easy to use and certainly less time consuming editor then many people would do such things, improving and enhancing a whole slew of regular airports and locations. And since VFR packs are few and far between, we wouldn't have to hop in a jetliner to travel from one nice airport to another. I imagine people would come out with freeware collections of airports - perhaps in their own geographic vicinity - not of the highest order but much better than mass-generated default.So taking things as a whole, there would be a lot of talk.

I understand your point. I'm not arguing against easy tools, I'm just saying its not the intention of the original poster of this thread.Bob

There seems to be an assumption that backwards compatibility is hurting performance, but what is the evidence for that?scott s..

I hadn't noticed that assumption. Can you point out what leads you to that conclusion?B

>This thread was about backward compatibility.Mmm, not quite from what I can tell. Although I agree with many of the points in here, I believe the point of this this thread was to determine which scenery works in FSX.

lol....sounds good. the connection is that fs9 scenery won't work in fsx unless there is backward compatibility.B

Just a thought from someone who knows nothing about creating scenery. But I was wondering whether it might be feasible for some of the scenery designers out there to easily modify their older FS9 scenery to remove runways and taxiways and utilise the default FSX ones for the time being, but keep the bespoke GMAX buildings etc. relocated to fit the default apron areas, perhaps with a simple exclude for the area in question. At least that way we might see some more realistic airports coming through, even though they do have all the bells and whistles of FSX?Any thoughts from those that know?Cheers,Stuart

>I hadn't noticed that assumption. Can you point out what>leads you to that conclusion?>>Biroc:So much for this notion of maintaining backwards compatibility in new releases - I wish ACES would either make it work or if they can't, scrap that goal entirely for the sake of better performance. As it is, it seems very little has been accomplished to that end. JMHO.Papa 3 Charlie:That is my feeling exactly. If maintaining backwards compatibility means we have to sacrifice performance than I say performance should take precidence.If I am misconstruing these quotes, I apologize. scott s..

thanks scott....spaced out that folks were connecting those dots.I couldn't say whether that notion is valid or not. Can anybody remind me if we know for a fact that there is a performance hit claimed by Microsoft for maintaining backward compatibility? Bob