1st day of summer and 1st FSX-DX10 Progress report

[Guest Robin R.]

> Microsoft made a business decision to make a new product with new features. If we didnt make new products with new features, we would soon no longer be in business. I have said this before, if you look at the scope of changes to the kernel and to the runtime, it would no longer be XP when the job is done. It would be Vista; because the job of DX10 is to make games and the desktop play nice. Sure, if you want to retro-actively redefine DX10 to be just the new hw features then maybe you have a point but that is not what DX10 is; that is an incredibly narrow reading of DX10 to get your point across. OGL doesnt expose this functionality at this time, and it will be a challenge to get that functionality in OGL without significant driver work. So to say I am to blame for SP1 needing to exist completely turns reality around - so you are way out of line there. Way.

[FlyingsCool 3]

And Red Baron, and Aces of the Pacific, etc., etc..Despite all the yelling and screaming of other people, I loved Red Baron II/3D. I still pull it out occasionally, and invested in some of the addons available being written still today.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

[PhilTaylor 45]

Thats one I am in the credits for, and quite proud of having worked on. I actually played all the way thru to the video when you defeat the enemy on the moon. Some of those levels where challenging.

[michal 44]

>But>either way, if you release software with the intent to follow>it up with SP1 then somewhere along the line software>development has become warped.Unfortunately history of your posts show the same propensity to make things up - like this 64-bit "must-have" stuff or your famous "proof" why the FSX engine is obsolete. There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions but at some point it is tiring to read the same rehashed nonsense. :-blaMichael J.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Robin,>>So to say I am to blame for SP1 needing to exist completely turns >>reality around - so you are way out of line there. Way. >I disagree, out of line only because this industry (software >development) is constantly pushed the boundaries of what >is "acceptable" software to the end user. So what prompted SP1? I >recall some posts by you that suggested you hadn't decided on >whether or not there will be an SP1, it wasn't until the flood of >posts of users with major performance problems. But either way, if >you release software with the intent to follow it up with SP1 then >somewhere along the line software development has become warped.I started in July 06 and the product RTM'ed in Sept 06 and was on shelves by Oct 17 06. Thus RTM wasn't my watch. Not saying I disagree with the calls for RTM, just that it wasnt my call. So your allusion to some intent by me to release RTM with a plan for SP1 already in mind is indeed turning reality around.SP1 *is* where my history with the franchise begins. That history is captured in my blog. Herein is the sequence: 1)Nov 27th "New job, new role" post where I introduced myself to the community 2)Nov 30th "FSX:Today and Tomorrow" post where as part of a larger discussion I first committed to an investigation about RTM issues and possible actions 3)Nov 30th "Responding to Community feedback" post where I narrowed the focus to what Aces was going to do about RTM issues ( just in case it was lost in the larger discussion ) and where I promised to come back after Jan 1st and discuss the plan that was created as a result of our investigations.At that point, I had already made a commitment to the community. So within 4 days of my introducing myself to the community I committed Aces and then consistently followed thru on that commitment over the months that followed. Whether there was a flood of posts before or after is immaterial; although in point of fact it was the posts *before* that date that I was responding to. As far as the "havent decided" part - yes I was being cagey in public since I couldnt make a public commitment to SP1 until later - even though I was already blazing the path by then internally.I think if you look at this timeline and your comments, you will see you are wrongly placing blame on me. The rest we can have an adult discussion and agree to disagree where we see things differently. Unless your goal is just to find someone to blame and thats it. If so, fine. But that doesnt match up to the historical timeline and associated public facts.Phil

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Thats one I am in the credits for, and quite proud of having>worked on. I actually played all the way thru to the video>when you defeat the enemy on the moon. Some of those levels>where challenging.I've played all of the Earth Siege series, with the exception of Battledrome. I hate seeing those great companies with so much history get shut down. Looking Glass and Ion Storm and Dynamix. And you can see their mark on the industry today.Of course, Garage Games is doing the TorqueX engine for XNA, and Looking Glass members are responsible for Bioshock, Guitar Hero and Deus Ex (big Warren Spector fan here).This is all of topic, but I have a great deal of nostalgia for those studios.

[blave 0]

>"Mr. Robin",>>Whats your problem?My thoughts exactly.FWIW, Mr. Robin, I play FS on a multi-monitor setup (actually, monitor/projector) 90% or more of the time I have it running - and I have no plans to buy 64 bit hardware anytime soon. My 3.4gHz Dell 8400 runs FS-X quite acceptibly so I'm not compelled to spend the $ for quite a while yet.It's already been brought up, but I will add my vote for non-confrontational responses to things that MS (Phil, etc.) is doing very differently than not so long ago - communicating with us and actively participating in the forums and their blogs.cheers,Dave Blevins

[btacon 1,772]

Phil...I for one would like to simply thank you for your efforts. At the end of the day, as much as I would believe otherwise :-) groundbound former pilot that I am, the FS franchise is merely a game, albeit a hugely complex and amazing game, but still a game nonetheless. For my $$$ over the years, I've gotten incredible value, warts and all.I believe FSX will sort itself out one way or another, either HW and patching will make it a classic, or it will end the franchise, or perhaps be a harbinger of better things to come from lessons learned, much like FS2002 was.But that was not the point of my post, my post was simply to thank Phil and the Aces team, but mostly Phil as he takes the brunt of the wrath in the community, real or misplaced.Best,bt

[Guest cbuchner1]

It's nice to get an update on the progress, but I think this means that there FSX "10.1" still has a long way to go!What I find notable is that they let "the new guy" (new hire) do the DX10 work. Porting the graphics backend to DX10 does not quite sound like an introductory task, if you ask me... If that's just the learning phase at ACES ... how's the productive (crunch) phase going to look like ;-)

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Yeah, we usually give the new guy something like writing reports. Maybe their new guy is really good (or experienced).

[PhilTaylor 45]

Doug Service worked at Ritual, on CounterStrike:XBox and Star Trek:Elite Force2 ( entire terrain engine) amongst other titles. So he is "only the new guy" here in Aces.We do know what we are doing, thank you very much. And your assumptions and comments are just plain unfounded.

[Guest Robin R.]

Michael,It's unfortunate you find it non-sense. I will trust my eyes so long as they remain good. The morphing nature of FSX scenery (call it what you like) is a perhaps a more significant distraction to me than others. However, it does not remove the reality that it exists.We can debate why it exists, but I've tried the exhaustive list of "ways to fix this" and still have the morphing scenery. As I understand from Phil is that they use a texture swapping approach with a small LOD for higher detailed textures. If this is the limitation of the LOD and the LOD can't be increased to 120mi due to memory limitations of the 32bit OS, then what do you suggest to make this work?The only way I see is a 64bit OS with a 64bit FSX -- if you have another solution that will truely solve this morphing or blurries problem then please do share it. But like I've said, I've tried everything suggest (even kept a massive spreadsheet of my results) and more -- combine that with design parameters offered by Phil, this is how they elected to implement an infinite visibility solution. I haven't seen any post from you to suggest a better solution other than saying it's all just my imagination and/or anyone else that finds the morphing scenery a significant distraction. In fact, if you would like to compare "rehashed" posts, most of yours are telling people to shut up and go away -- I certainly don't find that helpful or in anyway something to help get FSX into the here and now of technology. 64bit processing is NOT "new" -- considering I can purchase a 64bit processor from NewEgg for a whopping $29.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819104232 this isn't really piggy bank braking technology.Robin.

[Guest Robin R.]

Phil,I stand corrected on your starting on this project. I didn't realize it was July 06.But to get to the issues at hand:1. Do you agree that the blurries and/or morphing scenery or whatever you want to call it exists?2. If yes, are you implementing solutions to remove or significantly reduce this problem?3. If yes, what is your solution?If you say No to #1 above, then whether you or I or the community agree or disagree is pretty irrelevant. Who's on board, who's coding, when you started on FSX, and what your plans are with DX10 are for me all irrelevant as a problem can't be fixed if you don't believe it exists. I can wait another 3 years for another version of FS that will be 64bit and I'm sure when it is 64bit you'll be promoting all the new features and how you were able to remove the limitations of the 32bit product. It's just a matter of time -- too bad that time can't be sooner rather than later.Robin.

[michal 44]

>The only way I see is a 64bit OS with a 64bit FSX -- if you>have another solution that will truely solve this morphing or>blurries problem then please do share it. Sorry, I don't have a solution but neither do you. Your "only way I see" doesn't make it a solution.Michael J.

[vgbaron 3,496]

>Doug Service worked at Ritual, on CounterStrike:XBox and Star>Trek:Elite Force2 ( entire terrain engine) amongst other>titles. >>So he is "only the new guy" here in Aces.>>We do know what we are doing, thank you very much. And your>assumptions and comments are just plain unfounded.>Bravo, Phil! Wondered when some of the inane speculation would get to you. I am glad I am not in your shoes. I also realize that you know the majority of people on these forums are really happy with your approach and dedication to FSX - we just don't continually post about it.The communication medium makes it inherently difficult to determine the age, experience, education level of the author. Sometimes the childish comments are from children.Just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/