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

[PhilTaylor 45]

Perhaps that was a bit abrupt, but elements of the community do not need to try to deconstruct every word I say and find a place where they can make a negative comment. Really. Especially when it calls my plans into question, to try to insinuate we dont know what we are doing or I in specific dont know what I am doing - I do reserve the right to respond.

[Guest Robin R.]

No solution or potential for solution - which is better? Bare in mind, some don't think there is a problem at all or don't find the problem to be significant -- fair enough to each his or her own.Assuming the problem does exist and it is a distraction for some (one worth addressing), I would like to know how one can achieve less or mostly insignifant scenery blurries/morphing while staying in a 32bit address space?What I've seen are many approaches to minimizing the problem, but as I understand it the design of FSX is such that the problem can't be eliminate (at least in a 32bit address space). If the design of the scenery engine remains then DX10 will not be a solution either.I haven't heard how DX10 is going to remove this problem or any other solution that will address this problem -- have you?Robin.

[michal 44]

>Assuming the problem does exist and it is a distraction for>some (one worth addressing), No doubt there are numerous deficiencies or 'distractions' in FSX, you may get very different list of such primary distractions depending whom you ask. I used to work as software analyst for Singer-Link - maker of very expensive motion-based military flight simulations over 20 years ago. The scenery through the windows left a lot to be desired, no doubt it was a 'distraction' for some yet it was still deemed worth the money.Your 'problem' probably exists but it doesn't mean there aren't 100 other problems not less important OR that somehow there is an obvious solution with no side-effects that somehow everyone misses except of you. I have been in software engineering for too long and have read/seen too many presumptuous "quick fixes" to many software ills that had no bearing on contemporary reality and/or existing 'state of the art'.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[ShezA 176]

Phil,Just want to appreciate all the work you guys do. This is a highly complex program and you guys do a great job in enhancing it and supporting it.Shez

[Guest alex333]

I can absolutely understand that you were "a bit abrupt".Phil, there are some who just cannot appreciate all the work and consideration that went into FSX and SP1.Personally, I really do appreciate what you gave to the flightsim community. My FS runs on a pretty old system, sometimes (understandably) slowly und with graphical drawbacks due to system limitations.But still I enjoy the fantastic "immersivness" of this sim and I think that even though there are some bugs it is a really great piece of software. One can feel that the developers @ Aces are really devoted to what they're doing.I appreciate even more the way you keep on communicating with the community. Don't let the negative comments bring you down. Thanks for everything!Alex

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Phil, I can't believe you've been able to hold back this long. As has been said earlier, the negative posters (and the ones that get personal) have more time on their hands cause they're not flying in FSX like we are.Keep up the good work and thank your for all of your communication--especially your forum posts. I hope it doesn't take too many hours out of your day (or too many hairs turned grey).

[n4gix 4,947]

>BTW, I never suggest DX10 was just a matter of a recompile.While that statement is true, you nevertheless do have the propensity to trivialize things to the point of absurdity:"I've done 32bit to 64bit ports on WinXP 32/64 and it wasn't what I would consider a "Big deal" -- pretty much a search and replace with recompile with some tuck and tidy work around allocations and a bunch of testing -- on the project I was working on (it was large) took about a month. But I don't pretend to know your code base so maybe you've got a lot more issues to deal with?"There do exist some migration paths and semi-automated techniques suitable for single threaded apps that can be ported to 64bit without a horrendous rewrite of code, but when you are dealing with a tightly bound, multi-threaded, multi-fiber app it's not so "trivial."Odd too that final sentence I quoted above, since it is clear that you do - in fact - "pretend to know" about a lot of things that have subsequently been debunked. :-hmmm Further, your insinuations and intimations are bordering on being "personal attacks" and are certainly not appropriate to this, or any other venue for that matter.

[Manny 1,293]

>Phil, I can't believe you've been able to hold back this>long. As has been said earlier, the negative posters (and the>ones that get personal) have more time on their hands cause>they're not flying in FSX like we are.>>Keep up the good work and thank your for all of your>communication--especially your forum posts. I hope it doesn't>take too many hours out of your day (or too many hairs turned>grey).I agree. They could also care less if the Flight sim franchize just dies. They have no vested interest in this. They are not stakeholders. They'll simply move on to other stuff like parasites!Manny

[Guest cbuchner1]

My comment was pointed, but not meant negatively. I have the utmost respect for Doug's work and I hope the team succeeds in bringing the project from Wireframe to the announced look and feel that the marketing department would like you to implement.Maybe posting those "concept art" screenshots early on wasn't such a good idea because people are going to measure your success against these pictures.Now if you'd like to excuse me, I'll go back into my little Tileproxy corner and continue make the terrain look like DX11.

[PhilTaylor 45]

I appreciate the return comment, thanks for that. It just seemed a bit harsh to express that level of doubt that we have mis-assigned priorities/difficulties/resources based on a "chatty" comment from me. I could have just as well said "we placed our superstar hire from the FPS world on the infrastructure bring-up since he has real-world DX10 experience and that is why we hired him" but then I would have had to explain who Doug is and that would have detracted from the rest of the message about the project status. So let me go ahead and do that. Here is a link if you want to read about Doug and see his game industry creditshttp://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/v...eloperId,64599/ Doug spoke at GDC 06 about a next-gen DX10 title Ritual was working on at the time, slides are here http://www.cmpevents.com/sessions/GD/S2128i1.ppt. We felt quite lucky to get him and it was an easy decision to let him run with the DX10 work. Does that serve to validate his level of experience and credentials to take on deep DX10 work? Oh yes, we can certainly agree publishing the magic screenies was premature.

[Guest cbuchner1]

I wasn't hinting at misaligned priorities at all. I was just astonished by the complexity of the jobs you assign to new employees in what you called "the learning phase". But it seems the natural and logical choice, given his credentials.You know, in January I was having high hopes for a job interview at Aces. But now I am actually glad I am not the new guy, really... ;)Christian

[PhilTaylor 45]

we do tend to throw you in the fire straightaway, both here in Aces and MS in general. if you make it thru, we know you are fully fire tested. if you crack, 'twere best to know quickly.

[Guest tmilton]

>we do tend to throw you in the fire straightaway, both here>in Aces and MS in general. if you make it thru, we know you>are fully fire tested. if you crack, 'twere best to know>quickly.>>LOL, basically "trial by fire". :-newburn :(

[PhilTaylor 45]

newburn, I like that :-).