If we can have an intelligent, rational discussion I will participate. See http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor

You cut the clock really close Phil, lol. Thank You for the update!

Intelligent and rational in the Aristotlean or the Socratic tradition?Just kidding!Although it would be nice to put in my two cents, I will reserve my judgements until such as time as I have seen the product in depth for myself. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff Reviewer, Avsim

Hi Phil, Thank you for your post. I'm just surprised that when I compare the 2 screenshots, I prefer the Dx9 one, the light seems better. Do you think it's possible to post these screenshots in a large size ?Best,

Phil,Thanks for the SP2/DX10 update. Acceleration, in my opinion, does have a lot of value packed into it for $30 so it will most likely find a place along side FSX in my box. It looks like you've done a great job from what I've seen and heard so far.In your SP2 post you mentioned DX10 not being backward compatible. Could you elaborate on that some more? Are you saying that scenery and/or aircraft from the third party community will not work in DX10 mode (i.e. Level-D or PMDG aircraft)? I guess I'm still a little comfused about that part.Thanks again,-Thad

"That is 20% better FPS under load."Not only visual enhancements, but lucky Vista users get to push the sliders to the right.Mike.

There are 2 types of content out there:1)current generation content, exported via FSX SDK tools and imported as "1st class" content in the FSX engine2)previous generation content, exported via previous generation SDK tools and imported via a back-compat code path in the FSX engineIts only category 2 content, and old category 2 content, that has any issue in Acceleration and SP2. Its the last of the 4 code paths I mentioned ( FSX-DX10, FSX-DX9, FS2004, pre-FS2004 ) that got the least amount of time so pre-FS2004 content may have issues depending upon what BGL technique they may rely on.FSX content is just fine.

Nice work. From what I've read I can say that I'm pleased with SP2. Now my only question is will DX9 users get a 20% increase in FPS or is this only on DX10?

Got it! Thanks for the clarification.BTW, for the reasons given, I agree with your statement, "We are not promising runtime backwards compatibility in the current DX10 code path now or in the future." IMO you're making the right call.-Thad

"a) The first is to send a message that we are going to change the backwards compatibility story moving forwards."Does this mean that at some point in the future you are considering rebuilding the engine from the ground up? I'm sure a lot of folk will be pleased to here this news.Mike.

First of all, thank you Phil for the update. You state in your blog:"We didn

>I hope I'm not putting you on the spot or anything, but might>you have an idea when this will be worked on in the future,>and is it possible we might see a single patch release for>it?Phil states:"At this point, from a studio perspective it is time to move on from FSX so we have no future updates planned for the engine."That seems very clear to me.

I believe you're right. *Sigh* It guess was wishful thinking on my part in hoping there might be been the possibility of the slightest exception.

I understand the disappointment and completely appreciate the level-headed way you delivered it. I committed to being honest about what was in and out, so the 2 DX9 and 2 DX10 features I mentioned were definitely in the plan and we just didnt get to them or get to finish them where a start was made.I need to be a bit reserved here wrt updates. We do evaluate, but they are not in the current plan wrt FSX is all I can say.Of course as the engine moves forward for other products...

Thank you Phil for all of your hard work! From an FS11 perspective, you probably have a much easier platform to work from now. However, I am still with FS9, so now it is time for me to see what is in store with future hardware upgades (AMD Phenom and a DX10 card) so that I can begin to move from FS9 and enjoy FSX for a few years. RH