SP2 Post is Live

[Guest cschmokel]

Nice! VC shadows, HDR bloom, and improved performance .. I'm a happy camper. Thanks Phil!

[scott967 62]

USD30 sounds pretty good just for a good F/A-18 and carrier, esp compared to what Euro-priced addons are going for these days.I'm still concerned that the addon community (pay and free) still seem to be very much FS9-based. Maybe as Reggie indicated that was just waiting for the SPs to shake out, maybe it's a chicken and egg situation with the user base.I bought an 8800 and vista biz, not specifically for FSX but I admit I haven't installed vista yet and might not until FSX sp2 is out (and then it will be close to vista sp1). scott s..

[Guest dswo]

>Well, with either one on you will see some improvement. Only>those 2 things, though, work specifically better in dx10.Here is the list of DX10 improvements in PT's blog:"1) VC shadows 2) HDR Bloom 3) Water enhancements 4) Efficiency improvements via more Autogen batching, more efficient shaders, and a more efficient method of generating bloom."

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Yea, but in about two months, Bill is going to reduce the cost of the OS by $100 ... just like Steve did with the iPhone.Can't have Steve one-upping Bill on issues of this import, now can we?So ... all-in-all, it pays to be an early adopter.

[Guest jbrians]

I was talking specifically about performance. The things that are improved performance in DX10 vs. DX9 are bloom and water effects.VC Shadows is a feature, not a performance item.The new autogen batching work exists for both dx9 and dx10, so that is a perf gain that works for everybody. It is only valuable with autogen content designed to take advantage of it (like some of the new scenery work we did around Istanbul and Tempelhof), though.

[Guest Lith1um]

Phil, (and Brian)Congrats to you and your team. I think FSX is an incredible product and I can't wait to get my hands on the xpack.I agree with the decision regarding backward compatibility.Most of all I really appreciate you guys taking time to speak with us during the development process. So many times I've felt sorry for you as you answered repetitive questions just to get through the denser craniums among us. Or how some people have incredibly high and unrealistic expectations given the realities of software development and currently available hardware.I hope you continue communicating with us in your future endeavors, and commend you for holding your composure no matter how much scat us caged monkeys flung at you. Best wishes for the future.LithNow bring on those night traps!

[rhodges 6]

Hello Ryan:I see you list XP Pro, SP2 with a 6800XT video card. I am a bit confused. Somehow I got the impression that for DirectX 10 Vista was going to be required. Does this mean that I will be able to implement DX10 with XPPro + my 8800GTX?Thanks:RTH

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,No, Vista only.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Guest]

>Hello Ryan:>>I see you list XP Pro, SP2 with a 6800XT video card. I am a>bit confused. Somehow I got the impression that for DirectX 10>Vista was going to be required. Does this mean that I will be>able to implement DX10 with XPPro + my 8800GTX?>>Thanks:>RTHHe is not posting his own DX10 screenshots, those are from Phils blog. DX10 is not available yet, and you need vista.

[NetNinja 14]

>>If we can have an intelligent, rational discussion I will>>participate. >>>>See http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor>>Innovation... accelerated>>Acceleration looks to add value, this I agree with. >Acceleration is a good title for the ACES official add-on as I>believe that ACES is accelerating change and innovation within>the FS engine which is having some interesting follow-on>effects. There are also interesting changes afoot within the>operating system which MSFS is expected to run on. Thus, FSX>is clearly a transitional title, much as Vista and .NET>3.0/3.5 are as well.>>Talking to the people and expectations>>I think the new openness that ACES is engaging in with the>"community" is welcome; however, this openness also>constitutes a transition for both ACES and the simming public.> With FS2004, simmers were accustomed to having a vast variety>of add-on aircraft and such and the technology/back-end>transitions with FSX have slowed the 3rd party market down. >People want their toys and MSFS has evolved into the>playground in which those toys are deployed. The release of>two Service Packs for FSX within the first year of release>highlights the growing pains of the technology transition>which FSX represents. We can observe further evidence of the>technology growing pains when we consider how long it has>taken "first-class" FSX add-ons to emerge: PMDG's 747-x comes>to mind. Why is this? I think it has to do with performance>- these products most likely need SP1 and SP2 to even be>"playable.">>The modeling programs required to make aircraft are roughly>unchanged with the FSX SDK. The gauge programming aspects are>roughly unchanged since FS2004 SDK (XML-based gauges work in>the same manner as do C/C++ gauges). Don't get me wrong, I've>studied the SDK closely and recognized that there are many new>features and changes (SimConnect) which require mastery. >However, people expect 3rd-party stuff and want it soonest. >As FSX is so transitionary, fulfilling this need is>challenging. Since the tools are more the same than not, then>the underlying MSFS engine must have changed to the point that>performance with the "toys" won't be acceptable. This is what>makes FSX transitionary: technology innovations are so taxing>that 3rd party stuff is stifled. Thus, we await the next>evolution.>>The effects of flux>>While I am happy to see Microsoft/ACES release their own>add-on content for the first time in decade or more, the flux>brought by FSX and its transitory nature with respect to the>FS "engine" understandibly abrades on the masses. We are in a>time of technology instability with things like FS2004 to FSX,>Windows XP to Windows Vista and DirectX 9 to DirectX 10. I>suppose ACES picked a doosey of a time to start talking to the>people face-to-face. There are so many changes afoot that [a>href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt]FUD[/a]>and emotions are very likely to whip up. Again, we want our>toys! In this sense, ACES has entered into the fray to give>us extra toys with Acceleration.>>The trouble with setting high expectations>>With all that said, we must accept some acpects of>expectation. ACES DID hype us up with the promises of "God>rays" and other such fantasia with the "magic screenies.">Regardless of the regret expressed by ACES concerning the>"magic screenies," the die has been cast and the jig is up. >The skeptics were doubtful concerning the "magic screenes">(and right they were to be) and Phil's SP2/Acceleration>announcement is clearly a let down. Ending up with a DX10>"preview" at the end of the life cycle of a product which was>to be a "flagship" for DX10 is a clear indictment of DX10>itself. Nobody is/was ready for DX10 (hardware manufacturers,>game studios (ACES to be sure) and consumers). >>Such is the way of things when paradigmatic technology changes>are attempted. People invest a lot of time and money in their>toys and want them to last for some time to come. The 3rd>party market with FS2004 boomed as FS2004 was a relatively>stable instatiation of MSFS at the tail-end of the>FS2002/FS2004 era of the engine and SDK. Performance was>great on most folks' hardware in FS2004 and people were>content. We all know what a struggle it has been to make FSX>smooth in the first year. Of course, I know this is to be>expected and we've seen this pattern before. Again...>managing expectations: we are all guilty.>>In the last 18 months expectations and promises regarding FSX,>Vista and DX10 have been enflamed based on both fact and>fiction. This fact and fiction have come from a variety of>sources, including ACES/Microsoft.>>[a]Marketing?[/a]>>While many see [a>href=http://www.marketingprofs.com/2/whatismarketing.asp]marketing[/a]>as a dirty word, one facet of marketing is delivering. >Partial delivery is a common fact-of-life in markets, but>partial delivery does tarnish consumer confidence. If there>were more viable alternatives, perhaps consumers could react>in effective ways beyond whining, bargaining and venting. For>all intents and purposes, there are few alternatives to MSFS. >>>It may sound like I hate MSFS; quite the contrary, I've been a>fan since a young age and can proudly state that I've been>around since the "wireframe" days. You see, MSFS has such as>strong legacy that ACES are in a precarious situation as>stewards of the legacy. I must point out that I believe ACES>is certainly moving the franchise forward and bring great>things and great hope for MSFS. In short, I believe ACES are>good stewards of the legacy. However, promises made and not>delivered have occured (and will likely continue). Again...>managing expectations: we are all guilty.>>[a]Oh well, there's always FS11[/a]>>The good part of all of this is the fact that MSFS marches on>(The King is Dead, Long Live the King!). I've enjoyed FSX on>the whole and realize that it will continue to come into its>own. I'm certain that both the community and ACES have>learned alot with FSX and the open communications that have>surrounded the lead-up and release of FSX. ACES have given us>a good installment of MSFS with FSX and there is plenty to be>happy about. Among the greatest lessons might be managing>expectations and reading the market: both facets of marketing.> Will the missions pan out in the long run? I don't know,>many people like them, but buzz surrounding the missions is>low. The problem is, the people that ACES talks to are the>"hard core" and their expectations are hard to manage.>>So, has this post even addressed the main topic of this thread>(Acceleration, DX10 and SP2)? I believe so. In our new open>dialog, all parties are learning how to talk to each other. >ACES, you can't bandy about pie-in-the-sky expectations and>then wonder about irrationality when these expectations don't>materialize. Community, you must realize that a) Rome wasn't>built in a day and :( being a for-profit concern, ACES/MSFS>operates under constraints. No matter how cool/human ACES>are, they are under contract/employ of a large>entertainment/software company which must deliver products at>an interval such that income continues to roll in. We'll>never know the machinations behind the scenes which constrain>ACES, but we, the community, should realize by now that when>they promise us the Moon, realize you'll likely end up getting>to the Moon in the same way that the Apollo program got to the>Moon: in stages.>>Thank you ACES>>Phil, the openness of your team (and the team which took us up>to release) is obviously appreciated. You know that hobbyists>will always be a crazy lot - I hope that both sides will>continue to learn to manage their expecations.---------------------------------------------------------------------I find myself to be in such whole-hearted agreement with this post as to suggest that it be reposted, locked, pinned, and titled "MUST read before posting"

[ahuimanu 50]

>C'mon guys, don't let our passions get in the way of our>friendships.>>Phil opened the thread; that means you gotta take the good and>the bad.>>I think he gave credit or no credit without personally>attacking Phil. >>Everyone has to make their own decisions as to whether or not>they see the value, right?>>Edit: Hats off to Phil and team for their commitment and>following through with what they could. The dedication we all>can agree on, is very good. :-)I haven't attacked Phil. In fact, on a personal level, I think he's a great face/spokesperson for MSFS. However, things HAVE fallen short and a manager must assume some responsibility. On the whole, however, FSX is GREAT and I am happy to see it moving forward to Acceleration and beyond.So, yes, as a captain, Phil is steering the ship about as straight as it could be sailed.

[ahuimanu 50]

>yes, working catapults, plural, for takeoffs.>>yes, working arrestors and meatball for landings.>>yes, the F-18 has a working tailhook.I get the feeling that the F-18 + Carrier will be worth the price of admission.Could you please, uhmmm, Accelerate Acceleration? :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. *groan*

[Guest]

horrible dirty markettting from microsoft. only those with 30bux can get there framepit fsx fixed. we all paid money for this bad slow game. micsoft is a very very very bad company,But after looking at the patch fetures, i don't think me wants the patch. the DX9 version looks nice er to me thinks.please be nicer microsoft, you have to much moneies already & are just greedy,

[Geofa 108]

You must have not read the thread very carefully.Suggest you do so as your conclusions are not valid.I assume you are not greedy and don't try to make any money either for your hard work in your life...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Orlaam 315]

>horrible dirty markettting from microsoft. only those with>30bux can get there framepit fsx fixed. we all paid money for>this bad slow game. micsoft is a very very very bad company,>But after looking at the patch fetures, i don't think me wants>the patch. the DX9 version looks nice er to me thinks.>>please be nicer microsoft, you have to much moneies already &>are just greedy,Will you people please read before posting? The SP2 performance fixes and other issues mentioned will be a FREE DOWNLOAD. The Acceleration is an add-on that contains SP2, just because it would be odd not to have SP2 on the disc.