SP2 Post is Live

[FlyingsCool 3]

Actually, I think a lot of OOMs, at least in Vista, are caused by what appears to be a pretty major "feature" of Vista which was, due to security design, creating an extra copy of graphics memory. 3G will help, but Vista users should definitely look into this bug fix (see Phil's blog from 8/28/07).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

[FlyingsCool 3]

You are labeled a "basher" because you freely use clear unhindered by reality exaggerations to make your points.Nobody "lied" to you. They NEVER promised to supply all the features in the "magic screenies". From day one, the magic screenies were said to be an artist's rendering of what they hoped they'd be able to supply with the DX10 upgrade, and that all the features may not make into the eventual product.The only non-bash and truthful thing you said was your last sentence. If you had left it at that, nobody would have called you a basher.I'm happy with what I've gotten so far and feel I got very good value for my money. I'm sorry you aren't satisfied.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

[Guest tmilton]

>I would be happy if all your requests are implemented in the>next fs - but we all have very different opinions of what "hard>core" or "serious" is - and they are all valid. Personally for>my hard core wishes I'd take more animals and wild life (and>bugs) as I encounter these on a more regular basis than>sids/stars.Geoffa, that was an excellent post and you hit the nail right on the head. There also are a multitude of simmers who would feel absolutely the same way you do. I also consider myself a "hard-core" simmer, spending hours and hours immersed in it. The things you find important in the sim, I do as well.We do not fly in a vacuum in the real world. As you have pointed out, real experience shows we interact with the environment around us. When ACES includes these real world aspects in the sim, they substantially increase realism , and enhance our sim experiences to more closely mirror what we would see in real life. Yes, as we fly we certainly do see trees, cars, etc., and we do interact with people, and even animals, and other aspects of the world.The bottom line is we as serious simmers certainly have different opinions of what we would like to see in the sim, and as you've said, they are all valid. While I do respect Orlaam's own wish list as valid, I would hope that he would refrain from trivializing and criticizing other simmers' wish lists. Orlaam criticizes other simmers for their ideas and vision, calling them "silly", and passes judgment that their wishes are invalid and do not deserve any consideration because he knows best. Imposing on others that your own ideas are the "truth" and should trump everyone else's and insisting that you know best is truly unfortunate and reveals a troubling streak of egocentrism.Just as we respect your opinions, please respect other simmers' ideas and please refrain from labeling them as "silly", "naive", "greedy", "spoiled", and then insulting them by proclaiming they have no understanding of computer development - simply because they shared their wishes and ideas for what they would like in a sim.

[FlyingsCool 3]

I don't think I heard anyone say that they were "doing away" with backwards compatbility. My interpretation was that they were not promising back compat going forward. In my mind, this means that they will keep it when they can, and dump it when it gets in the way.Although, really, this isn't too different from what you said. I'm just one of those guys who likes back compat, silly as that may be. I suppose I'm just trying to hang on to my sanity.On another note related to 2 - (And perhaps starting a conspiracy theory :-) ) I wonder if all this work on supporting photo scenery means that the engine is preparing for native support of VE downloaded scenery further on down the line? Hmmmm?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

[bdenley 0]

I am encouraged! Maybe this 4 Gb quad Vista box (and 8800GTX) will let me run FXS with reasonable performnace after all! I have be pretty glum about it lately but Aces has me excited again. Thanks to Phil and the Aces team for their hard work. I am looking forward to the Oct 27th releasw.

[Orlaam 306]

Wow, just wow. As usual my post, which spent a great deal of time focusing on the positive side of FSX, which is the active engagement and support from ACES. A few of you instead marginalize my remarks about my desires for the sim and the unrealistic expectations so many of you have. Is it really that difficult to extract the main point of my posts in terms of asking for so many things and being unhappy with what you do end up with?? For chrissake, my issue has been with people criticizing ACES for not including certain features; however, those who criticize me are doing that very same thing. You're exploiting my words about those demand a virtual world, then complain when it doesn't run right. Ridiculous, but expected in a hobby so full of vexation and self-righteousness. You don't even read and infer what my message is before jumping all over me.Believe me when I say there are a lot of individuals upset about what FSX has presented with, especially when referring to ATC, AI, and other similar topics. It just so happens they've kept rather quiet on private forums, and when you see the lashing out at those who oppose your views, I can understand that reservation. I did, of course post what I thought of the situation right now, and obviously my sentiments have some accuracy or you wouldn't be so discouraged by it. I have to say though, that I don't appreciate the twisting of a commendation towards ACES and the request you respect their work, that's just pathetic. My comments were completely taken out of context. Besides, I can speak for a few when I say that a hard-core simulator guy can request whatever he likes, but when that individual can't fly in the real world, then he might just have different views. This community is so political it's impossible to have any rational discussion about anything without attacking someone for their views. So, you feel attacked and marginalized by my post, well now you know how I feel when you misinterpret my words and essentially tell me to p|ss off.I guess for my point to come across as a literal translation I must keep it simple, so at the expense of sounding curt, here is my post in as few words possible:Thank you ACES for all your hard work and support. Please refrain from bashing ACES just because your idea or feature didn't make the list, and don't complain when these features require a hardware or software upgrade.

[slashed2 53]

I just read your post and agree as I initially read the responses and didn't read your entire post thinking it was mostly another FSX bash. I'll somewhat agree on the ATC, it's what I wanted upgraded as well but didn't get my hopes up and always had Radar Contact to fall back on which is one of the forutunate parts of FS, if it's not in the release version someone comes along and puts it in.Weather/atmosphere is my pet peeve and I hope they can update it and really bring it closer to reality next time.I disagree with your post in the wishlist forum as though as it's mostly seems to be a lighthearted list of what could eventually be included not a hard list of features. I'm pretty sure Aces can distinguish between what is possible and what is not. It is interesting to see the diversity of wants and wishes though even the outrageous ones. People shopping at Wal-mart?I'll completly agree on the tough job Aces has though, with limited technology and time it's got to very difficult to implement and test new features on hardware that doesn't exist yet. Considering FS11 won't be out for another couple years who knows which direction things will go. I will say I'm enjoying the ride though.

[Orlaam 306]

Tim, I can't tell you how offensive your post is. Did you not understand that my remark about silly ideas was meant as a side comment, and really one where users request things that are asinine, like simulated blackouts, aneurysms, or even diarrhea. Yes, people have requested those things are part of a window that pops up and reports this is what has happened to you as you are flying. If you think that isn't silly, then I don't know what is. Your assertion that I somehow disrespect other ideas is dead wrong! I simply pointed out a fact that a lot of people want a virtual world and others want more specific things as part of flying, like better AI and the like. I guess throwing in the fact I consider myself a hardcore sim user and the fact I want things that are different means I disrespect everyone else and minimize their views. You have taken my post and completely misjudged the point I was making. My point was that people ARE greedy in that they insist on all these features that must be included or they will get mad. Did I say I was mad because my "visions" weren't enhanced in the sim? No, in fact I stated I respected ACES for supporting the product so much. Did you consciously decide to ignore that positive side of it? Disgusting, either way. Do I think someone who moans and groans because the new sim requires a computer upgrade is greedy or spoiled? In some cases, you're darn right. My whole post, in case you want to know, was about respecting the work ACES gives us and not beating up on them when certain features don't make the cut. You are so accusatory, to the point of calling me egocentric, it's clear you didn't understand or read my entire post. Perhaps you just took some critical reading class and felt you could read between the lines of my comments, when in fact that egregious error just angered me. What I type is a literal translation of what I want to be written, not some psychoanalytic statement for social review.

[Geofa 108]

Chris-I hope you don't see this as a slug fest on your post.I agree with much in your post-both your requests and viewpoint here and in the requests to the aces team in the thread above.However, reality and seriousness I think is in the eye of the beholder, simmer, and real flyer, as is the definition of what serious flying/simulating is.As I posted-sids and stars-not really a part of my 15-16 years of real ifr flying over 1000 hours and many miles-animals/bugs almost a daily occurrence. For some-getting pushed back in a virtual jet with virtual stewardesses and cabin calls, and a fmc is reality. For others that is gamelike. That is the beauty and diversity of fs-there is a reality for everyone-and every new version has just a little more of each for everyone-and what is lacking is made up by 3rd party developers.Kinda mimics the real world-I'd never race in Reno or Red Bull in real life-but some do. My flying partner does seaplanes and the other does gliders-I don't do either-but fsx offer all of these for everyone. I bet all are serious though. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Orlaam 306]

Yes, well if you see, my issue of not updating the ATC, AI and other content I mentioned, it wasn't so much a rant on the fact those things weren't updated. I got over that lack of features a long time ago. I was simply pointing out that different people have different requests and that mine just happened to be the ones I mentioned. Just as you posted above, my post was meant to serve the purpose of understanding that ACES can only include so much for it to run well and be programmed in the time period allotted. I was really trying to indicate that a lot of folks are always unhappy no matter how hard ACES tries, and therefore IMHO, they're greedy or whatever because they can't be happy with what ACES gave us. I was not trying to rail on those who propose ideas I think are unnecessary, rather point out that we all have "demands" and they all serve a certain niche. If you really look at what I posted, it was aimed at giving ACES kudos for giving us more support than ever before, and just because someone like me didn't get his or her wish, that I appreciate the work they do and will enjoy the product.More or less, Tim's remarks and at least one response other than his seemed to imply I was selfish and disrespectful of others. That couldn't be further from the truth, and quit frankly I'm surprised my post was misconstrued so much.I have often said, SIDs and STARs, for those who seem to rely on them and bash the default ATC for vectors, are more or less wrong. I will always point out the fact even large airlines follow vectors around here, but some have argued I am wrong in that assertion. So, I don't look at those plates as a right or wrong way of flying, but I know a lot of simmers, and especially online guys seem to imply not following a SID or STAR is not following the real world. As far as ATC is concerned, my requests are for more options mostly, such as diversion of a different field, Wx vectoring, and so on. I honestly think the default ATC with the help of EditVoicePack sounds the best in terms of overall impressions. RC and others do sound more robotic or strange to me, so it's a trade off. If I had one request for AI it would be following flight plans. That's it really. I don't want to restrict everyone else in their quest for more realism, I just want those requests to be within reason with the understanding some won't make it. ACES can't please everyone, but at least respect them for giving us patches to try and fix bugs. I realize I am abrasive and harsh, but mostly I'm direct, so I don't like it when my comments are twisted into something they never meant to be. This wasn't something you did Geofa, so those irritated replies are directed at you. ;)

[Guest tmilton]

Chris, there's a part of your message that I agree with. And that's taking people to task for beating up on ACES when their demands are not met. I completely agree with you on that. I think it's reprehensible that some insist certain features be included in FS and then rant at ACES for not acquiescing to their demands. I doubt anyone has a problem with this point you're making.However, what I have a problem with is ridiculing and issuing a blanket condemnation against contributed ideas that do not meet with your seal of approval, and then insulting those who contributed the said ideas by saying they have no knowledge or clue about computer development.The FS11 wish list posted on this forum is simply just that - a wish list. It's simply simmers from the community making suggestions, contributing and sharing ideas - that's it. Like Ian said (slashed2), and most of us have recognized, the wish list is simply a lighthearted collection of ideas of what could be possibly eventually included in FS. I did not see anyone rudely insisting of ACES that their demands be met. And if any individual did, then indeed that particular individual should rebuked for it.I read the all the suggestions on the list with a great deal of interest. Most of the ideas I thought were fantastic, and a few others not so much. Including "godrays" is one idea that doesn't illuminate too much interest in me (no pun intended :-)), but I do respect and acknowledge that some people would find it to enhance their simming experience if it were included. I will not insult those who suggest it, nor denigrate their idea as "silly", nor insist that only my vision of how ACES should mold FS is the only valid one. So if ACES decides to include it one day, I'll be happy for those whose wish on that list was fulfilled. Geofa's own real life aviation experience includes encounters with animals. If ACES decides to expand that aspect of the sim, and many simmers experiences and immersion are improved by this, then more power to ACES. I will always welcome an increase in realism, whichever aspect of the sim it is.Again, if you see any any individual who demands they are entitled to have ACES obey their every whim, then point them out on that. I agree with you there. But if all they are doing is just contributing ideas, then why attack and insult them? You may not think those ideas are relevant to your aviation experience, but to others it is to theirs.So I encourage everyone to continue to contribute suggestions, without fear of ridicule. ACES will decide what they will or will not implement, which ideas they can use now, and which ones in the future. It is not anyone's place to insist on making this determination for them, nor is it anyone's place to limit and shush up other people's ideas. So, open your imagination, advance your ideas and let ACES hear you!Remember, it is a paucity, and not an abundance of ideas that impedes innovation.

[Guest FredGherkin]

>Reading posts by bleeding hearts who don't have the courage or>gumption to go out and buy appropriate hardware to carry out>the mission (and still complain bitterly) is becomming an all>too common and a regular part of these forums and quite>frankly , a bit old.What an elitist comment. What does "courage and gumption" have to do with anything? Perhaps some people just don't have the resources to buy "appropriate hardware."

[RobbieHe 0]

That is funny! Some of us, however, have to learn the hard way. After spending countless hours figuring out the ins and outs of the FMC for the LDS 767-300ER, on how to program perfect SID and STAR configurations (patting myself on the back thinking I had arrived), I got a 30 second learning experience from the Radar Contact controllers who pretty much undid all that I had programed in -- especially on the STARs portion. Now, I pretty much leave that part blank until the controller tells me which runway to expect and I get a general sense on how he's going to lead me there.RH

[n4gix 4,947]

>That is funny! Some of us, however, have to learn the hard>way. After spending countless hours figuring out the ins and>outs of the FMC for the LDS 767-300ER, on how to program>perfect SID and STAR configurations (patting myself on the>back thinking I had arrived), I got a 30 second learning>experience from the Radar Contact controllers who pretty much>undid all that I had programed in -- especially on the STARs>portion. Now, I pretty much leave that part blank until the>controller tells me which runway to expect and I get a general>sense on how he's going to lead me there.Well, truthfully it is only prudent to program in everything in detail, because if communications are lost, which never happens with robo-ATC, but indeed CAN happen when flying VATSIM, IVAO, etc., you are required to fly the complete plan - as filed...However, also recognize that in all likelihood you will not actually fly the complete plan - as filed - instead being vectored around other traffic, weather, and occasionally what seems to be the controller's whimsy! ;)

[jdk2 1]

...you will not actually fly the complete plan - as filed - instead being vectored around other traffic, weather, and occasionally what seems to be the controller's whimsy!:-lol Regards,Jim Karn