SP2 Post is Live

[Guest]

I agree with that as well. I just don't understand why other games have been delivering hdr and shadows in dx9 for years whereas fsx still can't seem to do it under dx10? I'm not a coder so please bear with me.I honestly wish there were more shots to compare dx9 and dx10 to get a full preview of what is in there. Those 2 screenshots above show NOTHING and imo the dx9 shot even looks better. It was a poor choice to use as a comparison between dx9 and dx10. Come on Phil, how about some real screenshots here that actually show some enhancements and not a pic that looks like something that came from a graphicsx console adjustment!________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Guest tmholopa]

in acceleration there is F-18, why. most of us cant fly 600 knots without blurries anyway.

[slashed2 53]

Thanks for the update, all looks promising and the wind influenced whitecaps looks interesting not to mention a performance boost. HDR lighting and cockpit shadows are another one, looking forward to some screenshots.

[Pete S 7]

>Is it safe to say:>That in order to get the SP-2, "you HAVE to BUY the accel>addon"?>>$70 for game + $30 for a "PATCH". >>If so, I'll go back to fs-9, and start looking into X-Plane>more closely.>ed>>HMMMM........I don't believe your assumption is correct, and even if it was, your rationale escapes me????????????Last time I checked x-plane was a lot more that $30!To each his own, I guess.Pete S.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>I agree with that as well. I just don't understand why other>games have been delivering hdr and shadows in dx9 for years>whereas fsx still can't seem to do it under dx10? I'm not a>coder so please bear with me.>>I honestly wish there were more shots to compare dx9 and dx10>to get a full preview of what is in there. Those 2 screenshots>above show NOTHING and imo the dx9 shot even looks better. It>was a poor choice to use as a comparison between dx9 and dx10.>Come on Phil, how about some real screenshots here that>actually show some enhancements and not a pic that looks like>something that came from a graphicsx console adjustment!>________________________________________________________________________________________________>>Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz>| 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | >Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA>RAID-0 | >OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW |>Matrox Triplehead SetupOne of the things that has been coming to light as I get farther and farther along my graphics programming courses is exactly how optimized and planned out everything is.If you consider a level built in Hammer for Half-Life 2, every item, every texture, all the level geometry is already created, lightmaps burnt for every surface, entities like lights and AI objects placed, and it all combined into one compressed file that gets loaded ahead of time and covers the area of a few square city blocks.Compare this to any world-wide flight sims (of which I only know two): you stream in the geometry from a massive data source, reading another source of vector data for landclass information to decompress and generate texture maps on the fly, recalculating lighting on everything once a minute to account for the changing sun position, and then streaming in more vector data like roads and streams and golf courses, and stretch that out over a visible range of 60-100 miles or more.Sure, the density of the objects and detail levels are scaled so it's not like they are loading as much geometry or texture resolution per mile as Half-Life 2, but the scale is much greater. On top of that, you have the actual processing power needed to simulate flight.That's why flight sims don't have the overhead for the extra features. I doubt it's a lack of coding expertise. They are just using those cycles for other things.I too would like to have a variety of straight dx10 v dx9 shots, or specifically some video, and I plan on putting some up as soon as I get the xpack.

[Guest tmholopa]

HDR bloom isnt same thing as HDR lighting

[victorwest2 0]

Could someone explain what these mean please. :-) 8-core bug fix 3G enabling FSX and Autogen memory use optimization

[Guest Stoopy]

This is excellent news and thank you. One question if you can, I have been trying to confirm Accelleration features (not SP2 necessarily) and with specific regard to the functional carrier. Does this mean now having arrestor cables for tailhook-equipped aircraft *and* a working catapult?Oddly, just can't find much out there on the web by Googling lately. But very stoked about that specific possibility as well as the helo slingloads and hoists...for $30 you can't beat it!!!!!!

[Guest 2eyed]

Well... I am indeed a bit disappointed about the visual benefits from 'DX10 Preview' included in SP2.1 year struggle for ACES with very little outcome. Judging from the first 'official' screenshot comparison between DX9/10 in Phil's Blog, we have now (with DX10) the kind of wash-out bloom, a lot of games are suffering from these days. Maybe it's faster, but it's also ugly and nowhere near realism. It's now just overexposure, not the glinting highlights we had before.The water though should look better due to higher resolution normalmapping. But it still has it's unrealistic 'glassy' look. Virtual skipper 4 did it much better in DX9.From "Full DX10 Support" to "DX10 Preview", we have to downgrade our expectations, which is sad.Hage

[slashed2 53]

Thank you for that...I've been trying logically go through the differences between a game and fs in my head and you just explained it perfectly.When you sit down and map out what a flight sim has to do including AI, flight dynamics, graphics, inputs, etc.... you really see how taxing it can be on any system.

[slashed2 53]

Sorry, I meant HDR bloom and more specifically the ability to use it without the drastic performance hit. Thanks for the correction.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>This is excellent news and thank you. One question if you>can, I have been trying to confirm Accelleration features (not>SP2 necessarily) and with specific regard to the functional>carrier. Does this mean now having arrestor cables for>tailhook-equipped aircraft *and* a working catapult?>>Oddly, just can't find much out there on the web by Googling>lately. But very stoked about that specific possibility as>well as the helo slingloads and hoists...for $30 you can't>beat it!!!!!!Yes and yes.I got the opportunity to run the carrier mission with a few real Hornet pilots at Reno, and it's great. Lower the launch bar, attach to the catapult and go, then run the pattern, lower the tailhook, and snag one of the cables.Of course, it's the hardest thing I've ever done in Flight Sim, but so much fun.

[Guest cbeal]

This is good news, I look forward to adding this to my FSX setup. I must admit that I'm still a little confused regarding DX9 and DX10. I currently run both FS9 and FSX on XP, and both have their own dedicated HDs. I don't anticipate upgrading to Vista until after SP1 is out, but I do intend on getting a DX10 capable card later this year to improve my overall rig and get ready for the upgrade to Vista.My questions are:1) I understand that if I apply SP2 to XP, I will only get the DX9 benefits that are a part of SP2 regardless of whether the video card is DX10 or not. What happens if I upgrade to Vista after I apply SP2 in XP? Does FSX all of sudden run in DX10 "mode" or does SP2 need to be reapplied?2) Will FS9 run in Vista with SP2 applied?Thanks,C.

[ahuimanu 50]

>If we can have an intelligent, rational discussion I will>participate. >>See http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylorInnovation... acceleratedAcceleration 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 expectationsI 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 fluxWhile 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 expectationsWith 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 ACESPhil, 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.

[slashed2 53]

I think the screenshots were more of a performance comparison than anything else. He does mention feature screenshots to come later.