VC Shadows Video is up

[Guest]

>I thought it was just some shadowing under the gauge bezels>and the like...>>I see now that it is a little more than that.I though the same! But I wonder if you can say it's MORE than that, because I think it's DIFFERENT: from what I understand from Phil's blog this is it... so there won't be shadows on gauges and knobs and so on: the exteriour model is used for the shadow (if I understood well). It does look nice, but I guess this means we won't get shadows on gauges and knobs... Phil...?

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Oh, you mean there was an actual point? LOL Sorry, I'm not used to seeing that.}(

[Guest Spud]

>I think if you read my posts more carefully you would see I am>not being rude or beligerent, but do feel that after a 1,500>dollar investment I am owed an explanation...This is the part that cracks me up about the FSX haters. Nobody forced you to go spend $1,500 for a video game. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the release, check the message boards, and then make the decision to upgrade? Its not like your life is going to end if you don't buy the flight sim the day it's released. For crying out loud folks, it's a $60 video game. Instead of blaming ACES/Microsoft/the dog for your impulsive purchasing behavior, maybe all of you should take a moment to reflect on what lessons could be learned...1) If you get that upset over $60, maybe this isn't the hobby for you.2) WAIT before you buy. You're not going to miss anything by holding back and waiting for users reviews to come out...if you want to be an early adopter, you have to be prepared to encounter problems...3) There hasn't been a vid game released which didn't have issues/bugs/etc. Again, if you wait a little bit, most of these issues get ironed out.4) If you're that unhappy, don't buy the next release. Demonstrate your dissatisfaction through your wallet. Don't buy Acceleration...Yeah, I suppose it's ok to be dissappointed that FSX wasn't all that you thought it would be. But attacking MS/ACES in forums OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER is getting old. Point out the bugs you encounter and then move on.

[ahuimanu 50]

>Ryan,>>I don't understand.. Are you saying, it would be a complete>rebuild to achieve the VC shadow effects for the 747?>>>Hmmm,,,,,, Well, whereas Sebby said that 3rd parties need to compile their model with a new flag, he also mentioned stipulations about a "closed" model. I am sure the 747X model is so extensive that PMDG is going to say "meh" on it until perhaps a future SP.Indeed, the Service-Packs have induced SDK creep which is unprecedented in the history of MSFS. I am sure that devs are stuggling to keep up. Testing complex MSFS add-ons, the manna of the rabid enthusiast, is only getting more difficult.Options, choices, options, choices...

[Guest drdaru1]

>Point out the bugs you encounter and then move on. A philosophy that has served many over the years. I would put to you that you need the 'complainers' around so that improvement can be driven. If civil rights activists had just pointed out the bugs and moved on, where would we be?NOT a political commentary, rather a corollary.$0.02

[ahuimanu 50]

There's no evil empire afoot here, just a massive company with many disparate departments and branches which do try to stay on the same page.I have dealt with Microsoft at a academic level and see that they suffer from what many other large companies suffer from: the right-hand/left-hand syndrome.ACES is pretty open-book to us and offers their best rationale for the choices they make. FSX is awesome, to be sure, but there are litle areas to be disappointed in. However, your expectations are mostly yours to manage.You CAN hold Phil responsible, as a PM of the title, but the best you can do is buy or not buy. The ACES team have been straight-shooters with us and clearly have a passion for the product. In a market with few comparable alternatives, we could have it worse.Many of Microsoft's technologies always have been moving targets (if you've followed the Managed Direct X -> XNA deal, you've been a little frustrated by sudden shifts and changes-of-mind in policy regarding a product). I'll reserve my final judgment until I have Acceleration in my hands, but I remain pleased with what flight simulator has offered me for over 25 years now.I will conclude by suggesting that informed and respectful dissent is a reasonable form of discussion, but this is AVSIM's house and the moderators are the umpires.Jeff>Not a Senator, Phil Taylor, Et Al,>>>I honestly and openly apologize if the words I have chosen>have come across as inflammatory or derogatory toward any one>person who frequents these forums or is considerate enough to>represent the company that publishes the software we all use>and enjoy. I also apologize if I have violated the terms of>use for this forum or website.>>However, I do believe that it is possible to question the>motives and business practices of a corporation without>targeting an individual within it, as I have tried to do so>here. I have been honest about my complaints, and tried to>clearly differentiate my dissatisfaction with the state of>affairs from any perceived dissatisfaction of Phil and his>team, clearly to no avail. >>As a purchaser of a product that has been marketed directly to>me on false pretenses, I am absolutely entitled to ask for an>explanation of those shortcomings. And Mr. Taylor is>absolutely entitled to refuse me those answers. Not once did>I demand explanation or attack him personally, though you and>others seem to think that challenging his contentions is>paramount to it.>>I read these posts because I enjoy flight simulator. I posted>here because I had a question I wanted answered, and hoped>people were willing to discuss it without the kind of>knee-jerk reactions that come when someone suggests that a>company may not have the best interest of its customers at>heart.>>If you decide to close this post or remove me because you>think I am not trying to engage in meaningful conversation>meant to improve flight simulator, you certainly have that>right, though you could not be further from the truth. >>To be honest, I am disappointed in your sensitivity to, and>intolerance of a legitimately founded opinion.>>-Josh

[ahuimanu 50]

I was going to point out to you that I've never seen or developed bug-free software myself... until I found this: http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/>>Perhaps I wasnt clear.>>>>There is one graphics team. So SP1 took away from SP2(DX10).>>Count the time since SP1 and you get the focused time we had>>on DX10.>>>>Acceleration planes and scenery are not made by devs, they>are>>made by content people. The sim devs ( carriers, helos ) and>>the multiplayer devs (MP racing) are also distinct. That is>>why Acceleration did not impinge on either SP1 or SP2.>>>>The tradeoff we made on the graphics team was SP1 and fixes>>for everybody, versus more DX10 work. >>>>I repeat I think we made the right call. >>Phill isn't it actually the opposite regarding software>development in general?>>To much room for errors?>>In software land they call it a service pack but in general>it's most of the time bug fixing (which is a human mistake,>hence they build debug functionality in development>software)...>>So in general every SP or bug fixing is a loss for the>customer and the developer regarding:>- features>- price>- time>- development cost>- etc...>>Time is money ;-) so was it done correct in the first place>DX10 should have looked totally different?>>Actually it's largely accepted a SP but when software>development could be done correct in the first place (less>complex to develop for the human), we could have a win win>situation?>Just curious ;-)>>As for the topic actually I like the shadow stuff and thank>you at Aces for all the hard work :-)>Will add this one to my FSX installation :-)>>Cheers,>>>http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign1.jpg

[Geofa 108]

That is the best laugh I've had in a while! Thanks for the link!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[virtualstuff 758]

>I was going to point out to you that I've never seen or>developed bug-free software myself... until I found this: >http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/>:-lol great link thanks for sharing.As for your point I never didn't see bug free software also ;-)My point is in general the customer will pay for the software teams ability to develop fast and with quality and less bugs.So it's still to difficult and takes far to much efforts for the human to develop software.We have still a long way to go here?So the analogy: "do you accept a brand new car without brakes or windshield?" with a SP we get the brakes but still no windshield.So you can buy an accessory "spoiler" which also includes the windshield ;-) or you wait a month and the windshield will be available too in the next SP...Just curious how in general we think about bugs / SP?http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign1.jpg

[Guest drdaru1]

Another extremely well put argument. I think the animosity comes in when there are others that would like to 'shut up' the people with legitimate complaints. I am of the belief that if one pays for a product, one is entitled to customer service for that product. It does not stand to reason that our complaints are not legitimate, nor meritless.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Another extremely well put argument. I think the animosity>comes in when there are others that would like to 'shut up'>the people with legitimate complaints. I am of the belief>that if one pays for a product, one is entitled to customer>service for that product. It does not stand to reason that our>complaints are not legitimate, nor meritless. "Complaints" can indeed be "not legitimate" if they are based on erroneous assumptions or plethora other reasons.As for "merit," I would posit that any "complaint" that serves no legitimate purpose other than "getting it off one's chest" is ultimately pointless.

[Guest tmilton]

>I was going to point out to you that I've never seen or>developed bug-free software myself... until I found this: >http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/What is NaDa

[Geofa 108]

Josh-I think you make some very valid points.A few quotes from your post though is where for me, you left your valid points and said what causes unnecessary problems for this forum:"part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money""Do I think ACES and Microsoft Marketing have been irresponsible, inconsiderate and less-than forthcoming""ACES can't figure out how to program for it""Either way, we were lied to"Now-here is my problem. I have been flight simming since 1981-and for most of that time there was never a dialog with the developers of any flight sim until Fly came along. For those of you who were not around then-Richard Harvey communicated, listened, and showed what a great partnership there is when simmers and developers work together and communicate-it is a win/win situation for everyone. That communication unfortunately and tragically closed with his passing.So after all these many years, finally the developers of Msfs are communicating openly with simmers-something I think all of us would agree is valuable, and ultimately a positive for both our present and future simming.So when we have Phil coming on this board saying he feels insulted-or prefacing his last timely info post to us with "If we can have an intelligent, rational discussion I will participate" it disturbs me.I'd like Phil and his colleagues to continue to visit, listen , and yes take critics-but most importantly participate. The other alternative is that they will decide this is wasted effort and not worth their free time (they do have a day job)-and something we have been waiting for years for will again evaporate.With thoughtful, well expressed critics they will probably stay, listen, and make adjustments-they have already shown that they do (multi core patch). Thanks for the apology above-and thanks also for pointing out that we have a sensitivity to this-I at least do. I have been waiting for years for this-I don't want to see it blown.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Jimmy Angel 19]

>A few quotes from your post though is where for me, you left>your valid points and said what causes unnecessary problems>for this forum:I've been following this thread, and this is the second time quotes from Josh's post have been taken completely out of context.For example, you quote the following:"part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money"Here is the actual original quote in context:"Do I think that this is part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money?Hardly. FSX is the most impressive piece of simulation software I have ever seen available to the public, and that only becomes more and more true with every subsequent release."I think Josh's arguments have been reasonable, well-stated, and balanced with plenty of praise of the MSFS series. With all due respect, Geofa, I think it's bad form to snip out a bunch of pieces of his post because it tends to distort the original meaning and intent. Better to include the original quotes in full context and then comment on them point-by-point when you disagree or think he's being inflammatory.Personally, I've watched FSX from the sidelines. I've been waiting for the service patches and DX10 update to upgrade my computer to a level where I can fly rather than endlessly tweak. Now, I'm honestly no longer compelled to upgrade and may even just wait it out and see what FS11 offers.I think everyone has to admit that the DX10 enhancements are a bit of a letdown. I know that Phil and other team members have been honest and forthright in recent months. I think that Microsoft marketing really built up the potential of DX10 (and how it would impact FSX), so it's a bit of a bummer to see that that the emperor has no clothes.So, if I were a flight sim aficionado who payed thousands of dollars and upgraded to the latest and greatest hardware earlier this year, I think I'd have a bit of venting to do on the matter. I'm glad I waited it out.Finally, I have to give huge props to Phil and the team. It's been great having this open communication, and It sounds like they have a great plan for moving forward with FS11.

[slashed2 53]

You missed the other 3 quotes and only took the one Geof mistakenly put in.Interesting discussion valid points both ways, but in all honesty, how many here have the ability or knowledge of the core FS code and can actually comment on the length of time it takes to modify, append, optimize and test changes on code this complex not to mention the pressure from a raging community that will d--n you if you create more of a performance problem and d--n you if you don't give them what they expect.A bit of a dilemma for the devs I would think, no wonder his initial postings for the announcement of SP2 on the forum was what it was.Now they are being called "irresponsible, inconsiderate and less-than forthcoming about their development plans, engine capabilities and product functionality".and...."Either DX10 isn't all it's cracked up to be, or ACES can't figure out how to program for it. Either way, we were lied to."Aces has been more than forthcoming with information, read the blogs and see some of Phils posts. Inconsiderate? How so? If anything, they've been respectful and as honest as they could be and once they knew they couldn't fully utilize DX10 they began bringing down expectations.The rest is just insulting in my opinion. It's nice how you can say nice things then completely insult them at the same time...nice job. My ex-wife was good at that.