>From Phil Taylors blog:>>"Our setup, test, and international teams are busy, very busy,>and will be for a while. >>So there is a reason for the delay. It is not as easy as it>appears from the outside. You could argue we should have done>SP2 first, but that is not realistic if you think about it.>And do note, by putting SP2 into Acceleration we got>additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in>Acceleration would actually delay SP2 even more since a larger>test pass would be required.">>It seems that it was planned to use the customers as beta>testers for the SP2 that comes with "acceleration", and that>issues found in that SP2 might be fixed in the upcoming stand>alone SP2, or should we call it SP2b>>WothanWow, you have a truly astounding ability to read between the lines and invent an entirely new cosmos. Impressive!What he means is that by incorporating Acceleration and SP2 as a single testing package, it reduced the complexity of ensuring SP2 and Acceleration worked well together and also reduced the testing requirements from two separate releases to one.It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it actually call customers either testers, beta testers or guinea pigs. The beta testers (I was one) did all the testing.

>Wow, you have a truly astounding ability to read between the>lines and invent an entirely new cosmos. Impressive!His reasoning was legitimate and his tone perfectly civil. Yeah, we should insult guys like him.>It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it actually>call customers either testers, beta testers or guinea pigs. >The beta testers (I was one) did all the testing.Well, allow ME to take a smarmy tone now and say that you and your colleagues did not do a very good job. There are a whole host of items that escaped your testing protocol and are being posted and discussed on all the FS boards, not just avsim. Impressive!

Well then you and your colleages don't have the faintest idea about how beta testing works.Beta testers (generically-not just fs) report problems. The programmers decided which reports/bugs/complaints/wishes will be fixed/changed. It works that way with all software. So blaming the beta testers is rather silly.But this way of logic goes way back with every release of software so I am hardly surprised. I wote this in 1999-some things never change:http://www.avsim.com/pages/1099/guest/guest.shtmlhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Ive bought many pc games that had patches already available before the game was released.Ive seen post by programmers talking about patches for patches that the patch has not even been released.I do not have a problem with any release that has problems and needs top be constantly fixed. Its when they DO NOT fix it that bothers me.So Aces can release all the patches they want.Problem is that seems they are taking 2 steps forwards and one back.Im all for scrapping FSX at this point and diverting all of their resources to FS11.

Meh, blaming the beta testers was not my intention. Blaming THAT beta tester was- take a condecending and insulting tone, get a condecending and insulting tone.I was in charge of regression testing of a fairly well known web-based CRM solution for a year before moving up to PM, so I have fairly intimate knowledge about how app testing workflow goes. And while I know I have to tiptoe around here so I don't upset the folks from MS who are kind enough to participate in the community, I have to wonder how so many things resulting from Accel/ SP2 "got past the goalie" so to speak. This would suggest three things: either (a) incomplete/ sloppy testing procedures that simply didnt uncover these issues, or (:( developers chose to ignore/ not fix many of these issues, or © developers CANT fix the issues (at least cant fix them without spending an inordinate amount of time/ money or the fix creates even more issues). Any of those three reasons are pretty distressing.I love FSX but it sure seems like alot of issues arose from this xpack.

There is no plan to provide any additional fixes in SP2. None, zilch, nada.All setup dev and test plans made assumptions around the bits being what is already in Acceleration and to break those assumptions would mean no SP2 this year.So no, we didn't "plan" on making customers into beta testers so that is a silly read of the situation.

Fsx reminds me of the Three Stooges episode where they are in the row boat and Curly shoots a hole in the bottom. The boat is flooding so he shoots another hole in to it. Moe ask him why he did it. Curly says, to let the water out.Tell ya what Phil. Fix or find a fix where FSX crashes when the menu is access in flight. I will not complain again.The whole DX10 mess has already diverted enough attention away from FSX.Fix the menu crashing problem and as far as Im concerned, you can walk away from FSX and never look back and I will not care.

If there are no more updates planned for FSX, am I to assume that the remaining problems are graphics driver related? The runway textures, AA and AF. Steve

JamJam,Perhaps we in the community can help you with your issue. Can you tell us a little more about it. Start by giving us a precise understanding of WHAT is occurring, then let us know EXACTLY how you have changed your FSX environment from the pristine install (which files you tweaked, what third-party applications you've installed, anything that you might have brought over from FS9).I'd be happy to help. I have not seen this problem reported at any time during development, nor have I seen it reported by others on the forum.Cheers,Kevin

Hi Philtaylor, do i take it that the abysmal dx10 performance is what it is then? I had heard so many times that dx10 was supposed to give 20% better framerate with more options enabled, but i get between a 100-200% drop in frame rate with the same options enabled when i switch from dx9 to dx10. The sim runs stellar in dx9 for me but dx10 is just horrible beyond words on a core2 and an 8800 card. Same spot, same options dx9=39fps dx10=16.5fps. What gives?

I hate to fan the flames; but I'm having a great time with FSX on a less than stellar system. I use the original with SP1 (haven't tried acceleration yet) and Ultimate Terrain X and really enjoy the flying. I've not turned on FS9 in over a month.I believe this whole problem is like the FDA releasing a new drug. They require test after test after test before a drug is released into the market. Then after millions have used it (far more than the few hundred involved in the "beta" testing) a small percentage of problems show up. While the percentage is small, since millions are now using the new product, the absolute number can be quite large even though the testing was perfect.So it is with programs: many problems won't show up until the product is released and millions of copies are sold. Further they have to work with an infinite combination of processors, motherboards, memory types, graphic cards, operating systems and add-ons. Yet we users expect them to all work the same and to perform perfectly on all combinations.Heck, it's a wonder they work at all.

I am not super familiar with what is going on, but there is apparently an undetected issue with the nVidia drivers that is currently being worked on by, I believe, both parties to determine what is wrong with the drivers. From what I have read, the performance issue is not the same for all people or all versions of the drivers.I have an 8800 GTS 640 card, but I have not yet upgraded to Vista yet, so I can't confirm any of this.In any event, I think I'll wait till the problem is solved before I even think of creating a Vista boot disk. Still way too many problems and incompatibilities at this point for me, and I need my computers to work. Plus, I'm very happy with FSX as it is.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

>>From Phil Taylors blog:>>>>"Our setup, test, and international teams are busy, very>busy,>>and will be for a while. >>>>So there is a reason for the delay. It is not as easy as it>>appears from the outside. You could argue we should have>done>>SP2 first, but that is not realistic if you think about it.>>And do note, by putting SP2 into Acceleration we got>>additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in>>Acceleration would actually delay SP2 even more since a>larger>>test pass would be required.">>>>It seems that it was planned to use the customers as beta>>testers for the SP2 that comes with "acceleration", and that>>issues found in that SP2 might be fixed in the upcoming>stand>>alone SP2, or should we call it SP2b>>>>Wothan>>Wow, you have a truly astounding ability to read between the>lines and invent an entirely new cosmos. Impressive!>>What he means is that by incorporating Acceleration and SP2 as>a single testing package, it reduced the complexity of>ensuring SP2 and Acceleration worked well together and also>reduced the testing requirements from two separate releases to>one.>>It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it actually>call customers either testers, beta testers or guinea pigs. >The beta testers (I was one) did all the testing.Stop the insults and sarcasm. Did the poster hurt you in some way to attack him like you did

From Phil Taylors blog:"Our setup, test, and international teams are busy, very busy, and will be for a while. So there is a reason for the delay. It is not as easy as it appears from the outside. You could argue we should have done SP2 first, but that is not realistic if you think about it. And do note, by putting SP2 into Acceleration we got additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in Acceleration would actually delay SP2 even more since a larger test pass would be required."It seems that it was planned to use the customers as beta testers for the SP2 that comes with "acceleration", and that issues found in that SP2 might be fixed in the upcoming stand alone SP2, or should we call it SP2bWothan

>There is no plan to provide any additional fixes in SP2.>None, zilch, nada.So, what is there to test?