Remarks on my locked thread

[Wothan 173]

I was the topic starter on this topic:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...20757&mode=fullIt seems that I was starting a flaming thread, wich wasn

[WarpD 824]

"It seems that I was starting a flaming thread, wich wasn

[Wothan 173]

Regarding developers using FS9 SDK vs FSX SDK - Alot of the addons released for FSX has been ported from FS9 developed with the FS9 SDK.That might not be Aces problem, but nevertheless, these addons has helped further peoples transition from FS9 to FSX, and Aces should not ignor the 3rd party addon developers work and render it useless by removing the backward compabilty the way they did. In the end it is the customer who suffers.Offcourse the 3rd party developers could start fixing what needs to be fixed, but isn

[FlyingsCool 3]

And now you are bringing up the backwards compatability argument.There are those who want ACES to dump anything that gets in the way of progress of the FSX engine. There are others, like you, who want to continue to use products they purchased for FS9 going forward.ACES can't win here. Somebody, a significant fraction of their total user base (not necessarily large, but significant nonetheless), will be upset.I happen to side with you. I use flight simulator because I can fly lots of different airplanes, many of them freely offered by the authors to the public (thank you so much), and learn about their systems. I'd love to continue to use these planes and take advantage of the increases in performance and modeling accuracy available with each upgrade.But I also see the other side's point of view. Either way, I'm not going to get upset about it, especially since I understand both sides of the argument. But it is a worthy topic to discuss.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

[Wothan 173]

Hi ThomasAs such i wouldn

[Guest JIMJAM]

I go into flight sim hibernation and find something else to do.Go get Bioshock. You will forget all about the FSX drama.Or for the price of a add on, get IL2-1946. Must be 100 planes and they can SHOOT.I still have fs9 loaded and it has at least $500 plus $$$ in addons.Get Islands of the West Indies, Fscargo and you will have a entire chunk of the world to enjoy.Point being, Flight sims have and always be a pain in the a***. If someone is a perfectionist or hardware geek, they will soon be bald and on medication.So just walk away for awhile.FSX, the people seeking the Holy Grail of performance and the ones hyping DX10 will still be here.

[bob.bernstein 0]

Backward compatibility would be my preference too, but its a very dicey issue from ACE's viewpoint. You made the comment that you would like fs9 sdk addons to be supported, but its likely that you have no idea if your "fs9 sdk" addons are 100% fs9 sdk. Many "hacks" have been uncovered during fs9 days and before that made addons far more interesting than they would have been had developers stuck within the boundaries of the sdk, and none of this would be obvious to any user unless the user has studied and understood the sdk. Similarly if any fs8 sdk techniques had been used, how would you the user know? If fs9 had supported those techniques, how would you as the user be able to tell if those elements were still included in the "fs9 addon"?So, in truth, when the public says it expects backward compatibility, they are unhappy unless it includes whatever designers used during the last version, without boundaries. You feel like you're making a reasonable comment that fs9 addons should still work, but you really have no idea what those fs9 addons include.I'd say ACE's just took the only available option left to them...kill backward compatibility. No other course is reasonable, because they're dealing with designers who don't stay within prescribed boundaries. And why don't designer's stay within prescribed boundaries? Because its a competitive market, and rewards and recognition are provided for those who excel. How can you excel if you just do what the sdk tells you to do? Anyone can do that...right?See the point? Developers must break the rules to provide exciting content, and breaking the rules renders ACE's unable to provide backward compatibility to your satisfaction. Users can't understand the details sufficiently to judge the addon's fitness for previous backward compatibility rules. Users reward developers to break the rules by appreciating the new content and buying it. People commonly enthuse things like..."so and so just raised the bar on blah blah...". Right? Not likely by doing something as simple as following the sdk as ACE's expected.Bob Bernstein

[Guest Roymcm]

Just to comment on one point: Backward Compatibility.MS is really in an uncomfortable position with regard to back-compat. They truly do know that a compelling back-compat story is a large selling point to any new version. They know that keeping as many add-ons working in a new version will lower the perceived cost of the upgrade to existing customers and that a large add-on library is a method that new customers become part of the hardcore community. Trust me when I tell you that the Flight Sim group is well aware of all of the good things that keeping back-compat brings.That being said. Sometimes in order to move the product forward back-compat needs to be broken. FS can not be hog-tied to back-compat. For one thing, it

[Guest Lith1um]

WarpD,Please don't take this personaly, but your remarks took me by suprise.So you're a developer, who self admitedly doesn't even own vista. Yet you'll come in here and make strong assertions as though we should value the opinion of a person who doesn't even own Vista or have the capability of even running SP2 in DX10?Not trying to start a flame war, but that just sounds preposterous.And this is not directed at you, but I fail to understand the mentality of the people who "give up on FSX", yet visit the forums almost every day to interject negative comments at every opportunity.When I move on, I move on. I don't languish in the former misery, I wash my hands and go forward enjoying something else. It's like getting a divorce, then calling your ex every day to nag on her.

[Guest Stoopy]

Just a few more cents for what they're worth....Regardless of what and how we all "feel" the fact is we have what we have...not to sound insensitive but what actual good does it do the community-at-large for each forum user to start their own thread discussing their feelings? And as far as concern for how development of FSX is "Going"....I believe the correct tense is past tense, not current - how it's "Gone", as it's been pretty clear that there is no more development of patches, expansion packs, etc, but rather moving on to the next version at this point. Again, we have what we have so there isn't much point to discussing that either really. It's nice to see more posts about moving forward and how to adjust or address certain backward-compatability issues, as those topics are highly worthwhile. Just looking at this from a nuts-and-bolts perspective. I'm pretty sure that after the SP2 update is released by itself for download, the path for development and support will be pretty clear. FSX + SP2. If some product wants to use Accelleration features so be it and those who opted to not add Accelleration shouldn't miss it because the special features that product would have also wouldn't fit their interest. I'm not sure it's necessarily true that all things developed for FSX (regular or standard, which only differ in terms of content) and SP2 wouldn't work with FSX+SP1. Clearly there are some folks having issues with FSX + Accelleration + SP2 but then again this is a busy forum with many users and a 100% success rate is beyond any vendor's wildest dreams when it comes to the variances of PC platforms and combinations. So of course it appears gloomy, but people who aren't having problems don't tend to post about it although I believe there are many in that category including myself.

[Guest jcomm]

Reading all of these posts makes me feel very good about the decision I recently made....I have been using MSFS for about 20 years now. I bought FSX and it did run on my dual core. I even found some way of making the right decisions about which settings to choose in order to get 20-22fps.Acceleration did not bring this figures down. There are certainly incompatibilities with a few aircraft models, but I believe sooner or later that would certainly be sorted out...I did not have fs9 installed - it was erased the day I installed fsx last year...Do you know what I now have installed, gives me a LOT of pleasure and as far as I am concerned is still the best version of MSFS ever produced flightmodel-wise?...fs2002!!!Yes, that is what I am using! The only MSFS product I still have on my disk. Do you know why?1) It runs super smooth, with all maxed out on my system (100+ fps!!!2) I do not care much about cars on roads, animals in savanna, gourgeous buildings and super extra landclass or mesh... What I really give priority to is Flight Models, followed by Systems Models and Engine models - in as far as those are concerned...3) ... every version after fs2k2 only brought cuts (important cuts) in the FM engine of MSFS. Yes most FM parameters found their way into AIRCRAFT.CFG, and we even got a new helicopter FM, but lot's of hours spent during the last years studying the internals of MSFS, and a few flights anyone can try in fs2k2 vs fs9 or fsx, can easily show my point...Pick a well designed GA aircraft for fs2k2. You will find most of the flight dynamics parameters withing the ".air" file only, ok, making it a little bit more difficult to deal with some modifications (provided you are not willing to spend your time in the useless/bugged FSEDIT...), but if you use good data you're surely get consistent behaviour as a result, specially if you're running fs2k2 on a modern rig... Aerobatic aircraft which have characteristics simply impossible to replicate in either fs9 or fsx perform beautifuly in fs2k2 (roll rates, roll and yaw authority, stalls and even spins, snap-rolls, torque rolls, tailslides, etc...). You have realistic prop effects on your takeoff run, as well as during initial climb on prop aircraft. Engine-out scenarios make sense, with lots of rudder input being required on most multi-prop/jet airplanes, etc...The helicopter (Bell206) FM also still had most of the parameters in the ".air" file, allowing for interesting tweaks that were never possible in either fs9 or fsx... You can tweak it's FM to get the most realistic auto-rotations, torque effects, etc... within the limitations of MSFS, which did not get different on subsequent versions, with the exeption of Acceleration (given the introduction of the EH-101...)All in all, I never felt so well with an MSFS version - I really like fs2k2, at 100+ fps, all maxed out!!!

[FTD1949 0]

Wothan, I'm the one that stated ""For all we know you are running both FSX and Acceleration on a 10 year old machine and that is the problem." I wrote that because when one launches any complaints regarding FSXit is always most helpful to list system specs so that other memberscan either help solve said problems or simply point out that a systemjust plain isn't capable of running FSX on anything but minimum settings. I feel that I can make that statement because I just built a newsystem a year after the release of FSX. I was using the following system to run FSX: AMD64 3500 2 GB Ram GeForce 7959 GT Win XP So I can say from experience that a 3 year old system is the MINIMUMto enjoy FSX with sliders mostly to the left. I understand that not all can afford to build/buy a new system everytwo years or less but will state that if you build a system vs.purchasing a system you then have the option of of upgrading incrementally when your budget permits instead of all in one fellswoop. But the bottom line is the AMD64 3500 is now what would be consideredboth and old and a low end processor so to expect miracles from FSXis unrealistic. Craig Lian-Li PC60-B Case Corsair HX Series CMPSU-620HX 620W Power Supply Gigabyte P35 DS3R Intel Core2Duo E6850 Arctic Cooling Freezer7 Pro Crucual Ballistix 2GB PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066) EVGA 7950 GT OC 512 Mb Plextor PX-810SA/SW-BL 18X SATA DVD Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/sec Seagate Barracuda 7200.10250 GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/sec