Future of DX10 Question?

[Guest j0nx]

I dont know what to tell you mace that's just what i read. i saw 2 people alone this week get chastised and booted for what i thought were very politely worded and well thought out posts that went against the grain. The point is moot anyway as it isnt my forum to moderate but from what i can see so far the rep is deserved. We just see things differently i suppose. No worries ;)

[Geofa 108]

Those two were reinstated as far as I know. The two from yesterday is a different story.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[n4gix 4,949]

>Hello Bill>>Correct me if i am wrong but it looks to me like>Aces/Microsoft have given up already on correctly implementing>DX10 on a product that was originally touted as a DX10>showcase title.What many people seem to continuously overlook are that there are FOUR MAJOR COMPONENTS for DX10 implementation:1) The operating system - Vista2) The video hardware - nVidea and ATI3) The video driver - nVidea and ATI4) The application program - FSXLet's examine each of these "COMPONENTS" briefly, shall we?First of all, Vista was "late to deliver." Indeed, Vista still hasn't fully delivered, in spite of all the years of development and beta testing, various "hotfixes" and a major Service Release. Even with the forthcoming SR2 it's unlikely that all issues will be solved. You can put lipstick on a pig all you like, but it remains a pig. ;)Secondly, nVidea was months late in delivering first generation hardware, and no game studios (ACES included) received any hardware for testing until far too late in their development cycle to allow adequate time for coding and testing prior to their scheduled release dates.ATI was very late to the DX10 party, and for all practical purposes may as well have stayed at home. Their first generation cards were a complete, utter failure.Thirdly, nVidea still hasn't gotten their act together with regards to feature set and stability in their driver(s). Of course, to be entirely fair to nVidea (and to some extent ATI), they too are trying to work with an unstable and problematic operating system known as Vista... :-lol How can anyone seriously expect ACES to fully deliver on the DX10 experience, considering that none of the necessary THREE PREREQUISITE COMPONENTS are ready for prime-time?All this is ACES fault, how?I am quite honestly baffled by the illogic and absence of critical thinking as demonstrated by some of the comments I've read over the past few months.

[Guest j0nx]

Bill, I am new here and i dont think this thread is the place to discuss it, but suffice it to say I disagree with JUST about everything there that you wrote. Once again the point is moot because dx10 doesnt work well and honestly that is all the consumer knows or cares about and that falls back on microsoft and aces. Fair? Probably not, but that's where we are.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Soooo..what you're saying is that, we've put the cart ahead of the horse...again?Now that never happens...LOL :-eek

[n4gix 4,949]

>Bill, I am new here and i dont think this thread is the place>to discuss it, but suffice it to say I disagree with JUST>about everything there that you wrote. Once again the point is>moot because dx10 doesnt work well and honestly that is all>the consumer knows or cares about and that falls back on>microsoft and aces. Fair? Probably not, but that's where we>are.You are of course free to disagree all you like. That doesn't alter the fact that everything I wrote is easily verifiable by anyone to cares enough to do the research required.As for the last remark, no that is not "fair." It would be "fair" to blame "Microsoft" since "they" are ultimately responsible for Vista, but it is grossly unfair to cast any blame on ACES, who're just as much victims of this mess as the consumer.If your car runs badly because of a bad tank of gas, do you assign blame to the car manufacturer or to the gas company?

[Guest weeniemcween]

I completely agree that it is unfair to blame ACES, but I also don't think they're as much victims as the consumer. They may have their feelings hurt on a regular basis, which is no fun, but it is the consumer who invested many hundreds of dollars in a directx 10 capable card and the Vista operating system based on the marketing of Microsoft and Nvidia and partners/ATI.I almost think the Acceleration package should have been released free, as a way of consoling those who invested heavily for directx 10. Either that or the entire Acceleration development funds and work hours been dedicated to directx 10 development, then there would have been a couple more features. The argument that j0nx is making is almost irrefutable, though people will certainly try, because it's so self-evident. The consumer does not care about bureaucratic reasons for being, subjectively speaking, ripped off. And just because he or she may choose to unfairly cast blame, that doesn't make them wrong about the thing that made them angry in the first place.

[Guest j0nx]

Bill, last time i checked the box it said MICROSOFT flight simulator on it! Aces may be the dev but to the consumer it IS microsoft and they are one and the same. I dont want to make speculation about whether or not aces got special access from microsoft during the dx10 development cycle (although that would make sense) so i would encourage you not to assume anything either. When the box says Microsoft on it and dx10 doesnt work well then I start to worry. I have done the research as you say and my point remains that many of those comments in your last post are your opinions and yours only. I just want to enlighten you as to why people think the way they do. I see in your signature that you are a programmer as well. Well most of us are just average run of the mill people who dont know or care to know why dx10 doesnt work. We just want it to work.To coin a poor analogy:If my car comes from the factory with a broken engine that wont run right, do i blame the engine company or the car company? Of course i blame the car company because they are the ones that made the car. I could care less who made the motor or how it got broken. As a consumer i just want it fixed. Maybe now you see. Cheers, and at least dx9 works great!!

[n4gix 4,949]

>Bill, last time i checked the box it said MICROSOFT flight>simulator on it! Aces may be the dev but to the consumer it IS>microsoft and they are one and the same.Point. Although ACES themselves are "consumers" of their parent company's Vista product just like everyone else, from the average "consumers's point of view" that distinction makes no real difference - even if they were aware of it to begin with.Of course, education has been known as an effective tool for the relief of ignorance, n'est pas?>I have done the>research as you say and my point remains that many of those>comments in your last post are your opinions and yours only. "Opinion" or "Fact"?1. The public release of Vista was late; very late; months late...2. nVidea was late getting first-generation hardware into game studio hands. Read the blogs of ACES developers for the precise date, but it wasn't until there were less than four months until FSX's scheduled release date.3a. nVidea driver(s) are still buggy, and do not play nicely or reliably.3b. ATI's first-generation hardware was withdrawn from the market. There is no second-generation hardware - yet.Let's look at another analogy... It takes Vodka and orange juice to make a Screwdriver. If you have to substitute Gin and Milk of Magnesia instead, what do you wind up with?...a Phillips Screwdriver, of course! :-beerchug

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Guys,The fact of the matter is that you are BOTH CORRECT.They say: "'Stuff' rolls down hill" The tradgedy is that the consumer as well as ACES are left at the bottom looking up with their mouths wide open.This entire situation should have never made it to this stage to begin with.The consumer regardless of what level (in house dev-i.e. ACES or end user-you and I + add on 3rd party devs) of consumer you are should never have had to see let alone deal with these issues.Having said that...the fact the ACES have chosen to make the buck stop with them when they probably shouldn't have (to a certain extent), I feel deserves our support rather than the objects of our frustration, becuase they are doing everything in their power to try and make things right.Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give anyone a free pass, but I think this situation most definately warrants all of us here to at least make sure we understand the big picture.I hope that puts a better perspective on things.

[rrostro 0]

here's what I see:He/she did it. (finger points this way)No, he/she did it. (finger points that way)Most companies will not admit to a problem. As a new Simmer, right now I don't care whose wrong as long as its fixed. All future purchases of FSx product and HARDWARE are on hold. I will dump all this FSX stuff if it proves too problematic and go to other entertainment. My hardware can be put to use in other areas. I am not going to buy FSXA because all I really want is DX10 and SP2. I would have bought it except for the fact that others bought it and found major defects. And that is what it appears to me....... MAJOR DEFECTS. This is a typical example of a type of product management and manufacturing referred to by the rest of the world as "READY, SHOOT! aim". I am rooted in FSX right now and anything that isn't FSX certified is not on my list to buy. I want a Guarantee that a product is going to work as advertised. I don't want excuses as to why it didn't work. FSXA is not guaranteed.We, as consumers, should demand more guarantees. We also need a Consumer Reports type of review which disregards a producers offense because their product was found to really be junky. And we should be allowed to return said POS software for a refund at the brick and mortar level. As it stands, we can't. All we can do is gripe.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

I don't think that anyone would disagree with that.;-)

[rhodges 6]

Thanks again for a very credible reply to a post.I totally agree.Whoever it is, I sincerely doubt that Aces is the culprit to our problems. In fact, it is obvious that they are suffering along with the rest of us with problems. Whether their work should have been released when it was is a good point, but I doubt seriously that they were the ones that made that call, yet it is them that will suffer the consequences (along with a few of the rest of us)Respectfully:RTH

[Guest Lennyt]

Bill, all what your stating about the timing of Vista/DX10 is quite irrelevant. ACES may well be a victim of an incipient and rather plodding technological and programming move to DX10 and Vista. The problem is one of perception though. When you make claims (i.e., public showings) of FSX and in the same breath talk about Vista, DX10 performance gains, etc.then you set yourself up for a fall. To the extent that ACES attempted to cast a morsel of an attempt at DX10 implementation in Acceleration and SP2, they can be commended but it was too little too late. Hopefully FS11 will be different and promises can be tempered.

[aerdt 0]

Well said. And to add to that, I don't think that there are many add-on developers out there that can currently guarantee that their products are 100% compatible with all of the current version of FSX in combination with the OS.First were incompatibility issues with Vista (mainly because DEP and UAC), then with 64-Bit, then with SP1, now with SP2/DX10. I am not blaming the developers, because they just can't keep up with the pace how things have progressed in the past 12 months.We have gotten to a point where it is almost impossible to buy an add-on right now with a guarantee that it indeed works.I do have many add-ons that I would like to purchase, but I won't until all the issues have been sorted out - and that might just not be for FSX anymore at all. I am sure that all this back and forth with different versions, releases and incompatibilities are going to hurt the sales of 3rd party add-ons and will result in even longer development cycles, fewer high-quality add-ons and a decreased initiative to port older add-ons to FSX.Pat