Lots of effort creating Edwards in Acceleration but....

[Gypsy Baron 10]

...one might have expected Aces to provide some freaking PARKING!All those detailed buildings and when yougo to start a flightthere all you get is options for the runways....not one singleparking place. Not even a fuel box....Then there is the ridiculous Tonapah Test Range....they obviouslydidn't have a peak with Google Earth when laying down that abomination.I was hoping NOT to have to start spending hours on end cleaningup these sorts of problems with the 3rd party tools but it appearsI'll have to start climbing the learning curve....again... Paul ( rather disappointed with Acceleration/SP2... )

[Guest DC-9]

Some things good, some things not so good. I gave it the name "Deceleration". It seems more people than not have had problems with it. As I've said in some of my previous posts, I'm not sinking any money into this release of FS. Even the latest hardware has trouble giving decent performance. I think people would be wise to save their money this time around. Personally, I think FS9 has just as much to offer, if not more, in terms of better performance and many more addons. For me, blurry textures ruined FSX completely.

[frankla 44]

For a 30 dollar package in which ACES didn't advertise or promote Edwards Airforce base, that is a very thin argument to bash the whole package on.I wonder about all the complaints here sometimes. Consider the following facts:1) In companies that deal with consumers, the customer service department will hear complaints in overwhelming number of calls.2) When a company or its products fail a consumer, the unsatisfied customer will relay their frustration to an average of a little more than seven people that they know.3) When a company does offer a service or products that meets a customers expectations, the customer will relay their experience to average of less than 1 person.4) When a company does offer a service or products that exceeds a customers expectations, the customer will relay their good experience to an average of slightly less than 2 people. So for people who have not tried FSX or Acceleration, I would say that they should read these treads with a grain of salt.Frank

[Gypsy Baron 10]

>For a 30 dollar package in which ACES didn't advertise or>promote Edwards Airforce base, that is a very thin argument to>bash the whole package on.>-SNIP->So for people who have not tried FSX or Acceleration, I would>say that they should read these treads with a grain of salt.>>Frank>>Oh, this is just one of a list of many shortcomingsproblemsthat came about as a result of AccelerationSP2. I just didn't bother to iterate them all.It's more of a testimony on the quality, such as it is, of thisM$ product. After a session of "exploration" with FileMon lastnight I concluded that not alot of optimization was accomplishedvis-a-vis loading of scenery outside of the reasonable geographicarea of the current flight plan as well as a totally illogicalfile search herarchy.The contrail visability fix is perhaps the only redeeming factor I've found for keeping AccelerationSP2 installed and not dropping back to SP1.I didn't see any measurable level of performance improvementwith SP2. The "SP2 induced" problems with my favorite FS9imports is most aggravating, particularly in light of thelack of "FSX compatible" replacements and the trickle ofnew "FSX compatible" aircraft.I'm running XP Pro, Q6600@3.25Ghz, 4GB DDR2-8500 memoryand an eVGA 8800GTS 640MB card.... Paul

[bob.bernstein 0]

The scenery at Istanbul is a high point.

[frankla 44]

Then you should have mentioned your other frustrations rather than bash a product for such a minor detail. Nevertheless, your other mentioned problems with acceleration are not yet valid. They are all directed at SP2!I don't think SP2 was the selling point of Acceleration. They just included it in it. In fact, SP2 will be offered as free download very soon. So if you only bought acceleration for performance reasons you made a mistake. As for FS9 aircraft not working with Acceleration consider the following observations;1) Many people who complain about FS9 aircraft not working in Accel. are at the same people that scream that FS engine is outdated and that ACES is sacrificing a new graphics engine for backward compatiblity. 2)A great majority of FSX customers are not even aware of third party aircraft. So why should ACES hold back features to accomodate 3rd party add-on's?3)Why is there no responsibility on the part of 3rd party aircraft creators to create a native FSX version?My point was that perhaps (and I do say "perhaps" because I really don't know) many people don't have problems with acceleration and that AVSIM is like a customer service department and attracts people who are not happy.

[Guest Jimbofly]

Here we go another ranting raving anti Microsoft lunatic, just what the Avsim forums need.I along with plenty of other people are extremely satisfied with Acceleration. The F-18 alone is a masterpiece imho (yeah there's the undercarriage thing but that's only minor) and the missions are brilliant. The performance is great on my 4-year old hardware.Whenever I see "M$" being used in a thread I just know there's not going to be any real balance in the argument.James

[Guest Spud]

>Here we go another ranting raving anti Microsoft lunatic,>just what the Avsim forums need.>>I along with plenty of other people are extremely satisfied>with Acceleration. The F-18 alone is a masterpiece imho (yeah>there's the undercarriage thing but that's only minor) and the>missions are brilliant. The performance is great on my 4-year>old hardware.>>Whenever I see "M$" being used in a thread I just know there's>not going to be any real balance in the argument.>>JamesAffirm,I am absolutely convinced that there is far more user error going on than anyone is admitting...or even really know. I still have no idea what "the blurries" are since I haven't notice anything wrong since purchasing FSX. Acceleration is fun, and overall I haven't had ANY issues with FSX at all. Never had any issues with FS9 either when people were ranting and raving then...What would be interesting to see is people take screen shots of their desktop and/or processes prior to starting FSX and lets see what's really going on...Oh well, I'll just keep chugging along and occasionally dip in to the forums to see if anything of value is being discussed. Cheers!p.s. Getting all bent about no parking at Edwards is ridiculous.

[tf51d 284]

I gave up on Acceleration for my mainstream flying, mainly due to Ace's decision to break backwards compatibility at this point. I just feel doing that in the addon/patch release is the wrong time to do it. It's like changing the rules in the middle of the game! This is something that since not done at RTM release, should have waited until the next full version FSXI, where they could have done a clear break. I'm just recovering from restoring my system following my previous system meltdown, (Lightning Strike). I just don't have the will or the energy to modify all the texture files of my FS9 aircraft (Which are many) to fix my existing aircraft at this point, so I do most of my mainstream flying in SP1 on my XP disk. That being said, the actual features of Acceleration like the extra missions, and the functional Aircraft Carrier is worth using so I have a stand alone FSX installation for them on my Vista OS. I just wish there was a way to install the features of Acceleration without the SP2 patch.

[ahuimanu 50]

Yeah, everytime I see MU+0024, the cliche wears just a bit thinner. Even though [a href=http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm]California, New York, D.C. (and a few others)[/a] see Microsoft as the "Great Satan," Microsoft bashing is fairly unoriginal. MSFS is flawed here and there, but I don't think ACES sits on their haunches and idly siphons our crash - the product still provides value.