Wow even add on devs are recommending against Accelerat...

[Guest]

I'm surprised to see companies do this. Do you suppose its because their products are not true FSX products, or is it the fault of Acceleration? I would think if the add ons were built according to the FSX rules they should work fine, regardless of SPx. It wouldn't make any sense to create the rules, and then change them mid game. It just seems like its impossible to get the complete experience right now, which is frustrating, because you have to choose between this and that. I've noticed both Aerosoft and Flight Replicas say if you want to use thier product don't install Acceleration, but there might be others. If developers are actually making their "FSX" products according to the FSX SDK, should they not work just fine with SP2/Acceleration?

[ryanbatc 12,836]

I don't know, the ones I have run great, RealAir sf260 and scout 2007, FEX, UTX USA...They all work, I think UTX USA took one little update provided by F1 to make it work...

[LarryRF 0]

Just a lurker here, so my 2 cents aint worth much :) butttt...I think everyone needs to get on the SP2 bandwagon..Its not Accelerations fault, It's the SP2 update that is in Accel. that is causing the head aches. As Phil has stated, there will be no change between what is in Accel ie: the SP2 update and what will be in the stand alone Sp2. I'm a little disheartened to hear comments like these. I hope they all come to their senses and fix their models, add ons etc. I like Accel and the SP2 update and don't plan on giving it up. If PMDG, Eaglesoft can make their models work in SP2 at release, so can everyone else :) I hope :)Larry

[vgbaron 3,609]

As I understand it, Acceleration is not backwards compatible with a lot of earlier products. Simply that. Happens all the time. Now, when and if those developers decide to update their product to accomodate FSX/Acceleration all will be well.I don't think it says anything special one way or the other.VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.65Evga 680i A1 with P31 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx 169.13beta driverKandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpgRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Guest firehawk44]

"As I understand it, Acceleration is not backwards compatible with a lot of earlier products. Simply that. Happens all the time. Now, when and if those developers decide to update their product to accomodate FSX/Acceleration all will be well."Wow! Well stated! Totally agree. I'm tired of seeing white aircraft textures and white VC's when DX10 Preview is on.Jim

[slashed2 53]

Kudos to Eaglesoft, Real Air for re-doing their aircraft. I'm eagerly awaiting for the Duke and whatever Eaglesoft is coming up with next, why? because I haven't heard any one of these companies complain about the changes, they just took it in stride, and applied some old fashioned hard work and got it done. Can't ask more from a company than that not to mention it shows in the final product. I don't own any PMDG products yet but I'm assuming they have the same qualities in their products as well. This goes for any other company that continues to upgrade and support their products like ASX, FEX, GEX, UTX and all the other bloody X's out there.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Developers can decide to, or decide not to, design their products to be compliant with FSX Service Pack 2.They're not really saying "don't buy Acceleration" because of some inherent defect in Acceleration. What they are saying is: We will not support FSX Service Pack 2 with our products.Imagine if Adobe said: Don't install Windows XP Service Pack 2 because Acrobat won't work with it. Would you continue to use Adobe products, or would you install Service Pack 2?I think the majority of Adobe's customers would decide that they don't need Adobe products that much.

[Guest hmswarspite]

I think we are seeing frustration with having the ground rules for developers changed for backwards compatability - and thus a real reluctance to spend time fixing older models instead of focusing on new projects that will drive revenue. It's a very rational reaction.Colin in Portland

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Happens every day though, Colin. That's part of running a software business.Probably nothing you buy today is going to be compatible with FX11 (or FX11 SP1, or FX11 SP2).I think the attitude of some developers is rational when they choose not to update their products. However, some developers are telling people not to update FSX to Service Pack 2.That, I would submit, is not rational.

[bonchie 2,305]

What companies are saying this?All the top tier companies out there seem to be embracing SP2 and most have their products working with it. Thats what makes them top tier I guess. I can imagine some of the less reputable companies may be taking the lazy road and just saying don't upgrade to avoid having to do anymore work.

[Guest Vilk]

(not the best example: many graphic professionals would skip sp2 :-))

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Let me make a better example:Imagine if Adobe told graphics professionals "Don't upgrade your Mac to Leopard, or Photoshop won't work."I would imagine heads would implode in ad agencies the world over.

[Guest Nils79]

Accepting FSXA/SP2, would be rational, because this is the future of FSX.If developer X will not make FSXA/SP2 compatible add-ons, then developer y will make it.Nearly the same developers told their customers, that SP2 will be different from XPack.That's also not rational.

[Guest]

>Kudos to Eaglesoft, Real Air for re-doing their aircraft. >I'm eagerly awaiting for the Duke and whatever Eaglesoft is>coming up with next, why? because I haven't heard any one of>these companies complain about the changes, they just took it>in stride, and applied some old fashioned hard work and got it>done. >I wish all companies were like RealAir. Seems to me ACES sets the bar for aircraft quality, and if you are making payware you better at least hit the bar, if not surpass it. Too many companies are charging $30+ a pop for aircraft that can't even reach the bar on stilts. Its really a shame some of the companies out there continues to produce sub par products while still getting sales through shiny and/or shady marketing.While I have never purchased from Eaglesoft, I rank RealAir as my favorite and most trusted developer, bar none, with shockwave comming in a close second. Shockwave is currently working to re-export their FS9/FSX WWII fighers for Acceleration.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Shockwave did something interesting.It made 3D Lights for FSX SP1 and charged $9.95 for it.When SP2 came out, they rereleased ... added functionality, and gave their existing customers a substantial discount for the added functionality. They raised the price to $16.95 (or thereabouts).Some companies have gone the other way - trying to sell FS9 products into the FSX market without spending any development time updating those products.The beworn buyer can discern who the culprits are.