Sign in to follow this  
northtexas

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What companies are saying this?"According to the OP ... Aerosoft and Flight Replicas.These developers are, I would assume, monitoring this thread and correcting anything that needs correcting.According to the OP, these two companies (and perhaps others) are telling their customers: "If you want to use our products, don't install SP2."The underlying message is: Our products aren't compatible with the current release of Microsoft Flight Simulator.Sorry, but if your product isn't compatible with the current release of FSX ... I can't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that there is a very large hole in the understanding that people have concerning SP2 and Acceleration.First, FSX was developed with the future in mind - both from a software and hardware perspective. The goal was to support multiple core hardware, DX10 graphics, and Vista. Yes, FSX works under XP and DX9 but you don't get the new technologies.Then, a number of developers (including ACES) used the capabilities in the FSX SDK to design an addon to FSX. This addon, Acceleration, contained new aircraft and a large number of new missions that took advantage of the new FSX functionality. Acceleration also included new graphics functions. There was a charge for this addon just like any other addon. Some people have the idea that Acceleration is a part of the principle design line of FSX - it is not. It is an addon.Meanwhile, ACES/MS decided to include much of the graphics functionality associated with DX10 (already in Acceleration) into an update to the regular FSX product line - namely SP2. The missions and new aircraft from Acceleration are not in SP2. There will be no charge for this SP because it is part of the normal product line and not an addon.So, if you purchased Acceleration you already have the components that will appear in SP2 and you have the addon with new aircraft and missions.If you had previously not purchased Acceleration and yet you want the graphics functionality that is integral to the FSX product line, wait for SP2. On the other hand, if you want these cool aircraft, and all the new missions, AND the DX10 graphics, get your hands around Acceleration - in this you get everything.Regarding 3rd party developer products - developers have had their hands full bringing products to the marketplace that support FSX. Some have stopped at SP1 and are waiting for the DX10 dust to settle. Others have gone on and brought out products coded for Acceleration. This group of products will work with either SP2 or Acceleration as the core graphics functionality is the same in both products.fbFSX BETA Test Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other developers, but I don't have a problem with Acceleration.The only issue Acceleration/SP2 caused for FS2Crew is that it threw my custom designed tiller unit for the Level-D 767 out of whack.So now I have to create a custom tiller unit that is Acceleration/SP2 specific.Cheers,Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to muddy the waters further:Some developers are selling products which have zero need of Acceleration (because they don't include any functionality that Acceleration brought, such as carrier capabilities) ... and yet also are not compatible with SP2 because the product hasn't been updated to account for SP2 changes."Don't install Acceleration ..." almost always means "This product is not SP2 compliant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it *is* up to each 3rd party developer to decide to/not-to support any product we release.With that said, they should be honest about the state of affairs and state their product does/does-not support release x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I believe it *is* up to each 3rd party developer to decide to/not-to support any product we release."Totally agree. Many have so stated they will upgrade their product for FSX, at no charge or for a nominal upgrade charge."With that said, they should be honest about the state of affairs and state their product does/does-not support release x."I disagree with your 2nd statement in that any product upgrades should be considered part of the original product. It's like releasing SP1 for the Vista OS. Office 2007 states it's compatible with Vista and customers expect it to remain compatible even though there are service updates. I believe SP1 and SP2 for FSX were service releases to make the product work better or be more compatible with video cards and OS's. Of course the consumer is going to upgrade to those service releases because he wants FSX to be as compatible as possible with his computer system. Developers suddenly coming out and stating we're not going to support SP1 or SP2 is wrong. The customer has already purchased the product for FSX and it's wrong that he won't be able to install the FSX service updates.Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What companies are saying this?>As noted I've seen Flight Replicas says it at the top of the page right here:http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1248I was actually going to get this plane until I read their notice that its not for Acceleration, as its said to be the best warbird you can get next to the Realair Spit and the Shockwave P-40. The price is right too. As to Aerosoft, by buddy got Venice X recently, and in the manual it states to use SP1 and avoid SP2/Acceleration due to some kind of SP2 performance issue with the bump maps. He gets about 15fps in the venice area with a default plane on his Core 2 system with SP2. In any other area he stays pegged at his 25fps lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but this is a wrong assumption: SP2 is an update, Acceleration is an addon. products build with the SP2 SDK should be compat with RTM, SP1 and SP2, however, Acceleration also includes additional core features that may not be supported or compatible.I've been myself fooled with this: I thought Acceleration is SP2 + missions/aircraft, but it is more than just that: it changes the core functionalities (some of them).It is like the other game I play with: Rainbow 6 Vegas. They have released addons to it (red and black maps). But it is not just additional maps, it also includes new MP modes. I can't play these modes on my regular maps with others using the regular maps with the new modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we actually in agreement, what I am trying to convey is that the add-on developer needs to stick to the facts of what their product supports and let the customer make the decision to favor the upgrade or the add-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this