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

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

"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.

[fbass 1]

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

[byork 2,258]

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

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

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."

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.

[Guest firehawk44]

"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

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

edit:double-post

[Mike T 208]

fb:I thought that your statements were very interesting and enlightening, but...You said: "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."I think that was the original idea, but I'm not sure that the release version of FSX resembles the one that origninally started out on the whiteboard in the Aces conference room.The release version of FSX was a distant cry from the "magic screenies" and did not have true support for multicore processors until SP1 (and post SP1 multicore support is still argueable) furthermore, FSX does not utilize the full scope of DX10 by any means. And while FSX was indeed developed with the future in mind, I am afraid that the future that Aces first envisioned is not the one we are now experiencing. FSX is by no means a Vista flagship product (as it was intended) and there really is no burning reason to migrate from XP to Vista just for FSX unless you absolutely demand cockpit shadows. I have not seen were avid simmers are clammoring to migrate to Vista to get "new technologies" when FSX SP2 DX10 only gives a "preview" of a very small subset of the "new technologies".This is not to say that FSX is a good or a bad product, just an observation, that is water long under the bridge. It was just your comment reminded me of the pre-FSX release ads that seemed to have missed the target by a hair (or two).As far as developers, they need to support SP2, period. Anything less is a waste of time, and the expectation that consumers won't utilize the latest and greatest build is pretty far off the mark.Regards,Mike T.

[N400QW 205]

Thanks for including our name in the mix but let me clarify. While our FSX products work well with Acceleration, some users report issues with DX10 "preview" which is included in the Accel. Pack.With all the changes that have transpired over the past year it seems there is a lot of confusion. As someone posted here, Acceleration is NOT SP2 but INCLUDES SP2.The standalone SP2 has not yet been released and the question for developers is what they can expect from the SDK with an emphasis on DX10. This is important because all developers have been building content which is DX9.0c compliant.The challenge becomes more complex because Vista is currently the only OS which provides DX10 and added to this mix are the DX10 Hardware/Driver folks.In our view, this presents new challenges for developers and is probably why you see some actually telling folks not to purchase or use Acceleration with their products:-)

[Guest]

Delete.

[Ted Striker 338]

I thought I understood all this, but this discussion has raised my eyebrows again.Phil, are you saying that an addon that is upgraded to be compatible with the up and coming "free" SP2 may not work properly on a system that has acceleration and SP2 installed? I'm not talking about this addon utilizing any additional features that acceleration offers, but rather just functioning as intended in a non Accelerated FSX.Ted

[Guest DreamFleet]

>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. >Hi Phil,That's quite true and, ultimately, it is up to the customer which latest incarnation of FSX they will use, and we developers should state just what our product works with. I am in 110% total agreement with that. As to a couple of developers recommending against Acceleration: What's that? 1% of the 3rd party development market?However and, let's face it, and I *think* you know it; FSX has been anything but a "day at the beach" for 3rd party developers. Of course that is just my opinion and some other developers may not agree. Right now I am about to start testing my Piper Dakota in FSX, and hope to make it compatible with SP1 and SP2/Acceleration, with the "assumption" (oh, there's a dangerous word!) that the free version of SP2 will be identical and cause no issues vs. Acceleration. However, I feel it will be the same. I have faith.This is in addition to the FS9 products I still need to produce because enough of the FS market remains there as to warrant that expenditure of labor. Seriously, I see my FS9 sales every month, they are not a joke - serious money, and we deserve it for the labor we put in.Let's not even get into the XP / Vista thing. Frankly, most problems with Vista are due to folks who do not know how to set it up. It's not that bad at all. As with XP, it is often when folks take older machines and convert to a new OS and then do not take the time to learn it. Never done that myself and am most happy that I did not.Finally, let me say that well, perhaps I cannot as I am under NDA, but, okay I will, as I know this latest DevCon is public knowledge.While I did not (totally my fault) say hello to you, I found you to be a soft-spoken, highly intelligent and talented gentleman (that's not kissing you-know-what either- I don't do that), and after listening to you speak I give you great kudos for even visiting these and other forums.I realize I may have seemed a bit "honest" is my post above, but you know where I am coming from.All I ask is that you fine folks at ACES get SP2 out, and be done with it. I know you want that also.Give us a couple / few years; whatever it may be, with FSX, and we'll be happy, as I trust most FS enthusiasts will be.Finally, when you run into them, say hello to "Evil Hal" for me, and Peter Zahn too! Best wishes for a happy holiday season and new year. :)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg