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

[Guest]

I just found out my DO-27 is "just not compatible with the newly introduced bugs of SP2", according to Aerosoft. There is no mention of this on the product page of that aircraft.Aerosoft also had this to say: "But because SP2 does not fix any bugs and only adds more we can not advice the SP2 in the Xpack at this moment."Seems they are pointing the finger at FSX.My question is this: If a product was built according to the original FSX SDK, should it not work without issue in SP2? If SP2 is breaking products that were designed according to the FSX SDK than thats a serious issue. On the other hand, if developers are advertising something sush as "DO-27 X", as if its a full FSX product, when if fact its not, thats also a serious issue.

[tf51d 284]

>I just found out my DO-27 is "just not compatible with the>newly introduced bugs of SP2", according to Aerosoft. There>is no mention of this on the product page of that aircraft.>>Aerosoft also had this to say: "But because SP2 does not fix>any bugs and only adds more we can not advice the SP2 in the>Xpack at this moment.">>Seems they are pointing the finger at FSX.>>My question is this: If a product was built according to the>original FSX SDK, should it not work without issue in SP2? >>If SP2 is breaking products that were designed according to>the FSX SDK than thats a serious issue. On the other hand, if>developers are advertising something sush as "DO-27 X", as if>its a full FSX product, when if fact its not, thats also a>serious issue.The problem is these aren't bugs they are by design by Aces. Phil has stated going forward, backward compatibility is no longer a priority for them. As I stated in previous posts, and others like Steve Halpern has reiterated here and in other posts, intentionally changing compatibility of a product, is not something you do in a patch, that should only be done at a new version RTM release, where they could start with a blank slate. Since it wasn't done at FSX RTM then it should have waited until FSXI RTM. For this reason I do most of my flying in XP/SP1, and will not be installing SP2 there unless something absolutely forces me to. I do have Acel/SP2 loaded on my Vista boot disk (Separate FSX License) where I only use it for Acceleration missions and aircraft, which quite frankly is not that much!!

[Guest Bonkey]

The Curved Earth Issues aren't a problem anymore. Pre-SP1 it was a show stopper for FlyTampa, but custom ground can now be authored in FSX.It still has to be exported with the FS2002 SDK; theres no other way. My local copy of FlyTampa's Boston displays all ground elements in FSX correctly after a few simple geometry adjustments. Just because something doesn't comply with a new standard, doesn't mean its inferior. FS2002 exported elements always performed faster than FS9 XML driven exports. The FSX SDK is vastly more limited than previous versions. Even simple features like display distance can't be set. In a sim that performs as poorly as FSX, being able to clip out geometry based on distance is essential.Its time to acknowledge that the tools ACES have provided just aren't good enough for the job. Its not impossible, but its terribly painful unless you are a programmer capable of coding you're way around endless problems. I'm all for new technology & tools. I hope they re-write the whole sim because currently it's a complete & utter bloated mess.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

That aircraft was designed for FS9.

[ahuimanu 50]

>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.Sorry to split hairs, but ACES/Phil have said that the en masse move to multi-cores took them by surprise - I can't see how it was a goal when the rapid advent of the multi-core market wasn't planned/anticipated.

[MD83 1]

It's a very serious issue.