Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

awf

A Disappointment with SP2

Recommended Posts

This issue was in Acceleration which contains SP2. No fixes were implemented between the release of Acceleration and SP2. The only thing they did to release SP2 was to implement the file installation and test the various language-based installs.To expect ACES to make SP2 different than the SP2 that's part of Acceleration is unrealistic.Also, in my opinion, the expectation that FS9 aircraft should work in FSX is unrealistic. I suspect with the next FS release nothing from FSX will work with it at all. People keep complaining about ACES maintaining the current FS code... the primary reason they've done so is to maintain a reasonable level of backwards compatibility.So... if ACES actually listens and replaces the core sim code with the next version, people can kiss backwards compatibility goodbye.As for the VC rain issue... The only difference I actually see between the VC images is that the FS9 versions are 512x512 and the FSX versions are 8x8. This is, perhaps, what is causing the actual issue.

Share this post


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

Hi Ed,"To expect ACES to make SP2 different than the SP2 that's part of Acceleration is unrealistic."Unrealistic from a coding point of view or from a Microsoft infrastructure point of view?As a software developer, we issue patches usually as often as needed. If Microsoft posted a "VC Rain Compatiblity patch", then that would sure help. We could provide it to our customers, and it would be seen as an official fix.We have recompiled service packs and programs and told customers "please redownload it, as we saw a problem in the first upload of it".Why not issue an Acceleration SP1... Or put the rain fix into official SP2 and then have a separate "VC Rain Fix for Acceleration" download.It can be presented in many ways.If it can't be fixed due to a code issue in FSX, then that is one thing. If it is the mechanics of the business that prevents it from being fixed, then at least noting this could help in the future. It would then be a real shame that the enthusiasts that are part of the ACES team, and enthusiasts that are the flying public, are not able to be part of a system that works in such a way that can make the hobby as enjoyable as possible for everyone.It is then that maybe my original post speaks for both "sides", and not just the developers and end users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACES/MS is not able to "change course" like a company the size of Flight One.ACES/MS is the Titanic (in size) while Flight One is a speed boat.You can not expect them to be able to change things simply because your company can. Having worked at ISO-9000 complaint software companies as well as having done contract work with some... I can tell you that it's just not as easy as you're thinking it should be.Doesn't mean I agree with the approach, but I am very familiar with it and know the restrictions it places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Vista SP1 was officially released, and all the sudden all red pixels showed as green on the desktop, then I am sure there would be an update release extremely quick... Why? Because the business cause is there to do so.Yes, we are talking about the Titanic and a speedboat (or maybe a raft :-))... but I have always been one to believe if something is right, it is right, and no company, any size, is above doing things in a "right" way.If the business case does not call for it, and if it means some type of ISO certification process that prevents the Aces staff from servicing the product like they wish they truly could, then lets at least put this out in the light and let it be known... so then we can all deal with all this more effectively in the future.And as a side note: No company, no matter how big you are, is above the ability to do things the right way, or differently if they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts Steve. I've always been curious to know what the third party developers thought about the things that have gone on with FSX. When Acceleration hit the shelves there were some display problems with the Digital Aviation Do-27 and I detected a similar sentiment to yours from the developers on their forums.I wonder what happened to the claims that FSX was being developed in close cooperation with third party developers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely well put put Steve, i agree.As for MS to being too big for 'turnarounds'? If governments can do it, which most do all the "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange. While attempting to see if any of my aircraft are affected, I realize I have no VC rain effects at all (even in the stock aircraft) after installing SP2. Does this have to be enabled via a magic config file switch? What is the FS9 texture you make reference to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This issue was in Acceleration which contains SP2. No fixes>were implemented between the release of Acceleration and SP2. >The only thing they did to release SP2 was to implement the>file installation and test the various language-based>installs.>>To expect ACES to make SP2 different than the SP2 that's part>of Acceleration is unrealistic.>>Also, in my opinion, the expectation that FS9 aircraft should>work in FSX is unrealistic. I suspect with the next FS>release nothing from FSX will work with it at all. People>keep complaining about ACES maintaining the current FS code...>the primary reason they've done so is to maintain a reasonable>level of backwards compatibility.>>So... if ACES actually listens and replaces the core sim code>with the next version, people can kiss backwards compatibility>goodbye.>>As for the VC rain issue... The only difference I actually see>between the VC images is that the FS9 versions are 512x512 and>the FSX versions are 8x8. This is, perhaps, what is causing>the actual issue.>With all due respect. When Steve talks you and others should listen. He's been doing this for years with the quality backing of Flight One. So I take seriously his comments and echo the frustration of a reputable developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I wonder what happened to the claims that FSX was being>developed in close cooperation with third party developers?You raise a good point and that point can be argued I suppose by different developers and what they expect, want or are willing to live with from the MSFS team.First off, I know many people on the FS team quite well and have great respect for them. I know the struggles many of them face and a handful are very dedicated enthusiasts just like you and I and those folks really care about the sim and about 3rd part extensibility. If it were only that easy....Don't let anyone fool you; this has not been an easy road for anyone.I am not a shameless a really excited user, I am a dedicated developer and anyone that knows me will tell you that I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>With all due respect. When Steve talks you and others should>listen. He's been doing this for years with the quality>backing of Flight One. So I take seriously his comments and>echo the frustration of a reputable developer.>Um....Ed also works for a reputable developer, a very well known one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strange...even with the FS9 textures I still get no VC rain effects. Is this a DX10 feature only? I haven't seen evidence of solid windshields either, but perhaps this is because my VC rain effects are not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input Jim!I'm relatively new to MSFS, my first version being FS98 and I didn't really get into the hobby in a big way until FS2000.Speaking as an enthusiast, I've been left pretty disappointed with FSX. the latest problems with lots of addon aircraft not working with Acceleration/SP2 has only compounded this. I do sincerely hope that sooner or later we will get hardware that can run FSX to its advantage and that the dust settles enough for us to start seeing some great addons like the ones we had for previous versions.Thankfully there's still a huge amount of content for FS9 that will keep me busy for a long time yet! :)As a long time Flight One customer I'd also like to say thanks for the first rate support you have personally provided me in the past :)Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, thanks for this post. All developers face the same dilemma and your post is very reasonable.The issue is clearly defined and the primary responsable party is Aces. There is no intent to slam those folks, but to simply hold them responsible for their portion of what has become a major load on development and support staff along with a frustrated customer base.Our testing of SP2 over the last 20 hours or so confirm your findings and we join you in the hope that the powers that be really lend their ears to what developers are saying here.The path to FSX/SP1/SP2 along with Vista/DX10 compatibilty has been rather rocky for about 14 months now while customers rant over price for FSX Products and developers rebuild, patch, and now face yet another set of challenges. But wait, the story doesn't end with SP2/VC rain, The DX10 "preview" with Vista and DX10 hardware/driver setup is another "can of worms we all must deal with as it pertains to models built under DX9.0c compliance.It is my personal belief that Aces has the responsibility and the skill to address this for develoers and customers alike. After all, it is their franchise and let's all hope they respond in a contructive way:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.