Chuck, a couple of points you may want to ponder....1. Only now has SP2 become a solid target. DX10 is still very much a moving target since all we have is DX10 "preview" and no full blown DX10 SDK. The requirement for Vista/DX10 Hardware/Drivers is a stumbling block for a major portion of the flightsim market.DX10 "ain't soup" just yet so we shouldn't be ringing that dinner bell for a while yet. Further, the jury is still out wrt to VC Shadows since many users turn off Exterior shadowing now to gain performance or just plain don't like the way they display. The same is true for VC shadows and water tight models. At this point, overall acceptance of VC shadows is a moving target as well. Consider...if MS can decide to eliminate VC rain for, to use Phils phrase, "vNext", there is no reason they can't add to or take away features at will. The lack of solid feature sets for "vNext" makes a lot of this discussion misleading. In short, without a final feature list for vNext and the associated tools and SDK we're shooting in the dark when we discuss vNext.2. Maybe reread the FS9 forums from time time to gauge the FS9 market. It's a little early to announce it's demise.3. In our view, vNext is still a "moving target" and we speak from experience:-)

SP2. What a nightmare.Aren't Service Packs supposed to fix rather than break things?If you took your car in for a service, and it came back with windshield wipers that didn't work in the rain, you'd surely take it back until they fixed what it was they broke, as they were working fine before the service.The VC raindrops are a pain, but I think for most, the CTD's accessing the menu bar are the real show stopper. An 'NVIDIA driver bug' I hear people cry. Funny that, the NVIDIA drivers worked fine until I took my FSX in for its second 'service'.Another frustrated and disappointed FSX user.Over and out.

>2. Maybe reread the FS9 forums from time time to gauge the FS9>market. It's a little early to announce it's demise.>>3. In our view, vNext is still a "moving target" and we speak>from experience:-)>Every professional developer can tell you that backwards compatibility is a pain in the... It gives always problems also conversions and interfaces are the weak points...The worst thing that happened to FSX is backwards compatibility!The worst decision made for all customers out there!We have now several versions and for many customers it's unclear...RTM backwards compatibility problems?SP1 restoring some backwards compatibility?SP2 DX9 Different version with new features?SP2 DX10 Changed the scenery engine?Despite all the hard work form Aces and thank you for that it's almost funny the mesh they made decision wise for this release to say the least!So for me FS9 is history because I'm for the future not the past...At this point to make life real simple just buying native FSX SP2 addons all the other stuff is deleted...Hoping that Aces will make the next versions based on new technology and "NO BACKWARD" compatibility...In the long run it will benefit all of us the customer the 3d party addon developer and ACES itself ;-)Actually I would have trade without any hesitation some FS9 backward compatibility features for a full blown DX10 application instead of a not satisfying preview...If history repeats itself hardware will catch up and the prices will drop and we will see a huge switch to the latest Flightsim ;-)Because in the end FSX has a lot to offer!http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

.

I defer to your experience Ron and of course credit you and your team members with much of the basic groundwork upon which we build, and can only agree that the XI feature set is at best nebulous .There is none the less room for deductive reasoning for planning,while i admit the FS9 market is not dead sales expectations for FS9 output are not high with those i am aware of or involved in , but then i don

Chuck, first thanks for the kind words. High praise indeed from such a talented individual. We really need to talk some time when the smoke clears:-)We agree that the vNext outline is at least beginning to come together enough for devs to consider the future path in a way that makes sense. We also agree that a bit of deductive reasoning can be encouraging. Our comments go to the fact that it's a bit early to say that features and compat issues are set in stone and that vNext will be the answer to all of our dreams.The past 15 months have been a blur but we have learned a few things by trial and error and one of those lessons is to listen carefully to what Aces says, then take it with a grain of salt.We are NOT saying they are untruthful, just that they themselves have had some "moving targets" to deal with and as we all know...stuff runs downhill:-lol :-lol Oh, almost forgot...we welcome a clean slate for vNext as long as we have a solid foundation to build from and the tools and support that are required to do our jobs.

>I don't think I've ever played a multiplayer game before in my>life that allows compatibility between versions. It's not>reasonable to expect updated code paths to talk to older code>paths without introducing problems.BrianI agree, however, SP1 and 2 are not new version, they are updates to the existing version, FS 11, would be a new version. They were designed as fixes to existing problems in the current version.I know what you are saying as we release version updates and patches regularly. However we also ensure that what we release does not break what we already have and have been doing it for 10 years, 4 of which were with MS and their dev team, including Tucker, who actually 'borrowed' some of our 'features' for CFS.The sad fact is that FSX multiplayer already had enough problems without adding to them.

I have used 3 different video cards in the last month due to a computer upgrade.The first-a 7600 gt with 512 had no problems with Acceleration.The second-a 7800 with 256 had horrible problems with Acceleration including menu freezes and video artifacts. Never had a ctd though.The 3rd-a 8800gt 512 has no troubles with Acceleration other than the shimmering runways in dx 10, and the cockpit shadows looking rough.Strong case for driver/card combos causing troubles.Suggest reading the nvidia forums-it isn't just fsx...http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=22http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Couldn't agree more Geof. Just doing some testing of our FSX aircraft under SP2 and the new 8800GT. Great card but the wrong drivers can be a real problem with DX10 Preview. This is under Vista 32 bit.

This has been a very interesting read. I wasn't aware FSX has been such a mess for aircraft designers too. I'm a scenery designer, at least I used to be before FSX came along. Im disgusted with FSX both as a simmer & a developer. This program needs a engine re-write. The 10 year old code running FSX must end with this version to move forward.The SDK is poorly documented; offers limited visual improvements, does not support custom high end ground,taxiway, runway creation. The FS2002 SDK is still the only way to hack around the crappy default apron,runway textures. The new shaders look awful. Just look at the glass/refmap in the default KSEA tower. I'm not sticking that mess on my models. The exporting process is an absolute circus of confusion. GUID numbers, friendly IDs, flipping dds textures. Its all such a mess. Development is 90% struggling with the naff exporter tools, 10% artwork. It really should be the other way round. I'm not in this for the money, it used to be fun with FS2002 & FS9, so i'm not willing to struggle with incompetent software that still runs terribly. I have a 3.8Ghz quad core , 4GB of ram & a NV8800GTX. FSX performance is heartbreakingly disappointing. I wouldn't have a problem with the performance if the visuals were nextgen, but it some cases it can be inferior to FS9. Theres still many ways to induce strong blurring, popping autogen & single digit framerates because theres so much obsolete bloated code. I've worked in the videogames industry for over ten years. I've shipped 3x XBOX360 games in the last 3 years. I've used lots of propriety & commercial toolsets. The FSX SDK is by far the worst software i've ever laid hands on. George Grimshaw / FlyTampa

>This has been a very interesting read. I wasn't aware FSX has>been such a mess for aircraft designers too.> I'm a scenery designer, at least I used to be before FSX>came along. Im disgusted with FSX both as a simmer & a>developer. This program needs a engine re-write. The 10 year>old code running FSX must end with this version to move>forward.>The SDK is poorly documented; offers limited visual>improvements, does not support custom high end ground,taxiway,>runway creation. The FS2002 SDK is still the only way to hack>around the crappy default apron,runway textures. The new>shaders look awful. Just look at the glass/refmap in the>default KSEA tower. I'm not sticking that mess on my models.>The exporting process is an absolute circus of confusion. GUID>numbers, friendly IDs, flipping dds textures. Its all such a>mess. Development is 90% struggling with the naff exporter>tools, 10% artwork. It really should be the other way round.>I'm not in this for the money, it used to be fun with FS2002 &>FS9, so i'm not willing to struggle with incompetent software>that still runs terribly. I have a 3.8Ghz quad core , 4GB of>ram & a NV8800GTX. FSX performance is heartbreakingly>disappointing. I wouldn't have a problem with the performance>if the visuals were nextgen, but it some cases it can be>inferior to FS9. Theres still many ways to induce strong>blurring, popping autogen & single digit framerates because>theres so much obsolete bloated code.> I've worked in the videogames industry for over ten years.>I've shipped 3x XBOX360 games in the last 3 years. I've used>lots of propriety & commercial toolsets. The FSX SDK is by far>the worst software i've ever laid hands on. >>George Grimshaw / FlyTampaMore words of wisdom from one of the best airport designers out there.

>Even in that case, though, I do not believe it would be "from>scratch" for the developer who is investing every version with>us. For that developer we would provide a "read and re-export">tool that would get them to "base level compat" and then they>would have to use the new modeler to add "vNext specific>goo".>>Make sense?Absolutely, Phil!I don't mind starting "from scratch" though. There are so many lessons learned from FSX about expectations, features, hardware progress etc. I'm sure you can see the big picture of how to make the "vNext" a long-lifespan, expandable, adaptable and flexible platform, with a huge user base and super-active 3d-party/freeware community support; and I hope you'll have a support from your corporate peers for that. I will applaud if you come up with a new-generation platform next time. I will convert/redo all what I've done so far (AI, GA AFCads, some planes, scenery, etc) if the "vNext" won't be just an FSX SP3 DX11-"preview" with working VC rain. I wholeheartedly wish your team a great wisdom in deciding what to do with "vNext", as for now, I'll stick with FS9 with all its addons and occasional FSX clean RTM on a good CPU day. Cheers,=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

Point is, my card/driver combo works pretty much perfectly under FSX SP1. I install SP2 and it all goes to ####. Note this is XP/DX9 here. Menu functions are a BASIC part of any Windows application, be it a 'game' or anything else. Why on earth did MS make the menu bar in FSX all graphical, shaded, and Vista-like? There was no need. Yes it looks nice, but that is form over function, which to me is just rediculuous. The FS9 menu system would have sufficed, and probably doesnt eat GPU cycles when accessed.NVIDIA have pretty much said its a driver bug. But that doesn't remove the fact that something Microsoft did in SP2 causes problems with certain NVIDIA cards when accessing the menu bar. They keep breaking more than they fix. Last year, people were up in arms over the performance of RTM. A year later and the forums are awash with complaints again, over SP2. Has FSX and the community moved on from those nightmare RTM days? I'm sure if people glance at the forums, the answer to that is more than plain.Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I speak for the majority of the community when I say, 'we just want to enjoy our hobby'.

>Suggest reading the nvidia forums-it isn't just fsx...>http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=22>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Geofa which driver are you running?running a 8800GT XFX XXX alpha dog edition with the 169.12 just fine but indeed the shimmering in the DX10 preview...Cheers,http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

I really tried to work with SP2 (Acceleration), DX10 preview and my current system 8800GT 512mb OC'd. The last beta driver is the most stable but by that I mean I was still getting hard freezes, CTDs, etc. but not as frequently. Performance was good but when you don't know whether you're going to finish a flight or not then there's no alternative but to uncheck DX10. Not happy I had to do this but the end result is NO freezes and CTDs. Very stable now.