A Disappointment with SP2

[FlyingsCool 3]

Ohhhhh! Now I get it.Thanks Bill. To the rescue once again!Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[FlyingsCool 3]

I have been involved with complete rewrites of complex software before. The result was not pretty, and took several years to work back to a useful product. It nearly killed the company. I suggest taking care in terms of what you wish for.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest koorby]

>Hey john,>>I'd never seen it before, but I have to say you're Terrain>products looks absolutely world class. Shame FSX will blur>those stunning textures :)>>Hi George,Phil will back me up on this, coz he's seen FTX running - we get zero blurries and no autogen popping, and above all, smooth as silk frames on XP/DX9 hardware. We posted some videos on our forums this week which demonstrate that. As I mentioned I will publish our tuning guide soon which should sort out most of the issues - and there's only one single tweak in fsx.cfg required ;) Most of the magic is in the FSX GUI sliders and OS tuning.

[PhilTaylor 45]

I appreciate the gesture John.

[Guest Seadog]

Thomas, you're absolutely right that the thread began on one level of a specific problem, and that I deliberately broadened the discussion. I saw the specific as a sub-set of the general. Along the way, we've seen the specific problem is about to be fixed, and I'm pleased about that.But we've also seen multiple different cases of specific problems, each a sub-set of the general. I've been amazed at the variety of issues.The general issue that I'm attempting to highlight is that Flight Simulator is not a stand alone product, but a vertical industry, the consumers of which are customers of each level of that vertical industry. Customers and members of the vertical hierarchy alike are investors, whose investments must make economic sense. The specific cases of issues are examples of costs which must be amortized, else the entities that bear the costs fail.We are blessed with an intelligent, thoughtful audience this go round at MS. Phil isn't now jumping at each individual example, but is contemplating the entire scope. He can't commit MS, but he can synthesize the entirety of what he is reading and act on it as best he can within that hierarchy. I mean what I've said, that MS had to make some bets, that some worked, some didn't, and they invested a whole lot of money to do the best they could to correct the undesirable outcomes. They, too, need to amortize that investment. Acceleration was a great way to do that. Encouraging add-ons builds word of mouth that adds to base product sales.FS isn't a rock band. We aren't looking for an all new, entirely different, hit single from the group. It's going to take a while for hardware to catch up with the initial vision of FSX.Therefore, this is a great time to build the base and amortize the huge costs of FSX. Missions are an example, as are expansion packs like Acceleration.I'll tell you what I think would build the base even more - a true instructional program. Think of Patty, Rod and Mike Ray combined on a How To Fly FSX program, integrated with the program itself. I mean a serious, detailed How To program, along the lines of how the military does instruction: hands on, on the job training , not just somebody criticizing what you did wrong, but teaching you step-by-step how to do it right the first time. A true coach, not a critic.Nothing would serve to build the base more than that. It would allow VFR simmers to transition to IFR; it would allow beginners to fly without being flash-and-crash arcade users who give up and never come back.Because of the huge investment, because of present hardware limitations, because of the late start for add-on developers, I think this is a marvelous time to take a step back, take a breath, and think about expanding the base, rather than shattering the mold for the sake of a new hit single. Supplementing what has already been created, in a way that augments its sales, while waiting for hardware to catch up, seems a more profitable course than making something brand new. I understand the marketing importance to MS of a Vista DX10 version, but that doesn't mean that FSX absolutely has to be transformed into something radically different, an entire vNext. At least I don't think so. Since I know zip about the underlying technology, I could be flat wrong.But I do know that I would gladly pay twice the cost of FSX just to have a truly fine comprehensive instructional program on how to use it. And I could then tell others, you bet it's hard, but it's fun to learn it and there's a great way to do that: Spend the money one time, and every hit single thereafter from Aces will be under your control forever. You do instruction, Thomas. Wouldn't you just die for a really valuable comprehensive program like that? Heck, you could probably be part of its creation!After doing that, while biding their time for hardware to mature, MS will then have TWO programs they can up-date for each new hit single, an A and a B side on that disk. Yeah, I know, the 45 RPM record is a retro analogy, but so am I.;-) -Doug

[martin_ktpa 0]

Glad to hear that the problems you faced being fixed and hopefully they won't be an issue again for other developers down the road.Looking forward to your wonderful product.Martin / FlyTampa>Folks, I owe Phil a public apology for the tone of my earlier>post. He and I have been in communication over the past 24>hours and I have some resolution from the ACES team on>solutions and workarounds to various tech issues we had raised>at DevCon. We have a go-forward position to allow us to RTM>our product early in the year.>>I also have to echo other people's sentiments here, in that we>owe Steve some thanks for initiating and steering a sensible,>open and productive discussion to bring to light some of the>issues developers are facing, without resorting to an>MS-bashing war.>>SDK tech/dev issues aside, my opinion of FSX is that it's a>solid platform that on our dev hardware does not have too many>performance issues at all; in fact with SP2 it outperforms FS9>in most aspects, and from our scenery/terrain bias, it offers>a smoother flight and a much higher autogen density. I'm in>the middle of writing a tuning guide which I'll post on>various places.

[Guest j0nx]

>Phil will back me up on this, coz he's seen FTX running - we>get zero blurries and no autogen popping, and above all,>smooth as silk frames on XP/DX9 hardware.Sounds good. What about dx10?Another thing I don't see covered anywhere in this thread is why if an aircraft works fine in fsx/sp2/dx9 but displays all with white or translucent textures in fsx/sp2/dx10? If it works in sp2/dx9 then shouldn't it work in sp2/dx10? None of my eaglesoft planes work in dx10. Half of my aerosoft planes do. None of my Carenado work yet all of them work fine in sp2/dx9. I want to know who is responsible for fixing these planes because from what I can see so far in this thread it appears that Aces has washed their hands of fsx and its remaining issues and the 3pd's with the exception of flight1 are all still in denial that it's their issue to fix. All I know is that I sure would like to be able to use my favorite eaglesoft cirrus sr20 in dx10...I have made a consumer's choice to not buy any more addons unless they are sp2/dx10 certified. I think anyone who is smart will make the same choice. It's just too confusing to wade through all the compatibility issues right now and it would be prudent and honest business ethics for any 3pd to PROMINENTLY display on their website whether or not their addons are sp2/dx10 certified.Great thread!

[N400QW 205]

"None of my Eaglesoft planes work in dx10."Just to clarify, four Eaglesoft planes turn white with DX10 "Preview" turned on. They are SR20, SR22, Liberty XL2, and Beechjet/Hawker 1.5.The rest of our fleet is fine under DX10 "Preview" The solution is to simply turn of DX10 "Preview", restart the sim and you're back to DX9.0 and good to go again.Please understand FSX/SP2 is NOT a full DX10 application, it is only a "preview" of things to come. We are investigating this and will post a free fix when a solution is found.:-)

[Guest j0nx]

>"None of my Eaglesoft planes work in dx10.">>>Just to clarify, four Eaglesoft planes turn white with DX10>"Preview" turned on. >They are SR20, SR22, Liberty XL2, and Beechjet/Hawker 1.5. >The solution is to simply turn of DX10 "Preview", restart the>sim and you're good to go again.>>Please understand FSX/SP2 is NOT a full DX10 application, it>is only a "preview" of things to come.> >We are investigating this and will post a free fix when a>solution is found.:-)Yeah, in other words they don't work in dx10. I have no desire to "turn off" dx10 because it is why I bought this system in the first place to run dx10. Preview aside, the planes still don't work. Why they don't work is still not addressed to my satisfaction. I also appreciate the fact that you are now at least willing to say that you are investigating a possible fix even if that conclusion is still a bit on the vague side.

[N400QW 205]

The fact remains that those four aircraft were built for FSX under DX9.0c long before DX10 "preview" was available and work as designed.Another fact is that you didn't even have DX10 "preview" until Accel/SP2 and it is NOT a full blown DX10 application.Another fact to consider is that there are a multitude of FSX/DX9.0c aircraft from various vendors that will need to be reworked for DX10 operation.All good things take time and our schedule doesn't run on your impatient timeline.If you own any of those four aircraft then you'll need to be patient while we do our jobs with regard to DX10 use. Clear enough?

[jasonX 24]

So FSX has been dumped as is. Well that sort of made my decision nice and easy. I'll stay with FS9 & X-Plane and maybe (a big maybe after this fiasco) I'll have a look at FSX1. That saved me a heap of cash. And another thing. What happened to the DX10 will fix everything scenario? DX10 appears to be an even bigger disaster than FSX if anything.Regards PeteSorry if it comes across overly negative but really that is the way I see it.

[Guest j0nx]

>The fact remains that those four aircraft were built for FSX>under DX9.0c long before DX10 "preview" was available and work>as designed.>>Another fact is that you didn't even have DX10 "preview" until>Accel/SP2 and it is NOT a full blown DX10 application.>>Another fact to consider is that there are a multitude of>FSX/DX9.0c aircraft from various vendors that will need to be>reworked for DX10 operation.>>All good things take time and our schedule doesn't run on your>impatient timeline.>>If you own any of those four aircraft then you'll need to be>patient while we do our jobs with regard to DX10 use. Clear>enough?>- If the plane works in dx9 with sp2 then i can't understand why it won't work in dx10 with sp2. If it won't work in dx9 then I would understand that since sp2 changed the rules, but if it works in dx9 then it 'should' work in dx10 no? That is the question I always ask but nobody ever answers.- Preview has nothing to do with it. The code is still dx10. The 'preview' moniker was just a way for aces to check off a box saying that they delivered a dx10 patch, albeit with little to no graphical updates or speed increases as promised. Wouldn't a "full blown" dx10 application be one that only works under dx10 and provides ZERO support for dx9 hardware? I don't know of any games on the market now that would ever try to do that since vista and dx10 have been an utter flop from what I can see and the vast majority of the hardware out there still does not have support for dx10. Sorry Ron but that dog won't hunt I'm afraid.- I'm sorry if you feel I am picking on you, but you make the best planes, you have the best support, albeit with a crass attitude most of the time, and your aircraft outnumber the others in my stable that won't work in dx10. You are also one of the most visible vendors on here which believe me we all appreciate and respect. :) A few of my Aerosoft aircraft are also inoperable in dx10 as well as all of the older Carenado aircraft (which let's face it are pretty out of date anyway and made for fs9) so please don't feel that you are being singled out.- My impatient timeline is that of a customer who is looking for answers as to why his fleet of planes won't work in dx10. It's not an unreasonable request. Acceleration and sp2 have been out for 2 months now and still nobody has taken ownership of this issue. I realize you are under no obligation to even fix these planes since it's REALLY not your fault that MS changed the rules midstream. If anybody is to blame for this fiasco it's them. You know where I am coming from as a customer and the aggravation that you feel is shared 10 fold by your customers.Like I said before, MS/Aces has changed the rules on us midstream and it's up to the devs to own up and deliver or get out of the way. It's not fair and it's not right, but I will spend no dime on addons unless I am guaranteed that they work with sp2/dx10. I would also really have to encourage all vendors to update their websites with compatibility requirements on all products so that a customer can make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase an addon. That single, simple missing item alone will be enough for me to move on and not spend my money. If the vendor's website isn't updated to show this then I am going to assume that compatibility isn't there and that the vendor is trying to obscure that fact. There are just too many variables with compatibility now for me to muddle through as a customer who just wants the product to work. I don't recall ever having to deal with a more muddlesome, confusing product in my entire life, at least not since the days of editing autoexec.bat and config.sys files to try and get a game working in the days of yonder.

[pastorpilot 0]

Thanks, Don't forget to post it here, please.

[N400QW 205]

Ok, let's try again. Four of our aircraft were rebuilt for FSX prior to ANY developer knowing, and NO tools/SDK available, for DX10 in ANY form.A few months is pretty short lead time for ANY developer to sort thru the details required for solutions and THEN they must be implimented. If you think this stuff turns on a dime you are sadly mistaken.We don't feel persecuted because we understand that ALL developers face the same challenges going forward despite their "market speak".What seems to be a crass attitude is simply because we work constantly with a set plan and specific goals and frankly we get a bit frustrated with simmers who post how they want XYZ and they want it right NOW this moment. Actually, we do have plans to update our website and forums with more information regarding DX10 as time permits.Finally, we could give a long technical treatise on the question you asked but we refuse to do so because there are proprietary concerns within those types of answers. Another reason we refuse is that it is simply boring and at the end of the day, all that matters is that we find and impliment solutions. We are quite certain that this dog will hunt:-)

[Steve Halpern 176]

"If the plane works in dx9 with sp2 then i can't understand why it won't work in dx10 with sp2."For whatever reason, the core FSX engine has to render planes rendered under different SDK's differently when using DX10.Many products are done under the FS9 SDK, and many the FSX SDK, and the conversion process is very complicated, and can literally take weeks to accomplish. It is one of those things where you say do you tackle new products, or spend development time for a preview version of DX10 technology.Flight1's position is that some aircraft will be left as-is, and not work under the preview of DX10. Others have already been converted, and any new development project is only under the FSX SDK.I think what I say above is echoed by many developers, both freeware and commercial.