A Disappointment with SP2

[Steve Halpern 176]

Pete,If you have the hardware for it, you may enjoy migrating to FSX at some point. If not, you may prefer to stay where you are.My sense is that in some instances, FSX on Vista and DX10 will work very well. It just depends what add-ons you fly, and what your system specs is.There are many hurdles, not just FSX. There is Vista and new required hardware, and DX10, and these all are huge. A lot came to the table all at the same time.I am just saying at some point do not turn away potential enjoyment if you can afford otherwise.

[Guest j0nx]

That dog won't hunt as I said. When 3 or 4 of my addons work perfectly in dx10 I have to ask myself what did those guys do to their aircraft from the get go that the other vendors didn't do? Were the other vendors using shortcuts that didn't conform to the SDK as Phil has eluded to or is there another less nefarious reason? It's a simple question Ron: why won't most of your aircraft work in dx10 and how come some vendors' aircraft work perfectly when yours and others don't? It really is a simple enough question and I don't need a technical answer. Word on the street is that your new twin works just dandy in dx10 although I have not proven that for myself. What did you do differently when making that aircraft that you didn't do when making the sr20,22 and liberty? It's obvious to me that you don't want to answer it for your own reasons, but Phil stated on his blog that if the plane was crafted using the SDK that it should work fine in dx10. Since at least 3 of my addons that I purchased BEFORE sp2 was released still work perfectly in dx10 then I have to assume that they conformed with the proper use of the SDK and perhaps you and the others did not? I ask this question on all the support boards for all the affected vendors and I either get the silent go away you bother me kid treatment like I am getting now or I get the "SP2 and acceleration are an abomination and you should stay away from them at all costs" line. Neither one of those sit well with me or anyone else for that matter I can assure you.I don't like being treated like some small child that you can wave away like a nuisance when you think I am bothering you. I am not unreasonable and I am not demanding that you fix the planes yesterday even though I think 2 months for a fix is more than sufficient. I just want to know why some aircraft are unaffected by dx10 and some are, namely yours, at least in my case. :)

[Guest]

The only excuse they had for not doing it already is backwards compatability. But now thats porked, so there are no more excuses. Its is time to upgrade the graphics engine. What would be best is to license a prebuilt engine (ie. from Crytek) rather than try to build from scratch. The current engine has seen its day but now its cactus, and SP2 highlights that.

[Guest]

> Instead they decided to have a stab at a couple of bugs, totally ignore some > others that had been brought to their attention months before and make changes that > would break things for other users. That is not what a service pack is for...Correct it should not introduce new bugs this is ridiculous. The patch should not take you backwards where you end up with a worse experience.

[virtualstuff 763]

although it is a>shame we have to fix it. :) >But like I said in earlier posts, our customers and friends>are counting on us :-beerchug >>Regards,>>Jim Rhoads>Flight1>>Jim thats exactly why you guys are one of my favourite suppliers :-)Thank you for the great support :-beerchughttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Magic Man 2]

It's all well and good that 3rd party producers are coming out with fixes and workarounds but it doesn't change the underlying issue, service packs are meant to fix issues in an RTM with the possibility of adding extra features. They are not meant to break already working features.That is the sign of a bad, poorly tested service pack, plain and simple.

[Steve Halpern 176]

I will try to explain it a bit more for those interested from Flight1's perspective:There are 3 basic types of aircraft products:1. FS9 products based on the FS9 SDK2. FSX products based on the FSX SDK3. FSX products that are modified FS9 SDK products.Take our ATR as the best example: It represents #3 above.It was released a few years ago and was, and still is, a prime product of ours. It was built on the FS9 SDK.Now FSX SP1 comes along. We make some reasonable product changes and release it as FSX compatible. In this case it is a free upgrade to anyone that had the FS9 version. You can buy it for either sim for one price. The FSX version has some minor things that are not FSX specific, such as bump mapping on the exterior textures. But for many, this is hardly an issue.FSX SP2 comes out. The DX10 preview causes graphics issues when looking at the exterior aircraft. This is ONLY with DX10 Preview. At this point, we have to make a decision. Do we make it work for FSX DX10 Preview? The ATR being as complex as it is may get converted, but it may also be cost prohibitive. This one may take months to convert, not weeks. There is a huge virtual cabin, multiple opening interior doors, flushing toilets (literally), pilot placards in the aft cabin, and more. So, for this product, we may decide to let it stand as is for now, until we retool for a totally new SDK version.Now take our Pilatus PC12 product. This is a bit smaller, and was more easily converted to FSX SDK format. But a lot of work went into it. So we took the opportunity to take a few months of staff time and make an official FSX version of it, with multiple new features, which is discounted for FS9 customers.But to break it all down:1. FS9 products based on the FS9 SDK - These may work in FSX but it is not supported by us.2. FSX products based on the FSX SDK - Of course works in FSX with DX10/DX9 and fully supported.3. FSX products that are modified FS9 SDK products - Works in FSX in DX9 and fully supported for DX9. Does not work in DX10.So, now that SP2 is officially out, we can survey the situation, and plan to update our product pages with any known limits so customers know in advance.But it is not an issue we need to avoid. It is very much a wait and see what SP2 had before we could say what we would do on a product.Flight1 has products that cover 1, 2, and 3 above. We of course want to sell products and keep customers happy. But we have to do it within our means also and strike the proper balance.So, FS9 aircraft ported to FSX do have a few limits. But for the most part do everything we want. There are no secrets as to what the intentions are on this. It may be cost prohibitive at this point to do a full conversion of products simply for DX10 preview compatibility, bump mapping, and a few other bits. If we did convert, there would likely be an upgrade charge and a long product delay. And we do not see the preview of DX10 alone to be the only reason for a full conversion, or see the hoards of people screaming for this feature. Sure, there are some, and we wish we could accomodate them. But it is not easy. A full conversion would likely come with FS-11 in mind.As for our ATR FSX/FS9 hybrid... as a company, we are entirely satisfied in this product for what it is and we are very proud of it in its current form. For most, it will give them more than they expect... and for others, if they want the DX10 version, it would be best for them to wait.So that explains some of the process of how we consider our FS9/FSX/FS9-FSX product lines.

[Guest]

Whoever worked on this did a really bad job. These errors are pretty blatant and could not get any more obvious. How it passed QA is a great mystery to me.

[WarpD 824]

>That dog won't hunt as I said. When 3 or 4 of my addons work>perfectly in dx10 I have to ask myself what did those guys do>to their aircraft from the get go that the other vendors>didn't do? Were the other vendors using shortcuts that didn't>conform to the SDK as Phil has eluded to or is there another>less nefarious reason? It's a simple question Ron: why won't>most of your aircraft work in dx10 and how come some vendors'>aircraft work perfectly when yours and others don't? It really>is a simple enough question and I don't need a technical>answer. Word on the street is that your new twin works just>dandy in dx10 although I have not proven that for myself. What>did you do differently when making that aircraft that you>didn't do when making the sr20,22 and liberty? It's obvious to>me that you don't want to answer it for your own reasons, but>Phil stated on his blog that if the plane was crafted using>the SDK that it should work fine in dx10. Since at least 3 of>my addons that I purchased BEFORE sp2 was released still work>perfectly in dx10 then I have to assume that they conformed>with the proper use of the SDK and perhaps you and the others>did not? I ask this question on all the support boards for all>the affected vendors and I either get the silent go away you>bother me kid treatment like I am getting now or I get the>"SP2 and acceleration are an abomination and you should stay>away from them at all costs" line. Neither one of those sit>well with me or anyone else for that matter I can assure you.>>I don't like being treated like some small child that you can>wave away like a nuisance when you think I am bothering you. I>am not unreasonable and I am not demanding that you fix the>planes yesterday even though I think 2 months for a fix is>more than sufficient. I just want to know why some aircraft>are unaffected by dx10 and some are, namely yours, at least in>my case. :)The four aircraft you purchased from Eaglesoft were completed before there was an FSX SDK. Read that again... and then again... because Ron's stated it... and you seem to have missed it. They were done while FSX was still in beta, intentionally. The "rules" were changed after SP2 and our aircraft were done long before the "rules" were even solidified. It was done that way intentionally, but had nothing to do with marketing... though I can't tell you why due to NDA.You're being rude and obnoxious and clearly not listening at all when you're being told something. Perhaps that's why you get treated like a child?DX10 is not the same render as DX9. You seem to think it is... it isn't. For ACES to produce the DX10 rendering engine they had to completely rewrite it from the ground up in many aspects. It is NOT the DX9 rendering engine modified to create DX10 rendering objects. DX9 and DX10 have very little in common.

[WarpD 824]

>Whoever worked on this did a really bad job. These errors are>pretty blatant and could not get any more obvious. How it>passed QA is a great mystery to me.Ok... is this ericisderek?

[virtualstuff 763]

>So that explains some of the process of how we consider our>FS9/FSX/FS9-FSX product lines.Steve as a customer I'm only interested in FSX native models which actually can have far more vertices (in plain English details) as the hybrid or FS9 models...Actually all FSX native models has a better FPS performance to :-)I prefer also the new texture stuff for the exterior which done correct it's file size 50% less but offers 100% more detail and performance...So for me to make life simple only point 2 models...http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Guest j0nx]

Steve: Thank you thank you for your explanation!! That clears it all up for me. Flight1 to the rescue again! The issue with my planes I take it is that they are fs9 converts that were made without using the FSX SDK. Ed I did miss that part and for that I apologize. Ed, I do challenge you to show me how I was rude or obnoxious in any of my posts?? In fact it is you who are rude for saying that I deserve to be treated like a child for asking legitimate questions on products that I purchased that don't work. I was under the impression if the product was being sold as an FSX version then it must be made for FSX and not just converted from FS9. You see what I mean about the confusion? I truly don't appreciate you attacking me for what I see as civil discourse between 2 people. This is really what I hate about this website is people always attack you when they don't agree with you. Flightsim.com is always so much more civil and professional but this place is where most people tend to go for answers so I am forced to come here...

[WarpD 824]

>Steve: Thank you thank you for your explanation!! That clears>it all up for me. Flight1 to the rescue again! The issue with>my planes I take it is that they are fs9 converts that were>made without using the FSX SDK. Ed I did miss that part and>for that I apologize. Ed, I do challenge you to show me how I>was rude or obnoxious in any of my posts?? In fact it is you>who are rude for saying that I deserve to be treated like a>child for asking legitimate questions on products that I>purchased that don't work. I was under the impression if the>product was being sold as an FSX version then it must be made>for FSX and not just converted from FS9. You see what I mean>about the confusion? I truly don't appreciate you attacking me>for what I see as civil discourse between 2 people. This is>really what I hate about this website is people always attack>you when they don't agree with you. Flightsim.com is always so>much more civil and professional but this place is where most>people tend to go for answers so I am forced to come here...You missed that part. Yet it was clearly written. After missing that part you repeatedly told Ron that you wouldn't accept what he was telling you.You don't think that's rude? I do, to be honest.As for "sold for FSX"... like I said... the "rules" were changed after the fact. So... you're being both unfair and unrealistic in your expectations that the 4 aircraft mentioned were not compliant with rules that were changed after their release.Just so you understand something else.... many of us developers haven't touched Vista. I for one won't be touching it at all. It imposes restrictions on me that I am unwilling to agree to. It's cost prohibitive (trust me these aircraft don't make me that much income!) and would require a new computer system as well.If a customer wants me to support Vista/DX10... they'll have to purchase me a system with Vista/DX10 installed. My current system will remain pure and untouched by the evil code. ;)

[Guest j0nx]

Ron's post: "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."- I missed it because he said SDK for DX10. I was not aware that there was a separate dx10 SDK. I don't see how there could be if 3 or 4 of my addons work under dx10 and they were made before sp2 was released?? I think that's where the disconnect lies between what you claim Ed and what I read. Maybe Ron just meant the planes were created before the FSX SDK was released but wrote the DX10 SDK?Ron: I apologize for missing this if this is indeed the case. I think maybe your wording was bad and I got confused. The website still needs to be updated to let people know that it won't work in dx10 because it IS misleading. This entire thing is confusing me to death. Was the plane made with the fs9 sdk the fsx sdk or converted from fs9 using fsx?? Who is to know!! There is a lot of opportunity for mass confusion out there right now.Ed: I would encourage you to not jump the gun and start branding people rude and obnoxious when it's clear that what Ron wrote was not what was meant.Steve has been so gracious as to clear this up for me and now that I know that my particular ES planes were fs9 planes upgraded by some method and not true fsx sdk designed planes it all makes sense. That's really all that ever had to be said. Whew!

[N400QW 205]

We've already provided the only answer you're going to receive. Please refrain from using the word all with regard to our FSX fleet because you are inaccurate.Four out of entire FSX fleet do not display well under DX10 preview but DO display perfectly under DX9. The rest of our FSX fleet display perfectly whether DX9 or DX10 preview is used.Your obsession with use of DX10 preview at this early stage is a little frustrating in light of our earlier statements.Fact: All four of our FSX aircraft which do not currently display well in DX10 preview are under review and a fix will be issued in due time and according to our schedule, not yours. In the meantime, for those four FSX aircraft, users have a choice: Be patient until a DX10 fix is implimented, tested, and released, or run those aircraft under DX9 which is a very nice temporary solution.:-)