A Disappointment with SP2

[Guest j0nx]

As an aside, I want you both to know that I feel for you and understand the aggravation you must have. Aces changing the rules midstream was a BAD call of ginormous proportions and unfortunately they have laid the burden at the feet of the 3pd's and the customer. I am not at all happy with the dx10 preview compared to what we were promised but at least it allows me to run bloom and high water with no frame rate loss which is why I am adamant about using it. I guess I was just unlucky to buy 3 of the 4 planes from you guys that don't work...My luck as usual!I will keep my eye peeled for that patch if/when you release it and will be thankful and appreciative for having received it. Peace.

[N400QW 205]

Ok, everyone take a deep breath and relax. Frustration and misunderstandings soon become accusations and then attacks. I apologise for my own frustration because my wife just told me I should get more rest so I'm not so short with people.:-)From my statement above let me try to explain a little more of what we intended to convey....The statement means the four aircraft in question were rebuilt for FSX......PRIOR to a full FSX SDK and with existing and buggy new tools under DX9 protocal. That is the reason they work well under DX9.Further, after those four were released, but in the past year new tools and methods along with a more complete FSX SDK we changed out techniques and methods to be more in line with the requirements for FSX but STILL under DX9 Protocal.In the last two months we are now faced with the challenge of rebuilding those four aircraft again because they fall into the category #3 in Steves post.Whatever it takes to bring those four to DX10 standard will be done but it will NOT be as quick as some of you may want and we still must determine whether a price increase may be required.Finally, we NEVER promised anyone full DX10 compatibility on FSX products because it wasn't an issue until the last few months and as far as we can tell, neither did any other developer.

[Guest wjotten]

>We've heard the FS/PC/Xbox rumours for about two and a half>years now and if MS abandons the PC segment for Xbox then the>PC franchise will be frozen where we are now and no amount of>moaning and groaning from users will bring it forward.I think MS might already have abandoned the PC segment. Issuing a Service Pack that breaks more than it fixes, and then telling the public that no more support will be given sounds a lot like abandonment doesn't it? I'd buy an XBox IF and only IF Microsoft did FS right, and allowed 3rd party vendors to enhance the program. I'd be money ahead from having to rebuild a new system every 2 years.

[Guest koorby]

>>Sounds good. What about dx10?>DX10? Don't care - never going to use DX10 for FSX-SP2. DirectX 10.x's time will come when GPU hardware and Vista mature a bit, probably 24 months away.The FSX-SP2 codeline under WinXP/DX9 is far more efficient. I'd make it your choice for FSX as well. We have a high-end quad-core extreme, 8800Ultra, uber-everything PC sitting in our office with Vista/DX10 on it, but it rarely gets booted into the Vista partition. But I'm covering old ground. Most folks I know are running XP/DX9 and aren't likely to move anytime soon. Heck, even Crysis runs better and looks near identical under DX9.

[N400QW 205]

With Phil talking about vNext requirements it's too early to determine that MS has abandoned the PC segment. Part of the confusion that has been prevelent this year is due to folks jumping to quick conclusions and starting rumours which are not based in fact.:-)

[Steve Halpern 176]

Andre,Yes, those are some of the improvements that we have to look forward to actually once all the chips can be swept away from the FSX/FS11 sculpture. In the mean time, some products are kind of stuck in the middle. But in many cases, that is not too bad.But the market is now getting mixed with both real and hybrids... so there is enough of everything hopefully. The real ones showcase the new technology, and the hybrids utilize existing technology to keep products in the flow.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Most likely. He is now gone.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Cal, Open source doesn't necessarily mean "design by committee", but I'm not sure why this is relevant, Microsoft designed FSX by committee and all prior versions. No one just starts coding and then thinks about "design later" especially when there is more than one person working on the project.What experiment?And what is wrong with X-Plane? The flight simulation market is getting smaller, lets not try a reduce it even more by bring down other simulation products.Ron H.,You don't know how the majority of end users feel about Vista and FSX so it really isn't good to making sweeping statements that you know you can't validate. Whatever the end user's reason is these two facts are real:1. PC gaming market has shrunk considerably2. "What's the purpose of just flying?" I believe FSX Acceleration is in part trying to address item #2 with "Missions" and giving the end user a "goal" beyond going from point A to point B. But for item #1 I think you are dead wrong, the cost of PC hardware (relative to consoles) and the complexity of setting up and keeping a PC working is well beyond a gamer's budget and/or tolerance.This has been an interesting thread and my vote for keeping Flight sims alive on the PC, is to move it to open source. But on the Vista front, Microsoft NEED to do A LOT more to -- the leverage approach just did NOT work.Rob

[MD83 1]

I never thought I'd say it, but I'm astounded how FS9 has withstood the test of time. It's amazing.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Yes, FS9 is working really well for me.

[virtualstuff 770]

>Andre,>>Yes, those are some of the improvements that we have to look>forward to actually once all the chips can be swept away from>the FSX/FS11 sculpture. In the mean time, some products are>kind of stuck in the middle. But in many cases, that is not>too bad.>>But the market is now getting mixed with both real and>hybrids... so there is enough of everything hopefully. The>real ones showcase the new technology, and the hybrids utilize>existing technology to keep products in the flow.Steve is that new beauty PC-12 native FSX? http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Guest Daniel42]

>1. FS9 products based on the FS9 SDK>2. FSX products based on the FSX SDK>3. FSX products that are modified FS9 SDK products.I have created a small util that will scan all the models in a selected folder. Available from AVSIM as of now under FSX Utilities 'Fs Model Checker' (.Net 2.0 requiered)It scans model headers and when it finds a MDL8 file, it tries to see which SDK was used. Interestingly, the FSX Fueltruck is a MDL8 file compiled by the FSX SDK. When you enable logfiles, a seperate file per model category will be created listing all models fitting into that category.Daniel

[Guest j0nx]

I appreciate the vendors' heads up on past, current and future addons about what they support so I know what not to buy in the future. I have made a personal choice to avoid anything that does not support the most recent sp2/dx10 code path. It makes no sense for me to purchase a product now that is not future-proof in a year when vista and next-gen dx10 hardware are more prevalent. This thread has been very informative and is pretty indicative of the mass confusion and frustration out there with this sim. Hopefully in the next 6 months it will settle down and there will be many more high quality sp2/dx10 compliant addons that are released! I look forward to that.

[GHD 21]

>I have created a small util that will scan all the models in a>selected folder. Available from AVSIM as of now under FSX>Utilities 'Fs Model Checker' (.Net 2.0 requiered)>I have Net Framework versions 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 installed but the program gives hundreds of errors:GeorgeXP/SP2 FSX/SP2

[N400QW 205]

Rob, been too busy lately to run back thru this thread so I'll say that you are correct wrt my not knowing how the majority of users feel about Vista and FSX. In fact I doubt that YOU know how the majority of users feel about Vista and FSX unless you've done an extensive poll on that subject.:-)Again, your two facts are not arguable:1. PC gaming market has shrunk considerably.2. "What's the purpose of just flying?" 1. Of course PC has decreased while Consoles have increased. The nature of the business is to follow the money.2. With todays attention span we're not surprised to see some become bored with "just flying". We suspect that the feeling that comes from accomplishing a flight accurately and completely may not be enough of an adrenaline rush for those who want more flash for the buck.PC addicts have it better now than ever. If you've noticed hardware is better than ever and prices have gone to the basement in that arena so not sure you are correct with that assumption.If our assumption is correct, your call for MSFS to become "open source" is probably causing a lot of laughter in the cubicles and hallways in Redmond. Microsoft is all about making money, not losing it.Finally, in these days of either/or thinking has anyone dropped back and considered that both scenarios are valid. PC Flight Simulation flourishing alongside Console Flightsimulation and users jumping in on whichever side they like. We doubt that the PC FS franchise is dead simply because it represents a substantial profit for its parent company.Merry Christmas:-)