A Disappointment with SP2

[PhilTaylor 45]

"To say that we should not expect backward compatibility is fair. But what is not fair is to not be given a proper heads up about changes that will affect said parties."Jim and Steve, I am having a hard time seeing this as a fair statement.I clearly set expectations about compatibility in Acceleration/SP2 with my original post about Acceleration and SP2. In October. Before Acceleration was released. And the releaese of Acceleration confirmed the compatibility issues I acknowledged.And reset them continually to the effect that we were making no additional changes to SP2. The final Acceleration RTM bits were available for 3rd party beta to validate this compatibility message ahead of shelf availability. The beta bits of SP2 confirmed this.How did you not get a heads up? Both by our messaging and the state of the binaries?It is not Aces issue if some in the 3rd party community want to "wish" for something different than what we set expectations for. However, then acting disappointed is not grounded in reality. I have been straight and transparent with the community since my arrival. Ignoring what I said and hoping for something different - I dont see how that makes sense. It seems to me that these older aircraft are, plain and simple, not proper FSX aircraft. And that is the issue. If they are updated to be proper FSX aircraft, there is no issue that I am aware of. And there are a lot of existence proofs for that. In most cases the conversion steps are minor for both exterior and interior problems and I have posted details on how/what to do on my blog. What is the issue with doing the conversion?

[Steve Halpern 176]

Phil,I did not mean to imply that you have not been straight with us.In fact, you are providing so much info that is really helping the product along... tweaks, and other information, etc.But this is more than a heads up issue.It is one of something very small (as I see it) being broken, and thus there is a ton of additional work worldwide that will be required, with some add-ons now depreciated mid-stream, when it really did not have to be.So, beyond what you said earlier (I am not arguing with that), one could ask... "Why would Microsoft not address this issue when it would clearly help so many to have fixed this."Maybe you are up against a machine that does not allow you the ability to say "fix this for SP2 or put out a patch for it".There is just a lot of frustration here. Again, I do not think you should have to defend what you said. That is not really the problem.The problem is the inability to really flow with the tide, and take necessary actions when they should be taken.Again, what would the logical reason be behind this issue not being officially addressed by Microsoft?Yes, lets do say beta testers had a chance to report this. OK. It was missed. Our fault maybe. But the inflexability to change could become the real problem that does not allow FSX, or the Flight Simulator franchise, to reach its full potential.

[N400QW 205]

Phil, with all due respect, communication is key and Jims point is valid. You came to the table AFTER expectations were set and of course we are unable to discuss when they were set for NDA reasons.Expectations were that backward compatability would continue and proper feedback to ACES in that regard went unheeded until the midnight hour over another issue which we are unable to outline here. As I recall, the same parties to that issue are now present here.We as developers maintain that the simple fix made by Aces at that juncture saved untold headaches and frustration for Aces/Third Party entire customer base. What Steve and Jim have pointed out here is a very similar situation and their response is just as valid now as with the other issues.Aces breaking VC Rain is similar to Aces breaking another "unamed feature". In that case, Aces made a simple change and the issue was resolved. We suggest that VC Rain fix is just as simple for Aces to accomplish.Finally, to suggest that third party developers and Aces customers being disapointed is not based in reality is to ignore reality yourself. These are no small matters and we suggest that you take a fresh look at what may possibly be done to resolve this.:-)

[Guest jase439]

I have to agree with Steve on this. When you issue a major product or point release, you establish a functional bar for that revision of software. Subsequent updates/patches may improve or build upon that bar but it should not take away functionality. If you want to establish a new bar for FS11, that's peachy, but taking something away (or reinventing it) mid-product cycle is rarely a good development practice for any software venture.Updating aircraft may not be technically "hard", but I think Steve's point is, "it's expensive" for a small vertical market publisher. Ultimately that cost is pushed onto the consumer and we end up paying P.T. prices for simple product upgrades.Ultimately, it comes full circle, as the community gets more closed-fist about investing in third-party add-ons for each successive revision of FS. Upgrading to a new FS simply becomes cost prohibitive for developer and consumer alike. That all comes off the bottom line.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Steve,What you are saying now is quite different.Asking "why couldn't you change the plan" versus "there was no heads up" are two completely different tunes.One is fair to ask, one doesn't feel a fair statement of events as they have transpired to me.For a variety of reasons, which I cannot go into, we could not change the plan and deliver SP2 this year. That is the fact of the situation we faced.Given the issue is with back-compat on old aircraft, then the call we faced was "is it worth holding back goodness for proper content to aid old content" and "is this compat issue really a stop ship for the majority of FSX customers"? On that basis we made the decision we made. And announced it. And stated we are looking at changing the entire compat situation in the future. And were pretty clear at DevCon and FanCon. And on the public boards, and our blogs, etc. I feel the messaging has been clear and consistent. Why would the 3rd party community not see that as a clear message and act accordingly?The fact of the situation is that it is no longer possible to sell non-FSX aircraft as FSX aircraft. 3rd parties will have to decide to update or not update their products, and inform their customers. I meant it when I stated that this was a precursor of things to come, back compat is about to undergo serious changes. In the future it will very likely no longer be possible to resell old content for the new platform. At all, as in the platform will refuse to load it. In some cases it might very well be a simple re-export just to get the file marked as required by the new loader, but that will depend on the state of the content.Phil

[nudata 10]

If Microsoft was aware of the issue AND it was repairable in the product code, then clearly a decision was made by Microsoft not to address the issue. If they somehow missed the problem between Acceleration and SP2 then they have additional problems that only the marketplace can address.The, more obvious possibility is, that given strict Corporate rules, the time period between Acceleration and SP2 was deemed to be insufficient to manage any changes and adhere to the product manufacturing rules.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[jrhoads 6]

>">Jim and Steve, I am having a hard time seeing this as a fair>statement.>Well... I kind of thought you might Phil.>I clearly set expectations about compatibility in>Acceleration/SP2 with my original post about Acceleration and>SP2. In October. Before Acceleration was released. And the>releaese of Acceleration confirmed the compatibility issues I>acknowledged.Setting expectations is different than incurring unknown anomolies and being essentially told to live with them.>It is not Aces issue if some in the 3rd party community want>to "wish" for something different than what we set>expectations for. We didn't specifically wish for anything that shouldn

[Mike T 208]

I second another post here. When Steve (or anyone alse a Flight1 for that matter) talks, a word to the wise would be: listen. It's clear that in a case where Steve sees a problem that would present issues for their VALUED CUSTOMERS (two words most 3rd party developers have no idea the meaning of), even their relationship with Micrsoft is not as important as making sure that their customers are happy (and continue to be so). No 'yes men' at Flight1 apparently.I've said it a thousand times, and here comes 1001, Flight1 is simply a class act. (<--period) I hope that you both find an amacable solution to a very valid issue.Regards,Mike T.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron,I respectfully disagree.Pointing to a "far past communication" and using that over a more recent communication is puzzling to me as a strategy. I have been clear about what is in the Acceleration/SP2 product, and what expectations can be. Why would you not use my data and prefer something much, much older as the basis for decision making? What data points would you expect the plan would be based on? I am being straight with the community, even if the message is not one to everyone's liking. Ignoring my data points and "hoping" something else will happen - how is that reality based?Phil

[jrhoads 6]

>Yes, lets do say beta testers had a chance to report this. OK.>It was missed. Our fault maybe. But the inflexability to>change could become the real problem that does not allow FSX,>or the Flight Simulator franchise, to reach its full>potential.Steve,I did report this issue and I know for a fact that it was observed and noted.Jim

[PhilTaylor 45]

Of course it was observed. And of course I acknowledged issues with back compat and Acceleration/SP2.I am not saying I like the situation. Or that there is not an issue wrt to back-compat on older aircraft.I am making an objection to the statement there wasnt any notice about this being an issue or that there was an expectation that SP2 would address this. We came clean on the compat issue to set expectations, we notified the community, the beta bits we posted confirmed it. And I have been clear since the Acceleration/SP2 post in October we would not be making any further changes.While I acknowledge some might not like the situation, to say expectations were not set is not accurate.

[Wothan 173]

It is nice to see that 3rd party develpers finally come out in th open, to tell what has gone wrong with FSX.As a customer to a pletoria of 3rd party aircraft and sceneries, it has been a frustrating period from the release of FSX and until now.With the release of SP2, this will propably not become less frustrating.Aces promised before and during the developement of FSX, to take 3rd party developers inputs into consideration.I never expected 3rd party products from FS9, to be compatible with FSX. But as a vivid flight simulator forum reader, I am in no doubt that it has been even more frustrating to be a developer than beeing a normal 3rd party addon customer.Let the story behind FSX be a lesson for Aces on how things shouldn

[Ted Striker 338]

Steve, your frustation is warranted and I appreciate you putting this issue on the table. I am waiting for the dust to settle around SP2 before installing it. Learned long ago about the pains of being an early adopter.I'm not trying to put blame here, I'm merely curious. My impression was that all the major developers had at least one rep on the FSX beta test team to prevent issues like this. How did this get past the Acceleration/SP2 beta testing? It sounds like it just didn't make the priority list. If this question is sneaking behind the NDA curtain I understand. For the benefit of my and others' future purchases, would you clarify a couple things?1) Does this issue only occur with aircraft built to FS9 and earlier SDKs?2) Does this occur on aircraft built to the FSX SDK?3) From your experience does copying the VC rain effects from FS9 into FSX correct this for all your FS9 aircraft?4) Does putting the FS9 VC rain effects into FSX have any detrimental effects?It probably won't ease your frustration, but may help somewhat to know that due to Flight 1's excellent service and superior policies I only purchase addons elsewhere if Flight 1 doesn't carry what I'm looking for.Thanks,Ted

[N400QW 205]

Phil, the reference to intial expectations being set and only a few changes to those expectations over time is valid. The fact that certain things were broken, then fixed in the midnight hour prior to SP1 release revealed to all of us that it is a simple matter for Aces to fix certain core features of the sim without hampering forward progress.VC Rain, is a core feature and to imply that it can't remain back compat. is very puzzling to all of us, especially when we've seen other features fixed at the last moment once Aces realized the importance of not breaking core features.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ted,This is a great set of questions and gets to the meat of the matter.Steve can confirm this does not happen with aircraft built to the FSX SDK and only with aircraft built to earlier SDKs. And it is not all earlier aircraft, but the only way to be sure is to use the correct SDK.As to the VC rain issue, I defer to him there.Phil