A Disappointment with SP2

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron,please remember the last minute fix for night lighting in SP1 broke the w-key operation. we did not want to repeat that.and back-compat for old aircraft using older SDKs is not a core feature, I disagree with that assessment."a simple matter" is an easy term to throw around. why isnt it "a simple matter" to use the FSX SDK and provide a proper FSX aircraft? One fair question deserves another, after all.Phil

[PhilTaylor 45]

We were aware of the issue. And we made the call that this class of old content was not a stop-ship class of bug. I have been open and honest about that. I am not trying to claim all should be "happy, happy, joy, joy" over this issue. However, lets be clear that proper FSX aircraft using the FSX SDK do work. In general it is only much older content that doesn't work or content that steps outside of FSX SDK techniques. See the thread on "FS9 aircraft in FSX" that I reference on my blog, some of these are very old content indeed and are not even proper FS9 aircraft.

[jrhoads 6]

>"a simple matter" is an easy term to throw around. why isnt it>"a simple matter" to use the FSX SDK and provide a proper FSX>aircraft? One fair question deserves another, after all.>>PhilWell you seemed to imply earlier in this thread that it is a simple matter to convert existing aircraft. I beg to differ...Look, we will do what we have always done, figure out a way to work around the issues. Not a problem, we will do it because we owe this to our customers. I just don't want this big picture painted like we are all sitting around a campfire singing Kumbia with the team... because it aint happening.Over and out... I obviously have some work to get to now...Regards,Jim Rhoads

[PhilTaylor 45]

Jim,I do appreciate the issue is a pain, and I do wish I had a better message. My approach has been to "own up" to the issue early, back in October with my blog post and posts on the beta forums. And be constant about acknowledging it while pointing out there is a path to success.I appreciate the dialog, and am really glad we can hold such a dialog in full view of the community and remain even keeled. I believe that means the community is in a much better place than last holidays.Phil

[B777ER 2,486]

Phil mentioned the following a few posts back, "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."What I am hoping for in this statement and what I dearly hope Phil meant was that FS11 will finally finally have a complete re-write from the ground up alleviating most performance issues and making it look (to use an example) like the new Ace Combat 6 in terms of new lighting, new terrain engine etc... I think as a whole if all of this was to come out of FS11, backwards compatability would be a very minor issue for a minority of users.

[N400QW 205]

Glad you asked the question Phil. We've spent our time from just prior to FSX RTM rebuilding our fleet for FSX using FSX SDK every step of the way. If you check, we provided one of the first FSX SDK rebuilds to Aces at their request for a press function prior to FSX RTM.I know that was before your time so let's move forward to some testing. The night lighting issue included landing lights being broken in SP1. In that case, you all fixed it with out breaking forward progress and we're saying the VC Rain issue is just as simple for you all to address.If that is not the the case then please explain why users can now move FS9 VC Rain texture to FSX under SP2 and in Eaglesoft FSX SDK built aircraft VC Rain returns?We're suggesting that it was Aces responsibility to fix this prior to SP2 and that it within the ability and pervue of Aces to issue a fix for SP2 rather than implying that Eaglesoft doesn't build to FSX SDK. You issued the SDK and we follow it for our FSX builds. As we say here it the midwest, that dog won't hunt. Not trying to be disrespectful, just making the truth be known:-)

[n4gix 4,947]

There have been a lot of words written about this, but somehow the "solution" seems to be consistently overlooked. Let's try some simple, declarative statements to summarize the timeline:1. During testing of FSX it was reported that the "VC Rain" feature was INOP.2. The reponse was that support for "animated texture chains" was omitted. Whether that omission was deliberate or not was never stated.3. Someone clever at ACES found a way to reintroduce the "animated texture chains" and included that in SP1. However, it still requires the end user to copy/paste all of the "VC rain textures" from FS9 to their FSX textures folder.Steve stated in the his original post the same information:"7. If you take the FS9 version of the VC rain textures and copy them to FSX, it fixes the problem. So in my view it is something very simple."So yes, the solution IS "something very simple," but unfortunately WE cannot (legally) distribute those FS9 textures...Many people running FSX either have never owned FS9 or no longer have it installed.The solution is for ACES themselves to make that collection of FS9 VC Rain textures available as a download from FS Insider. ;)

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron,good discussion.while I appreciate that people like we fixed the landing lights/night lights in SP1 (and updated the 2 broken models in SP2 to further fix this ) we did break cockpit visibility and the w-key behavior for all models. that was a direct consequence of a last minute fix.given that, when we eyeballed the back-compat issues we declined to take risky fixes at that point in the product cycle. and live with what we had rather than risk inducing some other break given FSX content works and the issues are limited to older content.the fact the rain-drops thing works is a happy accident and was not part of any plan. we did not investigate why that happened/works; so I cannot provide additional data.Phil

[N400QW 205]

Phil, thanks for your reply. You state and we quote:"The fact the rain-drops thing works is a happy accident and was not part of any plan. We did not investigate why that happened/works; so I cannot provide additional data."Understood. Please take a look at Steve's intial post and try to understand the impact on ALL third party developers/customers including your own customer base.The question remains, WHY was maintaining a core feature of your simulator NOT a high priority given the impact to developers and customers alike? If users themselves can accomplish this fix for FSX SDK built aircraft then why can't Aces? As another poster mentioned, developers cannot distribute your materials.In short, it appears that Aces have dug themselves a hole and thrown in developers and customers alike. Please note, what is being said here is important because it reflects on Aces and impacts customers and developers who DO build to FSX SDK.This not a failure on the part of third party developers who follow FSX SDK but rather an oversight which must be addressed by Aces.It is realistic to hope that Aces recognizes the importance of this matter and provides a solution.:-)

[Guest bully2]

PhilI do not think that the problems with FSX are "Phil's or ACES problems. Nor are you responsible for what you can do to redress them. Microsoft's is responsible for it's products.So, were you say that this is your approach.. personalizing the thing, surely you mean.. "Microsoft's approach has been"You wrote.. "My approach has been to "own up" to the issue early, back in October with my blog post and posts on the beta forums."I'm sorry, but to be fair, there was no choice but to "own up". But along with that, the announcement was made that what was in SP2 was the end, and that no matter what, you would spend no more time fixing things. The problem is therefore, not that anything said by yourself was untrue.. but that the decision to abandon customers to FSX in whatever state it was in at the time was unfair and unjust. This is Microsoft's approach to us customers and to the developers who make FS the success that it has been.I'm sorry, but I have spent a whole heap of money based on Microsoft's promises... I respected the companies word, and I leave it to you to judge if your employers have kept to their part of the bargain, or provided the things that were promised.As a customer I don't want to spend all my time fixing things.. modifying.. re installing... contacting dozens of companies because their products are not working... Spending hours and hours trying to find the latest fix for this and that... I just want to enjoy my hobby!This version of FS should be backward compatible, because that is what was promised.. up front by Microsoft. And is should, at the very least, be a stable platform upon which developers can build. I want to thank all the developers who have not abandoned us to things that do not work.. and who show concern for their customers by supporting them through all the changes.... Bruce Upperton

[jonpatch 1]

Thanks Steve for respectfully bringing this issue up. Aces have indeed faced huged challenges with backward compatibility. From my point of view there is one essential requirement that the FSX product cycle has not met: patches should not have regressions. SP1 was a fantastic improvement. SP2 addressed a lot of major issues. But SP2 broke some stuff and that's not something I find as reasonable. I understand that from version to version Aces will make the best tradeoffs between new functionality and backward compatibility. Phil has given us some strong hints that FS11 may not be highly backward compatible. I think it's essential that patches do not break functionality, as has happened with SP2.Jon

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron,we do not believe either 1)back-compat with old aircraft and content that uses techniques outside the FSX SDK2)VC raindrops for FS9 aircraftare a core feature. default content and content made using the FSX SDK and with FSX SDK techniques - those are core features.so that is a major disconnect, how did you come to believe either was a core feature?Phil

[bkircher 0]

This topic is confusing and both understandable. I just dont see how when Phil made the original post with specs on sp2 that he said that there would be a big fps boost and the sim will run smoother and more efficiant. but here we are with both varriants of sp2 even tho they are the same thing(accl and download sp2), and 7 out of 10 people or more have not confirmed this. I currently am still on sp1 and plan to remain there, unless if the aces team really takes thier time on the next update, and actually lives up their words of what the update will enhance, feature, improve, and fix. It seems that the majority of the people that have use accleration and dl sp2 jsut get more problems, more ctds, less fps, and other negative things.After reading this people like ROn and Jim noted that a fix for aces on a particular issue was that easy because they did it the night before relese. Phil i believe said this as well. If something is easy for aces why is it that when the aces team feels that sp2 is ready for the public, and release it why is it that most of us get more bugs with it. I feel that there needs to be another sp1 type of update that needs to come from aces, but it is unlikely that this will happen because they will move on to fs11, which will be even more computer demading and will not support backwards compatability which is a huge mistake in my opinion.For the next fs to succeed i think that aces should make the next fs with common computers. none of this 8 and 16 core deal since they are able to use them at the snap of a finger.FS needs competition, just like the playstation needs the xbox to compete with.fs is certainly not winning over anyone at this point in time and i am certainly not at all impressed with this update and how aces has handeled them selves with sp2the only thing really that is major about sp2 is that it is dx10 compatible now, and even still the sim looks the same, a few new features that i necesseraly dont care for, but eveything else regarding the update is negative. diappointing to see right Phil?

[PhilTaylor 45]

While I understand this desire, I have to state that given how broad a product FSX is, this desire almost guarantees there are always going to be compat issues. So by that metric it is almost guaranteed we will always fail. I do not relish living in a situation where by definition I am going to fail.Really, what some of the non-Aces tools do, we do not know. They exploit implementation details and not documented techniques to achieve what they do. Implementation details will always change, and we will reserve the right to do so. How can we both maintain compat, and make changes in that situation?I contend the metric is unfair. And we will change the compat situation so it will be crystal clear what is and is not compat. And then, when only content using the current SDK works, we will have a usable metric.

[scott967 62]

>I think as a whole if all of this was to come out of FS11, >backwards compatability would be a very minor issue for a >minority of users.I disagree, and in fact it could kill the hobby aspect, or at least set it back quite a ways. Here we see major payware developers having problems, but when you look at the freeware offerings, such as the AVSIM library, and see how many true fsx sdk (MDLX) aircraft are available a year after FSX RTM, it is apparent that without backwards compatibility, we would be limited to mostly default and a few relatively expensive addons. Now I guess it could be said that the freeware developers are "lazy", but let's face it: not many people can just start over from scratch and redo everything. Maybe new folks will be turned on by the challenge of developing for a new platform, but that remains to be seen.Even in the payware realm, I've seen announcements for Airbus, MD11, etc that are still just that: announced, after a year. I suppose those will be released (eventually), and six months later be obsoleted by FS11?scott s..