But why then do I love FSX so much much more than FS9 ???Good work Acesal

Jon,I agree there are a small set of features that were in FS9 that are not in FSX and thus using the old techniques is the only way to access them. And that means that the lack of compatiblity impacts these "old" features. Net-net, for FSX now these features are effectively "out of bounds". That is the reality and I realize it is not the best situation, but I believe developers need to focus on what is possible and not what is missing. Glass half full if you will.FWIW to all who are listening, I did start a thread on the beta forums late in Acceleration/SP2 once I realized this was exactly the situation and why some compat issues seemed so critical. I have a list of these "missing features" and we will use this list to inform future product feature decisions and we will see if we cannot bring these back for the 3rd parties in future products.thanks for the dialog and thanks for listening.Phil

Thank you Steve. I looked forward to when this is sorted out and I will be buying again from Flight1.

Roger that Phil, and indeed I'm looking (and developing) forward knowing clearly what we have to work with. For me it's not about asking for anything more at this time, rather my intention is to make folks aware there are some limitations in SP2, with this message: Understand them, accept them, and move on.Thanks for your support.Jon

>But why then do I love FSX so much much more than FS9 ???>>>Good work Aces>>al:-lol

"I wonder what happened to the claims that FSX was being developed in close cooperation with third party developers?"Many (if not all) of the third party developers are beta testers. They know well in advance if they have compatibility issues they need to patch.Some third-party develpers are large companies (relatively) and some are two-man operations essentially.Some have develpment resources to patch, some do not. There are tons of FS9 aircraft that are not flyable in FSX, but could be with a little development work ... but many companies don't want to re-release them for reasons only they know.

Jase's remark I very much agree with:"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."That being said (I may sound a bit disjointed below, it has been a long day)...Moving on to FS11, yes, starting a true matrix on what will be compatible, what will not be, all done very much in advance, is what we really do need and it will be a big help for everyone.If FS11 does have to eventually start a new model "DNA", then it may slow things down a bit in terms of many libraries of aircraft becoming incompatible, but then if that "DNA" can then survive to future sims then that is great and one can develop much more cost effectively and have greater longevity in the development effort.My goal for this thread was one of both frustration and hope to get things back into a sense of alignment. Maybe this has been a start.1. If Microsoft sees fit to make any public patch available (even if it is a set of clear textures or the FS9 style textures to optionally install), then that would be very good, even if it is outside SP2. It would definitely provide a buffer that although not being the answer, it would be part of an overall solution that is workable by all parties.2. If there is a public matrix that is put out, that is done in conference with, or in consideration of, associated 3rd parties, then this begins the process of establishing that DNA that can last a long time. The HTML code format for example has changed over the years, but HTML 10 years ago for the most part still works today with not too much work needing to be done. If that type of standard can be established again with less forks in the road, then in time it will foster a new effort towards the new matrix (standard) and the library will become huge again.3. With a full and clear understanding, the development world can start to migrate technology over... maybe exporters and converters can be made that will help take advantage of what is likely the biggest library of product addon code in the world. I can't think of any computer "game" that has as much a library of content that can be utilized. In fact, as Jim Rhoads mentioned, converters or exporters that help move to a new format could be HUGE towards boosting the potential user and library base. It would help keep vitality in this industry.4. We are all stuck in a thick soup of everything now. Vista for one with User Account Control and other security issues that block the traditional user experience... high hardware requirements, PC's that require liquid nitrogen cooling :-), all limit what the end user can withstand. Then, from the professional developer point of view, there is much more competition for the simming dollar, development expenses are higher, the dollar is weak which make it harder for European developers, which cause price increases, which drain everyone even more.So, with all this, and with the added stresses of not feeling like we all have a real voice (developers, end users), it makes for a very testy environment.The busy day allows for complacency to develop (this happens to all of us). We do think that tommorrow we can make a change. But lets ultimately not pretend what the Microsoft/Aces/Developer/End User relationship is. Lets just be more realistic about it and then this hobby can hopefully grow and "free up" from what feels like a clogged mess sometimes.

Certain comments Phil made here today just confirms what were believing for quite some time:The co-operation between Aces and 3rd party is not quite what they want the community to believe. Aces could have made minor changes to Acceleration or SP2 that would have prevented 3rd party developers to have to now step up and do it.I completely understand that certain features had to be changed in order for the sim to progress, but some of the stuff that were broken and/or omitted are just unbelievable, and not affected by the core.In the end we don't have a choice - we HAVE to deal with the support...Aces have a choice whether they want to support us or the end user, or not.HenningFlight1 Software

I see this completely differently. If Aces delivers an FS11 that runs flawlessly but requires all new addons, I am sure the excitement and demand from the community will drive significant product development.Mark.

Ted,To briefly answer...1. Yes, from what I have read this only applies to certain aircraft done with pre FSX codings.2. No.3. Not certain, but pretty sure "yes".4. Not that I have heard. Always backup and you are safe!

This has got to be the most un-true statement in this entire thread.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

>This has got to be the most un-true statement in this entire thread.>>Jimmsg#67 from Henning? What's so un-true about it?Thanks,PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

Why am I not surprised? Five minutes after SP2 is released and there is already a 73 post angst laden thread - and so the sorry FSX saga continues.Bruceb

You know-I drove 8 hours to watch a friend of mine fly his experimental homebuilt airplane on his first flight today. After working 2000 hours he was ready to fly it-and it was a little scary watching the whole thing-but the beauty of the succesful flight was a real high.What was not a real high was standing in the 12 degrees F temperature in snow and blowing wind watching this. I chose to focus on the flight though and there was no angst-only elation-my fingers felt otherwise but I ignored them. I was not sorry for the experience.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Hi all, just a lurker here. I've read two posts by Bill L. offering the solution, but Aces/Phil hasn't responded. Can Aces/MS release the VC rain textures from FS9? Problem solved.... If not, can someone explain to me what they are and why some enterprising fellow/lady could not make his own set, not using FS9's and releasing it as an unofficial patch? Is there something special about them? I do understand the frustration with SP2, by developers and end users alike. I also understand and remember Phil stating some backward compat may be lost with SP2 some time ago. But, I can also understand why developers, customers and I would prefer Aces to build a little installer, stick the FS9 textures we require in it, and release it as is, no garantees, to Avsim and other sites. But if not, is not making our own a viable alternative? If thats possible of course. Me not being any kind of add on author, I have no clue. Larry