Bob-It only seems logical that when someone who does not own or use a product expresses very strong opinions on such a product, that others who actually own and use the product will feel inclined to comment-especially when their personal experience is different.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>Bob->It only seems logical that when someone who does not own or>use a product expresses very strong opinions on such a>product, that others who actually own and use the product>will feel inclined to comment-especially when their personal>experience is different.>>>>>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/I agree, but expectations based upon those whose experiences are contrary also count. :) I have never driven a car into a concrete bunker at 100mph, but my expectations are it would be bad. LOL. My last comment was a "rhetorical sigh". Thanks.Bob..

Agreed somewhat-but I am always a little suspicious of hype in either direction and prefer to have a look myself. I am on record the 2nd day I owned Vista writing an post to the Vista support board stating that Vista was the worst operating system I ever bought and the biggest waste of money I ever made...(I am embarassed now and wish I could remove the post). The real problem was I expected to jump in and run it just like Xp-turns out it works a little differently-and I actually had to learn a few things about it first to make it work like I personally wanted it to.In any case-I have a better link. These are two free guides on both Vista and Windows Xp that are amazing. If you do/don't own Vista I'd take a look at his guide (especially the introduction) and if you own Windows Xp I'd give his guide a read to make it work better also:http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.htmlhttp://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

I think this mischaracterizes what I see happening.It is not anyone "refusing to countenance that anything is ever wrong", and there are a lot of threads talking to how to fix content, address issues, etc. Certainly I am in here and not shying away from the difficult issues even if some do not particularly like my responses.When someone with an issue tries to take their issue and then generalize along the lines of 'SP2 suxs' or 'Aces are idiots' or something along those lines - that is when the threads tend to go south. And people step in and debunk those ciaims.I see this forum as very negative. And the moderators doing a heroic job to not let many threads degenerate into whinge fests on the same topic over and over again. Say it once and move along.The fact is that the airports that are broken are not FSX airports. Regardless of the claim by certain airport developers that they are "forced" to use unsupported techniques; which is an artistic issue and not a technical one, content made by the FSX-SDK will work in SP2. So the developer is selling something that by definition will have issues, and is then complaining about it. That is not fair.

It's negative for one simple reason, a lot of people are fed up with the current situation, well I am anyway.This is a forum for all opinions and I've got something to say. If I think SP2 isn't all that good then I have a right to say so. What isn't fair is that MS have chopped FSX about too much and if you like it or not there are a lot of unhappy simmers. I don't think you are shying away, more dodging it with your recalcitrance. You could have avoided all of this by keeping a little/some/loads of backward compatibility so that SP2 didn't cause so much pain. If you know your FS history that's what has happened all through FS, ceratinly since I started simming with FS5, and it has been a cornerstone of its success. You have whipped the rug away from under our FS feet and we have fallen on our backsides. Not to put to finer point on it.Martin

As long as people are respectful and avoid personal insults, sure dialog is a good thing.You see my replies as recalcitrance, I see it as stating the facts about the platform. I can see how people might wish it were different, but at some point we have to agree this is what it is and move along. And not keep repeating the same grouse over and over.One way I see to address this issue with add-os is with a formal add-on certification and signing process. Then the sim would refuse to load anything but a signed add-on.Then it is crystal clear what is supported by the platform and what is not. And thus there is no "spin" room; and the consumer cannot get confused.In any case, backwards compatibility is not going to be the same going forward. It is very likely the sim will only load content that has been produced by the then current SDK. That change alone will remove a lot of the opportunity for confusion.

If you are considering ways to address this issue maybe issue a patch for SP2 that makes stuff for SP1 work within the bounds of SP2 methodology? Then you could have an all encompassing addon certificate. Everyone is happy. It's only the appearance of black squares associated with lighting and see-through stuff (trees, signs, etc) that's not working with me. I personally don't suffer with the CTD's (though I can sympathize with those that do).Martin

I was discussing future ways of addressing this issue. Lets not get into a circular argument here. FSX is what it is, as I said.

> Is there any benefit to stay with SP2 at this point?> Is there any real performace increase in SP2 or has> anybody tested this?SP2 contains fixes which (at least for me) massively improve performance with photoscenery compared to SP1. For that alone, I'll cheerfully put up with a few texture issues with 3rd party a/c and airports.Cheers,DD

> Is there any benefit to stay with SP2 at this point? Yes indeed, well for me anyway...The first is the Digital Aviation Cheyenne and the second is the new FTX scenery from Orbx...Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

There's that recalcitrance again. You are right and violatives don't matter. I suppose that comes with the luxury of dominance that MS enjoys. Oh well, such is life. If you are representative of the general mindset at Microsoft then it's no wonder FSX finds itself in such a malaise. Not an insult, just my opinion you understand.Martin

Martin,we are not going to make an SP3, which is where you are trying to go. stating so is not recalcitrance no matter how many times you try to label it as such.Phil

>If you are considering ways to address this issue maybe issue>a patch for SP2 that makes stuff for SP1 work within the>bounds of SP2 methodology? The reason that things don't work is that their technology base is so far outside the SP2/ future framework that they will never work. Putting out an update would only do what some people have done - roll back to SP1.Phil won't say this - but I will - ACES does not have the authority to spend money and manpower to put out another SP/ update for FSX.The budget has been spent and the Microsoft bean counters have closed the books on FSX development.It is my understanding that there is only one way for an FSX issue to be raised to the level of devoting additional money and manpower to investigate and fix a problem. That is the automated error reports generated by crashes and submitted to the Microsoft error reporting system. If a significant number of near identical cause reports come in - it will trigger a requirement to look at the potential issue.Right or wrong - ACES is just a very small division in a very large company - and they have to work under the bigger corporation business process rules. Decisions about manpower and budget are made far in advance of the release of a product like FSX. I'm sure they have a series of gateways in the development cycle where the development must be on-time and within budget.I suspect the only reason they were able to devote money and manpower to SP2 was because it was tied to increases in functinality in Acceleration.

I suppose one can install sp2, or not, as they desire. The question I have, is this:Is there content that works in Xpack but not sp2, or vice-versa?scott s..

There is at least one aircraft add on that needs Xpack.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/