SP2 or SP1 Question

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

"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."BINGO!Every single developer better be paying attention to what just got said by Phil.For consumers ... this is the line of thinking that is going to end your nightmares with certain developers releasing inferior products making FSX look bad, using unsupported techniques ... and then telling people to uninstall service packs.I, for one, am glad this just got said.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

"There is at least one aircraft add on that needs Xpack."And there will be a lot more. Any military jet you can land on a carrier ... any helicopter with winch or slingload capabilities.To produce, say, an F22, and not give it the ability to do catapult takeoffs and arrested landings would be unthinkable at this point.If you don't have Acceleration, you should get it - not just because some add-ons will require it, but because it extends the Flight Simulator franchise in a massive way.And its dirt cheap. Microsoft practically is giving away this massive add-on.

[scott967 62]

If I read you right, then, developers and users should bypass sp2 as a dead end?scott s..

[PhilTaylor 45]

I think the lines are more like:1)SP2 as a baseline2)Acceleration if you want to depend on the new sim featuresSince Acceleration itself includes SP2, as long as an FSX-SDK add-on does not use the new sim features it will be compatible with both.For add ons in the following categories:1)carrier operations, 2)multi-engine helo or helos with sling loads or hoists, 3)racing the new sim features are interesting so making Acceleration be the pre-requirement might make sense.

[RFields5421 1]

Nope - SP1 is a dead endSP2 is the future leading to FS11

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

No, you didn't read me right. So, to clarify, I'll put it succinctly:Users should install SP2, and avoid developers who aren't keeping their software up-to-date to the latest service pack.Just like you'd do with Windows XP, or Vista, or any other operating system or piece of software.Developers who aren't compliant with the current service pack should release updates, or risk going out of business. What they shouldn't do is tell users to uninstall service packs.That's a crock.

[Guest diddydaddy]

Are you sure you don't want to make SP3? There are bugs even with default SP2 airports.Martin

[Guest diddydaddy]

Labels are part of language, it's OK to label isn't it? If labelling something helps us to get our airports working and not leave hundreds of pounds worth of software sitting on the shelf, then I'm all for them. But hey, I realize that its a waste of my time trying to get anything done about it, so that's someone else you have successfully fobbed off.Sorry to be pedantic, but your current opinions on this matter are acutely recalcitrant. An exercise in recalcitrance for students of recalcitrance even.MartinPS. (and please don't take this the wrong way) Are you technically proficient with FSX programming or are you on these forums for your public relations skills?Is there anyone else I can contact about this at MS or does it start and end with you? Any advice appreciated.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Hello Martin, Have you tried turning the Scenery Complexity slider up?Best regards.Luis

[RFields5421 1]

Because all the jetwyas are showing, he's turned the scenery complexity slider to the Extremely Dense setting.What he has done to create an issue is replace the model for the main terminal and integrated tower viewpoint with another tower object and exclude the main terminal building.Thus creating an issue himself and trying to blame Microsoft for his mistakes.I also really like that he wants to claim there is a bug - but does not tell anyone which airport so they can check their system. Maybe because thousands of people with SP2 probably will not have the same problem ?

[Guest diddydaddy]

Intergrated what??? With what??? Then excluded the main building??? Stood on my head and counted backwards.. then sang the secret song..Are you for real? I'm lost for words. I even find a genuine rock solid copper bottom bug and still some will not admit that SP2 has problems. It's happening at the default Charlotte Airport. One second the terminal is there but if one slews a little it disappears. I'm looking from the cockpit. I suggest you take off those rose tinted spectacles and have a look for yourself.Reggie, you have credited me with underhand skills that I don't possess. I don't know if I'm appalled or just stunned. Martin

[RFields5421 1]

Have you used AFX or ADE or FSXPlanner to update the airport parking?Or downloaded an "AFCAD" file?I'm flying my FS9 AlphaSim A-3 Skywarrior in FSX SP2 right now - after I land I'll look at KCLT. (PR-07 repaint - an aircraft I've flown on in the real world)BTW the AlphaSim A-3, B-2 and FSD C-17 all work great with no issues in SP2, including the AlphaSim custom gauges.

[David Roch 1,982]

Martin, 1) Please behave yourself, no need to be cynical.2) There is no bug at Charlotte Airport with SP2 as you can see on my pic.You should probably check your video driver.http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1006/16556222fq5.jpg

[RFields5421 1]

Martin's cool - he's no more cynical than I was.The way the 'afcad' type programs can cause things to disappear when changing the tower view was only recently discovered.And yes, there are some issues with a very few default airports - but those are not the level of bug which Microsoft allows ACES to devote manpower and money to fix individually.They are fixable by users / addon developers.

[Guest lnuss]

And if certification is required, then developer costs go up. But more importantly, it may mean that I can't use AFCAD, ScenegenX, etc. to do my own scenery, etc. That loss of flexibility may drive some of us from FS.FSX has already lost us certain flexibility in multiplayer, since we can no longer change aircraft, change weather or time of day, etc. when in MP (maybe it's good in a gaming mode, I don't know, but I don't use it that way, and my friend and I are badly hampered). Let's not make it worse.So before you applaud such an idea, think through ALL the ramifications.And yes, I can understand Phil's point. Waaay too many folks grouse about things to excess, long after their point has been made. I'm sure that it must be frustrating for the ACES folks to keep getting hammered for things their bosses (read corporate) won't allow them to do (no budget, no man hours, etc.).And just to lighten the tone a bit, in spite of the things we've lost in FSX MP, there are some wonderful gains -- aircraft positioning (for all MP aircraft) is pretty accurate, tracking view is back, just to name a couple of the more important things from my viewpoint (which won't match everyone else, of course).