Add on Airports not compatible with SP2

[jwenham 1]

This is more or less an FYI. Just wanted to let you know that if you plan on getting one of ImagineSim's add on airports for FSX they wont work in SP2. But they will work on SP1. Ive decided to wait to get anything else until the developers catch up.:-walksmile

[BobP 56]

I found that out last week setting up a flight at Cincinnati (KCVG). FSX is feeling more like X-plane from a version compatibility standpoint. And the same lack of developer interest and resources for revising their code to meet new compatibility requirements. Those changes were apparently clearly communicated to everyone via the "read my blog" software change notices. Bob..

[fbass 1]

That's news to me. I have all their airports and they all "work." I have Acceleration installed. I suppose we need to know what you mean by "they won't work?"fb

[BobP 56]

Hi,The graphics issues shown below popped up after Acceleration and SP2.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183647.jpg

[Gypsy Baron 10]

>Hi,>>The graphics issues shown below popped up after Acceleration>and SP2.>>>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183647.jpg> That is an "SP2 induced" problem that affects scenery built for FS9 using a "rotate to user" operation. FSX-SP2 no longer appears to recognize this feature....all part of the "DX10 preview" bucket of worms.... When I see this on some of my scenery imports I look to see if there is a seperate BGL for the trees. If so, removing that BGL will remove the trees. You could then use an FSX utility to place new FSX-compliat trees in place of those that are removed. Paul

[jvile 1]

>>I found that out last week setting >up a flight at Cincinnati (KCVG).>you have to define 'Work'If you look at the visual aspect of many highend Payware amd Freeware scenery the designer does fabulous work visually. But FS9 and FSX is not all about the visual.This problem is not new and a few of us have sent e-mails, posted on support forums and at times tried to make the buyer more aware of the pitfuls found with these highend scenery's.You can go back to SimFlyers FS2004 KIAH, CYYZ, KMCO that do not work or Cloud9's EHAM, FlyTampa KMIA, ImagineSim's KDEN, KCVG, KLGA, or FISD Helsinki-Vantaa Scenery and some products by SimWings. Some of these same designers still have not learned after 4 years since FS2004 (9) was released and some have got out of the bussiness all together. We see a Payware Highend Plane have a problem and the Users stay after the designers until something is fixed but Airport Scenery seems to fall by the wayside. Many airport scenery designers should stay away from airports that require a runway number changed or a new runway added. This is the area that breaks with all that beautiful airport scenery. One post here mentions KCVG. If you look at ImagineSim's KCVG it does not work in FS2004, FSX, SP1a or SP2. Open the GPS reciever and try to find runway 18C/36C. It is gone because they used someones airport enhancer to change the exsiting 18R/36L to a new 18R/36L and did not rewite the approach code for their new renumbered 18C/36C. This was the same thing that happened to their KDEN back with the FS2004. Try to fly a Transition to runway 18R or 36L and see were it leads you.When we start to see these non-compliant FS issues that break the foundation of FS then we also see airports by Payware/Freeware that follow a pattern. The same designer of Payware for KLGA (FSX) has NO ILS or offset Localizers listed in the GPS Receiver Freq page because they used deleteALL runways and did not add the ILS and Offset Localizer elements back into the XML.We learned along time ago that any runway that has more then one Start Location is going to cause a CTD. Now for KLGA which has 2 for RWY 04 that means the CTD can occur up near the AI Visual zone of Boston or down near Philadelphia. The buyer never thinks about that highend scenery he bought with 2 start locations and complains and blames the CTD on FSX. Then the question becomes, if the BGLComp schema errors 2 Start Locations (won't compile) pointing to the same runway then how did ImagineSim compile their airport bgl. Its called using a non-compliant compiler which only one exsit for FSX which does not Fault 2 or more start locations.Like I stated earlier this is not a new problem and some highend Payware designers have the audacity to say that the problem is limitations with FS9/FSX. That is a direct disrespect for the entire ACES team that makes a airport look good (not always perfect) but also 'works'. Are we suppose to pay for something that looks good but don't work? Buy EHAM for FS2004 and ask them how to fix all the runway/approach problems when they renumbered and reversed. The last time I checked their forum they were now telling buyers to download my free EHAM approach code here on AVSIM which they think fixes their problems but it does not.What is so hard in asking those that know how a airport works for some assitance if it is not the designers area of expertise. 9Dragon wanted the AI to fly the curved IGS 13 approach. Designers like Shez wanted FS2004 KCLE to work properly with a new numbered runway, Holger Sandmann, Tom Gibson, Jon Patch, Vauchez from FlightZone and recently Martin from FlyTampa do not hesitate to make sure their airports look good and work also properly.One of the other problems is the reviews that are written. They address the visual aspect but then again these writers fail to mention the airport don't 'work' or they don't know the airport does not work. I suppose this post as with all the rest written over the last 4 years will be dismissed and Users will continue to purchase some highend airport scenery that destroys the foundation code based on what makes a airport 'work'. I can only encourage buyers to look before they buy. Ask questions or ask someone else to look at the airport scenery that understands both the visual and invisible aspects of the scenery. Only when enough start to bring these problems to the attention of the designers will something change.

[martin_ktpa 0]

The problem is that the FSX SDK by itself has not been optimized for all the tasks required to create such "visually highend" airports. If Phil reads this, I strongly suggest that ACES commit themselves to include 1 very highend airport within future FS releases. The internal interaction between Art and Coder teams should help iron out the methods/tools needed prior to release.Martin / FlyTampa

[BobP 56]

"Like I stated earlier this is not a new problem and some highend Payware designers have the audacity to say that the problem is limitations with FS9/FSX. That is a direct disrespect for the entire ACES team that makes a airport look good (not always perfect) but also 'works'. Are we suppose to pay for something that looks good but don't work? Buy EHAM for FS2004 and ask them how to fix all the runway/approach problems when they renumbered and reversed. The last time I checked their forum they were now telling buyers to download my free EHAM approach code here on AVSIM which they think fixes their problems but it does not."When I purchased the FSX version of Imagine Sims Cincinnati I had a reasonable expectation it would work. There was no mention of a caution that a planned ACES patch would reduce the usability. I would assume the vendor didn't konw. I hate surprises as a customer.It is unbelievable how poorly FSX has evolved in the last year. And I do lay the responsibility on ACES for poor project planning or communication or implementation or just flat bad luck. Cliff Notes:I have an airport that looks goofy.Bob..

[jwenham 1]

Yes, when I asked about the compatibility I was told more or less that it was up to MS to figure out what they wanted to do to fix the problem. I then said do you think they will? In my opinion a add on should be made to work with what it is being added to, not the other way around. I do agree the add on companies will need to do a better job telling about such problems up front or even better just make it work correctly.

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi!For our users information, regarding FSX/SP-2, all our FSX sceneries are being worked to become full SP-2 keeping SP-1 compatibility.Actual status:- Cura

[Guest diddydaddy]

"some highend Payware designers have the audacity to say that the problem is limitations with FS9/FSX. That is a direct disrespect for the entire ACES team"Are you serious?? Over a year after FSX is released MS release SP2 which renders a lot of airports unusable. Developers again have to go back and rework all the stuff they already reworked for SP1. You say the developers are at fault. What planet do you come from mate?

[Geofa 108]

Check your avsim email please...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[martin_ktpa 0]

What Jim pointed out is also a valid point. He is basically referring to a technical aspect of Addons which escapes many end-users (and developers) for the fact that it isn't a in-your-face visual issue such as the tree transparencies shown here. Most of these "highend" airports are made by modelers & artist and their work is deemed finished once it looks good. I had to learn this the hard way myself. This particular problem is indeed the developers fault & lack of knowledge, but has little to do with current FS9/FSX sceneries or the lack thereof.

[Guest diddydaddy]

I don't know how it appears to you lot, but FSX looks like becoming some kind of technical curiosity for software experts, spawning endless semantic debates. Leaving most of us who have been buying FS addons over the years feeling cold and out in the dark.Is FSX slowly withering and dying? Where are all the great addons? A few airports and aircraft for us airline simmers, hardly the output that we were all hoping for. It's been over a year since FSX was launched and according to a recent poll everyone's still using FS2004! The few addons that have been released suddenly stop working properly because of software that's meant to improve the general situation. Madness! FSX is a mess. I tell you, that dusty FS2004 box is looking good sitting up there on my shelf.Martin

[Guest hondaxr]

Where are all the great>addons? >MartinOrlando By Cloud9Mega Airport London-Heathrow X by AerosoftZurich X By Fsdreamteam (both Version X an 9, one price for good scenery)Bergen FSX and 9 from Cloud9Mega Airport Brussels X from AerosoftAnd on developement..... KORD by fsdreamteam