Add on Airports not compatible with SP2

[RFields5421 1]

>Who cares what the programming is behind these airports? Me>and probably 99% of the other airline simmers don't.The code behind the airport is critical. Even though designers have used what they questionably call "high-end" techniques to produce pretty airports - the airports by and large do not work in FS for more than pretty buildings to drive around in surface automobiles.They frequently do not work if someone is actually trying to FLY in FS.And yes - I do own all the airports by the group listed above and most of the others - and after a lot of frustration with designers who refuse to fix the problems their 'highend' design creates - have given up - I'm not wasting my money on broken airports any more. KMIA is still not fixed.Quite frankly - they only produce eye-candy - not airports.You have to have the code right - and it has to be right for the version of FS.There are some MINOR issues with SP2 visual display - and certainly DX10 preview does not work.But as noted in the replies to the OP - the airports most definitely work correctly with SP2.That is not the cause of the issues the OP is having.But to answer the original question and the question in your previous post - no there will NOT be an SP3.ACES has said that several times that SP2 is the last patch for FSX.My personal opinion is tha the Aces team cannot sell the budget request to spend another large sum of money on FSX to the Microsoft bean counters.Like it or not - FSX updates are over.The Aces effort is now on FS11 - and the best thing about the current situation is that the Aces team now has many direct contacts and working relationships with not only a few developers but large segments of the FS fan base.

[jvile 1]

ScottIn my original post in this thread I ask the original poster to define the word 'work'.So many times we see someone say this airport does not 'work' but they limit the airport scenery to the paremeter of the boundary fence. Most all the threads that deal with airports not working follow the path of the visual (what we see) scenery and not the unseen scenery that also makes up how the airport works.Reggie, Martin_KTPA, Brian and you on the other hand know that it takes more then just what is inside the boundary fence to make the airport function. I agree with Martin_KTPA that you sum up some of the "what if's".I would more then welcome seperating the maximum 108 NM unseen aspect of the airport scenery from the visual aspect. This would like you say stop higherend scenery developers from destroying the visual zone sectors, the scoring system that is in use for runway selection, the approach code when a scenery developer can't think outside the boundary fence, the weather relationship engine that is tied to the ATC engine (VMC vs IMC), the elimination of a runway from the database such as what has happened with all versions of KCVG starting back at FS2004 etc,.etc.Many in this thread can't see the forrest because of those trees in the pictures above and think that SP2 is the only problem and developers have done their job (see Reggies post above). I have come to a point that if I continued to fix the unseen scenery of a highend designed Payware airport the developer would never recognize how his scenery destroys the working foundation of FS9/FSX (see list above). I have had many request to fix Imagesim's KCVG for both FS2004 and FSX. But then I suppose I would be asked to fix their FS2004 KDEN or their FSX KLGA and then the list would start to branch out to all the other highend Payware that breaks the unseen visual sectors that surround each airport by a maximum of 108NM's.We try to have an intellegent dialog that Phil appreciates but we are told such things as "What planet do you come from mate" or the ACES group is called "blokes who worked on FSX are amazingly lucky to still have their jobs (if they still have them)" or statements like "Either MS don't keep an eye on the addon world, or if they do, they just couldn't give a monkeys about it".I for one appreciate the participants from ACES like Phil, Doug Matthew's and Tim Gregson who have come into this open forum and others to listen and help take back to the table at MS our concerns and issues. When I see personal attacks by those that don't understand what makes a airport work it also makes me wonder why ACES is still here collecting those same issues that will help FS11 in the future.

[tf51d 284]

>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.At the same time the Host App developer, shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the game, and that is what Aces have done here. They made a decision for better or worse to maintain compatibility with the previous FS version, now in a form of a patch/addon intentionally decides to remove that support midstream? I have never seen this happen before by any other developer. Major changes like this normally waits for an RTM release. If it wasn't done in FSX it should have waited for FSXI, especially since there is to be no further development in FSX. If FSX was to be further developed it may have been worth it, but for what we got with the DX10 Preview, no way this should have happened this way. Now divisions are being created within this community. For example there is a problem in 3rd party weather programs like ASX causing wild gyrations of wind at cruising Alt. Peter Dawson has found the problem and potential fix in FSUIPC, but because separate fixes needs to be done for SP1 and SP2 and the amount of work is involved he is only fixing it for SP2 users, that means all those that are forced back to SP1 due to the menu freeze issue, or those that use addons broken by SP2, they will be left out in the cold from getting this fix!

[jwenham 1]

My post was to inform other consumers about a problem they might encounter if they were to purchase one of the add on airports. When I said work I meant visually as well as all the other features that are described when looking at a particular product. I as the consumer dont really care that much about what went in to make the product I just want it to "work" without having to ask every Tom, Dick, and Harry if they are having the same issues. I work with different software all day long and know that there are limitations to what can be tested for but there should be some fundamental items that are correct such as the visual for one. When you buy a car do you care about the proceedures that went into the making of the alternator, or what mounting brackets were used for gas tank? No you just expect it to work! I for one am happy with FSX and have spent many many hours reading and tweeking to come up with a very acceptable level of performance. I dont think though that the average Joe wants to spend that much time and I feel that there are probably many unhappy customers. I read post after post about other people with box's double of what mine can do and they are unhappy. They need to listen to what I have read over and over. ADJUST TO WHAT YOUR MACHINE CAN DO. That is why there are all those slider settings to allow a wide range of customers to enjoy the Sim. I have used the sim stock for quite some time and now that I have found my ZEN settings am ready to aquire some add on. My first attempt to do that was spoiled and I just wanted to let others know what to look out for. I really cant say its one or the others fault because I am not a programmer. I will leave that to the professionals. I just want it to work. One last note, there is a lot of conversation about this problem and that problem. Communication will be key in making this work in the future. Maybe MS and the key add on companies should all sit down and work this out before FS11 and not wait to do it here. We would all benefit from that.

[fbass 1]

I may have missed it but no one in these threads pointed out that it not SP1 or SP2 (generally speaking) that causes these problems. The problem lies with the DX10 Preview function. I have all of the airports mentioned in these posts and quite a few more. I do not have the problems mentioned herein. These airports do "work" in FSX l- just not using the DX10 preview.I think it is up to the poster to ensure a precise description of the problem and not "the airport does not work" kind of statement.fb

[jwenham 1]

I am running FSX w/Sp2 not Acceleration, Win XP not DX10. If you look at the beginning of this thread you will see pictures showing one of the problems. Another problem is with the taxi lights showing up a large dark boxes. All the other lights seemed ok. My main complaint was the Add on company did not make it clear that it would only work in SP1.

[Guest diddydaddy]

MS blame developers. Developers have a go at MS....... It's all so mixed up with the details that we don't see the bigger picture. I've got hundreds of quids worth of stuff I bought that all of a sudden I can't use. As far as I'm concerned it was SP2 that stopped them working so it's SP2 that's coming off. If you're an airline simmer, and are so into a pure and unfettered FSX that you will keep SP2 installed even though it stops your airports from working, then you need to take some time and consider if you've thought it all through properly.Martin

[Mace 1,927]

>Major changes like this normally waits for an>RTM release.good point..lets hope and pray that FS11 doesn't have these convulsions.>Now divisions are>being created within this community.1) At the end of 2006, early 2007--the division of the community was between FS9 vs. FSX. The issue was performance. Many people were not patient.2) Early 2008: Now, there is a much lesser division--the div of the community between FSX SP1 and SP2. The issue is visuals (as seen with ImagineSim's KCVG).But look at the solution to #1 above: it was "hardware'ed away" by faster h/w and patches to the simSo, regarding #2, I expect these issues to be resolved by the scenery dev's on a case-by-case basis, and it will take _time_. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was ImagineSim's CVG.I know the issues they face...just before I released a scenery here at AVSIM, sp2 came out, and I had to go in and change some things with my scenery. Luckily, it was a small airport that was already built to FSX SDK specs, so it only took me about 2 hours to make the changes. But with ImagineSim's CVG, or with TropicalSim's larger airports, it bet it will take more time, partly because they used FS9 techniques.The fact remains (as Jim V pointed out already): MANY "FSX" AIRPORT SCENERIES ARE NOT MADE TO FSX SDK STANDARDS--MANY USE FS9 TEXTURING TECHNIQUES, ANIMATIONS, AND SCENERY OBJECTS, AND SOME EVEN USE NON-SDK COMPILERS!This is no good but fundamentally it is not FSX's fault. If you play by FSX's rules, your scenery will work, RTM, SP1, SP2, no matter.Everyone is reaping the whirlwind re: backwards compatibility. If users think it is bad now, wait until FS11.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[martin_ktpa 0]

>The code behind the airport is critical. Even though designers>have used what they questionably call "high-end" techniques to>produce pretty airportsI would never dare to call any old method "high end", what I call "high end" is the result developers can be achieve with it. With a custom ground polygon you have infinite pixel/meter resolution. Within FSX you can't get go beyond Resample's max limit, which is not crisp enough to draw details like airport markings. We can compensate with XML airport markings, but we are limited to generic visuals. I am not keeping any developers from using this, I just point out that I am apparently not the only one who has not been willing to create airports this way. I am also not a bitter old man going after Phil. My goal is simply to keep the issue alive and ask ACES to implement a newer, modern "airport ground texturing" method in the next FS and make this method so good that developers will want to use it.>Quite frankly - they only produce eye-candy - not airports.As I stated earlier, I and many other developers are guilty having missing proper XML approach coding. In retrospect, back in FS2004 I think the fact that Lee's AFCAD was such a great GUI-tool, "prevented" many devs from ever looking behind the surface and see its shortcomings. No excuse, just pointing out what IMO was the reason why it happened the way it did.

[Guest Nils79]

I don't have problems with airliner and SP2/XPack. I think that the primary task of ACES is to create a game which is able to compete at the market - against other games (which don't have to take care about backwards compatibility). To expect of ACES that they should know every add-on and technique used in the add-on universe is a little bit unfair and i'm sure they didn't break something just for fun. If we use SP2, the 3rd party developers will have it much easier, because the majority will use SP2 and i don't think that there is/will be a market for FSXSP1. I'm using FSX XPack and many of the great freeware FS9 airplanes are working without problems or need only minor fixes and i have the confidence in the 3rd party developers, that they fix those products, which they sold as FSX products (even if it's sometimes hard to understand why they have a "X" in the product name).

[toprob 105]

>>I wonder if the payware Hawaii Dillingham X and freeware NZPP>represent more of the type of 3pd efforts to expect in FSX,>and not the mega-sized airports that were common in>FS2k2/FS9.>>scott s.I hope not. NZPP was partly designed the way it was to test the waters. I wanted to know the answers to a lot of questions, mainly relating to how users would react to complete FSX-compliant techniques, including:Q. How will users cope with having to increase their texture resolution setting to display the 15cm SDK-resample-compliant ground textures?A. Quite well, actually:)Although I feel that I no longer have control over what amount of detail users will see in my airport.Q. How will people react to the default runways?A. Some thought they had a faulty installation. Some saw it as a backward step. I dislike it. Q. Because I couldn't bring myself to cover up the nice background image with taxiways and parking areas, I made the taxiways invisible -- because I could -- and left out the parking aprons etc -- because I couldn't make them invisible. So how do folk react to that?A. Not too many complained about the dirt thrown up when taxiing on the aprons. Those who did saw this as a backward step, and assumed it could be easily fixed.Q. Will the additional 3D modelling features make up for the shortcomings already mentioned?A. Maybe in the short term, but I don't think we can make users forget the good old days when we could put some character into our runways:)But the main issue for me is that NZPP doesn't LOOK like one of my airports. It's been mentioned here that some designers ignore the technical elements in favour of the visual, and I fully admit that I fall into this category. I would define what I do as a craft -- if I was a lot better at it, it would be an art:) But I do know that an airport isn't finished until I've defined its character somehow -- I have no idea how to define character without resorting to old techniques.I needed to know the answers to these questions before to started my next project -- NZAA, a much larger scale international airport. Will it be 100% FSX SP2 compliant? I don't see that it could be, I want it to be my vision of what NZAA should look like in the sim, and I can't do that using the SDK alone. Will it 'work' as an airport? To the best of my ability, yes. Will it work in FSXI? Dunno, mate, but then again I'm not that sure that the 'compliant' NZPP will either...Godzone Virtual Flight, for 'Real New Zealand' sceneryhttp://www.windowlight.co.nz

[Guest sssummer]

>My goal is simply to keep the issue alive and ask ACES>to implement a newer, modern "airport ground texturing" method>in the next FS and make this method so good that developers>will want to use it.Amen!

[Guest bertvankampen]

>I think you're missing the point. This thread's about that>there were good products working for FSX, but since Christmas>and SP2 loads of them don't work any more. FlyTampa are>probably the best around and personally I would like to see>them working in FSX (even if they don't use sacred FSX code or>whatever coveted by purists).>>It's not complicated. Don't need to be a rocket surgeon. Just>uninstall SP2 and go back to SP1.>>MartinI fully agree with you Martin. I run FSX with SP1 (now), only one question left:Why the XXXX was SP2 made? What is the purpose of SP2 if you cann't use it?Frustrating us "addon buyers"? 50 euro for an airport that works for one month only....Keep the customer happy...please! Or you are losing your company/jobs!Still Happy Flying and Designing with FS9 or FSXBert

[Guest G.Grimshaw]

**Having an add-on that works is always better than an add-on that doesn't work.Picking an authoring style that almost guarantees issues for your customers, as opposed to an authoring style that admittedly might have a lesser feature set but fewer issues - how is that a hard choice to make?http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylorLead PM, Core PlatformAces Studio, MGS------------------------------------------------------------------------Its hard to make that choice because default runways & taxiways are a step backwards. Whats so hard for you to understand about that?The FSX SDK doesn't provide an alternative for fs2002 ground polygons & they were asked for over & over again 1.5 years ago while FSX was still running at 5fps in BETA.

[RFields5421 1]

>I am running FSX w/Sp2 not Acceleration, Win XP not DX10. If>you look at the beginning of this thread you will see pictures>showing one of the problems. Another problem is with the taxi>lights showing up a large dark boxes. All the other lights>seemed ok. My main complaint was the Add on company did not>make it clear that it would only work in SP1.I don't see any photos of problems in any of your posts on this thread.One item - large dark boxes around lights - this is almost always caused by an addon overwriting a default FSX effect file - which might not even be the scenery in question - or by the scenery installer not placing an effect file in the proper location.Are there any threads on this matter in the scenery developer's help forums?