Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

n4gix

My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

Recommended Posts

Hi all,Phil Taylor gives a tip on how to check if an aircraft model is a true FSX model or a FS9 model. Have a look athttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspxI checked all my payware aircraft and found the the following aircraft are true FSX models:* Aerosoft Beaver* Carenado Mooney* Dreamfleet Dakota* Eaglesoft Citation II, Columbia 400 and Twin Comanche* Flight 1 (Digital Aviation) Cheyenne, Pilatus PC-12* PMDG 744* Real Air Citabria, Decathlon and ScoutThe following FSX aircraft ar based on FS9 models:* Eaglesoft Cirrus SR22* Flight1 Cessna 172* FSD Piper Navajo/Panther, SaratogaPlease feel free to add your findings about FSX aircraft that are based on FS9 models.I used the freeware hex editor "Hex Editor Neo" to examine the mdl files. Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Good list!I'll check this weekend, but if someone else has a chance to do likewise before then, I'd be interested to know if the Level-D 767 model is fully FSX compliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Taylor is quite opinionated about a subject that he has apparently applied little thought too other than his own limited view point.He also fails to point out that between RC1 and SP2, the goal posts were changed several times and many 3rd party developers at minimum struggled to support product that were released to be "compatible" with FSX even though being developed with the FS9 SDK. The truth is, for any developer to have a "true" FSX SP2 model as Mr. Taylor implies, wasn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,I ws up-front about SP2's issues with FS9 aircraft and have not dodged that on this or the other dozen or so forums I inhabit or post on. FSX models do work on SP2.That said, how is selling something that isnt FSX as FSX right?Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole premise behind this is pretty ridiculous. To even mention using a hex editor makes some type of implication that 3rd party commercial developers are trying to pull a fast one on the public.I can make it easier for anyone that wants to know if Flight1 planes are FS9 or FSX based, without having to open a hex editor. Simply ask us! We have some FS9 and some FSX models in our products as Jim mentions above. There is no reason to hide anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the premise is not ridiculous.I see post after post of aircraft issues that when dug into, end up being based on the model being FS9. For instance, http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=181391And if the aircraft is being sold as FSX, this is not clear to the consumer unless they hex edit it.How is the practice of selling an FS9 aircraft as FSX, that is going to cause problems for the consumer, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Jim,>That said, how is selling something that isnt FSX as FSX>right?>>PhilI don't know Phil, how is selling something as DX10 compliant that really isn't right? Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone way above and beyond, with a humble and penitent tone, in explaining what happened with DX10.Pray tell us in the same vein about FS9 as FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is ridiculous.What is even more ridiculous is that you are making a blanket statement that can be potentially damaging to the honest developers.This is not what I expect from a representative of the FS dev team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see consumers who get non-conformat product and the comcommitant anger that generates as potentially damaging to the franchise. Are we at Aces aa the stewards of the franchise supposed to sit back and let that happen without comment?If you are not selling FS9 aircraft as FSX, why does this issue bother you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're informed (we the customers) that the model is an FS9 ported to FSX, I have no problem with that. If I like the aircraft enough I'll plunk my money down and take my chances. I would assume Mr. Taylor isn't speaking of those who only claim FSX compatability of their product, rather those who try to tout them as FSX models that turn out to be FS9 models with that little fact being hidden from the consumer.Besides, in all the complaining, griping about quality, and accusations of underhanded practices, when is Flight1 ever mentioned?! (OK let me turn off kiss *** mode now). By the way, love the ATR 72-500. And it was very clear on the website exactly what it is, so was Ultimate Traffic.Thank you,KailFlightSimmer since 1987C2D E6850 3.0GHz 1333FSBXFX Nforce 680i LT SLI2x XFX 8800GT 512MB SLI'd2GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 800MHzCreative SB Audigy2 ZSUltra Xfinity 600W SLI PSUSeagate 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA-3GB/S HDWindows XP SP2 / FSX SP2 / FS9 SP1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to state that if the FS9 model isnt causing a problem, there is no problem. I know that should be obvious, but I think it is worth restating.The point of my blog post was, "if there is a problem" lets do a deeper dive and see what is causing it. And only then if its an FS9 model that is causing an issue is there a potential problem of information transmittal for the consumer.Ulf has stated that none of the 3 FS9 models he cited have an issue, so I am wondering if this isnt a case of "much ado about nothing", at least so far.I am not trying to "call out" any vendor and instead am trying to inform the consumer about how to be informed. The vendors who openly state what the provenance of each model is are, of course, already being above-board. Only the vendors who do not openly state provenance, or who try to tout as "true FSX" a model that has only been run through the FS8/FS9 toolset are what I am concerned about.Dialog and information are good, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I see consumers who get non-conformat product and the>comcommitant anger that generates as potentially damaging to>the franchise. Are we at Aces aa the stewards of the franchise>supposed to sit back and let that happen without comment?>>If you are not selling FS9 aircraft as FSX, why does this>issue bother you?Phil, your statements are both objectionable and unfair to developers for the following reasons...1. FSX RTM supported so called FS9 Portovers because there was no SP1/SP2/DX10 SDK for any developer to work with at the time. I remember well the struggle we and other developers had in providing FSX RTM content from FS9 SDK sources without newer tools and proper SDK.2. FSX SP1 was Aces answer to a buggy RTM and the entire community/industry is aware of that fact. At that point in time developers still did not a have final SDK and were forced to continue to deliver so called FS9 Portovers as the proper modeling tools and understanding began to come on line.3. FSX SP2/DX10 Preview changed the standard once again forcing developers to rebuild to the final SDK and the new DX10 wrinkle in order to deliver FSX/SP2/DX10 Compliant product.What I state here is historically accurate and for you to lay this process off on 3PDs is an insult. MSFS Aces Team bears the responsibilty of leadership in the industry and developers are forced to follow your lead. To infer that 3PDs are the culprits here when it is apparent that Aces put us all thru at least three stages of confusion is absurd.I remember well the approach taken by Aces towards 3PDs at a certain conference prior to your arrival. I'll ask publically if all that was scrapped since your arrival?Finally, over the past 16-18 months Eaglesoft has taken the steps required by Aces to come to full FSX/SP1/SP2/DX10 Compliance on nearly every product we have available and those which are not yet completed are in process. This represents the challenges faced by ALL 3PDs and is the result of decisons made by non other than Aces Studio and the bean counters at MS.If this seems harsh then consider what each team member of every 3PD team has been forced to endure. To add further insult to the afformentioned injury to 3PDs is a bit, no, a lot, over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Content authored with the FSX SDK is not a problem.Back-compat is just that, it is not FSX content. And the content should be labeled as such. We are now approaching 7 months past Acceleration availability and approaching 5 months past SP2 availability. There has been plenty of time to rev FS9 models that do not work. Or to adjust product blurbs.Giving the consumer the information to detect that an FS9 model is in fact what is causing the issue - how is that bad? Letting them blame the platform and the franchise - how is that good?I repeat, an FS9 model that works fine, the consumer has no problem and that is not the case I am talking to. It is only the FS9 models sold as FSX that cause problems that are the issue here. And I repeat my question - how is that fair to the consumer?I am not singling out any 3PD vendor, I am getting information to the consumer. I guess we can agree to disagree here, I feel the consumer should be informed on how to be informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Phil, your inference that 3PDs are somehow offering inferior product or are misleading the public is an insult to the entire 3PD community be they commercial or freeware.Phil writes. "Back-compat is just that, it is not FSX content."Phil, this statement, while accurate, does NOT present a true picture of the challenges faced when Aces requested that we build a "show and tell" FSX model prior to RTM. Even when FSX RTM happened, no 3PD had a complete SDK or the modeling tools to build to what was the first iteration which all had to market as FSX content. This fiasco was the direct result of Aces dropping the ball until SP2/DX10 Preview set the final standard and caused all 3PDs to play "catch up" once again. While all 3PDs do the work required for full compliance it is unfair practice to infer that 3PDs are being dishonest with the public.I repeat, the history of this matter shows utter disregard for the 3PD community in order to cover the tracks of the franchise. If you wish to throw us all under the bus publically then at least have the decency to acknowledge publically that this paradigm shift is caused solely by the decisions made in Seattle.Further to the point, a 3PD project which takes 18-24 months to complete is not easily reworked to now the third Aces standard. Multiply that effort by the number of projects offered by a 3PD and you can easily see the dilemma we all face.We do not have a problem with folks knowing which of our products is not yet fully compliant because we've taken steps to inform evryone of our progress. Our complaint goes to the inference that 3PDs are the sole cause of delay in new content or rebuilding of older content when we did not set the moveable goals, Aces did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying my blog posts are my opinion and not the Studio's or MS's. As are my posts here. Can we not try to conflate my comments into WW3?Here is what I see the issue is:1)FSX content - not a problem.2)FS9 content that a)works in FSX (SP2) - not a problem.3)FS9 content thata) is labeled as such - not a problem4)FS99 content that:a)is labeled as FSXb)does not work in FSXc)has no content or marketing blurb update.It is the narrrowly defined case 4 that I am talking to. And it is 7 months since Acceleration and 5 since SP2. That is plenty of time to at least re-label content. Is that really what you are saying I have no right to call out?In Ulf's thread I asked clarifying questions to get it out that neither the EagleSoft nor the Flight1 content he listed had any issues. This is not about either of your companies and the excellent content they offer, but about other 3DPs. Am I allowed to make no comment? Given how much criticism users and 3PDs heap on Aces and myself, that seems eminently fair and democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you have a right to speak your piece but please do not forget that your words carry the weight of Aces and could be misconstrued as casting unhealthy dispersions on honest 3PDs in order to protect the franchise. We've all endured this fiasco together so let's not pretend that there is still not a ways to go for 3PDs to come to full FSX/SP2/DX10 Compliance.We agree on most points you've made but you are remiss in addressing #2. That is to say that FS9 content which works in FSX/SP2 still may not reach full DX10 Compliance. This is an important point and in our minds Aces could do more towards educating the public in these matters.We agree with your point #4. Any 3PD who is making untrue statements deserves to be exposed publically but let's not throw us all under the bus over the dishonety of a few.The criticism heaped on Aces throughout this process was earned.While we never participated in, or agreed with, the nonsense and "piling on" that occurred it should be noted that you all would not have suffered such criticism had a few more ducks been in a row prior to release:-)You will not find one post I've made that could be contrued as blatent criticism of Aces because we know the challenges you all face.We simply ask the same respect and consideration in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Phil here.While I think that FSX Directx 10 development did little for the current end-user and the Microsoft marketing department and nvidia/ati completely mislead us, I still think ACES has been pretty upfront and Phil in particular has worked hard to rescue a beached whale.It is unfortunate that 3pds were not provided the proper tools from the get go and the "goal posts" were moved twice.That doesn't change the fact that marketing a product as made for FSX when it hasn't gone through the FSX sdk is disingenuous and sort of illegal. Many developers have done this. And even giving free updates for these port overs does not make it right, because you have people who did not own the fs9 version paying good money for product that is not what it claims to be.I feel for freeware developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, gotta say I love the fact that we (the end users) get to read spirited and open debate between 3rd party developers and ACES. There could just as easily be an information blackout by ACES -- which is probably the typical industry mindset (LDS anyone?). Hope these spirited debates don't make anyone angry cause an information blackout.Second, I have to say I think this topic kind of validates my point in my "FS11 Wish List" post regarding better commercial jets "out of the box." It is a daunting task to build an ad-on aircraft and to keep it fully functional through the service pack upgrades. This is why I expect (hope for) more complete commercial jets out of the box in FS11. Having better quality aircraft out of the box would minimize the painful wait for ad-ons and our overall FS experience would be much better over the entire FS product lifecycle (not just at the end when the add-on aircraft tend to come to market).Thanks to both ACES and others for engaging in this public debate. It is AWESOME we get to see this exchange of opinions, viewpoints and ideas.Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point we've tried to make is that marketing an FS9 source which was rebuilt to FSX Standard as an FSX model was the ONLY option availble post RTM until SP1.After SP1 the Tools and SDK began to come together for 3PDs to begin rebuilding for the second time and then SP2/DX10 caused third rebuilds which are still ongoing.Meanwhile the market still has FS9 source to FSX models that are due to be brought to full Compliance and some shady folks seem to be taking advantage of the confusion in order to mislead the public:-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 3PD's are taking this all wrong, and blowing it way out of proportion. I mean did everyone drink bad coffee this morning?Ulf is right, the third post down is way way off topic and all it did was blow the whole thread.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhett, you haven't walked in 3PD shoes for the last eighteen months so you really don't understand why developers see things as they do.Be advised that we are not angry, just frustrated over the fact that so many still suffer confusion over what is a really a straight forward issue.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I see post after post of aircraft issues that when dug into,>end up being based on the model being FS9. But then Aces should not have included FS9 model compatibility as a feature of FSX.Anyway, a rehash of everything that happened before would be redundant. But in summary, Aces made a good effort to support backwards compatibility, which fell short in some areas. Companies were left in a "zone" of uncertainty when developing... they were left with months of work for some products to be FSX SDK compatible, and were struggling in a much more difficult Flight Simulator market that had lost its footing. Customers were wanting product, and it was hard to deliver for a while."Works in FSX" is different than "Fully FSX compliant". I do not see a problem with either. The problem is that what worked in the first release of FSX did not work in SP2, so people are still trying to fix things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weeniemcween,FS9 compatibility is part of FSX, is a feature of FSX, and a design of FSX that was included by Microsoft. So an FS9 model in FSX is fully reasonable, and in no way illegal. It would be false advertising to say "Fully FSX standards compliant, and works in DX10", when it is indeed a ported FS9 model.But selling a product that works in FSX, and works up to the design limitations provided by FSX for the type, is completely OK. We are never for tricking a customer, and we could not be in business if we do.So the accidental or whatever implication by the original post that started this has the potential to make people see things in the wrong light. That is what some of us are trying to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.