My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

[Guest UlfB]

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

[jordanal 70]

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.

[jrhoads 6]

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

[PhilTaylor 45]

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

[Steve Halpern 176]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

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?

[jrhoads 6]

>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

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.

[jrhoads 6]

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.

[Guest UlfB]

@ Jim Rhoads,Thanks for posting but your post is OT. I'll start a new thread asking for other simmer findings so that you and Phil can argue as much as you like in this thread.Edited: And you'll find the thread here: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=444179Ulf B

[PhilTaylor 45]

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?

[eldar2112 10]

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

[PhilTaylor 45]

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?

[N400QW 205]

>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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.