My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

[jrhoads 6]

>Jim,>>I published an edited version of the above clarification as a>new blog post, just to address the fact that I have>potentially muddied the water where I didnt intend to.>>PhilThank you Phil,JIm

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

Even looking in a .mdl file seems unwarranted when a glance inside the same folder will show either 1 or 2 .mdl files , fs9 had no _Interior.mdl When glancing through an available download a look at the included files will show either one or two model files and can indicate an fs9/fsx sp2 / non dxt10 compliant portover. reading the header with a hex editor will not indicate if a model is SP2/DX10 compliant , if the production dated from the SP1a iteration of the SDK or the modeller did not add " includes shadow model "to the file properties with sp2 the full complement of DX10 previewassets like VC shadows will not be enabled in that model.This issue is perhaps an indication of the difficulty facing the consumer of flightsim products when choosing their addons wisely , the educated consumer meaning one who has checked forums & reviews for user commentary and threads such as the SOH post referenced in Phil

[jrhoads 6]

>And for the record, it was off-topic.Well I guess we have a difference of opinion don't we?

[N400QW 205]

Well Brian, you may be interested in tracking the history of the attacks on our business and person by one weeniemcweenie.The most recent of which had to do with christianity....Frankly, we stopped careing about his opinions by his 2nd or 3rd attack on us. The mods have had to shut him down more times than not because he seems to set his crosshairs on us whenever the mood strikes him.The most recent ridiculaous rant he made both here and in emails to me show a distinct disregard for us and our business. Is there any wonder that we don't hold his opinions in high regard? :-)

[Ted Striker 338]

I am a non computer and non FS professional. I read Phil's original blog post and took it as he intended. There are some third party developers out there employing very deceptive marketing practices and he pointed out a way to check what type of model you have if one so desires. For that I thank him.I was a little shocked at Jim's first post, but after reading through the whole thread Eaglesoft and Flight1 brought up and clarified some good points. They are amongst the most responsible and respected developers in the industry and they don't want their products or company's reputations tarnished or associated with the practices of the less customer focused developers.We all had a frustrating time last year, Aces, 3PDs, and users. There are plenty of thread discussion on what happened and why, but we are where we are. When I think back a few years back and remember how silent the Aces team was in the FS forums I am really thankful for dialogues like these. I know there are some simmering tensions, but hey, were communicatiing.What I would like to see is this dialogue continue in a new thread with Aces and the 3PDs discussing ideas and options on how they can work together going forward regarding SDKs and information exchange so the same thing doesn't happen with FS11. Phil has been providing some information already on his blog, which I appreciate, I just want more. :)Ted

[PhilTaylor 45]

I agree a clarification was in order from me to make sure Ron and Jim and their companies were not involved with the case I was calling out, I just wish we could have gotten to that without the rest of what went on in this thread.With that said, yes it is probably a good sign that we can do this, even with the sturm-und-drang.We do have a group of 3DPs who we are in close contact with, in order to keep the flow of information going. And we are trying to take the lessons we learned from FSX and make FS11 be better for both 3DPs and the end-user. As far as more information, when I run into a topic I can safely talk to without getting myself into trouble for disclosing something prematurely, I will. Over time it will get easier.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Phil,Just a question that I brought up several years prior to the FSX beta...Why can't simmconnect be used as a portal for whatever language someone wants to program gauges or anything else in for that matter? I thought that was the whole purpose (or primary purpose) to begin with...in the beginning.Do we really need to be thinking inside the FSX box itself or should we only need to be worried about simply getting it into the box?Really, there should only be a few tools needed to create an addon in the first place...3ds, PS, and your favorite gauge langauge, IMO, if I'm not over simplifiying to much.I realize that was before your time at ACES.

[Guest JoeInCT]

With all of this ugliness, I would not be at all surprised if the next version of FS was designed to check the header and display a pop-up warning when a possible non-compliant (one not compliled with the latest SDK) airplane is selected or loaded by the user -- kind of like the pop ups in Windows when a non-certified driver is selected. Then there would be no doubt, at least from the user's perspective, where the problems lie. At least MS was kind enough (to the add-on developers) not to include this sort of thing in FSX.Again, as a lowly end-user, in my humble opinion, this post is evidence we need better aircraft out of the box. ACES could put an end to all of this with phenominal default aircraft. I don't need Netscape either. IE is fine.On second thought, I hope the add-on devs continue to pound Phil. Maybe this will happen. Lol.Joe

[PhilTaylor 45]

On third thought, I get a lot of undeserved pounding, can we not advocate more of that?Please?

[N400QW 205]

Ted, we've spent a lot of time and effort to help educate and inform the community about what has taken place and how to recognise FSX/SP2/DX10 Compliant aircraft products.To that end we agree fully with Phils efforts and have called for him to expand on what he has accomplished so far.It seems that a few are taking advantage of the confusion in the community and Phil rightly calls them on it.Absent a clear, concise, definition of what a true FSX/SP2/DX10 aircraft is we are not surprised that folks are confused.First let me say that no responsible 3PD will take advantage of the confusion but will rather attempt to clarify and inform the public on these matters.I'll take a stab here at the risk of being accused of advertising:-)A. From FSX/RTM to FSX/SP1 most all 3PD aircraft were FS9 source rebuilt to the first SDK while lacking proper modeling tools.Those first FSX iterations were considered FSX aircraft by most 3PDs and nothing from Phil or Aces seemed to contradict that sense.B. From FSX/SP1 to FSX/SP2/DX10 the proper tools and updated SDK were coming on line and it became clear that the paradigm had shifted once more and 3PDs were faced with more challenges to provide FSX/SP2/DX10 Compliant products while rebuilding previous FSX aircraft to the new standard.C. At that point, confusion began to settle over the community as to how so called true FSX aircraft should be defined. This led to the use of hex editors and the "gotcha mentality" that seemed prevalent at the time. In turn you saw accusations of dishonesty directed at honest and reputable 3PDs who are simply overwhelmed with time constraints for completing rebuilds and new content to the new standard.If you are still reading I would like to mention that all anyone needs to do is ask their favorite 3PD if they are fully FSX/SP2/DX10 Compliant and they should receive and honest answer:-)D. In our own case we have taken the position that our FSX Aircraft offerings must meet the new standard set at release of SP2/DX10 Preview.This standard appears to cover all bases including Acceleration along with SP2/DX10 Preview.E. Currently every one of our FSX Aircraft meet the FSX/SP2/DX10 Preview standard with the exception of three which only meet FSX/SP2 standard. Those three are currently undergoing rebuilds to the final FSX/SP2/DX10 standard.F. Finally, there was the question of Vista 32/64 compatibilty which we also had to address. This seems to no longer be an issue as long as folks retake control of their own OS.I know this is too long but hope this helps:-)

[Guest weeniemcween]

Ron,Your account is so off it's pathetic."Well Brian, you may be interested in tracking the history of the attacks on our business and person by one weeniemcweenie.The most recent of which had to do with christianity...."Actually what happened is Captain Keith tried to impress his faith on a user in a self-righteous way and I simply criticized that faith for having the opposite of what he implied. You had jumped in earlier to his defense perhaps because of eaglesoft's affiliation with simflyer I can't see why otherwise when FSExcel was such a joke, and then attacked me for my interpretation of Christianity which you found offensive. Moreover, I started attacking your business only after you attacked your customers. I am not the only one who has observed this on these forums and Brian will not have a hard time tracking that either."The mods have had to shut him down more times than not because he seems to set his crosshairs on us whenever the mood strikes him."Again. Not true. It's more like we have gotten into fights so the mods step in and shut it down. Not really coming down on one side or the other. You sound like a school boy who has gotten into a scuffle and is trying to tell his friends how he knocked the other boy out."Mood strikes him" - you mean when you advertise or condescend?Finally, why do you keep saying that the tools/means were not available until after sp1? The case of RealAir proves that you are wrong. Not only that, but even during the time before sp1, there existed an understanding among customers and a few open developers that what was being sold were fs9 ports. The way you're depicting it is like it was plainly accepted by everyone including ACES that these were FSX planes for all intents and purposes. Not quite right.You are a very bad historian.

[N400QW 205]

Weenie, every time to post disinformation you muddy the waters even further. You've shown time and again that you really don't have a clear understanding on any number of topics.Your assertion that commercial or business folks have no right to speak in public forums unless approved by you is just another example of what we view as rather pathetic and childish.The most recent confrontation with you over Christianity revealed much about your motivations and it certainly isn't a pretty picture.Your constant harang over issues you don't understand or approve of wore very thin long ago. Give it rest for the sake of the community please:-)

[WarpD 824]

Wow, what a thread. :(While I can agree Phil could have provided more clarity in his statements, I don't see him being intentionally acusatory towards 3PDs. The initial offering for FSX development didn't offer a single thing regarding modelling. Nothing. Developers were most definitely left on their own with regards to trying to get products released for FSX. However, at the time the current FS9 modelling SDK tools were 100% FSX compatible. When FSX went RTM, certain FS9 modelling techniques weren't supported in FSX (windows disappearing). FSX SP2 release actually corrected that particular issue. So... while there's lots of blame with regards to what Aces did/didn't do... as Phil stated, some developers are flat out ignoring the current FSX/SP2 compatibility requirements and pretending all is well and it's Aces fault.At this point in time, I'd say it's fair game to call out developers who flat out refuse to comply with the FSX/SP2 requirements. I don't care if it's an aircraft or scenery or whatever. If they're claiming it's for FSX... it better be expecting SP2 as well. Imaging buying software that only works with the original WinXP with no service packs. Would you buy it?While Aces did indeed toss out a curve ball with SP2... at this point in time, anyone refusing to comply is the real culprit.Someone suggested a developer certification... wanna see your add-on costs skyrocket? With FSX they introduced the need for digital signatures... expensive. MS certification is also extremely expensive. Someone's gonna have to pay for it.Weeniemcween, all I can say is... you clearly hate Eaglesoft. Period. I don't think there's a thing they could say or do that you would agree/approve of. Ron is correct in saying it's not your call whether something he posts is advertisement or not. You are not an admin, and you should probably read that again just to make certain you understand it's significance. It means your opinion regarding that topic (advertising) has no authority. It rests with the admins to make that call... and if they disagree, you need to accept and abide.The tone in this thread is nasty, from front to back with a few rational posts interspersed between. Even an AVSIM admin posted a couple of negative (my opinion) posts.

[Snowfalcon 18]

Just my $.02 as a consumer.If I buy a Chevy truck it needs Chevy parts. If Chevy comes out and says "Here is a way to check and see if aftermarket parts are really Chevy parts, not a Ford or BMW adapted to work on a Chevy." Whats the problem?Worse If I buy a aftermarket part for my Chevy and then go to the dealer with a problem I risk hearing "You voided your warranty when you put this part in."Now PCs are a little different than cars or trucks. We all have slightly or widely different systems, and expect software to run in any case. That said as a consumer I have a resonable expectation that something advertised as FSX is fully compliant with FSX. Not long ago I posted asking about a certain payware aircraft and weather it was FSX compliant. The responses I got were rather interesting. One response was "yes as long as you don't use DX-10". I replied back "well it's not fully FSX then." Funny response from the poster was "I'm running XP and couldn't care less about DX-10" Since I am running Vista and have a DX-10 Card I would like to know if a payware product can make full use of FSX current features before I put down my cash. Sure Caveat Emptor does apply when purchasing any product and some of us are smart enough to do some research before hand.Still as a PAYING customer if the makers FSX tell us how to check to see if a addon is fully FSX compliant GREAT! Same as "genuine Chevrolet"As for the Add on makers. If it's freeware and it's sh*t oh well. When you charge money thats different. You can't make claims that are misleading or false, PERIOD. If Aces elects to change something in FSX It's your problem to fix your product or inform the consumer that your product no longer works with the current version of FSx. I can understand a high level of frustration in that case. Nothing like a design change making a lot of dev time obsolete. Still if your selling it you have to make sure you stuff works as advertised. If you need time most consumers will be cool if you are upfront. Still to me right now FSX compatible means DX-10/SP-2 compliant. That is what any product for sale now should be. If not there should be a clear warning at the point of purchase. Anything else is bad (deceptive) buisness practice plain and simple.

[Guest weeniemcween]

Ron,Yes I'm sure you're concerned about the community and not your own image.I was only pointing out how your account was biased. You were muddying the waters and it's obvious. You also have yet to respond to my point about RealAir having fsx sdk compliant planes before sp1; instead you blather on and on.My assertion was that "business folks", as you put it so inanely, sometimes give customers dishonest or condescending responses when they want honest conversation. I have no problem with developers speaking in user forums as long as they are courteous. "what we view as rather pathetic" - stop using the royal we, it's pathetic (and inherently condescending). Motivations, Christianity, what? Are you calling me an infidel? Ed, maybe you should mention that you work for Eaglesoft. I can call Ron out for advertising if I feel like it and the moderators of course have the power to stop me if they feel like it. Snowfalcon, I could not agree more.