My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

[N400QW 205]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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.

[Guest weeniemcween]

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.

[Guest JoeInCT]

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

[N400QW 205]

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:-(

[Mace 1,896]

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

[N400QW 205]

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.:-)

[Steve Halpern 176]

>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.

[Steve Halpern 176]

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.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron,This point you make about the timeframe between RTM and SP1and case 2 is absolutely fair. It is also not the point I am trying to address, which is the case 4 I called out.I apologize if that was not initially clear.I hope this serves to clarify, as my intention was not to rile up either you or Jim, or cast aspersions on either Eaglesoft or Flight 1. And that was exactly why I asked Ulf clarifying questions about the FS9 aircraft he listed.Cool?Phil

[Mace 1,896]

>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.>Well actually I have walked in their shoes 'cause I'm wearing them to a lesser extent. Consequently I do understand the changes that were made and their impact on development. I can especially see that going from the FS9 paradigm to FSX and then SP1 and then SP2. The sp2 changes bit me right when I was about to release something of my own...and I had to go back in and change some things in my model, delaying things for me.What I don't like, is this thread being so "us vs. them". It serves no purpose to have 3PD's vs. MS on an issue that has been discussed ad nauseum anyway. I mean, we all know the frustration there has been, so no need to re-hash it again? :)>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.:-)>Of course it has been frustrating. Ulf just brought forward something that has been on the blog for months. I guess the new exposure rubbed some salt on the old wounds though. But I don't think there's any reason to beat this dead horse again and again. It doesn't serve any purpose in my mind.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

[DadJokeCinema 145]

When you say "we" are you talking for yourself, your company, or are you the voice of all 3PDs?

[1mikel151 71]

>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.:-)>>Exactly, how to you move forward with your design process when the rules keep changing? I can only imagine the frustration of the 3PD trying to update/create new releases when the compatibility changes.I can see Phil's point of view though, to many here are not even up to date with SP2 and thus even expect new releases to function as advertised even though they won't/can't update their sim.I see many commercial releases where I have to 2nd guess if it works with SP2 since it doesn't state it explicitly. I have severely limited my purchases because of this (that and 3rd party performance headroom which a true FSX model helps in).Look at freeware also, it's hit or miss most times since a big portion of "FSX" files are someone taking someone else's FS9 model and updating textures/panels and then trying to get credit for it as an FSX model, most simmers don't know the difference. Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[jrhoads 6]

>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.Actually it wasn't off topic at all. If a person is going to point to a blog that basically equips a user to get a hex editor go on a witch hunt to see if models are FS9 or FSX, name one of our planes and then ask people to start listing them, it is certainly in topic for a response from developers. I have seen too many times people that don't have any issue start having an issue when somebody starts manufacturing one. It's like somebody saying... do you smell that? No, what? That! O yeah, maybe I do. Yeah, I think I do, Maybe someone should call the fire dept..So it does potentially effect us as well as many others payware or freeware.Phil finally explained what he meant, despite that his blog wasn't as clear as his public clarification is now. I make no apologies.Jim Rhoads