My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

[Guest weeniemcween]

This is the problem I have with most payware developers. They take our hobby and turn it into a business, sucking up a lot of the community focus, and spitting it back out with business rhetoric. The ONUS is not on the customer to figure out what "fsx" means when set under or over an advertised aircraft. The onus is on the payware developer to explain it, especially when they well know that a product is not fully fsx sdk compliant. Fact: there were many developers who essentially withheld information, equivocated in order to push "fsx" models. I don't think this was motivated by a deep evil, just a little apathy, maybe some greed. Sometimes it was even good will directed toward fs9 users wanting upgrades of their favorite planes, which were subsequently turned into fsx products. That's where the problem starts, though. It does not matter whether a product functioned fine in fsx rtm; there should have been disclaimers that these were not true fsx models from the beginning but there were none. Because, for one, even in RTM true fsx models just performed better. As customers, we should know exactly what we're paying for, especially since downloadable software is license based and cannot be resold. Moreover, I don't buy the argument that the tools/means weren't there up until sp1. You know why? RealAir released the SF260 just before Christmas 2006! Guess what, that model was fully fsx compliant. Not only that but they soon came out with a free portover upgrade, labeled as such. They did the extra work in order to provide an honest product, regardless of the abovementioned pressures. Other developers were lazier.

[jrhoads 6]

>>>Cool?>>Philfair enough.Jim

[Glynn 405]

HelloI would like ACES to offer some kind of approval /certification process for payware in the next version, with a Certified by ACES logo to be displayed by third party developers on their product.There is way to much poor quality payware coming on the market.The FSX default aircraft are as nice as a lot of payware this time around and these should be the baseline at the very least for anyone trying to sell products.Unfortunatly i see products for sale that graphicaly are not even up to the standards of the default aircraft.

[N400QW 205]

Rhett, I'm at a disadvantage since I don't know you or your work.Sorry if you don't like our posts but it's high time folks have a clearer understanding of what is and isn't "true FSX"Sincle Phil and Aces along with commercial and freeware developers have done a poor job in educatiing the public at large it's no wonder that you have folks with hex editors going on "witch hunts".For Phil to advocate such activity shows inconsiderate leadership in my humble opinion. Much better to assist in educationg the public on what WAS and now IS "true FSX" intead of advocating hex editing on 3PD products.What if 3PDs were to advocate that folks should use hex editors on MS Products? Wouldn't that be interesting? Sorry, but this stuff is extremely distastfull:-(

[PhilTaylor 45]

thanks Jim I appreciate that.

[thrakete 0]

ULF B,Thanks for a good post, but obviously this has gotten completely out of hand. Your original request for inputs to your list, which I think is a great idea, is being ignored. Perhaps another try later with a request that responses be limited to the subject?Regards,Thrakete

[N400QW 205]

Phil, I'm not riled but I am calling on you to help educate the public on what WAS and now IS "true FSX"Until post SP1 all 3PD content was FS9 source based and marketed as "true FSX" compliant without you or anyone from MS making a distinction. Post SP2/DX10 Preview we now have a newer and different standard of what is "true FSX". Easy to see why the public still has some confusion even from your latest post with regard to FS9 content working well with FSX/SP2 but failure to mention that it still might not be DX10 compliant.These distinctions are important if you wish to protect the franchise.:-)

[N400QW 205]

Weenie, I couldn't care less if you have a problem with business folks.I do agree that 3PDs and Phil have a responsibility to help inform and educate the public on these matters and have expended a lot of effort toward that end even in this thread.I disagree on the last part of your post because you really don't understand the points made earlier.

[Guest Nils79]

And it's not only airplanes, which were sold as made for FSX.. also e.g. ai traffic programs and many more..How can something be a FSX product, if it's simply the FS8/FS9 version, which was released well before FSX has been released?To be honest i'm glad that SP2 has forced a cut, because made for "FS9 and FSX" means nearly always that the FSX user doesn't get the optimum, which is IMO unacceptable for full price payware.With genuine FSX add-ons i have zero issues, top performance and much more details and that's why i want to know what i buy.If i'm interested in a FS9 product, it's my decision if i take the risk and not the publisher who decides what is acceptable for me..

[Guest Nils79]

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=444208&page=

[Guest weeniemcween]

True. Mytraffic and ultimate traffic for example both use fs9 models so you end up with lod problems, i.e. black planes at a distance. I remember one post here a few months back that involved a consumer's inquiry into this issue. The mytraffic person straight up lied to that customer about the source of the problem, citing vram issues, I believe.Ron, it's nice that you couldn't care less about what I think. I wasn't directing what I said to you specifically. But so what, I say. You're part of the problem. A payware developer sticking his nose in user forums with constant advertisements, bullying, and use of the royal "we". Not to mention not actually taking responsibility for pushing fs9 sdk models as fsx products. Don't blame ACES for your marketing decisions, notwithstanding the difficulties in which they may have put you. Also Ron: "I disagree with the last part of your post because you really don't understand the points made earlier" is not an argument. That means absolutely nothing. You can separate the two clauses and it would be two statements, but adding "because" is like saying "I disagree because you are wrong." No logic there. You can only disagree on a point of contention. Perhaps you were trying to say "I take issue with your statement that other developers were lazier, because the fact is we tried our hardest to meet the moving standard set by ACES."BUT The example of RealAir proves that fsx sdk compliance was possible before service pack one. They did the extra work; other developers did not. It's a fact. (Whether they were capable of it is immaterial.) Then a dishonest marketing occurred. There is really no argument to this. Don't let some payware developers fool you.Nils puts it extremely well. It is our right as customers to make informed decisions. The onus is on the developer to give us the information, otherwise that developer is not being upfront.

[N400QW 205]

Weenie, to be correct...I said I couldn't care less about your opinion of commercial developers and especially business folks.Frankly the old "commercial developers are the enemy of the community" argument wore thin about three years ago.... If I recall correctly that was about the same time that freeware guys began thinking about hanging up their tools and getting out of the freeware development field.Again, if I recall correctly their decisions were based on the loads of abuse heaped on them by the so called "community".There is no prohibition on commercial developers posting in Avsim forums. I've spent a lot of time and effort to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings over FSX and will continue to do so, your empty accusations notwithstanding. Don't like that? Too bad.:-)No need to answer the last portion because you again show that you have no understanding of what we've posted.It is the customers responsibility to read, comprehend, and understand when developers provide proper information.

[Guest hmstiger]

I just want to thank you Jim for your company's stance of this. Flight 1 has always lead the way with a strong customer focus, whether it be the reliable wrapper system, the 30 day refund policy, and now with your commitment to making your FS9 planes compatible with the new version in a timely manner.Many of your colleagues have yet to catch up to you, a full 1.5 years since the release of the new sim. And that to me is perhaps the most salient factor in this argument. If our very best developers are having trouble with FSX - the problem is not likely with the developers....This rupture is sad and dissapointing. Especially since the next version of the sim will be a whole new ballgame - and the FSX experience does not bode well for seeing new versious of our favorite planes made for that new sim any time soon. Colin WarePortland, OR

[Virtualwombat 4]

While I understand the problems in bringing a 3PD product into a changing market, there IS a problem with 3PD products being sold for FSX that don't work properly. I have purchased more than one plane that simply does not work properly in FSX SP2, despite being marketed as FSX ready, FSX compatible, or (insert weasel words of your choice). As a consumer, this has made me very wary of purchasing further 3PD products and I'm sure many simmers have reacted in the same way, passing on products unless they see the magic words 'designed with FSX SP2 SDK', and limiting their purchases to established companies. This is a shame, because it works against innovation and competition.That said, telling people to check their products for, by implication, 'hidden' FS9 code, is not fair either. As previously noted, some FS9 ports work just fine in FSX. If they work properly then there is no problem and analysing the code is not useful or desirable.Sites like AVSIM can have an important role in dispelling the confusion that currently exists in the Flight Sim market. Product reviews take on even greater importance because they are really the only way people can know what they are buying.Cheers,Noel.

[Alvega 2,124]

>True. Mytraffic and ultimate traffic for example both use fs9>models so you end up with lod problems, i.e. black planes at a>distance. I remember one post here a few months back that>involved a consumer's inquiry into this issue. The mytraffic>person straight up lied to that customer about the source of>the problem, citing vram issues, I believe.Guess you need to have a better look at MyTraffic, because it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Trying to compare MyTraffic with Ultimate Traffic is unfair, to say the least.