Thread 2 on My FSX payware ac that are true FSX models

[Guest UlfB]

Hi all,I started a new thread on the topic on which payware are true FSX models and which are not. The other thread turned out into Jim Rhoads going for Phil Taylor. Hopefully they'll keep continue arguing in that thread and leave this alone. And please not that this is not intended to flame any vendor, just to give us the facts.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, ATR 72* 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

[PhilTaylor 45]

The following links on my blog may be helpful:True FSX planes here:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...fsx-planes.aspxFS9 planes that work in Acceleration/SP2 herehttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...adable-sp2.aspxboth of these blogs posts link to other community threads where good investigations occurred.I think it is important to state not all FS9 aircraft will have problems in SP2, so it is probably worth clarifying what the 3 aircraft you cite as being FS9 do in SP2 in terms of rendering acceptably or not. And many vendors have provided free updates to address issues so collecting that information is also required to paint a complete ( and fair ) picture.

[Guest UlfB]

>I think it is important to state not all FS9 aircraft>will have problems in SP2, so it is probably worth>clarifying what the 3 aircraft you cite as being FS9 >do in SP2 in terms of rendering acceptably or not. >And many vendors have provided free updates to address>issues so collecting that information is also required>to paint a complete ( and fair ) picture.Sure :-) I have no issues with the following aircraft.* Eaglesoft Cirrus SR22* Flight1 Cessna 172, ATR 72* FSD Piper Navajo/Panther, SaratogaThe Cirrus is hard on the frames, but that's expected with that glass cockpit. The FSD aircrafts Piper Navajo/Panther and Saratoga are my favourites! I don't fly the F1 C172 or the ATR 72, but they work very well in FSX/SP2 DX9 (I don't run FSX in DX10). The ATR is a really nice bird, but nowadays I do mostly VFR flying. When I do some IFE flying I usually do it with the PMDG 744, which IMO is outstanding.I must clarify that my post is NOT about problems with aircrafts. It's all about wether payware aircraft for FSX are based on a updated FS9 model or on a FSX model.Ulf B

[PhilTaylor 45]

I point out this need for additional data because it is not automatic that an FS9 model will cause an issue. So just singling it out as FS9 without there being an issue was not the goal of my blog post, the goal of that post was "if there is an issue" check to see if its FS9.If there is no issue caused by the model being FS9, I do not see a problem. It is only the case where there is an issue, and the consumer is blaming the platform that I think a deeper dive is required.I want to make sure readers understand the ordering both in your thread and in my post, in the interest of fairness.

[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 menber 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]

See my reply on the other thread, I wanted to keep Ulf's 2nd thread clear of this.I guess we can agree to disagree here.

[Guest acolvard]

Now this poor guy is going to have to use another thread. You both are professionals and should respect this guys desire to keep these comments out of this thread. I really do not care about all the little details of why or why not a model is completely FSX compatible. I respect your "issues" but leave this guy alone.

[N400QW 205]

>See my reply on the other thread, I wanted to keep Ulf's 2nd>thread clear of this.>>I guess we can agree to disagree here.Very well Phil. See my reponse in the other thread as well. By the way guys, the Cirrus SR20/SR22 is undergoing the rebuild as we speak and the Liberty XL2 has already been completed. Finally, you can add Cessna CJ1 to the fulll FSX/SP2/DX10 list as well.

[Guest s0436]

I would just like to thank the people who have made repaints of the default aircraft (A321/738/747 etc), otherwise I would have a very limited FSX experience. There are no non-default freeware commercial aircraft out-there that work in FSX without any problems, so repaints are hugely important. Thanks to the repainters again.

[SimNutt 0]

Hi all,Here's my finding regarding the FSD Piper Saratoga. Thanks to the OP's post I think I finally have my answer. Too bad no one at FSD could have given it to me!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188239.jpgThis shot is of the FSD Saratoga Glass cockpithttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188240.jpgThis is what happens when I turn on any aircraft lighting, and it does'nt matter if its taxi light, beacon, nav etc..Same issues here:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188242.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188243.jpgI would be very interested to know if anyone else is suffering from this problem, and more importantly if any solution has been found!Happy Landings,Chris

[N400QW 205]

If anyone want's to know which of our products are true FSX then by all means drop over to our site or support forum and read or ask:-)

[n4gix 4,947]

>I would be very interested to know if anyone else is suffering>from this problem, and more importantly if any solution has>been found!You really shouldn't hijack this thread with an OT question, but instead start a new thread.However, since I already am here, the problem occurs because the diffuse texture definition is not based on the new FSX Material schema, and there's no 'flag' telling the sim not to apply specular to the base alpha channel......as a result, you are seeing "shiny stuff" in the VC... *:-*

[SimNutt 0]

>>I would be very interested to know if anyone else is>suffering>>from this problem, and more importantly if any solution has>>been found!>>You really shouldn't hijack this thread with an OT question,>but instead start a new thread.>>However, since I already am here, the problem occurs because>the diffuse texture definition is not based on the new FSX>Material schema, and there's no 'flag' telling the sim not to>apply specular to the base alpha channel...>>...as a result, you are seeing "shiny stuff" in the VC... *:-*>I would have been perfectly happy with just this response, and thanked you for your definative answer:the problem occurs because>the diffuse texture definition is not based on the new FSX>Material schema, and there's no 'flag' telling the sim not to>apply specular to the base alpha channel...But for some reason you felt the need to play the voice of moderator and state this:You really shouldn't hijack this thread with an OT question,>but instead start a new thread.Since hijacking of threads seems to be a concern of yours please feel free to convey your concerns to your colleague N400QW who appears to have hijacked this thread (btw which is the reason the O.P. started this thread): *:-*http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=444158

[n4gix 4,947]

>But for some reason you felt the need to play the voice of>moderator and state this:No, I felt the need to play the voice of a responsible user and try to convey information that might not have been known.This is yet another example of this maxim:"

[Guest weeniemcween]

Actually you should learn to speak English in a way that is not offensive if you're not intending to be so."Hijack this thread"Not exactly the most neutral tone.You are so condescending just buzz off.If anyone is inflating things it's you when you use that quote and apply it to this user's understandable annoyance.