FSX content taxonomy

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

My impression is that the 3PD community had better solve the marketing problem in a very transparent way rather quickly - or Microsoft will by enforcing its IP rights.Some developers are telling customers not to update FSX. I mean ... wow. That has obvious implications for a brand Microsoft has spent 25 years and I would suspect well over a billion dollars building up.What would you do if it were your brand?

[Lord Farringdon 495]

Exactly Bob. We have to keep this simple.The 7 different flavours by one poster above and the 11 different icons by another poster point to the problems FSX had when it first came out. Essentially, FSX was a little crippled to start with but with good efforts by Aces from RTM through SP1 and SP2 and associated SDK's we now have a pretty good title (albeit without backward compatibility). By inference this means 3PD software that works with these earlier 'versions' of FSX but not with the final SP2 version, are really working in a 'work in progress' FSX rather than the final product. Over the remainder of FSX's life, we should not view these products as compatible with FSX, because if we do then we have to 'de-rate' our FSX application to make them work. According to fsxmissionguy:.That to me is fundamentally wrong. It's not the applications responsibility to configure itself for deficiencies in an addon. It

[N400QW 205]

>My impression is that the 3PD community had better solve the>marketing problem in a very transparent way rather quickly...That is why we've been asking Phil for his taxanomy. Absent his latest outline confusion ran rampant and accusations flew.It is certainly time for 3PDs and users to lay aside the confusion and understand what is being said. Since FSX/SP2 is considered highest and best then the goal for development is set.DX10 Compliance for FSX/SP2 content should also be considered a valid and valued plus for users as well.In our view, folks will continue to move towards DX10 hardware and Vista OS in order to obtain next gen DX10 features.:-)

[Mace 1,927]

TAXONOMY, as opposed to TAXIDERMY.RhettE8500, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64

[PhilTaylor 45]

my goal was to do something "informal" that would have value to the community and to 3DPs, and avoid anything "official" that would get lawyers, marketing, etc involved. so while this *is* interesting and creative, I think the community needs to sort this out.

[N400QW 205]

>my goal was to do something "informal" that would have value>to the community and to 3DPs, and avoid anything "official">that would get lawyers, marketing, etc involved. >>so while this *is* interesting and creative, I think the>community needs to sort this out.Ha ha, that is why I used "FSX/SP2 is considered highest and best" Phil.:-) "Considered" may be enough to keep us all out of "hot water":-)It is hoped that the community can develop a consensus along the informal outline you've offered and confusion will begin to wane:-)

[McCrash 3]

>I have to agree with Scott here! How can you say, anything>that doesn't run in FSX SP2 is FSX incompatible? When it runs>fine in FSX RTM/SP1? Is not FSX RTM/SP1 still versions of FSX?>I think you need to break this down more. Something on the>order of this.>>FSX Native - Built with FSX SDK runs in all versions.>>FSX RTM/SP1 Native - Built with FSX SDK runs only on FSX>RTM/SP1. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen>anything native yet for SP1 that doesn't run in SP2.)>>FSX SP2 Native - Built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX SP2.>>FSX Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs in all>versions.>>FSX RTM/SP1 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on>FSX RTM/SP1.>>FSX SP2 Compatible - Not built with FSX SDK Runs only on FSX>SP2. (Not sure if this one is needed, I haven't seen anything>from FS2004 run on SP2 but not RTM/SP1)>>FSX Incompatible - Doesn't run in any version of FSX (FS2004>only) What he say!

[PhilTaylor 45]

Ron, you and I are in agreement here :-)

[PhilTaylor 45]

the content compatibility line now sits at SP2. and that is where all 3DPs should be aiming.

[N400QW 205]

>Ron, you and I are in agreement here :-)Thanks Phil, this has been a great assist to the community:-)