>to start a project! Of course, this is the wrong time to>start a project because the liklihood of it being usable in>the next version is small.>Bob,Based on what ACES members have said over at FSDeveloper, there remains open the possibility that if a designer keeps their source files, they will be able to re-use a lot of that content in FS11, using the SDK tools for that new version.If indeed this comes to pass, it will be a little less painful of a transition.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC 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 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Ron with all due respect, though I agree with you in principle, and applaud your company's dedication to users of BOTH FS0 AND FSX, the bull has, in my opinion, and re: FSX , gored the matador.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

That could be some comfort. Thanks!

>Alex: "the bull has, in my opinion, and re: FSX , gored the matador."Ha Ha, true Alex but it's only a flesh wound.. Tie it off, walk it off and you'll be fine for the next round:-)

>If it sounds like marketing then you've missed the point altogether...No, mate, readers have not misunderstood. You hijacked this discussion for more self-promotion. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last, but it's just not my way of doing things. I was having a dialog in this venue for the first time in almost a year, with a few folks I haven't spoken with in a long while. Now I sort of remember why I stopped contributing :-( Regards,http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Hi Alex, John,>I had thought that FTX / Orbyx would be the saviourMercifully, Oz is rescued from a life in Purgatory by FTX. I don't notice any hit with it (Core2-Duo 3GHz/3Gig/8600GTS). Their replacement AI traffic speed mods are cool, and new inland water textures tweak it nicely so it look just thousands of images in my photo album. My folks used to live in Port Macquarie, and the new FTX airport there is better than stunning. Good scenery products like that and some atmospheric add-ons just jump off the shelves because FSX terrain as shipped was disappointing in many areas. Can I refer you guys to our screnshot forum for the subject you raised ? Look for "For Alex and John". Hope you guys are well. Best,.....http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Steve, sorry to see you've missed the point I was making..I have high regard for you personally and have enjoyed each of our personal conversations. Also have the same high regard for Jim Tim, and the entire FSD organization.My intent was/is to communicate that the challenges can be overcome by a simple nose to the grindstone, blood, sweat and tears approach.Please believe me when I say that we KNOW about the blood, sweat, and tears approach by personal experience and THAT is what I wanted to convey.The bit about our product lines was to ILLUSTRATE to others that it can be done and to share precisely what is required from devs in order to overcome the challenges.From our perspective, this job is not going to be easier as we all move towards the next FS version so was trying to encourage others that it can be accomplished using the approach I outlined.Just our view and certainly no offense intended to anyone here:-)

>I'm not sure what it means, but hot downloads for the month>used to be a very good indicator of the state of addons. Now>almost all are WoAI packages. I guess this must say something>about WoAI, but it reduces the value of this screen. I would>like to see a listing with all WoAI removed. >>The guys at PAD, at least, have been cranking out a steady>stream of FSX compat aircraft.>>scott s.>.>Why? They are great packages and they are "hot" for a reason...because many are d/l them. Sorry its not for fsx but thats the way it is....

37)Howard 500http://fsnorthwest.net/index.php?ind=downl...ion_view&idev=838)Cessna 310http://www.simviation.com/simviation/?ID=61&page=1000

Fair enough, Ron,, I'll walk off and tick with it, though perhaps not as enthusiastically as before.Cheers,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Cheers Alex. It can be accomplished my friend...:-)

RonThere is one point to make. ES make exceptional aircraft and many are made specifically for FSX SP2. I find with most of the ES aircraft that I get a performance hit due to their complexity in what they bring to the sim. (Nothing that stops me flying and that complexity adds to the "realism". Some other manufacturers SP2 models have little impact on performance and some have a huge impact). So will the hardware or the code ever catch up?But the worst thing for me is that now 2 years since the inception of FSX, ES still recommends that you DO NOT start FSX with one of their aircraft and certainly not in 3D mode. With modern design in a modern program like FSX, why do we have to jump through this type of hoop just to get a plane to load? This doesn't stop me buying ES planes, but I do wonder why it is necessary? This to me is like having start Photoshop Elements before I can then open and run the full Photoshop program.We (the consumer) also get the pundits telling us that FSX will run adequately with newer hardware which is getting ever "faster" and more complex). But you have to wonder what type of machines FSX was developed on, as I'm positive there were very few quad core 45nm 16MB cache (and "stable" VISTA) PCs available when FSX was developed. Further, compared to today's video cards the ones availalbe to the FSx development team must have been positively neanderthal. I bet that there were no SATAII at that time either. Is the coding of FSX really designed to run on these ultrafast modern PCs and video cards? What about PhysX?I do not mean any disrespect in this post as I consider that ES make some of the best addons for FS9 and FSX. To me FSX is a great simulator and I'm sure that it has a positive future if only it didn't need large amounts of TLC to get it to perform like we want it to- All sliders full right.Have we really tamed the beast or does the matador still have a lot of bleeding to do?Peter HayesFSX exclusive user

>But the worst thing for me is that now 2 years since the>inception of FSX, ES still recommends that you DO NOT start>FSX with one of their aircraft and certainly not in 3D mode. >With modern design in a modern program like FSX, why do we>have to jump through this type of hoop just to get a plane to>load? Peter, first of all this step isn't always necessary, but......it is considered a good practice, nevertheless.It actually has very little to do with any specific addon product, but more the way that FS9 and FSX store certain state data parameters while switching aircraft.Certain state data parameters are only stored by FS with the "default flight" and are simply loaded from that file exclusively, irrespective of which a/c you actually load at any given time.If the user does NOT have an FS default a/c (such as the C172, Lear 45, etc.) as their saved, "default flight," then it is entirely possible that incorrect parameter data is also stored that deviates from the known baseline, default initialization state.

Hi Peter.We'll try to answer without being technical...Performance hit generally comes in two flavors.1. Model/Texture Complexity2. Avionics ComplexityThe advantage we all gain with so called "true" FSX models is found in LOW DRAW CALLS and .DDS Texture sets. This is what I was encouraging others about in our example. If you own our C400, SR22 Turbo, or Twin Comanche you've already experienced this in FSX and will soon in the rest of the Cirrus Series.The question of loading in 2D Cockpit is something that we've all had to deal with because all previous versions required the default 172 in 2D View in order to initlialize the sim. That is why a majority of vendors recommended loading complex addons AFTER a default 172.FSX is not as sensitive to this issue but developers still recommend this step as it does eliminate potential issues with complex avionics.We develop on very modest systems by todays standards simply because we can evaluate performance gains as we test new products.As far as we are concerned we've now reached a two year goal of rebuilding all of our current FSX products to the highest known standard.We do have a few scars and scabs left over but the healing continues and we see the progress as a benefit to customers like yourself. Hope this helps:-)

Ron & BillThanks for the explanations. This type of response shows why ES is such a successful enterprise. I guess that I find that one of the "frustrations" in FSX is that it has these foibles that you need to feed in order to get into the air.Following what both of you have said I have just opened every ES plane that I have (in VC mode) directly in FSX (and I do realise re:initialisation of some options) and they all opened without incident. Even the invcredibly beautiful and complex CX.Ron I do believe that you have always achieved high standards - I never doubted it.Ulterior motive:I'm just waiting for a coupon for that latest FSX turbo!!However, I still ask the question is the code written for FSX capable of utilising the power of modern cpu's, and video cards?RegardsPeter Hayes