FSX Acceleration vs (native) SP2

[tstiegler 0]

Hi,Up until today I thought that Acceleration and SP2 are somewhat the same, at least regarding FSX core functionality. But now I've read that there are substantial differences but could not find any detailed explanation where they are. Could someone please explain where the differences between Acceleration and SP2 are (besides additional a/c and missions). I'm particularly interested in (graphics) preformace related differences.

[Guest firehawk44]

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...on-and-sp2.aspxJim

[rcbarend 37]

In short: functionally, the SP2-part included in Accelleration is exactly the same as the free, downloadable SP2 update.However, since RTM+SP1+SP2 and RTM+SP1+Acceleration result in different code packages, nobody can guarantee that the behaviour of SP2-part in both packages will be exactly the same on any PC.It would be the same as claiming that a SW package is bug-free.And as any SW developper will tell you, NO SW package is bugfree if you dig deep enough.The latter might explain the (unintentional) "substantial differences" you read about. Whatever they are (real and/or just user-perception).Regards, Rob

[Guest JIMJAM]

One example is the Xtreme prototypes x-15 package.No matter how closely I followed the procedures, I couldnt go any higher than 80-100 grand and over mach 1.Buried in the small print I found out that Acceleration "changed the atmosphere" and thus in order to acheive 400,000 and mach 4 plus like the real x-15, Accel needed to be removed.I thought to myself yeah right.However, after removing Acceleration, I was quickly flying the x-15 in space.Removing Accel also cleared up alot of bugs and scenery/graphics issues in my case.As tey all say YMMV.

[tstiegler 0]

Thanks. As from what I understand from your explanations there is no real difference apart from some very individual issues.