Steve Halpern

Pete,If you have the hardware for it, you may enjoy migrating to FSX at some point. If not, you may prefer to stay where you are.My sense is that in some instances, FSX on Vista and DX10 will work very well. It just depends what add-ons you fly, and what your system specs is.There are many hurdles, not just FSX. There is Vista and new required hardware, and DX10, and these all are huge. A lot came to the table all at the same time.I am just saying at some point do not turn away potential enjoyment if you can afford otherwise.

"If the plane works in dx9 with sp2 then i can't understand why it won't work in dx10 with sp2."For whatever reason, the core FSX engine has to render planes rendered under different SDK's differently when using DX10.Many products are done under the FS9 SDK, and many the FSX SDK, and the conversion process is very complicated, and can literally take weeks to accomplish. It is one of those things where you say do you tackle new products, or spend development time for a preview version of DX10 technology.Flight1's position is that some aircraft will be left as-is, and not work under the preview of DX10. Others have already been converted, and any new development project is only under the FSX SDK.I think what I say above is echoed by many developers, both freeware and commercial.

Hi,I usually do not start threads, but I really want to post something. I hope that my tone here is seen as simply frustration, and nothing beyond that or an attack on anyone personally. And this is not to criticize some of the good steps made with SP1 and SP2. But I think this perspective needs to be heard by Microsoft, developers, and in part the public in general (because it will give them a bit of a view of a different side of our business).It had been previously noted to Microsoft that SP2 (that was in Acceleration) causes some older FS9 aircraft in FSX (GMAX versions included) to have solid virtual cockpit windows when it is raining, when viewing from within the VC. This is ONLY in SP2 or Acceleration. It is not a DX10 Preview problem either, and it will occur in FSX on XP with DX9.What I am terribly upset about is now we are certain this has not been fixed in SP2. And because of this error, there is potentially a huge amount of customer and development effort that has to occur. It is more complex than it looks from the outside.1. Customers will use many of their more classic products that worked very well with SP1. CD ROM versions of products have been shipped to distributors, and 10's of thousands of customers have all sorts of similar type products, not just from Flight1, but from many other vendors also.2. Viewing the exterior from within the VC will fail in SP2 when it is raining (on 100's of products, both commercial and freeware).3. The customer will wonder what is wrong and contact support.4. They will have to navigate to a patch. Many customers contact support without looking for a patch in the normal support channels. So now extra staff work has to take place.5. They may have to uninstall ALL their modified aircraft and start over as developers can only issue new textures or fixes for known aircraft livery installations, not liveries they have added. That is unless a universal fix can be issued that addresses the problem as a whole.6. Developers have to build all their setups over again, redo potential master's, and more.7. If you take the FS9 version of the VC rain textures and copy them to FSX, it fixes the problem. So in my view it is something very simple.And the worst part of this is simply the thought that a little attention by someone at Microsoft should, and could have, prevented all the above.Why was this clearly omitted from SP2 when Microsoft was informed of this?Why can't Microsoft reissue SP2, or put out an official fix quickly that will prevent all the above from occurring? Fixing the source is much more appropriate than requiring the world to re-gather and try to fix the 100's of products or downloads affected.Yes, Microsoft may say how long should we support FS9 based GMAX or FSDS2 models? OK. Do not support them in FS11... But do not break them in vanilla DX9-SP2. Do not break them mid-stream in an FS release! In fact, it would be best if you told use you were going to break them so we could plan accordingly. Where is the link to reach the core Aces development programmers? Are our efforts all a moot point?Look at all the freeware guys... do you think they all are going redo their products? With this one omission, you have damaged the depth of addons available for FSX, and thus it damages the Flight Simulator franchise and industry as a whole.Again, why was this ignored by Microsoft? I am very frustrated by this.The opportunity was perfect to fix this with SP2. This may seem like a silly issue, but trust me, it is not. The type of customers we have, and the type of person who downloads aircraft from libraries at Avsim, etc, will see this as a major issue.Yes, Flight1 can fix it for our products, developers can fix it for their products, and customers can fix it for others that do not get the developer attention. But it should not have ever come to this.Again, I am only bringing to light what appears to be a failure in the system in general. I hope that in the end this post is seen as productive, and not just an arbitrary rant.Thanks,

>If in fact FSX is using a engine that has powered many>previous versions...after all the angst of this version, would>it just not make sense to start over with a brand new engine>and screw back compat? This way a fresh start would allow>FS11, 12, 13 to be something totally new? What am I missing?Yes, that is what I am wondering. Maybe it is early enough for Aces and the 3rd parties to work in concert towards a targeted goal for FS11.Now that we are all hopefully past the venting phase, it can all start to make better sense. And I can see some good logic coming to light here.

From reading some of the many posts, there seems to be some unified findings...The state of the add-on industry, whether professional or free.It obviously appears like the industry is somewhat in a mess because of the "moving target" aspect of FSX. On one hand, Microsoft wants to move the franchise forward with new technology, and on the other hand, they do want to accommodate the past add-on base. Mixed with the difficulty of Vista, hardware requirements, etc, we are left in somewhat murky waters. There is less to choose from in the freeware sectors, and development is ultimately slow in the FSX sectors both for professional and freeware titles. And there is a reason for this somewhere in the mix. We all wish Microsoft could be like the smaller "enthusiast" companies.Yes, it would be neat if there was a place where Microsoft (Aces) could have live connection from their programmers to the end user, put out experimental updates, preview "hey, this is neat" items, release updates as needed in real time, and stuff like that. The best they do is to allow FSInsider stuff, as well as blogs like Phil Taylor's. But, there still feels like there is an untouchable canyon between the add-on developers and the core coders at Aces. We wonder where the coders are? Are they in a secret cave somewhere under super security? We know they are close by to a degree, but it really feels like it is tough getting a sense of them. This sense of closer access is something that the corporate structure of Microsoft may prevent. And this structure does limit what the staff that Microsoft puts on the front lines can actually do, even if they really wanted to do something.The above is merely an observation to put out, not saying it can actually change. But an acknowledgement of the above helps set a basis in reality.A well defined technological matrix should be defined.Phil did bring this up and it makes good sense. In fact, a proposed matrix of features could be derived by the 3rd parties, and could be submitted. Aces can then see what we all may really want... such as better access to weather information, or flight plan information. Then, Aces could use this to help define the matrix they can pretty much commit to us on. Then updates in the future would be to improve on the matrix items, not remove from them.Backwards compatibility.It is understood that at some point backwards compatibility needs to be dropped for certain era's of technology. I think it may be painfully voted by many that the FS11 engine should be designed to work as efficient and as fast as possible. This may require abandonment of past code. Thus effort could be put into the best engine, and time is only spent on new, clean technology. But in doing so we will lose partial access to a vast library. Here, any export or conversion tools that can be provided through the mutual effort of Aces and the 3rd parties would be great, and it would potentially lead to a clean/fresh canvas that could last for many years.In summaryIt is very obvious there have been many frustrations from so many sectors of the Flight Simulator X marketplace. There have obviously been some good strides forward, and some disappointing stumbles along the way.Is what we are talking about in this thread going to make a difference? Maybe not, but maybe yes, it could be a start of a better direction.So, would we all vote for a clean slate if it meant that the overall fun factor in this hobby would increase again? I remember back in the DOS days when you had to mess with Autoexec.bat and Config.sys settings on FS5.0a (when I started), and then with FS5.1. The overall "enjoyment factor" then was maybe at its highest for some reason. Then you had FS98 and FS2004 as other standouts in the era where you can say things flowed very well and there was that fun factor. And that is where I think we need to move to... a platform that allows us to really enjoy the sim. When this happens, the rest of the pieces will fall into place.

Ted,To briefly answer...1. Yes, from what I have read this only applies to certain aircraft done with pre FSX codings.2. No.3. Not certain, but pretty sure "yes".4. Not that I have heard. Always backup and you are safe!

Jase's remark I very much agree with:"When you issue a major product or point release, you establish a functional bar for that revision of software. Subsequent updates/patches may improve or build upon that bar but it should not take away functionality. If you want to establish a new bar for FS11, that's peachy, but taking something away (or reinventing it) mid-product cycle is rarely a good development practice for any software venture."That being said (I may sound a bit disjointed below, it has been a long day)...Moving on to FS11, yes, starting a true matrix on what will be compatible, what will not be, all done very much in advance, is what we really do need and it will be a big help for everyone.If FS11 does have to eventually start a new model "DNA", then it may slow things down a bit in terms of many libraries of aircraft becoming incompatible, but then if that "DNA" can then survive to future sims then that is great and one can develop much more cost effectively and have greater longevity in the development effort.My goal for this thread was one of both frustration and hope to get things back into a sense of alignment. Maybe this has been a start.1. If Microsoft sees fit to make any public patch available (even if it is a set of clear textures or the FS9 style textures to optionally install), then that would be very good, even if it is outside SP2. It would definitely provide a buffer that although not being the answer, it would be part of an overall solution that is workable by all parties.2. If there is a public matrix that is put out, that is done in conference with, or in consideration of, associated 3rd parties, then this begins the process of establishing that DNA that can last a long time. The HTML code format for example has changed over the years, but HTML 10 years ago for the most part still works today with not too much work needing to be done. If that type of standard can be established again with less forks in the road, then in time it will foster a new effort towards the new matrix (standard) and the library will become huge again.3. With a full and clear understanding, the development world can start to migrate technology over... maybe exporters and converters can be made that will help take advantage of what is likely the biggest library of product addon code in the world. I can't think of any computer "game" that has as much a library of content that can be utilized. In fact, as Jim Rhoads mentioned, converters or exporters that help move to a new format could be HUGE towards boosting the potential user and library base. It would help keep vitality in this industry.4. We are all stuck in a thick soup of everything now. Vista for one with User Account Control and other security issues that block the traditional user experience... high hardware requirements, PC's that require liquid nitrogen cooling :-), all limit what the end user can withstand. Then, from the professional developer point of view, there is much more competition for the simming dollar, development expenses are higher, the dollar is weak which make it harder for European developers, which cause price increases, which drain everyone even more.So, with all this, and with the added stresses of not feeling like we all have a real voice (developers, end users), it makes for a very testy environment.The busy day allows for complacency to develop (this happens to all of us). We do think that tommorrow we can make a change. But lets ultimately not pretend what the Microsoft/Aces/Developer/End User relationship is. Lets just be more realistic about it and then this hobby can hopefully grow and "free up" from what feels like a clogged mess sometimes.

Phil,I did not mean to imply that you have not been straight with us.In fact, you are providing so much info that is really helping the product along... tweaks, and other information, etc.But this is more than a heads up issue.It is one of something very small (as I see it) being broken, and thus there is a ton of additional work worldwide that will be required, with some add-ons now depreciated mid-stream, when it really did not have to be.So, beyond what you said earlier (I am not arguing with that), one could ask... "Why would Microsoft not address this issue when it would clearly help so many to have fixed this."Maybe you are up against a machine that does not allow you the ability to say "fix this for SP2 or put out a patch for it".There is just a lot of frustration here. Again, I do not think you should have to defend what you said. That is not really the problem.The problem is the inability to really flow with the tide, and take necessary actions when they should be taken.Again, what would the logical reason be behind this issue not being officially addressed by Microsoft?Yes, lets do say beta testers had a chance to report this. OK. It was missed. Our fault maybe. But the inflexability to change could become the real problem that does not allow FSX, or the Flight Simulator franchise, to reach its full potential.

If Vista SP1 was officially released, and all the sudden all red pixels showed as green on the desktop, then I am sure there would be an update release extremely quick... Why? Because the business cause is there to do so.Yes, we are talking about the Titanic and a speedboat (or maybe a raft :-))... but I have always been one to believe if something is right, it is right, and no company, any size, is above doing things in a "right" way.If the business case does not call for it, and if it means some type of ISO certification process that prevents the Aces staff from servicing the product like they wish they truly could, then lets at least put this out in the light and let it be known... so then we can all deal with all this more effectively in the future.And as a side note: No company, no matter how big you are, is above the ability to do things the right way, or differently if they want to.

Hi Ed,"To expect ACES to make SP2 different than the SP2 that's part of Acceleration is unrealistic."Unrealistic from a coding point of view or from a Microsoft infrastructure point of view?As a software developer, we issue patches usually as often as needed. If Microsoft posted a "VC Rain Compatiblity patch", then that would sure help. We could provide it to our customers, and it would be seen as an official fix.We have recompiled service packs and programs and told customers "please redownload it, as we saw a problem in the first upload of it".Why not issue an Acceleration SP1... Or put the rain fix into official SP2 and then have a separate "VC Rain Fix for Acceleration" download.It can be presented in many ways.If it can't be fixed due to a code issue in FSX, then that is one thing. If it is the mechanics of the business that prevents it from being fixed, then at least noting this could help in the future. It would then be a real shame that the enthusiasts that are part of the ACES team, and enthusiasts that are the flying public, are not able to be part of a system that works in such a way that can make the hobby as enjoyable as possible for everyone.It is then that maybe my original post speaks for both "sides", and not just the developers and end users.

fsxmissionguy,I would fairly say that your review is pretty correct for a quick look and report.Of course it is not pure natural language... "Hey Joe, go ahead and lower the gear" would not necessarily work out of the box, unless you wanted it to in the grammer builder. Then it would work.It is a "get to know your copilot" type product. In time, you would get to know the ins and outs of things, what he/she expects, etc...Give it some time, run some checklists, create your own commands, etc.Experiment with microphone position... adjust the gain settings if needed in the control panel, etc, to get better results if obvious things are getting missed.In beta testing, Tom did a flight from Knoxville to Atlanta with maybe 150+ calls and not one was missed. I do not expect that for everyone, but in time it could get close!

Cockpit Chatter is unlike many of our other releases.Aircraft products, scenery products or utilities, and similar are much easer to know quickly. Cockpit Chatter is rather unique in that it does not have a visual feedback system... one needs a bit of time and adaptation to really know what this product is.You may start up Cockpit Chatter, and say "gear down" or something simple, but it goes so much deeper than that. And for some who have already used it, and once they really got to know their copilot, they now never fly without it. But it took a bit of time for them to get there.So it is a gradual experience, and the adaptation time for each pilot may be faster or slower, depending on many factors. But you can get a "this is neat" impact right away. However it is the longer term use of it which we feel is going to have the biggest effect.In the mean time, to kind of explain more of what I mention above, see these 2 posts...Manual Excerpts - Grammar Scriptinghttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=23965Over 5000 different speech commands...http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=23969Give it a little time, and you should get some feedback. This is just a very different type product.

21FC is a corrupted download or from a bad memory stick. Usually the first one... but for me one time it was a memory stick.

If you go to this thread, you can see the huge difference proper video card settings can make... And I am not even sure if I have max clarity on my system...3.2 GHZ1GB RAM512 AGP nVidia 7600.http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=23571

It could be a permissions issue also. We found that in beta testing, especially in Vista.You can install it anywhere, including a root drive because it all goes into a Ground Environment X subfolder that is created.The best thing would be to right click and always run as Administrator (if you are having any problems). And of course, always check to see if any security application or Data Execution Protection is causing problems.

In order to get some of the high-resolution effects, see the following settings I have...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180923.jpgIf you get blurries, this may help.

Turn off the Encasement option in Ultimate Terrain X if you are using it...Post that picture at SimForums also so Anthony knows about it (but he is already aware of the UTX Encasement setting).

Turn off the encasement option in Ultimate Terrain X. That will solve this issue.Anthony is looking at this now and will have an update hopefully shortly.

Here are a couple pics. Do note that I believe this is the default landclass.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180880.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180881.jpg

Or, use the zip file option to the right of the link.

FSX is an emerging marketplace, where FS9 was wider adopted after this point in the sales cycle.Where a product would spike fast in FS9, there sales curve is more flat in FSX, but a bit more steady... This means that for sure FSX has users "stuck" in a way. Then need hefty hardware primarily. And has the hefty hardware becomes the norm, FSX adoption will proceed forward.Vista has also likely been a problem. I do not think some users want to switch because they are so comfortable with XP.

Actually, it uses the same CPU's as FSX... So actually you would be safe. But to get more of what we "advertise" in the pics, you would need more power.It is essentially no risk anyway because we have our 30 day return policy.

A quick note...We can arrange for a PayPal transaction through our ticket system.We also hope to have more expanded PayPal features in the near future also.

One reason why Alaska was not included:Alaska is a very unique area. So special effort is being put in to Alaska with unique features, and extreme detail. The development methods for Alaska are similar, but some great things will be in the Alaska version.

Yes, it should work fine in Vista.However, we can't always say 100% that it will work in Vista without some work on the Vista users part.Vista is so restrictive, and with other Vista services (such as Defender and User Account Control) as well as virus scanners, and 3rd party Internet secruity and firewalls all causing potential interference, we can't guarantee a trouble-free install on all Vista systems. The user may have to go to some extra effort to get some software to run.So far so good though on this product, and if we see continued success, we will likely change that text to say Vista Compatible!However, notes at http://www.flight1.com/view.asp?page=vista always apply.