You say SP2 needs testing on its own. Well why not now? Surely 3-4 weeks is enough for beta testing? The release of SP2 could come at the same time as the x-pack. I would like to see Phil's response to this question.

If only there was a place where we could bash Microsoft, Wilco, Captain Sim.. sigh

HugoCampos wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 2:16pm:



mutithread applications are not easy to deal with but in the mindset of starting from scratch, I do think the 64bit market will be much larger at the time of FS11 release. If FS11 is about moving forward, then in my mind 64bit should no longer be considered a low priority and made part of that plan.

x64 is not going to move forward until dev teams take the initiative to do so. Since MSFS has alway been a cutting edge product, I think its time to bring it up to speed with the cutting edge hardware and available OS product.



The perf increase along with the DX10 preview and DX9 fixes were a good trade-off.  The only element I wish they had addressed is alpha-fade. With rebatching the autogen calls I do not know if that will help the POP in/out or not but it is annoying none the less.






Phil, is the reason landing lights, such as landing light 'beams' on the ground, popping in and out at close range part of the alpha-fade issue?

I ask because I also noticed I can not fade FX colors as I did in the past using the alpha code of the Color Start= and Color END= lines of FX files, and, landing/taxi light beams looks very strange because they do not come into view until you are close to the airport and then they POP in. In FS9 those ground beams could be seen miles out. I also notice view rotation/angle (no matter how close I am to the AI plane) may cause ground light beams to pop in and out of the image.

Is this all related to alpha-fade is not functioning in FSX?

I shall rephrase.

Dear Mr. Taylor,

You could you please explain to me the reason(s) to why SP2 is being released before Christmas whilst the x-pack is being released at the end of this month.

Thank you,

on behalf of the people who are not getting the x-pack.

Now, if he is not going to reply, my views are clearly stated, and they seem logical. I have not been "bashing" at anyone in this forum. Forums are for debates/discussions, questions, information.. etc.

ThePilot_Ace wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 3:22pm:



That deserves a response.

A suggestion that its all a marketing ploy and a deception, and, then a suggestion that a bashing area is needed, does not.

I assure you, there are legitimate technical reasons for the delay but I will let Phil address those because I am not aware of details, and, if there are some marketing reasons for an extended delay, I am sure Phil will answer the best he can. He has never come here or any other forum and posted anything but the strait information.


I am sure Phil will respond when he reads your question.


And this forum is not a ‘heated’ debating hall with open comment rules. Good comments, critique and communications are welcome, slanted suggestions and hostile based posts, are not. The fourms are privately owned and operated. They are not a free-for-all ‘free speech’ soapbox.

sounds great! I've been waiting for a nice carrier to play with in FSX for ever and I will definetely be first in line to get Acceleration.

loomex wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 5:33pm:


Only Phil can truly answer that question but I think that it will be compatible. Actually I think that's one of the reasons why FSX-SP2 will only be released after Acceleration: they need to test it to make sure it is compatible in most situations.

Phil's posting has left some of us in the modelling community with anticipation, and, from *my own point of view* dread.

Anticipation because of the new features coming down the pike.

Dread, because suddenly *some* of us will have to either quickly learn new tools, or hope that sufficient information is available for existing tools to be quickly updated.

Loading FS-X Acceleration will deprecate, as I understand it, "older"  models (and esp.  Backwards compatibility is no longer a prime mover (note - I am NOT criticising this move, since I was surprised that FS-X inlcuded as much backward compatibility as it did.)  From a modelling point of view, we will have to specifiy if our content is FS-X SP2 compatible or not.

gmax, right now, appears to be the most viable modelling program, although users are reporting problems using it with VISTA.  3DSMax7/8, while supported by the SDKs, are not openly available... autodesk is now marketing 3DSMax9 which is NOT supported by the SDKs.  *MAYBE* there will be a gmax update for Vista DX10.  FSDS is struggling to keep some sort of compatibility with the current SDKs, but I daresay the developer(s) will need some information from the ACES team as to the workings, formatting, etc., more than the public SDKs provide.

I welcome the additions to FS-X, making it a more robust platform for the user.  My initial reaction to the coming SP2 is that it brings more modelling challenges that may be more difficult for the hobbyist modeller to overcome.  We are already seeing that the "superior" quality models are being created by groups of modellers - and fewer by individuals.  I personally want to see a "niche" for the hobbyist modeller that can still use affordable tools and create content for the enjoyment of others.


Most users look forward to FS-X Acceleration, and SP2....  I am looking forward to SDK SP2  - and how it can be "translated" for the hobbyist modeller to continue providing content.

Phil's blog posst is one that is already generating interesting discussion - here, from a user's point of view, and at the FFDS Designer's Forum from a developers point of view.

NickN wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 1:27pm:


Nick,

I re-read that part a number of times in Phil's blog and I still think he is saying this stuff as a way of "preparing the community" for a more "general" change in the backward compatibility approach they have maintained for a long time.  Maybe TOO long.

It really is not in the best interests of the future of the sim if they can't move significantly forward to many possibilities just because they want to make sure that older stuff will still work.  At some point maybe it is time for a whole new "core" engine driving the next 5-10 years of the sim development.  "One giant leap for simkind".

If that is the trade off for getting really great advances....... the heck with backwards compatibility. 

best,

......................john