PTaylor's WebLog

PingBack from http://www.travel-hilarity.com/travel-airline-tickets/?p=1072

Thanks for explaining this to the 'common' simmer.

I believe the question is a bit more complex though. What does 'for FSX' mean? Does it mean 'a pure FSX model' or 'compatible with FSX'. I think it's pretty much accepted that you can sell something for a system if it's compatible (MS is doing the same, eg Office 2003 is surely sold for Vista?).

Now, the problem is, what do you do if you sell an add-on for a year (pre-SP2) as compatible, and then a patch (SP2) breaks compatibility? Technically, the add-on is still FSX compatible, just not with SP2 installed.

Having said that, add-ons should be labeled as not working correctly with SP2 otherwise it's misleading customers. Some developers/publishers do this and that seems ok to me.

Hi Phil

Sorry to be dense but exactly what "file" should you view with a HEX editor to determine if it is an FS9 or FSX plane?

Thanks

PeterH

Although I agree partly with what you are saying, I also feel that some of your comments are unfair and maybe even a little inflammatory. Chiefly the "Vendors who knowingly resell FS9 aircraft as "FSX" are ethically challenged and you the consumer are being used".

I feel this is a little unfair because when FSX was released and for many months after that, a "warmed over" model from FS2004 could be reworked and made compatible with FSX. Doing this wasn't without effort - fixes for various textures were needed and often new installers were required. The result was an aircraft that worked perfectly well in FSX and was for all intents and purposes - FSX compatible. Then...along comes SP2 and these port overs are suddenly rendered obsolete by the unexpected modification to the FSX code contained in this update. I'm not from the camp that seems to have a slight resentment to the changes made in the update as things have to be kept moving forward but to now turn around and call anyone who released these reworked FS2004 models "ethically challenged" people "using" their customers I feel is a little unfair due to the goalposts being moved midway through the game. What you perhaps should have said is anyone *continuing* to release new products post-SP2 that are FS2004 models ported into FSX but called fully FSX compatible are giving the customer short-shrift.

"Selling something the consumer that is going to cause issues - how is that right?"

I would suggest that it has never been something that Microsoft has lost any sleep over - or any other software manufacturer for that matter. There are very few products I have bought that didn't require a patch and although one can bleat on about testing, it is often the case that problems only arise after release. Updating a good FS2004 product for FSX is often exctly what the emptor wants. Speaking personally, there are a lot of items I enjoyed using in FS2004 and would like them updated to FSX. Once they have been updated I would happily purchase them - as long as they work!

There are 100s of bugs & problems remaining in FSX SP2; In my opion that isn't right. The DX10 patch is such an obvious hit n run hackjob it puzzles me you can point fingers at those that don't use worlds most well planned & brilliantly conceived SDK. Maybe the FSX SDK just isn't good enough??? My money is on that, having the misfortune of using it for 6 months.

I'm not an aircraft designer, but I've found this post a little hypocritical.

i kind of have to agree with runwaypimp here as well.  I dont blame Phil for this in any way but it's kind of like MS showing pictures of a beautiful lake with a mountain in the background and saying this is what FSX is going to look like and then saying opps, we can't really make it look like that after people bought it.