Grahame Myers 0 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 After waiting all this time for the FSX release of the DA Cheyenne (I have the FS9 version, and loved it as I had FS9 installed), imagine my amazment and dissapointment as I read that it won't run without SP2 :cry: I bought Acceleration as soon as it was released, and tried to get it working for over two weeks before I gave up on it. In itself it ran great, but it also broke a lot of stuff I already had installed, including a lot of addons that were sold as being FSX compatible, and indeed were, at any rate with FSXSP1. I decided that, summa summarum, Acceleration/SP2 was more hassle than it was worth, so I de-installed it again. In the meantime, other developers have shown that it's possible to code addons that work perfectly in SP1 or SP2 (Flight1's PC-12 or ESDG's Twinkie for instance), so what's the idea behind coding the Cheyenne so that it'll only run with SP2? I can't believe that it wasn't possible to code it so that it'll run without SP2, if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'm listening Apart from my personal disapointment, do DA realize that they've probably shot themselves in the foot with this one? There are a lot of people not running SP2 due to various reasons (who actually needs it anyway, it breaks more things than it fixes, and the DX10 "preview" is just another bad joke from Microsoft), and I can't believe anybody is going to install SP2 just for the Cheyenne, and kiss all their other addons goodbye... To say I'm pi**ed off about this is the understatment of the year, and as far as I'm aware, it just wasn't nessasary at all, which makes it even worse. I'd be interested to hear what Hans Hartmann and the other guys at DA have to say about this, if they even answer at all.... Regards Grahame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Hartmann [OLD] 1419 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Because of a few things we used that didn't work properly in SP1. I'm sorry I have to say that but neither the PC-12 nor the Twin Comanche are even close to the Cheyenne's system complexity. We could've made it compatible with SP1 but that would have meant to dumb several things down so we decided against compatibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Myers 0 Posted December 25, 2007 Author Share Posted December 25, 2007 Hans Thanks for answering me, and explaining the problem. If that's really true, it's a shame indeed. What I said about SP2 breaking more things than it fixed seems to be true, MS and Aces have really screwed up big time on this one. This is a bad thing in more ways than one: Everytime something like this happens, it further divides and sub-divides the FSX user-base, which is bad for everyone: The users, the developers, multi-player users etc. I guess I'll be forced into installing SP2 at some point, as I'll also be forced into using Vista as well. I'd buy the Cheyenne in a heartbeat, if it didn't mean that I then wouldn't be able to use my FSD Porter, or the F1 Cessna 441, MAAM DC-3 or indeed a whole lot of other stuff that run with SP1, but broken with SP2. And you have to take into account that they're all addons that I bought as advertised as being FSX compatible, somehow as a user I feel a bit "verarscht" as they say in German :-) Nevertheless, have a nice rest Christmas, and a good new year Regards Grahame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Hartmann [OLD] 1419 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 It's actually true that SP2 breaks a lot of "old" things (including the visual models of our Do-27 and Katana and "my" Flight1 ATR), so I know what you're saying. However, it also fixes quite problems. The trouble is that all of the aircraft you mentioned (plus Do-27, Katana and ATR) were released before SP2. I'm pretty sure that these will get updated for SP2 sooner or later (hopefully sooner). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private-Cowboy 3 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Because of a few things we used that didn't work properly in SP1. I'm sorry I have to say that but neither the PC-12 nor the Twin Comanche are even close to the Cheyenne's system complexity. We could've made it compatible with SP1 but that would have meant to dumb several things down so we decided against compatibility. I'm not sure if you've intended to do so but your statement sounds incredibly arrogant. Neither the PC-12 nor the Twin Comanche are "even close" to the complexity of you're creation? Common, there may be a slight difference but I highly doubt you've invested enough time and flew the other addons to make a judgement here. Such a "bold" statement about planes from other authers is ignorant, arrogant and unfair. :roll: I've never read the authers from the PC-12 nor Eaglesoft say something this discrespectful about the creations of other authors. This is just weak... :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Hello What has SP2 broken on the mentioned aircraft for wich there isn´t a fix. I have installed SP2. I own the Do-27, Maamsim DC-3 and the ATR 72-500 and the work flawless with SP2. I have downloaded fixes for the windows on the Do-27 and DC-3. Wothan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwolb 0 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Problem that I am having with the DA Cheyenne is the complextity. I get terrible frame rates, and it crashes FSX when trying to load in different variant. I also get a message about FMC error loading a txt file. I also noticed the same type of strange flickering in the VC on some models at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 What SP2/Acceleration does is require a more "true FSX" product by the SDKs. This is why the FS2004 portovers don't work as well in SP2/Acceleration. Personally, I don't have a problem with this since I hate portovers anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 27, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted December 27, 2007 I'm not sure if you've intended to do so but your statement sounds incredibly arrogant. Neither the PC-12 nor the Twin Comanche are "even close" to the complexity of you're creation? Common, there may be a slight difference but I highly doubt you've invested enough time and flew the other addons to make a judgement here. Such a "bold" statement about planes from other authers is ignorant, arrogant and unfair. :roll: I've never read the authers from the PC-12 nor Eaglesoft say something this discrespectful about the creations of other authors. This is just weak... :evil: You read more into the remark then there is. It's not a judgment, it's just stating a fact. If I say that that the default 747 is not even close to the complexity of the PMDG 747, would you give the same comment? The PC-12 and the Twin Commanche are fine products on their own, but the DA Cheyenne is just a whole lot more complex in systems. On SP2. No matter how we feel about SP2, it is the official patch from MS and most customers we have will install it. So it is something we have to live with. And as we have to we better use the options it gives. It does solve some things after all. The fact some older products are not compatible is something every developer will have to face. Look at it this way, soon the boxed version of FSX will be the SP2 version. It will be the ONLY version for the users who buy that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private-Cowboy 3 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I don't have a problem with SP2 at all, it helped me quite a bit and got me a little more performance. And surely the standard 747 is inferior to the PMDG. The PC-12 is less complex because the computerization in the real PC-12 take a lot of load of the user. The PC-12 in my eyes is not less complex but true to life. The thing it that I don't like such comparisons beeing made where they are not needed. You can praise the complexity of the Cheyenne and the "problem" this brings (SP2 needed for example) without speaking of the PC-12 which is even endorsed by Pilatus themselfes. Matter of fact or not, this just is not needed and not very elegant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Hartmann [OLD] 1419 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 (Flight1's PC-12 or ESDG's Twinkie for instance) That's why the PC-12 and Twin Comanche were mentioned. Nothing else. Just because Grahame used them as an example in his initial question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private-Cowboy 3 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Point taken. But you can either say "Ariel cleans very good" or "Ariel is better than Sunil". I know what I would prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimshot 5 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Point taken. But you can either say "Ariel cleans very good" or "Ariel is better than Sunil". I know what I would prefer. Oh please. Don't turn this into another Ariel vs Sunil flame thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts