Caveat Emptor:FS9 port-overs may reduce your simming experience, Part II

I want to clarify my previous post on FS9 port-overs.

Let me start by saying my blog posts are my opinion and not the Studio's or MS's. As are my posts here. Can we not try to conflate my comments into WW3?

Let me restate where the issue is:

1)FSX content - not a problem.

2)FS9 content that
   a)works in FSX (SP2) - not a problem.

3)FS9 content that
   a) is labeled as such - not a problem

4)FS99 content that:
   a)is labeled as FSX
   b)does not work in FSX
   c)has no content or marketing blurb update.

It is the narrrowly defined case 4 that I am talking to. I am most decidedly not talking to content prior to SP2 and am specifically referring to content that has not adjusted since Acceleration/SP2. It is 7 months since Acceleration and 5 since SP2. That is plenty of time to at least re-label content or make a patch or whatever.

I hope that clarifies for any 3rd party developers who read my comments as talking to them when they are not in case 4, and I apologize if by me not being crystal clear they felt unfairly singled out.

Comments

• Anonymous
  May 01, 2008
  PingBack from http://www.travel-hilarity.com/travel-airline-tickets/?p=1109

• Anonymous
  May 01, 2008
  "It is 7 months since Acceleration and 5 since SP2. That is plenty of time to at least re-label content or make a patch or whatever." A very good point. However, in my local PC retailer they are selling copies of FSX that has not been 'relabelled' for SP2. If MS are unable to recall and repackage their stock I am not sure if anyone else will be doing that. This is the first time I can remember since at least FS98 that an patch for FS has required a change to third party software for that version. Naturally, if MS released a new version of FS and someone was selling their old version as being compatible with the new one when it wasn't then that is unethical. However, if you have updated something in good faith from FS9 to FSX it is probably testing the commercial model for a small dev/publisher to go through the process again half-way through the life cycle. If a dev hasn't patched something they updated from FS9 for SP2 after 7 months it may be "unethical" to go on selling it, but in the real world recalling it from store to repackage it won't happen.

• Anonymous
  May 02, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  May 02, 2008
  FWIW, I understood your intent in the original blog and have been amazed at the reaction at Avsim. As a consumer, I see no problem in verifying my purchase with or without a hex editor. I've found lots of fun stuff through the years by browsing the string table. And I did not take your comments as a slam against legit 3PD's. Vic

• Anonymous
  May 02, 2008
  VG: thanks, support like that goes a long way in what feels like a thankless task.

• Anonymous
  May 02, 2008
  I am not as eloquent as you Phil, but after being burned by 2 different (well known) developers over their claims about airplanes, all I can say is, you can't put lipstick on a pig and call is Judy.

• Anonymous
  May 08, 2008
  In December I created a utility that will scan all installed models in FSX and then reports which tag they have. Search for modelchecker_228390.zip on AVSIM. So how about that FSX Fuel Truck with the MDL8 header :)