FSX-SP2(DX10) delay factors
This has come up multiple times, including in the comments of the SP2 post, so I want to cover why there is a time delay from when Acceleration will be available and until the download for SP2 will be availble.
Yes, there is a reason for the delay, even if bits for SP2 are done.
Just because Acceleration English RTM'ed and the bits are frozen does not mean they are ready to release. Since Acceleration and SP2 are separate products; that means completely separate efforts are required for setup, test, and international release efforts.
Now that we RTM'ed English Acceleration, we are not done since we ship in 8 languages, English+7 more. So we still have to get thru those for Acceleration before we can even get onto SP2. And we have 1 Test and Release team, so the Localization, Test, and Release activities are not fully parallelizable activities.
So once we get thru the International releases, we can then focus on SP2. We have to finish setup for SP2 and its associated SDK. And we have a single setup dev. So with Acceleration that is 4 setups our single setup developer has had to create for this fall. So that activity is not parallelizable at all.
And then we have international for SP2 all over again.
Our setup, test, and international teams are busy, very busy, and will be for a while.
So there is a reason for the delay. It is not as easy as it appears from the outside. You could argue we should have done SP2 first, but that is not realistic if you think about it. And do note, by putting SP2 into Acceleration we got additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in Acceleration would actually delay SP2 even more since a larger test pass would be required.
Comments
Anonymous
October 10, 2007
PingBack from http://www.artofbam.com/wordpress/?p=6898Anonymous
October 10, 2007
but ofcourse there was a delay since last year, imagine all that circus just to release a bloated product without any creativity. I hope W.Gates is reads this blog :) haha j/kAnonymous
October 10, 2007
So, people that are getting Acceleration are testing SP2, not sure I like the sound of that!Anonymous
October 10, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 10, 2007
Ian: Acceleration will have the final version of SP2. There will be no need for the free download.Anonymous
October 10, 2007
I read that when your sentences are summarized, there is only an excuse to which the SP2 will be delayed for the Acceleration. My reading was a mistake? Japanese gold package have a description which FSX readied to Dx10. I already paid for it. But I haven't had it yet. Why? I believe that you will go to the honest work for your duty with along natural order. I think that only the Acceleration will be a nice Christmas present for all FS enthusiasts. Don't you think so?Anonymous
October 10, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 10, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 10, 2007
Thanks Phil for your reply. I really appreciate your comments. And thanks again for the wonderful work on FSX so far by you and your wonderful team. My apologies again. Just a question. I know its too early to talk about FS11, its features, timeline etc, but I know the team has started working on it like part-time. In this very beginning stage of FS11, do you have a general vision or concept of FS11? I would be thankful if you could share some general areas being considered by the team. I know its too early, but I'm talking about the general idea and vision, not anything specific. I was also wondering if FS has the general cycle of a new release every 2 to 3 years, like before. Or is it possible that we see FS11 as late as a new version of windows? Thanks Phil,Anonymous
October 10, 2007
Ya Phil, could you please answer stevecole555 question - it would be cool if you guys would be open to what you are thinking about in terms of fs11 (if at all possible?). And I to just want to thank you greatly for the work done with SP2. I bet when Acceleration hit's the shelf FSX is finaly going to take off like Wild Fire - we are finaly going to see the true glory of it's possiblities (in terms of new add-on and performace).Anonymous
October 11, 2007
joeysipos, what is the point of Phil giving us any idea of what FS11 is going to be like when it is highly likely that, in a similar manner to FSX, Phil will not be able to guarantee any content or features that he might highlight. ArchCarrierAnonymous
October 11, 2007
I think there might be some more angst yet, before people move onAnonymous
October 11, 2007
In context, I think all this represents is that FSX did not meet most people expectations. SP1 helped a long way to meet them, but people were/are expecting a major leap with SP2. The fact that Phil has now reported that the SP2 leap will not be as wide as expected and no further patches will be likely that undoubtedly leads to frustration and "angst". ArchCarrierAnonymous
October 11, 2007
ArchCarrier, As long as he continually states that there is no guarantee about anything he talks about (in terms of fs11) will make it into fs11 - he should be fine. I’m just a little curious to what they are thinking. But ya. I think it’s too early to discuss fSll so I’ll try not to bother Phil to much.Anonymous
October 11, 2007
Phil, Can you kindly answer the following question: When you're talking about DX10 performance improvements, did you guys compare it vs DX9 on a Vista machine? Did you do any benchmarks of DX9 on XP vs DX10 on Vista, and if so, what are the results. Thanks!Anonymous
October 11, 2007
Toly: we benchmarked same OS to same OS, we feel it doesnt make sense otherwise for our app; and its someone else's business to compare the 2 OS's. plus there are plenty of benchmarks showing that as the drivers have matured there is no almost no difference as opposed to the 20-30% difference that used to exist.Anonymous
October 11, 2007
General response: its way, way, way too early to start talking FS11. we need to get much further down the pike internally before any external communication can happen. Trains is next anyways.Anonymous
October 11, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 11, 2007
It might feel like replying for Phil, but I would like to point out: Phil or his team would not comment on future product, even if they wanted to. Because any comment however honest, would be highly inaccurate and therefore risky and with no real value. Concerning the SP2 "test coverage" - when Acceleration is released it will include SP2, with all new features and fixes, but it does not mean there could not be any bugs. There should not, but if they anticipate that a lot of hard fans will go for Acceleration, it will indeed provide wide test field for both - Acceleration and SP2. I believe though, this "test coverage" is not a reason for having SP2 in Acceleration, but consequence. So, I would say, if there will be some serious issue in SP2 in Acceleration, they will fix it in separate SP2 (simply to make their life and life of users easier), but they will not change SP2, or "improve it". Now, Phil, correct me, if I am wrong ;-).Anonymous
October 11, 2007
Risa: There will be no additional fixes in SP2; what is in Acceleration is what is in SP2.Anonymous
October 11, 2007
I bought a new car with specifications stating that top speed is 100mph and it works with hybrid fuel. It goes at 30mph and uses unleaded fuel. The salesman says don't worry we're working on an engine upgrade that will make it go at 60mph. I ask about hybrid fuel and 100mph and he says that will come in a later engine upgrade. After six months the first engine upgrade becomes available and my car now goes at 50mph. A further six months later the second engine upgrade is available, but it only allows me to use a lower quality grade of hybrid fuel which gives me poorer mpg and my car now runs at 90mph. The salesmen says I can have it immediately if I pay for an unnecessary upgrade to my car which I don't want. Otherwise I will have to wait a further two months before they will do the upgrade for free. Finally the salesman tells me that my car is obsolete and that no further engine upgrades will be available and I should buy the new model which will be available in 2010. I ask about specifications for the new model, but he says they cannot provide a specification as they haven't decided on them yet. I never buy a car from them again. ArchCarrierAnonymous
October 11, 2007
ArchCarrier: You hit the point, illustrating exactly what I have been feeling with every MSFS version since FS5 !! I would like to add a bit: ... and since the salesman is unfortunately the only one selling the car I want, in order not to paying him again for his semi-product, I will take a "cracked" car from my torrent-friend for testing purposes until the salesman finally delivers the promissed upgrades/features. If it ever happens, only then I will buy a finalized product from him and pay for it. SinpoAnonymous
October 12, 2007
Sorry Phil you've lost us... Acceleration with SP2 contains the final SP2 and there will be no additional fixes included in the stand alone SP2 release? Does this mean that with the delayed release of SP2 should a bug be found that wasn't picked up in Acceleration testing, does this mean it won't be fixed? If not then, wot iz the point of "testing" SP2 for stand alone release? The DX10 (artistic impression) screenshots were "targets" for the Vista™ Operating System - FSX showcase.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
Jazzselect: It should be obvious that by having the SP2 fixes in Acceleration that any testing of Acceleration tests those fixes. We do have to do some re-testing in the separate SP2 binaries, but we already know the fixes work. If we hadnt already tested the fixes, then the SP2 test pass would be larger and take more time.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
Sinpo: theft is never an acceptable solution. never.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 12, 2007
Yea, whats up with the message about the "cracked" copy. I know there are things that would be nice in the software, and that its never the way you want it, or would like to see different things in it, but to steal it simply because you don't think its 100% they way you want it? yikes. I can see it now, I stole the car because I did not like the color, and since I did not like the color it did not feel I had to pay for it.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
good example ArchCarrier. this was exactly my point in my long post above about dx10 features. I and many other fans bought Vista costing $399 just coz we were told in presentations, in interviews, in showcases and in the "artist impression" screenshots that FSX will take full advantage of visual features of vista and dx10. i'm one of few fans who closely followed the progress of FSX long before even vista launched. if we were told in the beginning that the actual purpose of SP2 or a dx10 update is mainly increase in performance and its just a "dx10 preview", then some fans would have a different decision on spending thier hard earned money on vista. I don need the bells n whistles of vista and im perfectly fine with running FSX on xp, instead of spending 399 for 20% performance increase. But Phil and his team are amazing n working hard and they found themselves in an odd situation. i really appreciate thier work. and i think FSX is a masterpiece anyways and we'll have fun playing it well before a future version. however, well lol, if u r the monopoly in a car market, it's fair to use your powers sometimes, no matter how it affects the consumers. it was a lesson..well learned in both sides...Microsoft...and FSX fans.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
Gwolb: ...you missed the point with a "car" - 1.it is not about "what I WANT", but about "what a manufacturer PROMISSED to deliver and what HE REALLY delivered". 2.if you borrowed a car from your friend to test it before buying, does it mean you stole the car from manufacturer ? Of course not! Why you should buy it for just to see if it is really made as marketing promissed? But, you are right, we are all programmed to understand borrowing the things among friends as a criminal. (fortunately, only in software+music+video world)Anonymous
October 13, 2007
Phil: the same comment as to gwolb: (offtopic I know, but I cannot close my mouth :)) Borrowing the things among friends just for testing before buying you would never define as a theft in any other field of life (but with software/music/video you do,of course). Btw, why M$F$ is not distributed as shareware - pay after testing ??? Then nobody would need a friend for testing. (for your info, I bought all my FS copies, despite of previous disapointments, contributing a bit to ACES salaries as well :))Anonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
Dunno there NickN, you see with the car analogy... there is true, the car thie but there is also the demonstrator model for evaluation, there is also provision that should want to lend thier new car to friend, this is all quite ok and above board. Add to this there are good car makers and some that leave a lot to be desired. There is also with new car sales... legal action that can be brought on by false advertising and also the frowned upon lemon clause in sales contracts, as well as warranty. Sadly these do not apply to software as it should and at least in Australia it is illegal to return software in opened packaging.Anonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
I got over it already and bought Xplane 8.Anonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
"If you went out, mortgaged and spent the money building a new garage because a car manufacture placed advertising on the market about a product you would get in parts over a year, to find out later you did not get everything you wanted, that’s your fault." err NickN, that is the epitomy in the car industry of ripped off. Is your rig running with Light Bloom on and Ground Shadows? Maybe you could share your specsAnonymous
October 14, 2007
Let me illustrate it with a better example. You go to pizza and see the menu. You read: Large pizza with 4 toppings - mushrooms, green pepper, onions and green olives. price - $49.99 - The guy also shows off a sample slice and says that's what the final pizza will look like and taste. You order this pizza and the guy brings the pizza for u. When u open it u see theres just 2 toppings and u ask "where's the mushrooms and onions?" The guy says "sorry we don have mushrooms and onions - but here is a can of coke instead...sorry there will be no mushrooms and onions until u order ur next pizza" How does it feel huh?Anonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
Phil Taylor wrote: "...we benchmarked same OS to same OS, we feel it doesnt make sense otherwise for our app; and its someone else's business to compare the 2 OS's..." I know why you don't show us a benchmark between WinXP and Vista! Because VISTA is very slow than WinXP as we can see on TomsHardware review: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html Vista run all 3D games with poor performance, between -2% and -30% lower than WinXP, as you can see on link above. One point is true: Microsoft do a slow game and now is trying convince us a buy ACCELERATION PACK... Next step is: SP2 have optmizations to DirectX10, so buy Win VISTA too. To Microsoft "business is business", and win money including yours patchs (I don't believe that you prefer available a "xpansion package" before a "patch"!) Sorry, but I'm tired to listening "sorry" and expend more and more money to fix Microsoft problems! When I buy MS Flight Simulator X, I need upgrade my machine, now I have Intel Core2 Duo E6750, 2Gb PC6400, Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo, 250Gb HDD Seagate SATA2, NVidia 8800GTS and I run MS FSX with only 12 FPS over Sao Paulo Congonhas Airport (SBSP), that have a "undetailled" scenary! Regards, RenatoAnonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 15, 2007
Hi Phil, Is my understanding correct that an SDK update comes with the SP2 download and not with acceleration? Any place to find hints on what SDK changes are coming, particularly in relation to SimConnect?Anonymous
October 15, 2007
Flying-W: there is an SDK for both Acceleration and SP2. unfortunately I dont have the bandwidth to gather any data on what has changed.Anonymous
October 19, 2007
FS 11 artist's concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrvLGpWg8UE i guess...Anonymous
October 19, 2007
NickyN, how can you design a software for hardware that does not exist?Anonymous
October 20, 2007
Hi. Could you tell Japanes customers whether the Acceleration pack can be installed in FSX-JP?Anonymous
October 20, 2007
Hi, Acceleration Pack have this name because it really accelerate something or because have some racer aircrafts and Red Bull Air Racer? Regards, RenatoAnonymous
October 21, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2007
To keep with the car analogy, it seems to me that the cool DX10 screenshots that were released are the equivalent of a car company's concept car. GM has had a hydrogen-fuel concept car in the works for several years now which looks really cool, but I'm not going to go spend $$$ remodeling my garage and installing a hydrogen tank until some version of that car becomes a reality at a price that I can afford. I think that cool DX10 screenshots were even labeled as being an artist's concept of what could be done with DX10. While I'm disappointed that FSX couldn't push the boundaries as much as the screenshots implied, I do understand that in the real world things are never as easy as programmers would like them to be. Hats off to Phil and his team for producing some amazing software!Anonymous
October 22, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2007
Quote by Phil Taylor: "2) We are not promising runtime backwards compatibility in the current DX10 code path now or in the future. This is for two reasons: a)The first is to send a message that we are going to change the backwards compatibility story moving forwards. b)The second is practical, in that continuing to provide the backwards compatibility we do is a huge drag on forward progress... (continued)"
First of all Phil, thank you for taking the time to put together this great blog site. I can't thank you enough for providing this outlet for news and information which comes directly from the ACES staff itself. It's truly invaluable information, and this site is testament as to how far the franchise has moved forward in recent years. Thank you. Moving forward. This is a topic you touched upon in your 2 Oct. 2007 posting referenced above, and one I'd like to get your opinion of if you have a few moments to respond. Having no other information than what is gleaned online and in sites such as this one, I am curious as to the design framework or foundation of the MSFS franchise. I may be over simplifying or generalizing here, but if I understand correctly, hasn't the past versions of MSFS been built upon the same "framework" or "engine" from one iteration to the next? And if this is the case, it would seem logical to me that some of the design elements may have progressed from outdated source or coding (or whatever it may be) to become the simulation that we have today, thus "fixing" or "upgrading" from one iteration to the next. Again... I'm no expert here, but this seems to be the general feeling in the community from what I've read through the years, and might appear to be the basis for the general frustration shown here lately toward recent updates. If this is the case in whatever design element within MSFS, then what are your views for the future of the MSFS franchise? Do you feel that it's time to build "from the ground up" an all new MS Flight Simulator that would streamline new framework which would allow the sim to move on into the next century and beyond, thus "moving forward" from past backward compatibility issues altogether? Yes, this might step on many toes to begin with, however, do you not feel that it is time to begin this process and build something truly remarkable in the next three to five years? Also, I'm not asking you to speak for all of the team members involved, but what is the general concensus to this type of speculation, and if so, has this subject been broached in the past? Or perhaps you may already be heading in this direction? I would really enjoy seeing the state of the art in design efficiency implemented in future iterations of MSFS. Thank you again for your gracious support (not to mention your firefighting skills!), and I hope you might take a moment or two to elaborate on this subject for us. Kevin S.
Anonymous
October 22, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2007
Thank you Nick; I appreciate your insight.Anonymous
October 25, 2007
can you give us a rough idea when would sp2 be out? is it days away or weeks?Anonymous
October 26, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 31, 2007
Phil, Would you kindly be able to elucidate/expand upon the SP2 8-core bug fix, and in the meantime suggest an affinity mask or other optimizations for 8-cores on SP1? With FSX SP1 running on a Dell Precision 690 workstation: dual Xeon 3GHz 4 core processors, 4GB RAM, XP Pro SP2, eVGA 8800GTX, I have tried affinity masks of 238, 254 and 255. 254 Appears to work best for maximizing 8-core utilization, but does not seem to translate into higher FPS.