Is FS 11 Dead

[paulyg123 135]

I heard that Microsoft was not supporting Flight Simulator anymore and there would be no new releases. I can't get any more info on this anywhere. Can anyone confirm this. I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years.

[Guest StarTux]

I heard that Microsoft was not supporting Flight Simulator anymore and there would be no new releases. I can't get any more info on this anywhere. Can anyone confirm this. I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years.

This is the best source that I know of:FSinsider newsReading that seems to leave the door open to something, under Games for Windows Live, but until we hear of something substantial from a reliable source anything would be speculation imho.Matt

[Bob Scott 7,725]

I heard that Microsoft was not supporting Flight Simulator anymore and there would be no new releases. I can't get any more info on this anywhere. Can anyone confirm this. I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years.

They are supporting what's out there (such as MS support ever is), but the ACES development team was disbanded.Do a forum search for ACES here.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

[btacon 1,823]

I heard that Microsoft was not supporting Flight Simulator anymore and there would be no new releases. I can't get any more info on this anywhere. Can anyone confirm this. I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years.

Yes...for now. Who knows?Duke Nukem is dead tho...deadr' n' a doornail. (sigh...)Cheers,bt

[Clutch Cargo 384]

"I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years. "Actually, I think it could. I'm still using FS2004 (which came out in 2003), so we're closing in on seven years now with that. I can easily see me using it for three more years. :(

[frankla 44]

"I love FSX, but it woun'ty sustain us for the next 10 years. "Actually, I think it could. I'm still using FS2004 (which came out in 2003), so we're closing in on seven years now with that. I can easily see me using it for three more years. :(

You are using FS9, but I personally can not go back to FS2004. I already know how to fly. So my reason is not to take off and land. The scenery is why I fly and FS2004 and it doesn't stand up to FSX in that department. The view in FSX is just much beter. Yet there are few things that bug the S*** out of me in FSX which can't be fixed by 3rd parties and we are stuck with. They are:1)Autogen Pop which kills the immersion for me and the team didn't have time to fix it for SP1.2)Stupid snow and rain effects that are known as javelines3)lack of multiprocessor support other than for texture loading4)lack of multi gpu support5)sunny environment even when overcast. The environment simply doesn't get darker with clouds. Overall, Lighting effects are still not on par with what they can do today.6)I am yet to crash an airplane in FS, even when I fly thru thunderstorms, single pilot IFR in nasty weather, etc. Somehow, I wonder why is it that the virtual pilot in FS is so much safer than a real pilot is. 7)Real over casts that can not be seen thru and that you can't see blue skys in the horizon.

[Guest kinetic]

E3 game conference was earlier this week. Anyone know if MS said anything about the future of FS there? I watched their conference but they only talked about xbox360 there.----Kinetic

[sipos 0]

Yes, FS11 is dead in the water and there will most likely not be another branded "Microsoft Flight Simulator". Don't give all your hopes up though because I know there is a slight glimmer of hope for the fs fans :) Might not exactly be FS but there is talk of another "Flying game" in the works at MS. What this title may be is far from known at this point and we won't know for a while. For all I know it could be a flying elephant game. We will just have to wait and see. We shouldn't let our hopes down though.

[n4gix 4,948]

Paul Lange posted on Facebook earlier today that he and the team are meeting with MGS tomorrow to discuss what's been mapped out so far and get feedback from them on some "niggly details" that need to be "ironed out..." :(

[sipos 0]

Paul Lange posted on Facebook earlier today that he and the team are meeting with MGS tomorrow to discuss what's been mapped out so far and get feedback from them on some "niggly details" that need to be "ironed out..." :(

Haha Bill, yea, i just saw that, lol!

[edemeijer 19]

I was also disappointed to hear the ACES studio closed. I am flying both FS9 and FSX, but due to hardware and a lack of scenery and planes mostly using FS9.At the Aerosoft forums Aerosoft states it is investigating a new Flight Simulator. More info on it here.

[red1 0]

You are using FS9, but I personally can not go back to FS2004. I already know how to fly. So my reason is not to take off and land. The scenery is why I fly and FS2004 and it doesn't stand up to FSX in that department. The view in FSX is just much beter. Yet there are few things that bug the S*** out of me in FSX which can't be fixed by 3rd parties and we are stuck with. They are:1)Autogen Pop which kills the immersion for me and the team didn't have time to fix it for SP1.2)Stupid snow and rain effects that are known as javelines3)lack of multiprocessor support other than for texture loading4)lack of multi gpu support5)sunny environment even when overcast. The environment simply doesn't get darker with clouds. Overall, Lighting effects are still not on par with what they can do today.6)I am yet to crash an airplane in FS, even when I fly thru thunderstorms, single pilot IFR in nasty weather, etc. Somehow, I wonder why is it that the virtual pilot in FS is so much safer than a real pilot is. 7)Real over casts that can not be seen thru and that you can't see blue skys in the horizon.

With the proper add-ons, it's hard to tell which sim is which...just look through on youtube. I fly only because of the 'immersion' factor..and that's why I choose fs9.Also, again with proper add-on files...numbers 1, 2, 5, and 7 are not problems with fs9. number 6 is because you're in a comfy chair at home, while the single IFR pilot in IMC has his own life in his hands.

[Guest Mower]

We dont need an FS11, we need a fixed FSX. Think about it: a whole new release just brings a whole host of new bugs and issues to patch. FSX is the devil we know.

[gman! 1]

They are developing the next "flight simulation" oriented game as we speak.

[frankla 44]

With the proper add-ons, it's hard to tell which sim is which...just look through on youtube. I fly only because of the 'immersion' factor..and that's why I choose fs9.Also, again with proper add-on files...numbers 1, 2, 5, and 7 are not problems with fs9. number 6 is because you're in a comfy chair at home, while the single IFR pilot in IMC has his own life in his hands.

Ha? YOu use FS9 for imersion? Do you even own FSX? Or are you just basing your opinion on you tube videos and net pictures? I have had FS9 with most add on's and what you are saying is not what I see in FSX. As for performance? Hey I was a none believer, but with my new system most sliders are all the way up and my sim is smoooth. Lets look at some of the items that can not be done to FS9 by add ons:1) (The biggest difference to me is this point) Add on's can not duplicate the high res ground textures. To me that is the incredible difference. This feature is coded into fsx and can not be duplicated with add ons for FS9 which has a much lower resolution allowance. 2) No Add on can create the water textures and effects that fsx has. 3)Add on's do not allow for high density autogens. Trees need to be sprinkled here and there. With FSX you can fly over forrests for a change. Again this is coded in FSX and not FS9.4)Add on's do not allow for specualar shine for effects on surfaces on aircraft, buildings, etc.5)Add on's do not allow for higher polygon allowance that FSX gives aircraft. While harder to code, the developers have much more freedom and tools to create much better models. 6)Add on's do not allow for higher animation possiblities such as wing flex, smoother flap retraction, moving jetways, etc.7)Add on's do not allow for scenery reflection onto bodies of water8)Add on's do not allow for intelligent placement of autogen in FS2004. So you still have trees scattered on top of farms instead of on the peripheries.9)Add on's do not allow for actual earth curviture (sp) at high altitute.10)Add on's can not create wet and reflective surface effects such as wet runways, or reflective buildings. 11)Add on's do not make the sky's get darker as you climb12)Add on's can not create air craft carrier operations which I have learned to LOVE13)Talk about another immersion factor: I LOVE the view of moving cars on freeways. Specially during approach. No add on can do it for FS9. 14)FSX has allowance for 4 more different regional varieties as FS9 and no add on can help FS9 on that. I beleive FSX has 14 regions vs. 10 on FS9. For example you now can have a distinct mediteranian region type that now can be used for areas such as portions of costal california.15) Add on's do not flatten roads in FS9. Roads in FSX now curve with topography.16) Add on's do not allow for bump mapping that FSX allows for surfaces (to create 3d rivets, groved surfaces, or raised concrete slabs, etc)17) Add on's do not allow for Thermals 18) Add on's do not allow for self shadowing of aircraft. Aircraft parts can create shades onto the aircraft itself in FSX.19) Add on's do not allow you to create your own missions.20) Add on's do not duplicate the improved overall atmospheric lighting of the sim on FS921)As long as we are talking about imersion, lets also add little touches such as flocks of birds, and animal in certain areas and/or missions.22)Add on's do not improve FS9 flight charactristic in turbulance.23) Head latency is a really nice touch that again can not be duplicated in FS9.24) FS9 can never be made to work with 5.1 sound system for its better sound effects.25) FSX has better intelligent and clever placement of landclass tiles, so they don't look as repetetive. (still does, but not nearly as much). As far as I know its not possible to do the same thing on FS9 unless you have photoscenery.26) FSX allows for better glass cockpit simulation. There are features that can not be used in FS9.What I really want fixed are following:NO more sunny look on the ground when its cloudy. Come on make it dark when you have layers of cloud. Everything still looks bright.No more autogen pop. Alpha fade, whatever,solid overcast are better but it needs imporvements.haze and visibility lighting still needs a lot more improvement. In fact its still aweful. Lighting can really be improved overall.I still say it, thunderstorms do not have enough up and down drafts to tear your airplane apart.Fix the snow and rain effects. FS9 was better in this area.please blend the airports into the surronding areas better.allow for more headroom by utilizing multicore and multigpu betterCloud shawdows.Never thought I would like missions, but man now I love them. Bring them on. more.Slopped runwayBetter (more gradual) weather station transitions.More improvement to ATC is needed.More improvement to ground handling is needed. (ICE Skating effect). IF possible, make the ground texture resolution even higher.!!!! I wanna see resembelance of grass, weed, grain fields when I am parked in a remote air field.