Flight! could be the Windows7 after Vista for FS...

[aerdt 0]

Let's not forget that MS (ex-Aces) stopped development of the next release approx. one year before a possible release and I doubt that they just threw the old code in the trash bin. The release might be closer than anticipated. Almost 4 years after the release of FSX and only the top i7 game rigs are powerful enough to fly heavies with the best eye candy and full traffic vs. FS9 now showing its full potential on mainstream hardware - that doesn't spark a lot of confidence for the longevity of FSX for the hardcore folks who love the hobby, but spent thousands of dollar on upgrades only to find a few percent of performance increase, so, yes, FSX might (is?) well Microsoft's Vista and "Flight" could well be Windows 7, as long as a lot of the code has not been recycled and the entire graphics engine has been given a complete overhaul. Vista was a disaster, MS has listened and Windows 7 turned out to be a great OS. Let's hope the same will come true with FSX. Not saying that FSX is a disaster, I enjoy FSX tremendously with Orbx and GA flight, but it was pretty messy upon release before SP1 and still doesn't live up to its potential 4 years later vs. FS9 was pretty much capable of running maxed out with all the good add-ons about 3 years after release.-Pat

[Geofa 108]

Let's not forget that MS (ex-Aces) stopped development of the next release approx. one year before a possible release and I doubt that they just threw the old code in the trash bin. The release might be closer than anticipated. Almost 4 years after the release of FSX and only the top i7 game rigs are powerful enough to fly heavies with the best eye candy and full traffic vs. FS9 now showing its full potential on mainstream hardware - that doesn't spark a lot of confidence for the longevity of FSX for the hardcore folks who love the hobby, but spent thousands of dollar on upgrades only to find a few percent of performance increase, so, yes, FSX might (is?) well Microsoft's Vista and "Flight" could well be Windows 7, as long as a lot of the code has not been recycled and the entire graphics engine has been given a complete overhaul. Vista was a disaster, MS has listened and Windows 7 turned out to be a great OS. Let's hope the same will come true with FSX. Not saying that FSX is a disaster, I enjoy FSX tremendously with Orbx and GA flight, but it was pretty messy upon release before SP1 and still doesn't live up to its potential 4 years later vs. FS9 was pretty much capable of running maxed out with all the good add-ons about 3 years after release.-Pat

I always have to ask-who are the hardcore folks? I do agree Vista was a disaster.

[duckbilled 310]

Let's not forget that MS (ex-Aces) stopped development of the next release approx. one year before a possible release and I doubt that they just threw the old code in the trash bin. The release might be closer than anticipated. Almost 4 years after the release of FSX and only the top i7 game rigs are powerful enough to fly heavies with the best eye candy and full traffic vs. FS9 now showing its full potential on mainstream hardware - that doesn't spark a lot of confidence for the longevity of FSX for the hardcore folks who love the hobby, but spent thousands of dollar on upgrades only to find a few percent of performance increase, so, yes, FSX might (is?) well Microsoft's Vista and "Flight" could well be Windows 7, as long as a lot of the code has not been recycled and the entire graphics engine has been given a complete overhaul. Vista was a disaster, MS has listened and Windows 7 turned out to be a great OS. Let's hope the same will come true with FSX. Not saying that FSX is a disaster, I enjoy FSX tremendously with Orbx and GA flight, but it was pretty messy upon release before SP1 and still doesn't live up to its potential 4 years later vs. FS9 was pretty much capable of running maxed out with all the good add-ons about 3 years after release.-Pat

This is back to the original topic. I'm sure it is possible that ACES was 50% there. MS dusted off the code and is planning on releasing a improved version of FSX. Maybe the "Flight" video wasn't the sim but maybe we may get the experience we expected from the next sim rather than the DX10 preview.

[Dillon 2,198]

Nevermind... :(

[dmaher 0]

Everyone supported FS2000 before FS2k2 came out. After FS2k2 hit the market everyone dropped FS2000 like hot poop... Developers are going to go with the latest and greatest, they always have so theirs no point proven here. I will say it took longer than any other sim for developers to fully go over to FSX (Aerosoft being the exception). Even today many are developing for both sims. FSX failed to get exclusive development from most venders for over 3 years. Only today is that really changing. FSX no doubt is an advancement over FS9 in the graphic area it just runs like a pig with wings. Today we have some pretty big wings called i7 machines but it shouldn't have took the i7 to come on market 3 years after release for FSX to run decently (actually it still doesn't without tweaks).Let's define failed sim:1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor. 2. A sim who's code is for machines that will never be built3. A sim who's box specs are no where near what it actually takes to run the software. To make it clear it failed to meet it's own minimum requirements (WindowsXP 1gig of RAM, 2gigs minimum processor, 128 Video Ram) :( 4. A sim who for whatever reason caused a whole development house to fold. You can say what you want but if FSX was a runaway success in 'either' the FS or gaming community Aces would still be around.5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this.6. A sim who wasn't fully embraced by either targeted market upon release. Even today the whole FS community isn't using FSX in the way versions were embraced before ( one example is look at what sim all freeware is mostly produced for). You can forget about the gaming crowd, they left the building along time ago...7. A sim who's only reason for popularity today is because it 'was' the last version in the series or so we thought... :( People like myself decided to wait years before purchasing this thing. No software should require you to wait 3-4 years before you can use it properly, it should be ready to go on day one on at least the top of the line machines of the day. There was a serious 'failure' in predicting what the OS and Hardware market was going to do on the part of Aces. This sim would have been toast for many if MS hadn't pulled the plug on the franchise. People were content with waiting on FS11 and it wasn't until the i7 machines hit the market there was a turn around for FSX in the community. Even developers started coming on board when machines finally hit the market where one could fly in cities without a slide show.8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP.I can go on and on but you get the picture (I hope). It's a shame I have to spell it out as 3 years ago is not that far in the past but people choose to forget I guess. None of these factors with the exception of #3 were an issue with any other version of FS (MS has a history of being overly optimistic in what hardware it will take for any version of FS to run). Hopefully FS11 like Windows7 to Vista will be that optimized upgrade we all need...

We’ve got short memories...F9 used to be the beast...now it’s FSX...and soon (not too soon) it’ll be Flight.One thing that hasn’t change over all these years is our penchant for complaining and forecasting doom.Rage on brother!The new normal is starting to look just like the old normal.I don't exactly agree with your interpretation of things, but I can kind of see where you’re coming from.That's worth something. :(

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Looking at all the goodies in your signature you seem to have the no money problem solved...:(

LOL, well I am blessed that I am in the type of work that lets me earn a lot money at a rapid pace. However, I don't blow it on things I dont need or really want, that's why even though I have a fair amount of addon sceneries and planes, I only buy what I am sure I will use. There's still a lot more out their like all the ORBX stuff for example, but I dont buy it because its geared more for low and slow flying and I am more into flying airliners.Dillon, let me offer a final rebuttle and then since our opinions differ lets just leave it at that since we could both go in circles for the next week. I will say this though Dillon, its fun to debate it with you because you dont get all up in arms and launch personal attacks like I have seen others do in the past when this subject arises. :-) So lets keep it fun and light and move on. BTW, for numbet 7 I had to remove the multi quote because I had reached my limit so I bolded your comment.

I will say it took longer than any other sim for developers to fully go over to FSX (Aerosoft being the exception).

I'll agree with this point probably because of the "round world" issue and the fact that they issued SP1 and SP2. A bit untidy that they needed to issue 2 SP's, but it is what it is and now the devs have gotten over it and are proceeding with nice a/c and sceneries

FSX no doubt is an advancement over FS9 in the graphic area it just runs like a pig with wings. Today we have some pretty big wings called i7 machines but it shouldn't have took the i7 to come on market 3 years after release for FSX to run decently (actually it still doesn't without tweaks).

I'll disagree with this one because I am running FSX with a computer I had built just over 2 years ago that runs FSX fine even at or near the highest setting. I have the financial resources to go buy and have a new i7 machine built tomorrow if I wanted, but frankly I get such good performance now on an older dual core that I am not sure the small gain I may get would be worth it. I think that the main ingredient to getting FSX running well is pure clock speed be it a dual or quad core. Granted the newer CPU's are no doubt more efficient but what you end up getting in game might not be much different than what you expect. For example a fellow I know who is in this business has both and overclocked E8600 that runs at 4.0ghz with 4gb of DDR3 ram on WinXP 64. He also has an i7 920 overclocked to 3.8 ghz with 6GB of DDR3 ram on Win7 64 bit. He has a pretty much identical install on both machines as far as FSX and the addon planes/sceneries. He said that his E8600 with a slightly higher clock actually run FSX a slight bit better than his newer i7 machine. So take it as what every you want, but the latest and greatest may better a little better, but pure clock speed on the CPU seems to be the key.

1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor.

I will both disagree and agree on this. First I will agree because replacement ground from GEX was available 2 years ago when I started with FSX as was FEX cloud and sky textures. I would also disagree because I felt that the default higher res ground and cloud textures of FSX looked better out of the box than my GE Pro ground and replacement sky textures did with FS9. That said I think that the higher res default FSX ground stock textures look better than the aftermarket GEX Pro textures do. However for FSX a replacement landclass package was mandatory right off the bat.Now, the part of your statement that I agree with is that it took more time for devs to start getting nice airports and planes to market than it did for FS9, but I would attribute this to the service pack issue I mentioned in the other reply. Had it not been for those SP's we would probably seem more a lot faster.

2. A sim who's code is for machines that will never be built

Disagree, because of what I wrote in the other reply regarding the E8600 vs. i7 920. The same thing was said about FS9 when it first came out. I still remember people belly aching about how they would need a super computer to run it. Now 6 years later they are ok. Its 4 years or so since FSX and we are getting to the same point, although I was happy with my performance 2 years ago.

3. A sim who's box specs are no where near what it actually takes to run the software. To make it clear it failed to meet it's own minimum requirements (WindowsXP 1gig of RAM, 2gigs minimum processor, 128 Video Ram) :(

This has always been the case with flight sims going back as far as I can remember. The minimum specs on the FS9 box was the same way and people complained then just like they do now.

4. A sim who for whatever reason caused a whole development house to fold. You can say what you want but if FSX was a runaway success in 'either' the FS or gaming community Aces would still be around.

False it's already been stated numerous time that ACES and the other their other PC developement group that was closed had nothing to do with sales, but as a cost cutting measure when the economy went in the tank. Even to this day, MS is still doing layoffs in other departments as cost savings, not because Win7 or Office is failing, but because they want to save money. Had the recession not hit ACES may still be open, but FSX sales didn't close them.

5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this.

I remember that when FS9 came along there was the same thing happening where people would buy it, try and it return to FS2002. In fact I did the same thing. I had a nice install of FS2002 working, I bought FS9 tried it and couldn't run it very well so I went back to FS2002. It wasn't until a while later that I had equipement to run FS9 better. This time along its just taking longer than it did in the past to go from one version to the next.Besides, I dont really understand what all the fuss is about a split community? Its only split if we make it like that. Not everyone has to use the same sim and if people would quit asking each other what sim are you running or why are you on FSX and not sitll on FS9 or visa versa, everything wouldn't seem the way it does. In my opinon the only split is because of the almost constant debates in the past where people kept arguning back and fourth which one was better. If people would stop arguing about it we could all come together as one community rather than two. It also happens when someone makes a snide comment about the others sim that seperates us and causes arguments. If people would quit caring so much about what sim the other guy is using we would all be better off.

6. A sim who wasn't fully embraced by either targeted market upon release. Even today the whole FS community isn't using FSX in the way versions were embraced before ( one example is look at what sim all freeware is mostly produced for). You can forget about the gaming crowd, they left the building along time ago...

Like I said before, this one is taking more time for people to convert than the other times, but it must be happening since most well known devs keep telling us their FSX products are out selling their FS9 counter parts.7. A sim who's only reason for popularity today is because it 'was' the last version in the series or so we thought... :( People like myself decided to wait years before purchasing this thing. No software should require you to wait 3-4 years before you can use it properly, it should be ready to go on day one on at least the top of the line machines of the day. There was a serious 'failure' in predicting what the OS and Hardware market was going to do on the part of Aces. This sim would have been toast for many if MS hadn't pulled the plug on the franchise. People were content with waiting on FS11 and it wasn't until the i7 machines hit the market there was a turn around for FSX in the community. Even developers started coming on board when machines finally hit the market where one could fly in cities without a slide show.Some of this we already went over before. I was able to run it fine starting 2 years ago. Your one of the few that still thinks the hardware is just now arriving or from other things I have seen you write in the screen shot forum, believe that the hardware still isn't here and that you maybe waiting a few more years.

8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP.

Well a lot of this is your opinion and how you feel is what should have taken place and what you feel should have been rewuired, but thats all it is your opinion. There was developement 2 years ago when I started with FSX. In fact over 2 years ago when I got FSX I was already able to buy, GEX US, UT USA and EUROPE, FEX, RealAir SF260, Level D 767, some Aerosoft stuff and other misc sceneries. Plus all the AI packages in FS9 work in FSX.Like I said before, we could go on and on for a few days with this. Let's not because frankly its a waist of your time as well as a waist of my time. You can remain in the camp that FSX was a failure as well as come of your compadres will agree, and I will remain in the camp that FSX is a success based on its sales and 4 years later is still growing although it has taken a little longer to get there and some of my compadres will agree with me.Regards and nice chat :-)

[tf51d 284]

Everyone supported FS2000 before FS2k2 came out. After FS2k2 hit the market everyone dropped FS2000 like hot poop... Developers are going to go with the latest and greatest, they always have so theirs no point proven here. I will say it took longer than any other sim for developers to fully go over to FSX (Aerosoft being the exception). Even today many are developing for both sims. FSX failed to get exclusive development from most venders for over 3 years. Only today is that really changing. FSX no doubt is an advancement over FS9 in the graphic area it just runs like a pig with wings. Today we have some pretty big wings called i7 machines but it shouldn't have took the i7 to come on market 3 years after release for FSX to run decently (actually it still doesn't without tweaks).Let's define failed sim:1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor. FSX in general looked better than FS2004 on day1, Comparing default to default it was no contest. It had higher resolution, in both texture an mesh. It's water looked better, and it environment (Sky, clouds) looked better. It had one problem with desert textures where there shoudn't have been, but that was easily rectified with a updated land class that was available soon after release by either cloud 9 or FSG. 2. A sim who's code is for machines that will never be builtObviously since it runs well on current I7's they were. This was the same with FS2004 when it was first released, and all previous FS versions. Where Aces made the mistake was making this detail available in the GUI, which of course people on day one set all the sliders to the right and was greeted with poor performance These options should have been settings in the config file for when Hardware did catch up. What compoinded the issue was setting by default the engagement of jetways, which pretty much resulted in a slide show when FSX was first loaded as all the jetways in 120m radius engaged. If you were patient and waited a couple of minutes the frames would stabilize. Aces should have disabled this option by default and make it either a separate GUI option or a config option. 3. A sim who's box specs are no where near what it actually takes to run the software. To make it clear it failed to meet it's own minimum requirements (WindowsXP 1gig of RAM, 2gigs minimum processor, 128 Video Ram) :( As Geoff stated, No sim or game ever matches minimum requirements, and that includes FS2004. 4. A sim who for whatever reason caused a whole development house to fold. You can say what you want but if FSX was a runaway success in 'either' the FS or gaming community Aces would still be around.I think Geoff answered this one quite well and accurately.5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this.That was self inflicted, mostly because of first impressions, caused by the decisions Aces made as I stated above and also because FS2004 was really the first version that people had a large investment in 3rd party addons, that they would no longer be able to use with the new sim. So it made a transition in the beginning a lot more difficult then previous FS versions. As FSX versions of these addons have become available, more and more are moving over now.6. A sim who wasn't fully embraced by either targeted market upon release. Even today the whole FS community isn't using FSX in the way versions were embraced before ( one example is look at what sim all freeware is mostly produced for). You can forget about the gaming crowd, they left the building along time ago...Since most FS2004 Aircraft (Non complex) models are compatible with FSX, and not the other way around, it makes perfect sense why a developer would develop for FS2004. As for scenery, looking in the library there are 2084 files in the FSX section 3819 FS2004 Files. Considering FS2004 had a few years head start, that actually isn't that bad 7. A sim who's only reason for popularity today is because it 'was' the last version in the series or so we thought... :( People like myself decided to wait years before purchasing this thing. No software should require you to wait 3-4 years before you can use it properly, it should be ready to go on day one on at least the top of the line machines of the day. There was a serious 'failure' in predicting what the OS and Hardware market was going to do on the part of Aces. This sim would have been toast for many if MS hadn't pulled the plug on the franchise. People were content with waiting on FS11 and it wasn't until the i7 machines hit the market there was a turn around for FSX in the community. Even developers started coming on board when machines finally hit the market where one could fly in cities without a slide show.Waiting is your loss. Also FSX even from the beginning wasn't the slide show if detail levels were moderated that everyone made it out to be. Look at my videos dating back to Jan 2007, none of them are slide shows, and have a fair amount of detailed. The first one even had freeway traffic. That was with an E6700 @2.67Ghz 2GB mem and a 8800GT card. All available at or close to the time FSX was released. My current system is only an E6850 @3.0Ghz 4 Gb memory and a 9800GTX card. also these videos were all with extremely dense scenery, dense autogen, 2X low water, and 100% WOAI or UT airline traffic.8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP.MS recorded higher sales figures for FSX then any previous FS version, including FS2004, so I hardly would consider that a failure. I can go on and on but you get the picture (I hope). It's a shame I have to spell it out as 3 years ago is not that far in the past but people choose to forget I guess. None of these factors with the exception of #3 were an issue with any other version of FS (MS has a history of being overly optimistic in what hardware it will take for any version of FS to run). Hopefully FS11 like Windows7 to Vista will be that optimized upgrade we all need...

[Dillon 2,198]

We’ve got short memories...F9 used to be the beast...now it’s FSX...and soon (not too soon) it’ll be Flight.One thing that hasn’t change over all these years is our penchant for complaining and forecasting doom.Rage on brother!The new normal is starting to look just like the old normal.I don't exactly agree with your interpretation of things, but I can kind of see where you’re coming from.That's worth something. :(

I guess so...

[TerrenceK 0]

Only today is that really changing. FSX no doubt is an advancement over FS9 in the graphic area it just runs like a pig with wings. Today we have some pretty big wings called i7 machines but it shouldn't have took the i7 to come on market 3 years after release for FSX to run decently (actually it still doesn't without tweaks).

People that really need an i7 to run FSX, should not be given access to a p.c. in the first place, cause they clearly don't know how to use one. I've been running FSX for the past 2,5 years on a Q9300 without any problems whatsoever. Sliders are full open (except for AI and tree stuff and such, I don't care for those), 1900 wide, 26inch, REX, HD textures and what not and don't drop below the 30 fps. REX overcast or no REX overcast. The thing is, I don't use my computer to Skype, MSN, download tons of movies and music. I don't run 200 tasks in the background, I don't have a virus scanner, I don't run Teamspeak, I don't have a gazillion plugins to watch movies online. If I can't watch a movie because I don't have the silverlight plugin or quicktime, I simply don't watch it, instead of cramping my pc with yet another meaningless piece of software. I don't need Deamon, or alcohol or what not. I don't care for maximum compression, so I don't have 7zip or winrar or what not, but simply use the build in windows zip. So stop stuffing your pc full with crap and then complain it doesn't run smoothly.That's like buying a DB-9, hook a trailer to the back, and then complain it doesn't do 0-60 in 4 seconds anymore... You want speed and performance? Get rid of the excess load... You really don't need an i7 to run FSX.

1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor.

Not true. FSX looked better than FS9, from day one. Don't compare an Aerosoft pimped, Flight Environment tricked, Ultimate terrain boosted FS9, with a stock FSX. That is like saying the previous model M-tuned M3 is faster than the current version, strait from the factory BMW 320. Lame comparison. And let's not forget : FS9 wasn't all that 3 years into it's sales cycle either...

8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP.

Not true. Where do you get this wisdom from? First of all, FS9 was given 3 years to begin with, before FSX hit the market. Where as before FS2004 a new version would usually come out every 12 to 15 months in the beginning and later on up until 2004 once every almost two years. So FS2004 was simply given more time to build a fanbase, a deeper rooted fanbase.You can't compare FS2000 (being able to dominate it's predecessor) with FSX (failed to corner). Different times, different circumstances. The difference between FS2000 and 98 weren't that massive as the difference between FS2004 and FSX.

5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this.

You talk about FSX as it being a human being. I was and still am perfectly happy with FSX, and to be honest, most FSX users are. It are the FS9 users that do 'the splittin''. The FS9 user is the most vocal user I have come across. 'We should not ignore them', 'Many will buy our products' (they don't), 'We should not forget them' (how can we, they keep screaming), and let's not forget the 'My FS9 is better than your FSX', and the 'FSX sucks', 'FSX is a slideshow' and 'You need 2000 USD to buy a FSX capable computer rants'. FSX doesn't split communities, nor do FSX users, they go about quietely enjoying their sim. It's the FS9 user that splits....

[dmaher 0]

For the record I'm not raging just responding...

Absolutely...5 by 5 :)...just a bit of hyperbole on my part.

[Dillon 2,198]

'Many will buy our products' (they don't)

I guess that EJet v2 repaint package I just bought mistakenly for FS9 was a pipe dream. I believe I've bought a few packages from you guys...Wow... :(

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Dillon, I responded to your PM a while ago. Let me know if you got it?

[Guest TomOOO]

Just my 2pence worthAll projects in companies undergo a feasibility study - this means can we affordto do the work, do we have enough staff, and can we make a product that people want. FSX was of course done to a budget. The turbo-fan engine development from RRnearly broke the company - but now every commercial jet usese turbo-fans, and mostuse the 3stage system from RR. MS did a feasibilty study for FSX - they made choices,and we can probably never know what they were. They are a company, they need to makemoney or fold. Is FSX perfect - no, but it is still state of the art. The amountof computation within FS makes it one of the most "pathalogical" programs that canever be written. Not just FSX, but any FS that is written. You want 1 meter resolutiontextures on teh ground, you want 4K texture clouds, you want 100 of other aircraft, weather,building in the right place, trees, ATC, photo-quality VC. Of course people can quoteother FS programs and say they are smooth - and I will say - look at the textures -where is this and that. FSX can be run even on intel D series chips - just without all the sliders set to max.The problem is they failed to "manage the expectations of the users". From day 1 people went out and set all the slider to max and their computers choked. The pointwas that FSX on my old intel D-series chip was probably as good as FS9 on the samecomputer (from the demo) - maybe not. But I knew that in future this product would be much better - just not yet. Anyway - I was happy to practice my flying on the simwith FS9 and I had bought lots of addon. Now I am starting again - and it is betterthis time - there are more things better modelled - and yes it does look better - andyes I did by an i7. Will FS11 be better - of course it will. Will they have the money to rewrite the computeand graphics engine - don't know. That sort of code refactoring is very expensive. Will I be burnt by this email - probably. Will I write free stuff for FS - eventually (Ihave 30 years of scientific computing - unfortually I manage most of the time now). Willit get me down when users shout at me on the forums - probably. FSX is OK, it is cheaper than flying, and I still like to look out the window.Enjoy :(

[tf51d 284]

Will FS11 be better - of course it will. Will they have the money to rewrite the computeand graphics engine - don't know. That sort of code refactoring is very expensive. :(

That all depends on what their primary target audience is. If they keep to it's roots, then yes Flight will probably be better in detail. If they go for more of a game or the "Casual Flyer" as is suggested. Then it will be a big step down from what we have now, at least for this segment of the community!!

[Dillon 2,198]

Dillon, I responded to your PM a while ago. Let me know if you got it?

Yep I got it. I'll write back when I get a chance. :(