And these new features never made it into Prepar3d?

They may very well have. I really wouldn't know since I'm not willing to pay $9.95/month for a Developer's license......since I've no immediate plans to enter that market.Does anyone know if Prepar3D supports four (or more) wheel independent suspension?

Hi,Seeing how the Flight Sim brand plays havoc with state of the art equipment, I'd like to see the ability to network various items within MS Flight to other computers. I would like to have the ability to run MS Flight on one computer, 3D clouds/weather on a second computer, my VC on a third computer and AI Traffic on yet another.

They may very well have. I really wouldn't know since I'm not willing to pay $9.95/month for a Developer's license......since I've no immediate plans to enter that market.Does anyone know if Prepar3D supports four (or more) wheel independent suspension?

I think it is based off of the ESP1 codebase and not the ESP2 codebase.

Hi,Seeing how the Flight Sim brand plays havoc with state of the art equipment, I'd like to see the ability to network various items within MS Flight to other computers. I would like to have the ability to run MS Flight on one computer, 3D clouds/weather on a second computer, my VC on a third computer and AI Traffic on yet another.

Four PCs??? That would really make it saleable don't you think?

Four PCs??? That would really make it saleable don't you think?

Network rendering for 3d modeling/animation programs is a reality but it is optional not compulsory.I think the original poster was referring to a similar scenario with Microsoft Flight.Regards, Mike Mann

Hi,I'm not saying force everyone to run multi computer setups in order to run flight, but give that option to those of us that have nothing better to do than throw money at our flight sims. You want to run everything on one computer, fine run it that way, if I want to run everything on four or more computers to run everything full bore, then give me that option.That to me would be the ultimate flight sim with MAJOR flexibility. A sell-able product, absolutely!.

Four PCs??? That would really make it saleable don't you think?

Hi,Exactly, give me/everyone the option to run one computer or a multi networked setup to run flight.

Network rendering for 3d modeling/animation programs is a reality but it is optional not compulsory.I think the original poster was referring to a similar scenario with Microsoft Flight.Regards, Mike Mann

I share your thought 100%.It will be a kind of arcadish game with not ATC, no AI aircraft and no simulation features, a gamepad and with a 5 minutes learning curve will be be more than enough. It will be also capable to use Facebook and Twitter within the game. :vomit:That's a pity anyway....

Sorry guys for quoting myself but I read here a lot of wonderful suggestions, but the game will be as I pointed out.I am deeply sad cause we could have had a blockbuster FS XI while we will have an arcade Facebook game instead.......

Hi,I'm not saying force everyone to run multi computer setups in order to run flight, but give that option to those of us that have nothing better to do than throw money at our flight sims. You want to run everything on one computer, fine run it that way, if I want to run everything on four or more computers to run everything full bore, then give me that option.That to me would be the ultimate flight sim with MAJOR flexibility. A sell-able product, absolutely!.Hi,Exactly, give me/everyone the option to run one computer or a multi networked setup to run flight.

The number prepared to buy four networked PCs is so small that it isn't worth Microsoft's spending a penny on providing the facility. It just wouldn't be worthwhile. We really do need a biit of realism in these threads and an acceptance that there isn't unlimited money to spend on Flight's development. If it's to be included, what would feature would you suggest Microsoft omit?

The number prepared to buy four networked PCs is so small that it isn't worth Microsoft's spending a penny on providing the facility. It just wouldn't be worthwhile. We really do need a biit of realism in these threads and an acceptance that there isn't unlimited money to spend on Flight's development. If it's to be included, what would feature would you suggest Microsoft omit?

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be four networked PCs, it could be as few as two to as many as you have available. All the mainstream 3d design/modeling programs have that capability so why not a flight simulator which is also CPU challenging?Regards, Mike Mann

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be four networked PCs, it could be as few as two to as many as you have available. All the mainstream 3d design/modeling programs have that capability so why not a flight simulator which is also CPU challenging?Regards, Mike Mann

Because it would cost money to implement with negligible added-value to Microsoft.I repeat, what feature would you drop to accomodate it?.

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be four networked PCs, it could be as few as two to as many as you have available. All the mainstream 3d design/modeling programs have that capability so why not a flight simulator which is also CPU challenging?Regards, Mike Mann

Because maybe they should be focused on getting it to run well with multiple CPUs on the SAME machine before trying to get it to work on multiple machines :)

Because maybe they should be focused on getting it to run well with multiple CPUs on the SAME machine before trying to get it to work on multiple machines :)

How many people run multiple CPUs on the same machine?Many run Multi-core processors but I am guessing that not many run Multi-CPUs with FSX.Regards, Mike Mann

Hi,Why would any feature need to be dropped in order to accommodate a networked 3d design/modeling setup?. Because "YOU" said so and repeated your question.

Because it would cost money to implement with negligible added-value to Microsoft.I repeat, what feature would you drop to accomodate it?.

Hi,They just don't get it, and by now never will.This is a "WISH LIST" topic of discussion, guess I'm not entitled to my wish.

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't have to be four networked PCs, it could be as few as two to as many as you have available. All the mainstream 3d design/modeling programs have that capability so why not a flight simulator which is also CPU challenging?Regards, Mike Mann

Hi,Running MS Flight on more than one CPU (NOT CORES) on the same system opposed to running it on multiple CPU's over a network is not all that different.The main problem with MS Flight Simulation lies in the fact that FSX is an outdated over bloated program with tons of old code left in from the days of FS95. What makes you think FLIGHT is going to be any different with its backward compatibility?. I have no delusions of what's next with the latest installment of MS Flight. More code stuffed into an already overloaded engine that should of been dropped prior to FSX. Followed by more disappointment and the endless wait for hardware that doesn't exist in order to run the program.If they attempted to clean the engine, Lord knows what it would break, that's one of the reasons all they keep doing is adding and adding and adding and adding to the code.

Because maybe they should be focused on getting it to run well with multiple CPUs on the SAME machine before trying to get it to work on multiple machines :)

Hi,You want realism, MS Flight will continue the long tradition of being an over bloaded, outdated, backward comparable program with useless code that dates back to FS95 that should of been removed long ago. As long as Microsoft continues down this same path, nothing is going to change, well for the better that is.Again, why would Microsoft need to omit anything in order to incorporate this multi cpu / network feature?. Bottom line is, you nor I have any idea what it would cost both in dollars and in time to implement this feature. Therefore, you nor I have any idea weather this option is or isn't feasible.

We really do need a biit of realism in these threads and an acceptance that there isn't unlimited money to spend on Flight's development. If it's to be included, what would feature would you suggest Microsoft omit?