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.

That's a falacious argument. The fact that we don't know the exact cost doesn't mean there isn't a cost. .In the real world that efeature would have to be specified, coded and tested. That will cost money.Also in the real world there will be a limited development budget based on the expected return. If costs are added in one area they will have to be removed from another.

Hi,I believe the correct spelling is fallacious and I could make the argument using your statement in regards to Microsoft needing to omit something in order to incorporate the multi-cpu / network option. Because it's fallacious to say that something must be ommited when you add another feature when you have no idea if the addition of this option would cause the omission of any feature.As far as the remark about "in the real world", what other world would you develop and sell software for?.

That's a falacious argument. The fact that we don't know the exact cost doesn't mean there isn't a cost. .In the real world that efeature would have to be specified, coded and tested. That will cost money.Also in the real world there will be a limited development budget based on the expected return. If costs are added in one area they will have to be removed from another.

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.

When I said multiple CPUs, I was including multiple CPU cores, so I'm sorry for not being clear. To software the difference between multiple core and multiple CPUs is essentially none, other than some small performance implications from the L2 and L3 cache.The difference between multiple CPU\cores and multiple machines is huge. For one you have to deal with latency, which is astonomical between multiple machines (even if they are sittng next to each other) compared to between two CPUs or two cores on the same machine. The API is also completely different as you now need to start setting up sockets and handle packet data across the network, potentially dealing with firewalls and network NATs, etc.Games are almost always on a date driven scehdule which means they only have a set amount of time to do a set amount of work. Adding more work always requires taking some other work off the schedule (or working longer hours :)). I think offloading work to other machines is a good idea, but there are lower hanging fruit right now than that.

Hi,The difference is not as huge as one would think. Have you ever looked at Server/Client software that allows multi system connections. Computer systems available to us today have the ability to run all necessary calculations on the fly, with plenty of processor power to spare. Full Fixed and Non-Fixed Based cockpits already have the ability to run Boeing & Airbus style flight decks via network within FSX. These server/client software applications are small compared to FSX itself. Not only do these software packages provide us with the ability to network all hardware items, they also have the ability to adjust and maintain all instrument calculations on the fly, in real time.Will it take some work on Microsoft's part, of course. Do I think it will happen, of course not. That's why its called a WISH.Microsoft Flight Simulation has been stuck in backward compatibility mode for so long the code is about to explode. We cannot get Microsoft to lose backward compatability and clean up their code, so I know there is no way we will ever see multi networked CPU capability.

The difference between multiple CPU\cores and multiple machines is huge.

Hi,I believe the correct spelling is fallacious...

Mike, folks who dare to correct others' spelling should really consider that they might be living in a glass house themselves... :)You wrote previously:

Therefore, you nor I have any idea weather this option is or isn't feasible.

:Secret:Further, you (and some others) are assuming that 'Flight' will be backwards compatible with FSX content. This has yet to be established with any certainty. I do know for an absolute fact that FSvNext was not planned to be backwards compatible... :(Note-to-self: always proof-read posts to ensure no words were omitted...

Hi,I stand corrected.Thank youYou may also want to add the word "be" between the words might and living.

Mike, folks who dare to correct others' spelling should really consider that they might living in a glass house themselves... :)You wrote previously: :(

Hi,The difference is not as huge as one would think. Have you ever looked at Server/Client software that allows multi system connections. Computer systems available to us today have the ability to run all necessary calculations on the fly, with plenty of processor power to spare. Full Fixed and Non-Fixed Based cockpits already have the ability to run Boeing & Airbus style flight decks via network within FSX. These server/client software applications are small compared to FSX itself. Not only do these software packages provide us with the ability to network all hardware items, they also have the ability adjust and maintain all instrument calculations on the fly, in real time.Will it take some work on Microsoft's part, of course. Do I think it will happen, of course not. That's why its called a WISH.Microsoft Flight Simulation has been stuck in backward compatibility mode for so long the code is about to explode. We cannot get Microsoft to lose backward compatability and clean up their code, so I know there is no way we will ever see multi networked CPU capability.

I misunderstood. I thought we discussing practicable options in the real world.

I stand corrected.Thank youYou may also want to add the word "be" between the words might and living.

Mike, I've learned from experience, having stepped into that particular mine field more than once, and suffered through the backlash of having a "new one" ripped for my imprudence/impudence... :(

Hi Bill,You do not stand alone. Aside from myself, I'm sure we have plenty of company.

Mike, I've learned from experience, having stepped into that particular mine field more than once, and suffered through the backlash of having a "new one" ripped for my imprudence/impudence... :(

Hi,Really, I thought the topic of discussion was Wish List.

I misunderstood. I thought we discussing practicable options in the real world.

Mike, folks who dare to correct others' spelling should really consider that they might be living in a glass house themselves... :)You wrote previously:  :Secret:Further, you (and some others) are assuming that 'Flight' will be backwards compatible with FSX content. This has yet to be established with any certainty. I do know for an absolute fact that FSvNext was not planned to be backwards compatible...  :(Note-to-self: always proof-read posts to ensure no words were omitted...

thank you n4gix ,,,,  I was really put out by Mike's spelling correction on a forum.  Typically, those that correct have a superiority complex.  I sure hope my note has correct spelling. 

Mike: It's already possible. There's nothing preventing you from using SImconnect to do just that. Just don't expect Microsoft to ever plan on rendering to more than one screen at a time in any game. You do have groups like Project Magenta that fill that niche for those lucky enough to have a cockpit. But for now the best viewing experience I get is in the 3D virtual cockpit. For that to improve most of it lies in writing code for the existing transistors in the GPU that go to waste. But realistically anyone building a cockpit should already be considering Prepar3d not FSX since the platform will be far more stable, which is important if you're buying hardware to match. Flight on the other hand I imagine will have at least two major service packs within the first 6 months..could be more given the Live component.

An interesting post at the FSDeveloper site by Tim “Beatle” Gregson who used to work for Microsoft and is now a contractor working for Lockheed Martin on their Prepar3d program.Quote: "We have Multi-channel support, which to us means multiple computers hooked up over a network all running as one system (so you could have a 4 computer setup where the master computer is doing all the simulating, handling AI objects, computing weather, maybe running some 2D panels, etc; and then you could have 3 slave computers running the left, center, and right video channels). This would of course require 4 seat licenses (more obviously if you wanted more video channels :-> ). This capability is in the version shipping now."If Prepar3d could accomplish this so quickly without dropping any features one has to wonder. On the other hand Microsoft is delivering an entertainment product so the feature set is most certainly different.Make note also of the number of licenses required, no big deal for the market targeted by Prepar3d but a definite limitation to many in the entertainment market.Regards, Mike Mann

I did see a presentation on using ESP this way...so the feature has been around in some form for a while.From what I gathered it’s basically the FS WideView strategy...using SimConnect.There is no reason to believe the underling features won’t be in Flight. Whether Flight gets any tools to exploit it is a good question.But, a next gen WideView could be made if req’d.Renderfarms (for 3d films) aren’t really very sophisticated. They just send a limited number of frames to each computed to be rendered...they don’t even have to be rendered in any sequence. Running a real-time 3D game over a network is a more challenging. For video your running a discreet game on each computer…the challenge is to keep them in sync. Minor things like clouds(the rain type;) can become a problem. But the idea of sending things besides rendering to a second computer is pretty cool.

I am another to mention performance, I wont go into it more than that because others have sufficiently done that. I will say that with an i5-750, 4gb ddr3 ram and a HD5850 I was rather disappointed with the 5 frames per second that flight sim generated for me during a night flight at altitude in a PMDG aircraft. I dont blame the aircraft for that at all either!!More realistic flight modeling is top of my wish list, especially when close to the ground. Planes are just too easy to land in flight sim. They are too predictable on landing with effects of gusts and local wind flows being almost zilch. I would like to be able to stall the aircraft properly and have things like wing-drop stalling possible. I dont care how its done as long as it feels realistic. Close to ground handling is more important than stalling because you do the landing and takeoff every flight. More realistic engine handling! I want to be able to overboost the engine, over-rev the engine, overheat the engine and have possible consequences for doing so. In a basic fixed pitch prop aircraft why cant we over-rev the engine? in real life you cruise at only about 70% throttle opening but in flight sim you need to leave it wide open. Sound sucks, Have the sound developers never been in a CSU equipped aircraft??? One where the throttle doesn't create changes in tone while in flight but propeller pitch does. It seems back to front in FSX. I want them to fix this in FS11The weather system is a given, much improvement is needed here. I think the biggest thing to make it a successful simulator is the full support of the flight sim nerd community. Without this then you just have a few kids playing for 20 minutes before they get tired of it. It needs to be easy to develop seriously good aircraft for, like PMDG does for FSX. It would be nice for existing aircraft to be able to be ported to work in the new engine (fingers crossed for a new engine!), like when the PMDG 737NGX comes out it would be a shame not to have the possibility of a FS11 version in the early days of FS11.Scenery - take a look at Vector Land Class for new zealand and get some hints, its amazing! Runs perfect looks fantastic and no ugly photoscenery. Even a terrian map of this quality which covered worldwide would be awesome. Default FSX zoning put my town as in a desert when the opposite is the case, Microsoft flight should have a little more beta testing than FSX to prevent this reoccurring. I dont think all this is too much of an ask for the time between versions, its time for a huge improvement in technology utilised, and Microsoft - PLEASE don't forget your most important customers - the serious flight simmers!

... and Microsoft - PLEASE don't forget your most important customers - the serious flight simmers!

Serious flight simmers are not Microsoft's most important customers because there are too few of them. (The most self-important maybe but that's a different matter.) Microsoft's most important customers are the casual players who will buy far more copies than serious players. Many esoteric wish list items will never see the light of day simply because they are of no importance to Microsoft's most important customers.