Looks like FSX to me ...http://www.prepar3d.com/experience/

That's because it basically is FSX, being the professional training version with a few things added, such as instructor station capabilities and all that kind of malarkey that you would need to use it in that way.So if you want a 500 quid version of FSX, now you know where you can get one. FSX might be as real as it gets, but the Prepar3d version is as expensive as it gets.On the plus side, since you know that many sim companies will develop sims with an eye to cranking out a professional version (for example, there is a professional version of Ship Simulator called Nautis, which costs a few thousand quid and is basically a souped up version of the 25 quid sim with the addition of ocean currents and an instructor station that can network to a classroom full of PCs in order to train tanker captains on how to dock their supertankers without crashing into an oil terminal and wiping out half of Alaska), it's worth bearing in mind that MS might have that in mind with their forthcoming Flight, and if they do, then it would have to be something more realistic than FSX to merit people considering it.Aerosoft probably have the same thing in mind with the Flight Sim they were/are proposing, where it could double as a low cost proficiency trainer, and they may even already have a client for it which would tip the scales in favour with proceeding in making it.Al

Looks like FSX to me ...http://www.prepar3d.com/experience/

What I make out is that Lockheed Martin is able to build the fastest "known" airplane in the history of mankind, the SR-71 Blackbird, but they don't have enough technology to get rid of the blurries in their screenshots of FSX. If Lockheed Martin has the technology to build super-computers that can track the trajectory of an object 50,000 miles away traveling at 25,000 mph, and then shoot it down with a laser, but can barely run FSX... the rest of us don't have any hope! :(

What I make out is that Lockheed Martin is able to build the fastest "known" airplane in the history of mankind, the SR-71 Blackbird, but they don't have enough technology to get rid of the blurries in their screenshots of FSX. If Lockheed Martin has the technology to build super-computers that can track the trajectory of an object 50,000 miles away traveling at 25,000 mph, and then shoot it down with a laser, but can barely run FSX... the rest of us don't have any hope! :(

I was about to say that, except with anti aliasing.

I'm waiting for a post in the FSX forums from 'Lockheednoob' along the lines of:Can anyone help me? I'm getting crap frame rates on my flight sim, my specs are: Dual 16-core processors running at 10.5 GHz, 50Gigs of DDR6 RAM, twelve NVidia GT10,000 cards all linked together via SLI, with a liquid nitrogen cooling system and the joysticks, rudder pedals and throttles from an F117 Stealth Bomber.'Al

Seeing it is the ESP program which was based from FSX, what did you expect?!

Seeing it is the ESP program which was based from FSX, what did you expect?!

Wonder why Lockheed and Redbird would pick such to do their sims (I flew to Kazo 6 months ago and they used fs combat flight sim for their sims).

Only one downside: a legibly sizeable $499 pricetag.Dave.

Only one downside: a legibly sizeable $499 pricetag.Dave.

...or, sign up to be a "developer" and get two "licenses" for only $9.95/month... :(