It is well known that the engine that FSX is built on is atiquated and extremely ineffecient.For one thing (among many) it is limited in is display capabilities for many aspect of the sim.This and many other things can not be worked around as it is an integral part of the code that was originall written for over 15 year old legacy hardware.All this has been publically discused by some ACES members in the past...... end of story."FSX engine is the best out there for a simulator....."? Hardly!As the saying goes, "you have to know when to hold them and when to fold"It's time to move on!Granted, FSX can look very nice with the proper add-ons.However, Flight will look and run so much better.I think some are going to be pleasently suprised when Flight is finally released. :(

I'm sure Flight default will be better than FSX default ...that's why they are doing it.Time will tell but my money is on the fact that Flight is built on the same engine as FSX.

I hope they improve flightmoddeling, and failures, also turboprop engine perfrmacne characteristics as well as making clouds out of particles, so that when you fly throughthem, you actually fly through them. ie if it is a thick cloud you wing tips will appear to be in fog. Its no good making it look pretty if the rest is left behind.

I'm sure Flight default will be better than FSX default ...that's why they are doing it.Time will tell but my money is on the fact that Flight is built on the same engine as FSX.

+1It absolutely is built on the same engine as FSX. Remember it was the MS bean counters who dumped ACES to save a few bucks when they were 80% complete with TS2 (which used the same "core" engine as FSX). Those same bean counters have given the new team some 'beans' to build Flight. The dev team will be spending those beans wisely to ensure best possible ROI for Flight. And that means reusing the already good code base of FSX for Flight.It's only the 'hardcore' users here at AVSIM that will even realize (or care) if Flight is a new engine or not. The other 90% of the target market probably wont even know/care what FSX is.

Are you aware of the computing power that woud be required to compute showdows for every tree and cloud for examlpe?

XPlane9 has cloud shadows, XP10 has both TREE shadows (http://www.x-plane.com/pg_news.html) and cloud shadows!Rise of Flight has cloud shadows.Wings of Prey has cloud shadows.DCS Blackshark and A10 have cloud shadows.Flight does not have cloud shadows because it is still based on the 2006 FSX engine.

Also, keep in mind that they are indeed rewiting most code so, the developement time frame will be longer than some seem to claim.Flight is not just a 2-3 year upgrade, It's a whole new sim!Perhpaps some are not aware of the many native limitations of FSX code that can not be corrected or built upon and we are already seeing some of the benefits of the new code that would never be possible with FSX?

What proof do you have that most of the Flight code is new? I see nothing in those screen shots that convince me Flight is anything more than the FSX engine with some new textures, ability to have non stretching textures for cliffs, HDR effects, and looks like streams are now 'reflective' too like regular FSX water bodies.

Real cloud showdows or crudely simulated cloud showdows ..... and at what cost?It takes computing power away from other things and this can not be disputed.Let's see some screen shots.As for as the engine... ACES has said many times that the way FSX engine handels secenery is extremely ineficent and must be rewitten. Also, you can not get high resolution ground scenery and roads/RRs, buildings etc with the FSX engine becasuse it sinply does not support it! This is not disputable. If they do not write major past of the code at this point thay must be very poor programers and if MS does not want them to, they are extremely poor business men.It would be akin to bulding a new, high performance sports car and using a wooden frame powered by an antique flat head four engine!Hey, we may still have cloud showdows before everything is said and done. :(

+1It absolutely is built on the same engine as FSX. Remember it was the MS bean counters who dumped ACES to save a few bucks when they were 80% complete with TS2 (which used the same "core" engine as FSX). Those same bean counters have given the new team some 'beans' to build Flight. The dev team will be spending those beans wisely to ensure best possible ROI for Flight. And that means reusing the already good code base of FSX for Flight.It's only the 'hardcore' users here at AVSIM that will even realize (or care) if Flight is a new engine or not. The other 90% of the target market probably wont even know/care what FSX is.

+1

...and your proof is.........It seems that some are using some sort of pretzel logic about this.It makes more business sense for MS to write a cutting edge program.It's senseless to waste so much R&R to write an atiquated proranm for a major corp like MS.Don't forget, MSFS has always been a "cash cow" for MS and Fight is the be a FS for the new milenium.If they wanted to release junk,,they would have done so long ago.BTW, they may be using the "same core engine" but they are rewriting major portions of it and esentisally, it will be largely new code.You can have a newly designed car from square one but, it sill has the same, basic configuration as the old ones with 4 wheels, an engine and transmission.I going to bury this horse.:(

...and your proof is.........BTW, they may be using the "same core engine" but they are rewriting major portions of it and esentisally, it will be largely new code.You can have a newly designed car from square one but, it sill has the same, basic configuration as the old ones with 4 wheels, an engine and transmission.

Hummm... I saw another post about that somewhere....can't remember where.....hummm....:( He's getting there....he's getting there....:( Cheers...:(

None of you have ANY idea if Flight is built on a new engine, core, or code or not.

Please Jim. There's no need to let silly things like the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Please Jim. There's no need to let silly things like the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The facts are no screenshots/movies show anything new in the visuals. Just updated textures and HDR effect.The facts are MS canned ACES to save a bit a money.The facts are MS is adding Live/Marketplace support to cash in on the 'App Store' craze.The facts are MS is a public company focused on ROI.Given the facts the natural conclusion to make is that MS is reusing the FSX code-base and tweaking it in a few areas (eg HDR lighting, non stretching textures for vertical slopes etc). The only area where MS needs to make significant new investment is in the Live/Marketplace integration.Are the MS devs reading this? The devs could put an end to this debate by posting some screenshots/movies that demonstrate actual new features of a new engine, eg cloud shadows.

BTW, they may be using the "same core engine" but they are rewriting major portions of it and esentisally, it will be largely new code.

So what parts are they rewriting that will be largely new code? The graphics engine? Nothing in the screenshots indicates a major rewrite. All I've seen so far are "tweaks".The flight modelling? The AI/ATC? The weather system? Complete rewrite? Why? The FSX code works fine for the most part and they will tweak not rewrite.The only thing completely new is the integration with Live (for multi-player I assume) and the Live Marketplace (to enable a Flight AppStore).

Hi,Does anyone have a ballbark idea as to when this system will go live?ThanksBob

Hi,Does anyone have a ballbark idea as to when this system will go live?ThanksBob

Microsoft has not announced it, but I'd say a range that would be "in the ballpark" is September 2011 - January 2012. My personal, more precise guess is December 2011.