What I don't understand is why does it have to be a new engine ?If MS fixes all the bugs in FSX and want to call it Flight what is the problem, personnaly I don't care if FSX engine is reworked and fixed if it's "gonna" run like a brand new one. (so far I only see FSX)They (who ever was working on FSX) did not have the time to finish the DX10 mode before the released of FSX so that is why they called it DX10 preview, if I use FSX with DX10 enable my frame rate goes up a lot and the flight is smoother, so let say they are working on FSX to make DX10 work like it was suppose to work and at the same time fix all the bugs....popping trees, flickering runways, poor frame rate, better default scenery like we see in their released pictures +++ ....we would have a very good simulator right.....so why should we look for a new engine?

The short answer is, if you fix all the dated limtitations and bugs in FSX, it will be a "new" engine.You can have some features, etc from the old engine but it will still be new.

Some people seem to think though that Flight is a complete rewrite from scratch. I'm arguing that its not.

If you look at the News from the Development Team for December 8, 2010 the last question they deal with is: "This doesn't look any different from FSX!"Reading the Microsoft response to this question and I think it is perfectly reasonable to see why people believe Microsoft is starting from the ground up with Flight, Microsoft certainly isn't saying anything to contradict this point of view!Regards, Mike Mann

To expand on what "mmann" said........

Based on the previous webisode, we’ve heard, “This doesn’t look any different from FSX!”As we said in the introduction, we’re still early in the development cycle, so the fact that you comment on the similarity to FSX is great! This comment alone should ease some of the arcade concerns. Please follow along with our progress as we continue to release more webisodes, screenshots, and additional information. In the end, we hope that you’ll have a great time looking back at these early samples and being part of the evolution. Thank you for all your enthusiasm and support!

One key prase here is "we’re still early in the development cycle" This is dated 12/8/10 which is less than 2 months ago.

The short answer is, if you fix all the dated limtitations and bugs in FSX, it will be a "new" engine.You can have some features, etc from the old engine but it will still be new.

What you say is totally counterintuitive and makes no sense at all that fixing something old makes it "new"...but you are absolutely right! For instance Windows 7 is based on the Windows NT "kernel" or "engine". Windows 7 is not Windows NT and for all intents and purposes even though it is based on the old engine, it is a new OS! So, if the Flight team took the FSX engine and rebuilt it to support the latest technologies it may look very similar to FSX (like Windows 7 looks similar to Windows Vista) but it would not be the same application.Great point!

If MS does not use the FSX engine for Flight but instead writes new code then it will be new engine.If MS updates the FSX engine for Flight it will be an updated engine, sure it might have some new features, but it will be predominately an update.edit: My money is on an updated engine. Whatever you see on the Flight website has a PR spin on it. You really think the person writing that understands (or cares) about the difference between a new vs updated engine?

If MS does not use the FSX engine for Flight but instead writes new code then it will be new engine.If MS updates the FSX engine for Flight it will be an updated engine, sure it might have some new features, but it will be predominately an update.edit: My money is on an updated engine. Whatever you see on the Flight website has a PR spin on it. You really think the person writing that understands (or cares) about the difference between a new vs updated engine?

As I (and someone else) said before, you are arguing sematics and splitting hairs.What you are esentially saying is, if you complely redesign a car but, still use the same wheel bearings and muffler, it is only some sort of upgrade.Come on Mathew, walk away from the "dark side". We have beer and pretzels over here! :(

How about they have spent a good deal of time weeding out all the pre-FSX code, so that they can now add in the post-FSX code.Or to use a twisted computer term = GOGI, Garbage out, Garbage in...The desire to move away from all the legacy code (.R8 texture file compatibility anyone?) and then to add-in the stuff that should have been added to FSX, coupled with "new and improved" stuff should mean a solid base of FSX code and more. No more traffic files or airport files from FS2002 or FS2004. No more FS2002 SDK tweaked files for airports, no more API macros to deal with. Just FSX and a slew of improvements and additions. Works for me!Getting ready to install Win7 (again), so guess I'll say goodbye to DX9 and look forward to what Flight has to offer.

What you are esentially saying is, if you complely redesign a car but, still use the same wheel bearings and muffler, it is only some sort of upgrade.

If you release a car with new engine, body, chassis, interior then its a new car.If you release a car with same engine, body, chassis, interior but with some tweaks (eg new color for upholstery, new lights, new wheels, maybe a spoiler) then its an update.The question is how much of Flight is completely new versus how much is just an update to the existing FSX code-base.If more than 50% of the FSX code-base has been 'gutted' and reimplemented then I would say its a 'new engine'. Anything less and I say its just an update.I have my doubts that they are doing such a major rewrite. It's obviously not being rewritten from 'scratch' because we still see the same 'bugs' in the Flight screens/movies as we see in FSX, namely:-

• Stars brighter than sun
• Wheels sinking into ground
• Auto-gen building heights far too tall making every house look the size of a small warehouse
• Distant rivers/roads still sticking out like a 'sore thumb' because the autogen doesn't extend that far and no attempt has been made to partly obscure the rivers/roads using some type of texture overlay.

Nothing MS has released suggests a new engine. The PR talk is nothing more than product 'spin'. Look at the screenshot/movie evidence. Its obvious this is a update and not a new engine.However I'm sure it will still be a nice update, but its not going to be 'state of the art'. If you want to see state of the art have a look at Outerra and see what 2 guys are doing with their engine.

Ah anytime you have a major reordering of the pipeline and rendering it's a new engine. Clearly that is the case with Flight here unless you imagine it'll be DX9?

Ah anytime you have a major reordering of the pipeline and rendering it's a new engine. Clearly that is the case with Flight here unless you imagine it'll be DX9?

And who says they are doing any major rework on the pipeline/rendering. FSX already supports DX9 & DX10. They will fix the DX10 bugs. I don't see how that could be considered a 'new engine'.

Mathew, what part of "we’re still early in the development cycle" do you not understand?

Wait until he finds out all the photos are a result of changes they made along time ago to ESP. And they haven't even shown any "flight" stuff yet.

JoeD, nobody is arguing on the fact that they are in early development, that's not what we are saying, what we are saying is MS is working on FSX to make it Flight. Working on FSX at 10%, 30%, 40%, or 60% to make it Flight is still FSX reworked, why are we saying that......because we can see some of the same bugs in Flight as the one seeing in FSX, I for one sec. do not believe that if MS had started with a new engine from scratch we would see that many of the same bugs we have in FSX in their early stage of development in Flight.....that just does not add up, when starting from scratch to make a better sim. you don't repeat the same mistake again....it just does not make senses.We all agree that Flight (default) look in some ways better then FSX (default) and I have no problems with that (early stage or not) but if you "wanna" say that because MS may reworked 50% > of FSX it automatically become a new engine I would have to disagree with that.

So is FSX an upgraded version of FS2004?... I guess with that logic we'll NEVER see a new engine.

JoeD, nobody is arguing on the fact that they are in early development, that's not what we are saying, what we are saying is MS is working on FSX to make it Flight. Working on FSX at 10%, 30%, 40%, or 60% to make it Flight is still FSX reworked, why are we saying that......because we can see some of the same bugs in Flight as the one seeing in FSX, I for one sec. do not believe that if MS had started with a new engine from scratch we would see that many of the same bugs we have in FSX in their early stage of development in Flight.....that just don't add up, when starting from scratch to make a better sim. you don't repeat the same mistake again....it just does not make senses.We all agree that Flight (default) look in some ways better then FSX (default) and I have no problems with that (early stage or not) but if you "wanna" say that because MS may reworked 50% > of FSX it automatically become a new engine I would have to disagree with that.

No, they are working on Flight to make it Flight.Look at it this way.Consider the "Unreal enginge" for the FPS series. There have been a few different versions of the Unreal engine over the years and every version was called (and acepted as) a new engine. Granted, "you don't throw the baby out with the bath water" so, what comes next is always built on the past whith most anyting.Shure, there are aspects of FSX that are just fine and can be still used so, why rewrite that portion? This is the way software game engines generally evolve.Having said that, it's evdent from what past and present ACES members said, and the peliminary screen shots that they are indeed rewiting some core aspects of it.They are not just puting s fresh coat of paint on it. They are doing major structural work on it also.