I do agree that using an entirely new engine (one that will not be compatible with existing addons) would be a good idea, but that decreases the chance that I will purchase MS Flight quite significantly. Many of you may be only too willing to shell out all over again, but I am not. In short....when I have complete photographic coverage of the British Isles, detailed airports, airfields and custom autogen for the entire region (hopefully by the end of 2011), the only "upgrade" that I will need is superior framerate. Why the hell would I even think about wasting the same amount of money all over again? What would be the point? I am 100% certain that my "addon upgraded" FSX version of the British Isles will be vastly superior to the default MS Flight version, so the choice is a no brainer.I guess it's fortunate for Microsoft that most flight simmers (or indeed, casual gamers) don't think like me.

People do it all the time .... a new pair of shoes with they have shoes, a new car with current car is running, etc.  We will tell you what the new sim is like since you are set on holding out on it.   Will you be honest and tell us when you do buy it? :-)

I do agree that using an entirely new engine (one that will not be compatible with existing addons) would be a good idea, but that decreases the chance that I will purchase MS Flight quite significantly. Many of you may be only too willing to shell out all over again, but I am not. In short....when I have complete photographic coverage of the British Isles, detailed airports, airfields and custom autogen for the entire region (hopefully by the end of 2011), the only "upgrade" that I will need is superior framerate. Why the hell would I even think about wasting the same amount of money all over again? What would be the point? I am 100% certain that my "addon upgraded" FSX version of the British Isles will be vastly superior to the default MS Flight version, so the choice is a no brainer.I guess it's fortunate for Microsoft that most flight simmers (or indeed, casual gamers) don't think like me.

I think many people are making the assumption that Flight is the next version of Flight Simulator. Maybe it isn't. They dropped the word "simulator" and have talked about on their web site that they are trying to appeal to a wide audience. So far we have only seen a few pieces of it, we don't know when, how much it will have, how much it will cost, how big the team is, who is still on it, etc., yet. Christopher, your post shows "The Great Contradiction" that the Aces/Flight team probably always struggled/struggles with--sacrifice performance and new features for backwards compatibility, or keep the backwards compatibility but have slower perf. Either way it is a no-win situation for them.And the "new engine" people want to see is rarely the panacea people think it is. It is VERY expensive to switch to a totally new engine, pipeline, etc., when every piece of content has to be touched/updated. DMaher has some great information about that in one of his posts (I'm too lazy to look for it right now) in another thread--he is in the games biz and explains it quite well. I'm sure some of the add-on makers here could weigh in as well (Fr. Bill, Owen, Brandon?)Most likely they are upgrading pieces/parts of the engine to focus on some areas, bit by bit. Look at the cliff textures, the shadows/lighting, the water, the shorelines, etc. Those all look better. Flight looks like it will be "different but similar" to Flight Sim X. I'll buy this one and play it for better graphics and performance (hopefully--they call this out on the Flight site as well) but I'll also keep FSX installed and play that for different reasons (my add-ons collection!). There are times when I drive the family sedan and times when I drive my pick-up truck. Just depends what I want to do on a given day. If you're inclined to stick with what works for you, great. FSX runs pretty well on modern day hardware and there are lots of great add-ons for it--you can make what you want out of it.But we should judge Flight against what it says it will be (if they ever do say it!) not against the fantasy wish-list some people may want it to be. Perhaps that is what happened to Aces and FSX--they tried to be everything for everybody and that just is not a viable business strategy. I'll pony up my $ for Flight just to help keep the hobby alive. Eventually, with add-on help, it will get closer and closer to what we want, just like Flight Sim did over many years.Or we could decide to ignore it and wait 10 years until it has everything we want...and then in 3 years we'll be up here complaining that there aren't any good flight sims anymore and blaming Microsoft for killing it.

I think many people are making the assumption that Flight is the next version of Flight Simulator. Maybe it isn't. They dropped the word "simulator" and have talked about on their web site that they are trying to appeal to a wide audience.

Perhaps you missed that part of the FAQ page where they pretty much put that myth to rest..."On the contrary" seems rather definitive... :(

Once you see the new sim with the new addons and tech by ORBX you will upgrade just like everybody else that complains in this forum....

It was a statement, not a complaint. I am curious about Microsoft Flight, but it will have to be something extra special to convince me to play the addon game all over again.

Perhaps you missed that part of the FAQ page where they pretty much put that myth to rest..."On the contrary" seems rather definitive... :(

Didn't miss it on the site (I have perused it thoroughly!) but perhaps I was too subtle. There is a difference between "Flight Simulator" and a "flight simulator". I was using the proper noun to refer to what we have come to expect from Microsoft/Aces as far as a feature set/experience/specific product/call it what you will. My point was that this might not be a sequel along the same path in the series, but something "different". It can still be a flight simulator without being Flight Simulator. I won't drag up the whole tired debate of where you draw the line between simulation/game, etc. Everyone has their own expectation/definition along the spectrum.But in the computer game business there are lots of things you could justifiably define as a "simulator" because they model real world physics, objects, people, behaviors, etc. You could say that Madden NFL is a football simulator, or Forza is a racing simulator, or The Sims is a life simulator, etc. Lots of game company PR people position these prodcuts this way to some audience members that feel that "simulator" has more cache' than "game".The fact that Flight appears to model real world aircraft, physics, scenery, etc. means they can define it as a "flight simulator" or say it is "flight simulaton". But that doesn't make it "Flight Simulator". We don't know enough yet to make that call.The point of my last post was, to me personally, I'll buy it either way because I like the look and hopefully the performance. Even if it doesn't have everything "Flight Simulator" had in it, if it is still good at what it is trying to do then I'll buy it to support the hobby. Especially if it is the "right" price!

But in the computer game business there are lots of things you could justifiably define as a "simulator" because they model real world physics, objects, people, behaviors, etc. You could say that Madden NFL is a football simulator, or Forza is a racing simulator, or The Sims is a life simulator, etc. Lots of game company PR people position these prodcuts this way to some audience members that feel that "simulator" has more cache' than "game".

Stop! You'll ruin every other game if you start calling them simulations.... how about Real-Time Interactive software instead? I think the fact remains most modern games have better physics then this hunk of junk from FS98. FSX is a game and people use it for eye candy... otherwise I'm not sure how people get less than 20FPS with a 4ghz CPU and 580 GPU....

A decent flight simulator should include a decent simulation of the real world outside the cockpit. That being the case, "eye candy" is extremely important in a flight simulator.

Agree with Chris. Gimme' candy! If you fly IFR then graphics outside the cockpit aren't that important. however, if you fly VFR like me, scenery is more important than the aircraft. What I'd like to see upgraded/improved in Flight from FSX would be 60% scenery, 20% weather, 10% aircraft and 10% imporvement in AI and "living world" features. FSX has all the fidelity I need in a virtual GA aircraft.

Agree with Chris. Gimme' candy! If you fly IFR then graphics outside the cockpit aren't that important. however, if you fly VFR like me, scenery is more important than the aircraft. What I'd like to see upgraded/improved in Flight from FSX would be 60% scenery, 20% weather, 10% aircraft and 10% imporvement in AI and "living world" features. FSX has all the fidelity I need in a virtual GA aircraft.

The "eye candy" is what creates and enhances the immersion factor.

Well it's a tradeoff between more physics and more graphics. Just about every game will go for the physics instead of the graphics...that's the irony in all of this. But then again optimization around here doesn't mean getting 60fps as it does in the real world.

Have the teachers of our young people ever considered what a magnificent tool there is potentially available in Flight Simulator, for teaching & learning about world geography? And have you ever experienced a tingle in early dawn, seeing Iceland out the port window and a short while later glimpsing Ireland looming to starboard as you drone on toward the UK & Heathrow?Having had the good fortune to sim for many years with a triple wide view of our magnificent planet, I have to agree with Christopher, Simmerhead & Tierborn, that the view, scenery, or eye candy if you prefer, is what Simming is really all about.Sure, fidelity of panels and flight performance is also great, but it's in scenery and THE WORLD, where Flight Sim can both educate AND knock your socks off!Alex Reid

What about AA/AF is that really necessary? I mean beyond what the application "recommends" of course. At that point aren't you sacrificing clarity for more scenery?

Have the teachers of our young people ever considered what a magnificent tool there is potentially available in Flight Simulator, for teaching & learning about world geography? And have you ever experienced a tingle in early dawn, seeing Iceland out the port window and a short while later glimpsing Ireland looming to starboard as you drone on toward the UK & Heathrow?Having had the good fortune to sim for many years with a triple wide view of our magnificent planet, I have to agree with Christopher, Simmerhead & Tierborn, that the view, scenery, or eye candy if you prefer, is what Simming is really all about.Sure, fidelity of panels and flight performance is also great, but it's in scenery and THE WORLD, where Flight Sim can both educate AND knock your socks off!Alex Reid

I show my kids and family members about the the world, and its different countries. heck I sometimes pick places in google earth then fire up the sim and take a tour to a far far way place that I never been too. so its really cool that you can learn or visit a place virtually about world geography in fs. hopefully msflight further enhances this.

Having seen many, many versions of MS Flight Sim hit the streets over the past decades, I have just one concern. It is actually one issue that the FSX Aces team addressed correctly. And that was the timeliness of the SDK release to add-on developers to pretty much coincide with the FSX RTM. Why is this important? Because in many versions past, it was months or years before the full SDK was available to add-on developers and it took friggin' forever for quality content to start hitting the streets. Many FS versions had add-ons just hitting their limelight when the next version of FS was announced.The quality and timeliness of the SDK to the add-on developers will be everything - especially with the probable drop of backwards compatibility. Watch 'n see...

The fact that Flight appears to model real world aircraft, physics, scenery, etc. means they can define it as a "flight simulator" or say it is "flight simulaton". But that doesn't make it "Flight Simulator".

Reading this, makes my brain hurt... :(