Benjamin

You wont see native 64bit in todays market, I don't know why anyone would expect it, possibly it is more of a wish than an expectation. Steam is obviously not to be expected either considering Games for Windows Marketplace being in direct competition. CUDA is not to be expected for similar reasons. All I expect from all of those is optimization for multiple cores.

You wont see native 64bit in todays market, I don't know why anyone would expect it

The Adobe CS5 run natively in 32 and 64-bits and about 60% of "ready to sell" computer today have more than 3 Gb

Steam is obviously not to be expected either considering Games for Windows Marketplace being in direct competition. CUDA is not to be expected for similar reasons.

I'm sure both technologies can handle work on texture and mesh, maybe autogen.

All I expect from all of those is optimization for multiple cores.

Yeah, me tooPS : Just added SLI and AMD CrossFirePS2 : added Nvidia or AMD dual GPU card

The Adobe CS5 run natively in 32 and 64-bits and about 60% of "ready to sell" computer today have more than 3 Gb

I understand what you mean here with CS5 but how many games can you list that are x64? I still doubt you will see it in this generation, just my opinion, the devs will be struggling just to get the x86 code completed. Future releases I think this will come more into play possibly. You can still run 32 bit programs under x64 as you know, so utilizing 4GB+ system ram is not an issue.

I'm sure both technologies can handle work on texture and mesh, maybe autogen.

I don't understand, by Steam you are referring to the gaming marketplace/multilayer/social portal right? they have nothing to do with the game engines. Maybe there is another steam idk about.

I understand what you mean here with CS5 but how many games can you list that are x64? I still doubt you will see it in this generation, just my opinion, the devs will be struggling just to get the x86 code completed. Future releases I think this will come more into play possibly. You can still run 32 bit programs under x64 as you know, so utilizing 4GB+ system ram is not an issue.

Agree with you, it's a short time to program both x86 and x64, but it's Microsoft, so maybe we will get surprised. 24Gb of corsair ram cost less than a 580GTX

I don't understand, by Steam you are referring to the gaming marketplace/multilayer/social portal right? they have nothing to do with the game engines. Maybe there is another steam idk about.

Sorry, my mistake, I was referring to the CUDA competitor, Stream not SteamPS : Direct-compute from Microsoft looks really promising, the link bellow make me think about the first MS Flight videoDirect-compute

I understand what you mean here with CS5 but how many games can you list that are x64? I still doubt you will see it in this generation, just my opinion, the devs will be struggling just to get the x86 code completed. Future releases I think this will come more into play possibly.

There aren't many x64 games yet, but that's not the right reason to avoid it. Some components of Adobe CS5 (Premiere) even REQUIRE an X64 bit OS, there isn't even a 32bit version of it. Microsoft has 32 and 64 bit versions of MS Office. I say that if Flight can benefit from having lots of memory, then lets use it. I have no idea of how difficult it is to make two versions, could be as simple as using a different compiler, but since memory is relatively cheap it would be a shame not to be able to make use of it.

You can still run 32 bit programs under x64 as you know, so utilizing 4GB+ system ram is not an issue.

Yes you can run 32bit programs, but these programs can't use more than 4GB of memory themselves.Personally, if there's only one version I'd rather have 64bit than 32bit, because of the potential to use lots of memory. In the end, it depends on what Microsoft thinks the end-user will be able to run by the time Flight comes out.

They may do none of these. They aren't calling it "Simulator" because they are trying to sell it to a wider audience. They are going wider, not deeper. Some people on these forums are looking for a commerical class simulator for 40 bucks. That just doesn't make any business sense, and is partly why ACES closed. Same said people will think this is "dumbing down the simulation" but if you buy that logic then you could extrapolate it to a conclusion where Microsoft would spend tens of millions of dollars to build something only few thousand people could play. (And those people would still complain about it!) Again, that makes no business sense to do if you are Microsoft. On a very individual and personal level I understand why it would be cool to max out the experience for my machine, but when I take a more holistic view of our hobby then my hope is that the Flight team doesn't do too much "bleeding edge" technology work and that they will work on getting a better framerate on a lower spec machine so a larger audience can play it. If they do that and still leave the ability for others to expand on it then the future of our hobby is more secure. Otherwise we end up on X-Plane. While that may not be a bad alternative, less choice/competition in the long run is worse for all of us, no matter which base product we use.All that said, if they actually use the GPU more than the CPU for their rendering I will be happier--would rather upgrade/add a video card than CPU's.

Some people on these forums are looking for a commerical class simulator for 40 bucks. That just doesn't make any business sense, and is partly why ACES closed.

They "MS" need a more open FSX engine, easier and faster for addon development, MS flight store "$ inside, 10% is fair" and finally multiples versions that suits the user needs.

you could extrapolate it to a conclusion where Microsoft would spend tens of millions of dollars to build something only few thousand people could play.

FSX is just an empty shell, the addon market make it much more realistic and awesome.If they can sell 5M units of MSF ranging from 30 to 300 bucks, it's good business for them.

On a very individual and personal level I understand why it would be cool to max out the experience for my machine, but when I take a more holistic view of our hobby then my hope is that the Flight team doesn't do too much "bleeding edge" technology work and that they will work on getting a better framerate on a lower spec machine so a larger audience can play it.

Just imagine if FSX was 64-bits and CUDA,Stream,Direct-compute able.With a 400$ investment "200$ for ram (16GB) and the same on a second 3D card" on a low system you would have 10 times the performance you see on the best computer today on FSX.I don't care what MSF is, but I do care about what they "developer" can do with it and if it's gonna use 100% of my hardware.

They may do none of these. They aren't calling it "Simulator" because they are trying to sell it to a wider audience. They are going wider, not deeper. Some people on these forums are looking for a commerical class simulator for 40 bucks. That just doesn't make any business sense, and is partly why ACES closed. Same said people will think this is "dumbing down the simulation" but if you buy that logic then you could extrapolate it to a conclusion where Microsoft would spend tens of millions of dollars to build something only few thousand people could play. (And those people would still complain about it!) Again, that makes no business sense to do if you are Microsoft. On a very individual and personal level I understand why it would be cool to max out the experience for my machine, but when I take a more holistic view of our hobby then my hope is that the Flight team doesn't do too much "bleeding edge" technology work and that they will work on getting a better framerate on a lower spec machine so a larger audience can play it. If they do that and still leave the ability for others to expand on it then the future of our hobby is more secure. Otherwise we end up on X-Plane. While that may not be a bad alternative, less choice/competition in the long run is worse for all of us, no matter which base product we use.All that said, if they actually use the GPU more than the CPU for their rendering I will be happier--would rather upgrade/add a video card than CPU's.

+1 If you read other forums somebody already said in one of them (the owner of that company, forum) that MS does not have an unlimited budjet.........so there, I don't think he pulled this one out of his a$$.Remodeling FSX for Flight will not make it a brand new sim. with all the things we would like to see in it, that is just plain impossible. Right now there is nothing I see in Flight that Aces could not have already done with FSX, now does that mean that because Flight is based on a remodeling of FSX that this is a bad idea.....not at all, we may be in for a surprise or 2 ...who knows...but be sure of something and that is if you want to have access to ALL the new bells and wishles or improvement Flight has to offer you'll have to get online.....that's how they will recuperate their investment.

there is nothing I see in Flight that Aces could not have already done with FSX

That where my poll come forward, from SP2 to ACES end we saw nothing.

That where my poll come forward, from SP2 to ACES end we saw nothing.

While it is true that the public "saw nothing," those who remained subscribed to the beta newsgroup server saw a lot of what ACES had planned -and already working- for FSvNext. Those who, like myself, were involved with ESP2 development saw even more......and those who were privileged to see the achievements that would have been in the Train Sim2 saw even more!All I can say even now is that it would have been AWESOME...

All I can say even now is that it would have been AWESOME...

Please, develop for us.Or maybe it's just speculations ?

They may do none of these. They aren't calling it "Simulator" because they are trying to sell it to a wider audience. They are going wider, not deeper.

False dichotomy: The more advanced the sim, the more money it will make, because the more units will be sold, while gevelopment costs are fixed.1. Non-Simmers will be attracted to flight for the graphics, the beauty of the aircraft, that sort of stuff. They will fly OK via some artificial intelligence that will push the proper buttons for them on the autopilot and assist on handling throttles, plus slo-mo simming for easier landings.2. Hard-Cores Simmers will of course love all of the above but fly the aircraft without any "assistance".Not so complicated, really.

Some people on these forums are looking for a commerical class simulator for 40 bucks. That just doesn't make any business sense, and is partly why ACES closed. ...

Actually, it's the other way around: Who would have thought you would be running Windows 7-64 that you bought for a couple hundred $$$ when a couple decades ago that powerful an operating csystem couldn't be bought at any price? Much dumber O/Ss for mainframes used to rent for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the likes of IBM.You forget that as the years pass, performance increases, costs decrease and World population increases, so you have favourable performance trends, cost trends and demographic trends, so yes, you will be able to purchase a commercial-quality simulator for $40 as you say. In fact, if you purchased FSX, you already did! And if you don't agree, just think what "commercial simulator" software was like only 10 years ago, or 20. Not so long ago the video on a "commercial simulator" was generated by a remote-controlled TV camera trundling along on an image of the airport and surroundings painted on the floor of the hangar...Cheers,- jahman.

Please, develop for us.Or maybe it's just speculations ?

I would if I were legally allowed to do so. There are no "speculations" involved at all. Several hundred other developers and I saw it working in real-time while at a conference held in Orlando, Florida a few years ago.If only half of the improvements made prior to the "Great Sacking of ACES" make it into "MS Flight" it will be revolutionary, not merely evolutionary. :(

I would if I were legally allowed to do so. There are no "speculations" involved at all. Several hundred other developers and I saw it working in real-time while at a conference held in Orlando, Florida a few years ago.If only half of the improvements made prior to the "Great Sacking of ACES" make it into "MS Flight" it will be revolutionary, not merely evolutionary. :(

You are so lucky! Wish I could have seen that.