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 used the sentence "Or maybe it's just speculations ?" not because i don't trust you, i was just trying to fish some more info.So hypothetically, what would be the chance to see those new technologies in the future MS Flight ? And why we expected ACES at the last E3 but they never show up ?

So hypothetically, what would be the chance to see those new technologies in the future MS Flight ? And why we expected ACES at the last E3 but they never show up ?

Haha flight sim at E3? Keep dreaming, the whole 3 days is about consoles, they would sooner fly in some big shot from Japan who doesn't speak a lick of english than mention something as boring as flight sim :)

Haha flight sim at E3? Keep dreaming, the whole 3 days is about consoles

Since when E3 is all about console game ???I tried to find the old news about this on their Website, but since they changed it, no luck

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.

DCS: A-10C Warthog is native 64bit application. 32bit binaries are optional. TrackIR already work with 64bit simulators.I hope Flight will have 64bit and multicore support.

Since when E3 is all about console game ???I tried to find the old news about this on their Website, but since they changed it, no luck

Forever man.. I'm sure if you physically go you'll run into PC vendors and even get some info out of them. One chap did just that recently and posted it on a thread. But as far as whats being broadcast from the event it's strictly consoles and it's strictly for games coming out for christmas. As far as Microsoft's concerned these days the X in DirectX stands for cross platform... ie Xbox/Win7 Phone.

FS has been at E3 in the past…and it’s not a given they won’t be there in the future.The decision to present at E3 has a lot to do with how ‘presentable’ the product is.From what I heard, MS was not featuring PC games last time…it was all Kinect.But I agree with Veeray that E3 is getting less and less about PC…The traditional business of E3 is all about distribution deals with brick and mortar vendors...it's not directly a fan event.So with G4W (+Steam) the importance of E3 is shrinking....But just my opionion :(

Well folks most of us have been flying these flight sims for sometime and i started back when 98 just came out and i have been hooked ever since.the one thing i know for sure is that it was always a video card issue for me to get the frame rate and more ram , and every so often upgrade your chip.Amd ruled at that time , at least it did for me less money on a fast chip (faster than Intel).I went from a voodo card with a whopping 16megs of ram , if i remember right to 32 , 64 128 , its like it never ended, and me as a super geek was right in the middle of it.it was the same with Cpu's but at a slower pace.But it was always with me that if i upgrade to a better vid card i got better results and ram.Now i will fast forward some and think about when i was flying FS9 , to FS9 was the best of the sims as to flying for me.i spent more time enjoying the mountain of numerous flights that i made with that sim , again my system was able to give me more control over the sim being that it was more a vid issue , than a cpu issue.i also for several years and still run several monitors , and several computers networked toghether running several views with all the software that is out and you could add to FS9.Level -d and pmdg were the planes i flew with all the fixins , radar contac , weather programs , vatsim the whole ball and wax etc.Then came FSX , a couple of days after it came out i went out and got FSX deluxe and Matrox Triph2go , yeah i heard all of the reviews and read this and that blah , blah blah.i was major excited on what to expect , i was all ready to go with my hardware , ch yolks , peddles , etc.And Bam if i got 10 Fps i was lucky , and if i seen 15 Fps , well i did not.that night was a long night because i thought i could tweek this and that , in fact i knew it was about the cpu changing time to come up anyway.But i tell you folks as far as my machine set up was and cockpit set up was is that i demanded a lot from my system , meaning i had to have all the software that i needed to fly the heavies.With all that and the numerous add-ons FSX was not playable to me on my system.Even with FS9 with all the fixins and most if not sliders were up all the way i got 26 + 35 + in the clouds 45 to 60 fps.at this time Intel was running neck and neck with AMD as i remember , so i decided after being a AMD man jump ship and try Intel , so far no complaints.i did my research and found the E8500 3.16 duo core was what i needed , at least my wallet agreed:).So I revamped my entire com and updated .E8500 3.16 duo doreGIGABYTE GA-EP45T-DS3R MBPatriot 1600 DDR3 4 Gigspny gtx 285 1024 gZalman Coolerantec 650 wattEven with this modest new set up and with all the fixins i could muster up 15 to 20 fps not much more.i ran with that system since FSX been out , and for most part it ran well as long as no new added software was put on the system.that is why i like networked software , did not have to run on the main machine.All that said brings me to this point , i have teeeked and retweeked , doulbe tweeked , reversed tweeked and then after that tweeked again, Mostly because the added software like the add-ons for scenry , and cities.I mean why fly into Chicago Ohare and only see your only heavy plane sitting there , or maybe one car go buy , i mean come on i found myself tweeking every flight just to get the most realism on that paticular flight.i found if i was going to fly a very open no traffic landing area small airport i would tweek for that flight , and turn up certain sliders and tuning down others.Fsx in my learned experiance on software and computers as far as gaming goes , is the only software that i know of that totally overpowers your com , and if you dont have it tweeked just right it will run like a dog.Meaning FSX is unforgiven if you dont follow there simple rule, you pay for it to be on your com , the more you ask of it the more money / resorcess it wants from your already drained resorces, its just that simple:).Even you big engine running machine that claim to be running FSX with all sliders up , trust me you aint running it with all the software i got , at least from my vantage point.you see the problem with the power house FSX software ,is that you third party software plane makers had to make your product just as good ( and that is a great thing) and just as hungry , so guess what i cant keep up.FSX was a beast ahead of its curve.You see FSX is a fantastic piece of software , unfortionatly there was not a machine at that time to tame it , even today i still see and here folks recommending a set up , and you hear it all .i truly wish that the ratio computer to software match was as good as it was with FS9 ratio.i compare FS9 to Windows XP PRO , it ran well with few problems and you did not have to have a super system to run it , and average system with a good vid card , enough ram and you were good to go.I compare FSX to Vista ultimate , you had to upgrade to run vista and it wanted to much of you to operate , it was over bloated with crap you did not need . FSX did the same just about every one i know and even today are still upgrading to just use FSX.Now the new and upcoming Microsoft FLIGHT , im wondering is this going to be the Windows 7 , because W7 runs well , does not ask much of you , is this the answer to FSX.I hope so , because in about a week or so my new system will be built.i72600k ASUS P8P67 REV 3.0 pro MBKingston DDR3 1600 16 gigpny gtx 285 vid card FSX will not make me go out and buy a new vid card , im going to see how this sandy bridge does first.hitachi 1 TB hard drive and western digital 320 gig dedicated to FSXH50 water cooling ....i have done this before , know all about it.antec cb-10 1000watt.i will not expect anything from this system other than my duty as a geek to keep it up to date:)Oh and i hope they due 64 bit.So im hoping for the best that FSX / FLIGHT new home will be to its aproval.Robert

FSX runs superbly for me with Windows 7 & advancedheavy aircraft, big airports, full weather, full traffic.Absolutely no tweeks, why bother!Peter Sydney Australia

Unfortunately, with the increase in CPU power/RAM, GPU power/RAM we also got a new breed of programmers, ones that think nothing of efficiency and optimization. Mostly, because they have never had to do it. Given the computing resources today, noone notices that they use a longword to store something where a bit would do - in most applications.However, when it comes to something like FSX, all these inefficiencies add up to a program that can hardly run.A case in point. The differences between FSX and FS2004 are minor in every aspect, except visuals. We have the same flight dynamics, AI, ATC, etc, but we have higher resolution textures, meshes etc. To balance this, however, we have MUCH faster GPUs and MUCH more GPU RAM than we had in 2004. So, why is it that FSX is so CPU bound. The only thing FSX is doing over FS2004 is moving this extra data to the GPU - or should.In my view, it is doing this in a very inefficient manner. We do have more data to move, maybe 4x as much, but we have far more RAM to store it in and leave most of the data there without ever having to reload most of it.I am no expert on how FSX was actually developed, but I have 30 years of experience with optimized software and I can recognize a dog when I see one.As for 64-bit, it will be a shame if MS does not release Flight with a native 64-bit build. Given that most new systems will have 6-12GB of system RAM, Flight should really try and take advantage of it - in an efficient manner, of course.

Well Mr. . . Peter im glad that you have your system running well; you have found the right mix of parts to get that done. Here are my add-ons that I must have to fly.W7 64 bitFSXRadar contactFlightsim CommanderTraffic XASXGENXUltimate terrainFsuicp by Peter Dowson ( if not for his software much of this would be moot.)WideFSWideviewLevel – DEB flight BAG Triplhead2goVatsimCity software Indy X ..MILW…Haw…Chicago….. New York and a couple moreNight scenery My Hardware CH ProductsPeddles YolkThrottles Go FlightGF 166aGF- MCP Desktop Aviator Cessna yolk push pull Button controlsTrim wheelPush pull brake Im running 6 monitors .Two computers one desktop and one laptop. And I have plans on adding another two monitors for extreme left and right views , and another less powerful com to handle the left / right views. All these things I must have to fly or im wasting my time.That is the type of software FSX is it grows and grows. With all that going on I tell you what computer would not cringe. And most of those software’s I mentioned are well made and work well with FSX. , but it all cost. Now if you have all that running and you have all your settings turned up, then you sir are the Man. Please take no offense im just having fun. Robert