I think he has inside scoop.

Hmm from what I read in the PC Pilot interview they did make it sound like some new code was on the way. One of the things I liked was the statement that they want Flight to be able to run on current pc's. This is a nice change from the "Here is FS, if you want to have a smooth flight you'll need a pc that is coming out in 2 years from now" Atleast thats what it always felt like to me.I'm looking forward to the next interview after reading this one.

OK I'll paraphrase - "over the years the FSX franchise has become fat and happy.. it is time to go on a diet.". As a developer that means to me a rewrite otherwise we would be enter 'kludge' territory.Enjoyjja

Or it could mean less standard features.

When have they taken features away? Since I have been simming (FS95) the only thing they have taken away has been some of the aircraft they had previously included. Features on the other hand have always been added too. Better weather, vc, overall graphics. So after reading this article they specificly state that they are not taking away any of the simulation but adding too it. That is unless your just going to tell me I'm wrong and that its nothing that you can point a link to. I don't really mean to be disrespectful but just getting old with the "lets find something negative and start from there" replies and post. We should be happy that they are proceeding with a new sim. Instead it seems like so many are just happy being able to claim how bad things are going to be and that Microsoft is just after money. God forbid they get paid for making a product. I remember this before FSX when people found out there was going to be missions. "Oh my god they made it a stupid arcade game for kids" was all you heard. Now we have addons that add more missions and one of the groups I fly with does monthly missions.

When have they taken features away? Since I have been simming (FS95) the only thing they have taken away has been some of the aircraft they had previously included. Features on the other hand have always been added too. Better weather, vc, overall graphics. So after reading this article they specificly state that they are not taking away any of the simulation but adding too it. That is unless your just going to tell me I'm wrong and that its nothing that you can point a link to. I don't really mean to be disrespectful but just getting old with the "lets find something negative and start from there" replies and post. We should be happy that they are proceeding with a new sim. Instead it seems like so many are just happy being able to claim how bad things are going to be and that Microsoft is just after money. God forbid they get paid for making a product. I remember this before FSX when people found out there was going to be missions. "Oh my god they made it a stupid arcade game for kids" was all you heard. Now we have addons that add more missions and one of the groups I fly with does monthly missions.

"over the years the FSX franchise has become fat and happy.. it is time to go on a diet."

I have to go with Ammodawg's assessment. Since the article made a strong point of stating that Flight will still cater to us aficionados. But I have to agree that this supposition is still a crap shoot until we see the finished product. Anyway I'm of the nature of keeping a positive outlook until proven wrong.jja

I have to go with Ammodawg's assessment.

I'll go with Jim's assessment since he's in the business and probably has a better idea than Ammodawg.The "diet" could include many things, be it features, texture sizes, more efficient ways to render textures or models, etc. Could be any number of things, but until its released or MS says more, its hard to say.

The preview screenshots released up to this point indicate that there will be a noticeable increase in graphical fidelity, so we're clearly not taking a step backwards. Whether Flight retains any legacy code remains to be seen. I'd be surprised if they didn't reuse any code at all, but I would certainly hope they would re-write the rendering engine so that we can actually make use of all the GPU horsepower available to us today, let alone when Flight comes out. A true multi-core engine would be nice also.

I'll go with Jim's assessment since he's in the business and probably has a better idea than Ammodawg.The "diet" could include many things, be it features, texture sizes, more efficient ways to render textures or models, etc. Could be any number of things, but until its released or MS says more, its hard to say.

I completely agree with you, til it comes out its anyones guess. Sorry if it sounded like it but I in no way meant any disrespect towards Jim. He personally has helped me in the past as I am a very satisfied customer of HiFi. I just was arguing the point of what has been published as opposed to what I felt like was telling someone they are wrong but then following that with but I can't show you my proof. It just seems like more times than not now in the forum people hop on the negative bandwagon. I was happy to see some of the RealAir post lately as their products warrent the praise, as do HiFi's. With the announcement of Flight as was the case with FSX and FS9 before that, people like to proclaim the end of the world of FS. Anyways again sorry if I came off in a disrespectful way earlier, I'll blame it on Houston rush hour traffic