JimI beg to differ on some points. Both 64 bit and multi-core were well established both in reality and in the future at the time FSX was released. Further Microsoft can and does by necessity work with Intel as to the future direction of the industry. They do this as the main provider of operating systems. They knew well where the hardware was, and where it was going. They had too. And it did indeed go there both in what is now an expanded form, and main stream.In a changing world, you stay ahead of the technology, or you die. It's that simple. And they died. I don't think Ballmer is a stupid as some people claim, and I think he just finally "had it" with that division. Frankly, I saw it coming.As for the target market I must ask this. Why did MS try to get into the more serious commercial business ? Clearly they were expanding that original target market in an overt way. In my opinion, and over the longer term, I think this is another reason why they are getting back into this business.Bob

JimI beg to differ on some points. Both 64 bit and multi-core were well established both in reality and in the future at the time FSX was released.Bob

At the time FSX was released, debatable. At the time FSX was developed absolutely not.Regards, Mike Mann

Bob,Let me ask you this: in your best guess how long did it take ACES to develop FSX from start to release?

Mike.As to your first point it is not debateble. It is fact. I obviously follow the industry very closely. And Photoshop did not miss the 64 bit change during the same period of development as proof of what I am saying !As to your second point, you could be right as it relates to the multi-core part during the time of development. But that is no excuse !!! Multiple cores did not come overnight either. I will give you that the actual hardware was not available for sale during most of that development time. But it is their job to know what will be available not during the time of development, but at the time their product hits the market. That's where the rubber really meets the road.Aces Studios clearly piled way too much functionality onto a computer that was well into the process of change during the time of development. And then they introduced a bloated new product into an obsolete hardware environment. That's never a good thing to do.And they paid the price.Come on. If you did not know that multiple core machines was where the market would be three years before FXS was released, you were totally out of touch with the world !!! That's the only thing that literally everyone was working on and it was clearly established that the future of processors would all follow that direction. They even beat FSX to the market !!!! That's not good....Bob

JimLet me ask you. How long do you think Aces Studio failed to address the use of video cards.Are you getting my point ?If not.... They simply ignored the state of changing technology, and MS finally got sick and tired of it.... in my opinion.When you deliver a product that works for Charlie Simple.... You sell a lot more copies of it....Bob

Let's get real for a moment. I was running the sim "maxed out" on a high-end state-of-the-art machine (3.2 ghz) purchased fully 1 & 1/2 years after the release of FSX. And I had run the exact same triangle in New York city on the previous version (FS 9) fully some 4 & 1 /2 years before that, and with the exact same settings. And it was very enjoyable. Bob

Bob, rather than making the same points over and over, why not just stick with FS9?You are not alone there - lots of people like FS9 better than FSX.I actually like FSX better, but still fly FS9 once in a while - mainly for the airplanesthat I have loaded there, like the PMDG 1900D. Either way, I'm sure the current Flight development team are well aware of the current stateof available hardware, so why re-hash the past?

Bert....Agree...I'm outta here !Bob.... :(

It appears that no-one has much to add to the original thread , why doesnt M.S liase with the public, or other developers, and if they do liase with other developers why not allow some indication of this fact to increase confidence in the buying public. If I knew flight wasnt going to be released for another year i would be happy to purchase new products , but I would be happier and buy more thereby supporting current developers if I knew that the products would be compatible with FS11. there were many versions of win7 avail before the final edition to increase public confidence that this time they had got it right, why not fs11?

Nigel,they surely do. I think, for now, they're playing it tight-lipped

Both 64 bit and multi-core were well established

I think you would have a hard time finding any games around the time FSX was released that were multi-threaded. FSX was probably one of the first games to make use of multiple cores on PC. Even today 64 bit games are not as common as you might think. Although 64 bit and multi-core machines certainly existed in 2005, they were very uncommon except in corporate scenarios (servers, etc). Even at the end of 2008 there were still 40% or more of people with a single core computer. The same is even more true for 64 bit, because even though a lot of people had CPUs capable of 64 bit, people weren't commonly installing a 64 bit OS until the release of Windows 7. Even now 20% of people with Windows 7 have the 32bit version installed. (Stats taken from the Steam HW survey)

I really hope that they are contacting add-on developers (eg. PMDG, Wilco and ORBX) because they can gather information on what the developers would like in the game, to make add-ons easier to make, to help improve FLIGHT and also to improve the flight experience. I also hope that they work with the developers, say having a PMDG level of realism in some of the large airliners... or at least have it as an option. This could be for the harder difficulty in the 'campaign mode' (FSPassengers style)Jamie ♥

Come on. If you did not know that multiple core machines was where the market would be three years before FXS was released, you were totally out of touch with the world !!! That's the only thing that literally everyone was working on and it was clearly established that the future of processors would all follow that direction. They even beat FSX to the market !!!! That's not good....Bob

Bob is right. During FSX development, even their own XP OS had multicore support then , and other games probably did also. Not seeing that is very strange for a MS development group.

Bob,Have you also read that the hardware mapping when FSX was under development was COMPLETELY different than the actual hardware that was available when FSX was released?It was not ACES fault that the Dx development team at MS dropped their end of the deal also.The hardware map did not include multi-core CPUs or 64 bit, the hardware map was WAY different. Then after release, they needed to SP things to match the current state.People just think that FS is programmed in a week, tested in a day, and released in a few hours.As to what the software needed again goes back to a previous post either in this thread or another here. WE are NOT the target market of FS and will never be the target market. So what is sorely needed in our opinion is not the same as what is sorely needed for the target market. We could have all disappeared the day FSX was released and sales would have been touched very little.You may not be wrong, but you certainly aren't right, so let's say misinformed.

>>>>>People just think that FS is programmed in a week, tested in a day, and released in a few hours.<<<<<Honestly? I think you live in a bubble Jim. Thats so far from the truth its comical.Nathan

The debate over what features or capabilities, will or will not, be included in FLIGHT- reminds me of an old tale from the automobile industry:At the annual Auto Show, a group of industry execs were BSing over cocktails. One of the major bosses allowed as how his division had finally created THE PERFECT car- the ULTIMATE, for the new model year!! No further engineering refinements would be possible! This car had everything!To the sceptics around, he then qualified his claim by admitting there was one minor improvement scheduled for the following model year."And what is that?" his peers asked."There will be a hammock slung underneath to catch all the parts that fall off!" was the reply.AR

The debate over what features or capabilities, will or will not, be included in FLIGHT- reminds me of an old tale from the automobile industry:At the annual Auto Show, a group of industry execs were BSing over cocktails. One of the major bosses allowed as how his division had finally created THE PERFECT car- the ULTIMATE, for the new model year!! No further engineering refinements would be possible! This car had everything!To the sceptics around, he then qualified his claim by admitting there was one minor improvement scheduled for the following model year."And what is that?" his peers asked."There will be a hammock slung underneath to catch all the parts that fall off!" was the reply.AR

Ummm.....your point? :(

Ummm.....your point? :(

The point? Despite all the insistent demands for complete aviation simulator perfection from FLIGHT, the actual product will most certainly require a "hammock"- just as does every piece of software ever created. Never complete & never perfect!Then the cries of "flawed software" will once again reverberate in the forums!AR