Not realy, if tnere is money to make somebody else will build a sim. (Xplane-10, Aerosoft....if ever), it's like taking a drug dealer off the street, if there is money to make in drugs another one will take his place.

I take it you were not around in the 1990's when we had MSFS, Fly, Pro Pilot, Xplane, and Flight Unlimited.No one took their place and it has been a dry last 4 years....

I take it you were not around in the 1990's when we had MSFS, Fly, Pro Pilot, Xplane, and Flight Unlimited.No one took their place and it has been a dry last 4 years....

Sir, I said "if there is money to be made".

Sir, I said "if there is money to be made".

...and that is exactly my point. They don't last when they don't make money. I'd like to go back to the days of having 4-5 to choose from, but even maintaining the current 1-2 is important to me.If they cost as much as January's Edsel that would be one thing,but they don',t and that is imho a small price to keep this hobby alive

It took me almost four years to switch to FSX. I think I will wait as others have said to see what is going to be right/wrong with FLIGHT. It looks pretty for sure. I just hope it will run on a normal, modern PC and not just told that it will. We also need to know what THEIR definition of that normal, modern PC is! They never really got the "minimum" setting truthfully correct in the past! I'm not sure about this "store" and all that. I guess until it hits the shelf, there will be a lot of unknowns! Is there any projected time of release?Don

With you there, Don. I just started using FSX not too long ago and was reluctant to move on from FS9. But finally decided to when I got my new PC and saw nothing new coming down the road anytime soon LOL. However, I think having Flight + FSX on my machine won't be as dramatic as tryng to have FSX and FS9 on the machine. A lot of stuff I was using in FS9 went south with the 64 bit OS would not have worked anyway.LouP

AGAIN, it's the same old dead slow Jurassic technology. Lazy development to squeeze more $ out of the same 15 year old engine.

It's not lazy development, but economics. Most of FS9/X users doesn't understand how much things it has to do under the hood. It's not that simple to take an engine and rewrite it from scratch. I don't know how many of you followed Storm of War/Il2: Cliffs of Dover development. They had Il2 engine, but for the new game they redid it from scratch. And failed. Released game doesn't have half of the features original had, and they've been working on Il2:CoD for over six years - and this game doesn't model whole planet, doesn't have easy to use SDK (yes, FS9/FSX SDK is very easy to use, when compared to some other game engines I've used), and it's limited to simulate piston engine planes only.Does anybody know the Call of Duty game franchise? It's one of the most successful game series ever released, it earned tons of dollars, and they've been using the same engine for years.Flight simulation market is too small to throw technology you have out of the window and start from scratch. Evolution, not revolution is the only way to survive and stay on the market. It's sad that simulation fans doesn't understand.

It's not lazy development, but economics. Most of FS9/X users doesn't understand how much things it has to do under the hood. It's not that simple to take an engine and rewrite it from scratch. I don't know how many of you followed Storm of War/Il2: Cliffs of Dover development. They had Il2 engine, but for the new game they redid it from scratch. And failed. Released game doesn't have half of the features original had, and they've been working on Il2:CoD for over six years - and this game doesn't model whole planet, doesn't have easy to use SDK (yes, FS9/FSX SDK is very easy to use, when compared to some other game engines I've used), and it's limited to simulate piston engine planes only.Does anybody know the Call of Duty game franchise? It's one of the most successful game series ever released, it earned tons of dollars, and they've been using the same engine for years.Flight simulation market is too small to throw technology you have out of the window and start from scratch. Evolution, not revolution is the only way to survive and stay on the market. It's sad that simulation fans doesn't understand.

I completely agree! +10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.Jamie ♥

Some of the images in this thread appear to have been re-post in MS FSX Forum in the thread Flight Simulator x / MS FLIGHT by CPT.KRISTIAN. Has permission by given for this by HughesMDFlyer4?

It's not lazy development, but economics. Most of FS9/X users doesn't understand how much things it has to do under the hood. It's not that simple to take an engine and rewrite it from scratch. I don't know how many of you followed Storm of War/Il2: Cliffs of Dover development. They had Il2 engine, but for the new game they redid it from scratch. And failed. Released game doesn't have half of the features original had, and they've been working on Il2:CoD for over six years - and this game doesn't model whole planet, doesn't have easy to use SDK (yes, FS9/FSX SDK is very easy to use, when compared to some other game engines I've used), and it's limited to simulate piston engine planes only.Does anybody know the Call of Duty game franchise? It's one of the most successful game series ever released, it earned tons of dollars, and they've been using the same engine for years.Flight simulation market is too small to throw technology you have out of the window and start from scratch. Evolution, not revolution is the only way to survive and stay on the market. It's sad that simulation fans doesn't understand.

+1,That is why Flight is not a brand new engine, it does take a long time to write a brand new engine and Flight was announced August last year, let say they start working on Flight right after Aces closed (including a brand new team) does not = a brand new engine...naaaa not enough time.The thing now is that more and more peoples are coming to the conclusion that Flight is not a brand new engine but the same engine reworked, still, some hard core don't want to beleive it.

Some of the images in this thread appear to have been re-post in MS FSX Forum in the thread Flight Simulator x / MS FLIGHT by CPT.KRISTIAN. Has permission by given for this by HughesMDFlyer4?

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not give permission for my shots to be re-posted. I wouldn't mind if I was given credit or a link to this thread was posted, but it wasn't. That angers me after how much time I put into lining up not only these comparisons, but the ones from previous sets of Flight screens published.:(

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not give permission for my shots to be re-posted. I wouldn't mind if I was given credit or a link to this thread was posted, but it wasn't. That angers me after how much time I put into lining up not only these comparisons, but the ones from previous sets of Flight screens published.:(

That's a shame, you need to post over there and let tham know that this is your work and somebody took it without giving you full credit....

That's a shame, you need to post over there and let tham know that this is your work and somebody took it without giving you full credit....

Indeed, I just posted over there. We'll see what kind of response comes.

Indeed, I just posted over there. We'll see what kind of response comes.

♪ What... a lovely bunch of coconuts... ♪ (I know they aren't the lyrics, but still... I'm strange)Jamie ♥

You are missing the point! I'm comparing DEFAULT FSX TO DEFAULT FLIGHT. There was a time when we didn't have any add-ons for FSX. The same will be for Flight when it's released. But it actually looks better than you can get with FSX even with add-ons. There's things that we've seen that FSX simply can't, and never will do.

I will counter debate, you are missing the point, yet again .. countless thousands of us have FSX with creme de le creme add ons ... THIS IS WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW !!! Listen up!!!Posting historical FSX to MS Flight DEFAULT and Original screenshots only becomes useful in a historical sense ... for nostalgia purposes ... why on earth would one compare a new sim (unproven beta shots at best?) with a proven existing platform that has had more years than any other MS Flight Sim to mature? ... you are damn right the default screen shots should be better, but nobody uses the default FSX any-more ... not on here the audience you are playing to.Also you keep banging on about what MS Flight will do that FSX cant, either you are in the know or you are indeed as many thought ... the ultimate a really excited user :)

Bottom line, there's no reason to compare FSX to Flight with a bunch of add-ons, because my FSX doesn't have a lot of add-ons.

Yes there is, just because you don't have lots of add ons doesn't mean to say others cant have them ... please take an arrogance check.I'm sorry we have fallen out, I love MS Flight sim too, but fan boys do nobody any good.Sorry.

Nor do all the haters.