Did it ever occure too anyone that maybe MS is trying to create MORE hardcore users? Think about it. We are a duying breed. Without the influx of new blood, we die out. Even though we only represent about 1% of the market scare, we #1 spend the most money and #2, influance the most users in our reviews. To ignore the hardcore user would be the death of the game. On the otherhand, to cater to our every whim would also be the death of the game. Why is that? What WE like, casual gamers DONT like. MS simply cant recover the millions spend in development catering only too 1% of the market. We need to know our place. Yes, we are important, but we are not everything. If we want the FS market to survive, we need to support the casual player and bring them up too speed. Even if Flight isent a pure sim that WE want, we benifit in its success in making the Flight Sim market bigger and able to support better flight sims in the future. Its a win-win no matter what.

My opinion on this is that the settings were not turned up all the way for these shots. (Microsoft doesn't want to show us even more amazing shots, then end up having to cut out a feature and Flight not look as good in the end.)

I wanna only remember the first FSX screens in internet were these ones, and we know how fsx is now respect these examples!!!

Artist concept of what DX10 might have done and not anything from within FSX.

...Even though we only represent about 1% of the market scare, we #1 spend the most money ...

How can 1% of the market share(?) spend the most money? We each spend about $50 with Microsoft every three or four years

I might just be the only one happy that Flight is being made to appeal to as much audience as possible.- Having more players/users will increase addon sales, and drive demand for more addons to be made.- Having more players/users allows more people to get into the Flight Simulator hobby, which could lead these "casual" gamers becoming the next-PMDG development team over time.- Having a wider audience, means "Flight" will need the performance that matches not only to "Flight Simmers" but for the "casual" gamer. As unlike many of us, who have the lastest Intel i7 Processor's and state of the art GPU's, casual gamers will not be so keen on updating their machines if Flight doesn't perfom when launched, as to them, it's just another "game/simulator", this means that if "Flight" wishes to be successful in the "casual" gamer market, its going to need to look good and run smooth on a range of computers, not just top-of-the-line machines.- How is having more people play Flight a bad thing? The more players/users, the more likely development will continue long after Flight, if the demand is there for it. More players/users = more demand.If I remember correctly, many forum posters where complaining about "Mission's" being added into FSX back when it was in development and how it was dubbing down the simulator, and making it look more like a game, yet here we are with FSX still going strong, and people are still calling Flight Simulator X a simulator.Also I agree that it's time to move on, a new start to the franchise, why does "Microsoft Flight" have to be linked to "Microsoft Flight Simulator"? Because there both made by Microsoft?People complaining about backwards compatibility not being added in "Microsoft Flight", why does there need to be?If you want to use your FSX addons then use it with what they were made for FSX! If you want to use your FS2004 addons then use FS2004! No one is forcing you to use Flight, no one is sticking a gun to your head and making you uninstall FSX and install Flight when it's launched. If you don't want to lose your addons, then carry on playing FSX with them installed.----Other than that, the screenshot's really show Flight's protential and i'm excited as the development seems to be going well, and from what I can see, Microsoft have made some real improvements! Thanks for posting them up Brandon. :)Virtual Reality

I wanna only remember the first FSX screens in internet were these ones, and we know how fsx is now respect these examples!!!

Exactly my point. Microsoft doesn't want to show something they can't offer this time around.

I might just be the only one happy that Flight is being made to appeal to as much audience as possible.

If MS want Flight to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, then they need to provide some kind of backwards compatibility with FSX addons.

If MS want Flight to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, then they need to provide some kind of backwards compatibility with FSX addons.

Good point that, but can they do it and maintain good performance that is the question.Bryan.

How can 1% of the market share(?) spend the most money? We each spend about $50 with Microsoft every three or four years

But we do help the developers keep going, and they are always going to be the lifeblood of any sim.Bryan.

THIS SUCKS!!!How can I be expected to enjoy FSX when I see screenshots like #4? I think I'll delete my addons/install of FSX and find a way to go into a coma until Flight is released or I'll just daydream forever again like I have for the last 30 years. I am VERY ANXIOUS as I ALWAYS am on every FS release except I hope it doesn't become just an F release. THANK YOU MICROSOFT FOR LISTENING TO SOMEONE/MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND RESURRECTING THIS! I was literally sick when I heard the news about ACES 2 years ago and now I am literally sick from anxiety but now at least it seems the cure is on the way.

THIS SUCKS!!!How can I be expected to enjoy FSX when I see screenshots like #4? I think I'll delete my addons/install of FSX and find a way to go into a coma until Flight is released or I'll just daydream forever again like I have for the last 30 years. I am VERY ANXIOUS as I ALWAYS am on every FS release except I hope it doesn't become just an F release. THANK YOU MICROSOFT FOR LISTENING TO SOMEONE/MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND RESURRECTING THIS! I was literally sick when I heard the news about ACES 2 years ago and now I am literally sick from anxiety but now at least it seems the cure is on the way.

Try FTX if you want great screenies.Bryan.

Time for the comparison shots you have all been waiting for. The only things in my shots that are not default are the water shaders and airplanes. Everything else is out of the box default.

Your work is truly truly TRULY appreciated! :Applause:If you do not mind too much, is there a glimmer of a possibility we could view a similar comparison of FLIGHT usingFSX + GEX + UTX [+REX] ? :unsure:TIA!

If MS want Flight to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, then they need to provide some kind of backwards compatibility with FSX addons.

The vasy majority of FSX owners didnt even buy add-on's since they dont know the existance of them! The only people that function would appeal too are hard-core users, who represent a small fraction of the market. So the added cost in programming and testing of backwards compatibility would not be worth the 1/2% market share it would gain. As for having more products, its unknown if MS will have some type of tool the 3rd party's can use to convert there products into Flight from FSX, so they can make sure to have a good market on launch. I hope they do, since I have quite a catalog of models that can go on sale if thats true.

If MS want Flight to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, then they need to provide some kind of backwards compatibility with FSX addons.

But why?What is the point in making a new Flight Simulator if your just going to use addons which were intended for an older version of Flight Simulator (FSX\FS2004)? I think people just want "Backwards Compatibility" because they have invested in a lot of money in FSX addons, and don't want it to feel that it's all a waste, but then, like I said in my last post. No one is forcing you to use "Flight". If your going to invest a chunk of money into a Flight Sim, then have in mind to carry on using "that sim" well after it's intended shelf life.Backwards compatibility isn't needed, it brings no real advances, other than old addons into a new platform. As I also said, if your not willing to lose your addons to play "Flight" then just stick with FSX, as FSX is only coming into its prime as of now, seeing as techonology has finally caught up with it.I would be glad if they didn't have backwards compatibility, as then many developers would simply just convert their FSX addons over to Flight and still charge the same price, for an addon which was made for an older flight simulator. If i'm going to invest into an addon for "Flight" I want it to have the lastest techinques and techonology placed in it to work side by side with Flight, using the lastest code and features "Flight" will have to offer.(And before you say, I too have well over £200 worth of addons for FSX and FS2004, but there really needs to be a time when a line is drawn under using these addons, and with Microsoft scrapping the "Simulator" part of "Microsoft Flight Simulator" I think it's time for a change, and for Microsoft to distance itself from the old franchise and start new, with a fresh team, fresh look, fresh simulator)I think this will also allow developers to push themselves if we start new, if a developer has to make an aircraft again, he/she is more likely to add new features into the new development, otherwise if they simply convert it, its the same old same old, and nothing is really pushed or helps change the realism in Flight Simulator. An example of this is the PMDG NGX. In all honesty PMDG could of simply converted their 737 for FS2004 over to FSX, but instead they started again, building a 737NG using all FSX had to offer, and this has won them much praise. I hope this explains in better detail as to why I believe backwards compatibility is a no, no, for me.Although anyones opinion and comments, I will respect, as everyone has their own view on the subject. :)Virtual Reality

Since when is MS using photoscenery?? The beach is covering some cars here......Where did MS got that idea? Look like they placed buildings and ground texture over a photoscenery, look at the cars....hummm..who else does that?

The vasy majority of FSX owners didnt even buy add-on's since they dont know the existance of them! The only people that function would appeal too are hard-core users, who represent a small fraction of the market. So the added cost in programming and testing of backwards compatibility would not be worth the 1/2% market share it would gain.

Not true in my case, once I got "bitten" I got google open looking for some flight sim forums and the rest is history as they say. I'm willing to bet it was the same for many on these forums.This 1% percent figure is a nonsense just plucked out of the air. I know, we all do that kind of thing. :( Bryan.