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

I think your logic is faulty on the benefits of backward compatibility.Let's say there is no 100% backward compatibility. IE: we cannot install FSX add-ons into Flight, not even manually. So, what is the incentive for a developer to improve the product, instead of just converting it to Flight. Nothing. The developer can use the same model, lighting and just modify what breaks the compatibility. We have to buy it or have nothing. We may or may not get a better model and a better overall product.Now let's say there is 100% backward compatibility and we can just install FSX products into Flight. Now what is the incentive to develop a better product than the predecessor. If we don't get a better model, better simulation, ie a better product overall, we are not going to buy it. If a developer just continues to sell the old product, fine, we already have it and we (users) are no worse off than if we had to buy a converted product, like it happened with a number of FS9 products that were converted to FSX (F1 ATR is one, I believe).The key is that MS needs to put enough new features into Flight that the developers can use to build a product that is a clear improvement over its FSX counterpart and we will buy it because of these new features.

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

If the 1% all boycotted Microsoft do you think it would really care? Would it even notice? 1% is within its margin of error in forecasting sales. Microsoft only really are about what it receives. It's not developing Flight to put money in the developers pockets - it's developing it to put money in its own pockets..The developers aren't the lifeblood - Flight Simulator is. No Flight Simulator - no developers.

waiting for the 2nd screen compared with the fsx one!!!!!

If the 1% all boycotted Microsoft do you think it would really care? Would it even notice? 1% is within its margin of error in forecasting sales. Microsoft only really are about what it receives. It's not developing Flight to put money in the developers pockets - it's developing it to put money in its own pockets..The developers aren't the lifeblood - Flight Simulator is. No Flight Simulator - no developers.

1% is just some random figure picked out of the air, it means nothing and proves the same.Flight Simulator on it's own is nothing, that why MS only include a very few basic aircraft with their sim. Once people get fed up with flying the default Stearman, and whatever else MS decide to include with the base install, they will soon be googling looking for something else to expand their experience.MS rely on outside developers to take their sims to the next level.EDIT: Unless of course they decide to "take out" all the other developers and make all futher add ons DLC direct from their games studios.They certainly have the clout to go that route if they want!Bryan.

Not so much a random number. I do 3rd party products and have worked on flight sims OTHER then MSFS and have had access to sales figures vs 3rd party sales. About 99% of the people (in the millions) buy the game, take it home, and fly the default aircraft without ever knowing there is a 3rd party community. Think of it this way. The sales of FSX (including bundles) is in the millions of units. One of the highest selling retail games of all times. Yet, one of the biggest forums is getting 20,000 visiters a month? 70,000 users registerd? As someone who has worked on FSX add-on's for years, the most popular products only sell in the thousands, vs the millions of users out there. These are hard facts too swallow, and a good reason why MS is wanting to intergrate a store. Bringing 3rd party add-on's to customers who didnt know such a thing existed! Again, if your going to deny or doubt what I say, fine, but please come back with more then "because I think so"

If you want to use your FSX addons then boot up FSX. I'm not really getting the argument that your addons would be wasted. They were designed for use in FSX so go use them there if it means that much to you. It's been stated by MS that this is a new engine. Taking that and the introduction of the store into account, I see little chance they make it easily possible to use your FS9/FSX addons. I currently don't have a single FS9 addon installed in FSX. Everything is FSX native. I expect Flight will be the same for me. There were always too many problems, bugs, performance issues, etc. with installing older addons into newer versions of FS anyway.These shots appear to show that default Flight outclasses most graphical addons (REX, GEX, UTX) anyway and I'm guessing the new engine handles many graphical elements differently anyway. Perhaps planes will be importable, but who knows.

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?

Could just be a generic parking lot texture.

Not so much a random number. I do 3rd party products and have worked on flight sims OTHER then MSFS and have had access to sales figures vs 3rd party sales. About 99% of the people (in the millions) buy the game, take it home, and fly the default aircraft without ever knowing there is a 3rd party community. Think of it this way. The sales of FSX (including bundles) is in the millions of units. One of the highest selling retail games of all times. Yet, one of the biggest forums is getting 20,000 visiters a month? 70,000 users registerd? As someone who has worked on FSX add-on's for years, the most popular products only sell in the thousands, vs the millions of users out there. These are hard facts too swallow, and a good reason why MS is wanting to intergrate a store. Bringing 3rd party add-on's to customers who didnt know such a thing existed! Again, if your going to deny or doubt what I say, fine, but please come back with more then "because I think so"

Got some proof for your figures?In any event they wont prove a thing, it's a well known fact that statistics can be made to prove/disprove anything.Ever heard of this saying: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"Guy who said the above was a politican, one thing is for certain he understood the above far better I am willing to bet you do and to be fair most other people as well.EDIT: Oh, and by the way the reason MS want to open a web store is because they have woken up to a potentially lucrative market, they are probably kicking themselves they didn't exploit the potential earlier.Bryan.

Got some proof for your figures?In any event they wont prove a thing, it's a well known fact that statistics can be made to prove/disprove anything.Ever heard of this saying: "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"Guy who said the above was a politican, one thing is for certain he understood the above far better I am willing to bet you do and to be fair most other people as well.EDIT: Oh, and by the way the reason MS want to open a web store is because they have woken up to a potentially lucrative market, they are probably kicking themselves they didn't exploit the potential earlier.Bryan.

Only those who are ignorant about the use of statistics parrot the nonsense that can be made to prove anything.

I think your logic is faulty on the benefits of backward compatibility.Let's say there is no 100% backward compatibility. IE: we cannot install FSX add-ons into Flight, not even manually. So, what is the incentive for a developer to improve the product, instead of just converting it to Flight. Nothing. The developer can use the same model, lighting and just modify what breaks the compatibility. We have to buy it or have nothing. We may or may not get a better model and a better overall product.Now let's say there is 100% backward compatibility and we can just install FSX products into Flight. Now what is the incentive to develop a better product than the predecessor. If we don't get a better model, better simulation, ie a better product overall, we are not going to buy it. If a developer just continues to sell the old product, fine, we already have it and we (users) are no worse off than if we had to buy a converted product, like it happened with a number of FS9 products that were converted to FSX (F1 ATR is one, I believe).The key is that MS needs to put enough new features into Flight that the developers can use to build a product that is a clear improvement over its FSX counterpart and we will buy it because of these new features.

Hey Attila,I do believe some points you are making are correct, but I don't see why people need to connect Microsoft Flight Simulator with Microsoft Flight. I always took it that Microsoft were going for the new apporach, meaning this was a new "start" in the simulator franchise. I wouldn't mind if developers just used their old models etc.. that just "breaks the compatibility" even by doing this they are then making a model that works with "Flight" instead of just simply copy and pasting a model not intended for the use of "Flight" but for an older simulator.I don't have a grudge, I don't mind whether there is or isn't backwards compatibility in "Flight". I just feel that, with Microsoft taking a new apporach, with a new title, new team and new audience, why does "Flight" have to be connected with Microsoft Flight Simulator? If they simply wanted to to keep with previous addons they should of just named it "Microsoft Flight Simulator 11" But I do agree with you in some parts Attila, and i'm not totally disagreeing with backwards compatibility at all, I just believe we need a new start.---Back on topic, The photoscenery looks good in some respects, and maybe they have included this use of photoscenery and textures to help blend different areas together.Virtual Reality

I love the FSX vs. Flight comparisons in #3 and #4. Comparing the two, I would agree that Flight looks better out of the box.

Wow you said that as if it was 'close' haha... :(

Only those who are ignorant about the use of statistics parrot the nonsense that can be made to prove anything.

Yep, thats a real serious statment there, trouble is it's real short on content ain't it!People who are big on stats normally dissapear up their own exhaust pipe sooner or later. :( :( Bryan.

As a software developer, I view the Flight product with a critical eye. Flight can be one of two things - an upgraded FSX with better visuals, better performance, new features to attract new players and a store OR it can be a new product that seems to look like the above, but we really have no clue as to what it really is.I have done a lot of upgrades to software and I have done a number of complete rewrites of same. I can tell you that in an upgrade it is very rare that a feature is removed. It may become unsupported, but not removed. In a complete rewrite, however, the tendency is to drop any features that are not worth re-implementing and to generally change the strategy with which the software is implemented.I think we all better hope that Flight is an upgrade and not new development, for I don't think we would like the result of the latter. Knowing MS and the history of MS products in general, I am certain that we will be getting FSX with a new look, just like FSX was to FS9. This is not a bad thing! In fact, it is a very good thing, because we should have at least the functionality that we are used to. Having said that, backward compatibility in an upgrade is automatically there, unless one goes and breaks it - on purpose or oversight.The question is how far will MS push the changes. Will we be getting DX10 only or DX11 too. It would be a shame to have to wait another 3-4 years for a DX11 implementation.Finally, to the OP, thanks for the comparison shots. Seeing them side-by-side really makes the differences stand out.

Yep, thats a real serious statment there, trouble is it's real short on content ain't it!People who are big on stats normally dissapear up their own exhaust pipe sooner or later. :( :( Bryan.

People who make stupid statements show they've run out of reasoned arguments.

People who make stupid statements show they've run out of reasoned arguments.

Nah, I'm just bored of the whole thing now.See yah!!Bryan.

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.

I totally agree, sometimes we talk like casual and would-be flight sim users are absolute luddites.Google isn't a secret :( So, I'd say by in large would-be users are informed.When I got back into FS around '98 the first thing I did was an internet search. "Ok, what can I do with FS?"Nowadays I do a search before I buy shoelaces :(