If Flight were released tomorrow?

[mgh 89]

Huh? Have you never seen Apple's App store? The SDK is open to the public and there are thousands, if not millions, of free user created apps in the store.

Will the apps from Aerosoft, Fly Tampa or Orbx (just to take these three) also be free.Whenever Microsoft mentions the SDK its in association with words like "...our internal developers, and our external development partners..." http://www.microsoft...-98101/1035247/Will all 3rd pary developers be classed as external development partners or will Microsoft be more selective? Would it want to let any developer use the store regardless of the quality of its products?

[Mike... 7]

So what features will MS have to offer tonight to get your order tomorrow or next payday??

A much improved ATC/AI engine. Or at the very least well documented access to those systems through the SDK, so third party devs can address longstanding and well documented issues with the aformentioned.I will not be buying Flight on release day like FSX for example, which has been collecting dust pretty much ever since. AI enthusiasts will be looking into Flight from day one, I have to like their findings or like the reviews of an ATC/AI addon, before I take the plunge myself. Flight sure looks pretty, but it has to deliver on so many other levels before I get excited.

[shivers9 1,174]

FSX ran poorly on full detail at the time of its release because of the physical limitations in producing single-core silicon CPUs. It was an issue which began impacting computers during the development of FSX; specifically, that limitation was causing quantum mechanical tunneling and overheating on the data tracks of CPUs when manufacturers tried to speed them up using the traditional methods of increasing the speed of CPUs - i.e. making them smaller and adding more stuff.This was what put the brakes on Moore's Law; it was nothing to do with MS trying to get one over on people or making a mess of things owing to incompetence or any of the other nonsense accusations which people level at MS as though it is some sort of evil empire. Additionally, people had been loudly demanding backwards compatibility in FS, which also put limitations on the kind of technology MS could incorporate into Flight Simulator. That is the reason why they dropped FS and created Flight, in order to draw a line under the demand for backward compatibility.So FSX was far from being a case of 'MS getting away with something', and if you think it was, then you'd be conveniently forgetting the recent history of computer development. But even so, when the physical limitation on the development of faster single core CPUs forced a change in how CPUs were created (using multiple cores, which we now see are common), the problem was circumvented, and FSX can run well in spite of not having been developed with those in mind. But FSX ran perfectly well from day one if you were prepared to use the detail sliders (which is what they were there for whilst the world awaited a CPU solution).There is (literally) a world of difference between creating what FSX offers in comparison to all other flight sims, and to do it when Moore's Law had run into a brick wall and everyone was demanding that their five year-old add ons should still work with it, was an achievement not to be underestimated.Al

You make very good points Al. I often wonder how good FSX might have been if MS would have just put the release date on hold for 6 to 12 months once they saw the new release of multi-core and ect. My only real problem with FSX is the mess that Devs found themselves in. Even a company like Flight 1 has spent a long time to release their Cessna 182. I don't think backward compatiable is a possibility for Flight and in the long run that will be for the good of the hobbie. I just hope that Flight will be easier for dev's to work with. I would hate to think we will have to wait 1 or 2 years after release of Flight to get our next Mustang, Duke or ORBX quality add ons.

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

You make very good points Al. I often wonder how good FSX might have been if MS would have just put the release date on hold for 6 to 12 months once they saw the new release of multi-core and ect. My only real problem with FSX is the mess that Devs found themselves in. Even a company like Flight 1 has spent a long time to release their Cessna 182. I don't think backward compatiable is a possibility for Flight and in the long run that will be for the good of the hobbie. I just hope that Flight will be easier for dev's to work with. I would hate to think we will have to wait 1 or 2 years after release of Flight to get our next Mustang, Duke or ORBX quality add ons.

Exactly! This is what I truly hope for. No backwards compatibility, but instead a much better SDK that addon developers can more quickly and efficiently create addons for Flight, with all the benefits of Flight and none of the drawbacks of FSX.Jamie ♥

[Mike T 211]

It took me about 6 months to buy FS 2004 and fully migrate from FS 2002 - there just was no compelling reason. It took me 3 years to migrate from FS 2004 to FSX - again, no compelling reason to rush. Now that I have a system capable of running FSX the way it was meant to be and over a thousand bucks in addons (and counting) I am extremely happy with FSX. FLIGHT? Well I don't live in Hawaii. Performance in FSX is not an issue any more. FSX is fully customized with all airports and scenery to make my flying extremely realistic. The only aircraft that I'm missing now is a 777 and I've even learned how to convert many FS2004 only Imaginesim and Flytampa scenery to FSX. Then there will be a naked FLIGHT for sale at Best Buy. What's my motivation to move? I've not seen any yet. As MS releases NON HAWAII screenshots and a list of features I'll make an INFORMED decision then. Making any decisions now is akin to deciding on buying a specific car based only on a single glitzy publicity shot of the car.

[mmann 72]

Making any decisions now is akin to deciding on buying a specific car based only on a single glitzy publicity shot of the car.

Actually it is more akin to buying a specific car based only on a single glitzy publicity shot of only part of the car.Regards, Mike Mann

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Because if it does what's needed and is developed and tested why waste time and effort re-writing it and then re-starting the development and testing process all over again?

Exactly. There are indeed good pieces of code in FSX. Why take the time to rewrite something that could be the same, when they can just borrow some existing code? I'm not saying that they are going to take anything bad from FSX, just things that have been perfected over the years and would be the better choice than to rewrite. Makes a whole lot of sense.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

I've raced to the store with great expectataions the last few times around. And for the most part I was pleased, except for a distinct lack of current hardware support of the day every single time.While I am not sure whether I will race to the store this time or not, based on FSX essentially ending up being the Vista of operating systems, I probably will anyway.Why ???Because I agree with Geofa that supporting the people who bring us this marvel is very important. When this support stops, so do the offerings.While MS may have hit a faul ball with FSX, they sure made a nice swing with the bat. And they proved with Windows 7, that they can come back from a disaster.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[alainneedle1 97]

Exactly. There are indeed good pieces of code in FSX. Why take the time to rewrite something that could be the same, when they can just borrow some existing code? I'm not saying that they are going to take anything bad from FSX, just things that have been perfected over the years and would be the better choice than to rewrite. Makes a whole lot of sense.

They are not importing anything bad from FSX they are taking what's bad out of FSX to be replaced with something new and MS is calling this a new engine from the ground up?? HELLO!!!Seriously, just by looking at the pics we can all see (emotions aside) that this is not a new engine, do I have to remind everybody about the oversised houses and trees seeing in the released pics just to take these two examples, they may fix it but it does not make it a new engine because of that?I can take an old Ford model T and rebuild it from the ground up keeping some old part and using some new part with it, that does not make it a new car, it will make it a better and improved car but definitly not a new one.

[ErichB 3,651]

I'd SO buy it.

[shivers9 1,174]

They are not importing anything bad from FSX they are taking what's bad out of FSX to be replaced with something new and MS is calling this a new engine from the ground up?? HELLO!!!Seriously, just by looking at the pics we can all see (emotions aside) that this is not a new engine, do I have to remind everybody about the oversised houses and trees seeing in the released pics just to take these two examples, they may fix it but it does not make it a new engine because of that?I can take an old Ford model T and rebuild it from the ground up keeping some old part and using some new part with it, that does not make it a new car, it will make it a better and improved car but definitly not a new one.

ummm. I get your idea but maybe lot the best argument. buy your reasoning there has only ever been 1 "new" car produced. I am certain that no one took the time to reinvent the wheel for each new model and year. I think the argument about new engine or not is often confused by this logic. I think if MS is saving the tires, wipers, windshield etc. and maybe just cleaning them up a bit will still tech' be a new engine. Seems to be a smart thing to do if the "New Engine" comes out looking, running and working like new then all will be well.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

I'm in no hurry to make the same mistake I did with FSX. I want to see evidence of good frame rates on less than stellar PCs before I part with any money. FSX's performance was nothing short of disgraceful even on PCs on the Microsoft stand at various FS shows I attended.Flight should be written for 64-bit processors and have multi-core capability. Anything less is not acceptable to me.As the saying goes...trick me once, shame on you. trick me twice, shame on me.

[alainneedle1 97]

ummm. I get your idea but maybe lot the best argument. buy your reasoning there has only ever been 1 "new" car produced. I am certain that no one took the time to reinvent the wheel for each new model and year. I think the argument about new engine or not is often confused by this logic. I think if MS is saving the tires, wipers, windshield etc. and maybe just cleaning them up a bit will still tech' be a new engine. Seems to be a smart thing to do if the "New Engine" comes out looking, running and working like new then all will be well.

With all due respect, what ever rock your boat is fine with me, as for me, a new engine mean something completely different from FSX and so far I see something based on FSX for some of the reasons I explained above.When I went back to the dealership to have a faulty part replaced in the transmission of my car (as they recalled my model) I did not came out of there driving a brand new car, I was dryving the same car with an improvement in it.Flight will be based on the FSX engine with a lot of good improvement in it including DX10, if you want to call this a new engine from the ground up it's fine with me.

[alainneedle1 97]

I'm in no hurry to make the same mistake I did with FSX. I want to see evidence of good frame rates on less than stellar PCs before I part with any money. FSX's performance was nothing short of disgraceful even on PCs on the Microsoft stand at various FS shows I attended.Flight should be written for 64-bit processors and have multi-core capability. Anything less is not acceptable to me.As the saying goes...trick me once, shame on you. trick me twice, shame on me.

I'm sure that Flight out of the box will perform nicely on the average PC.As the developers will push the envelope further and further because of the improvement you will see in Flight you will need a top of the line PC to use Flight with all the sliders to the max with demanding addons at high resolution, this will be no different compare to any other games.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

I'm sure that Flight out of the box will perform nicely on the average PC.

Really? That'll be a first then. No version I've ever bought has performed well out of the box on current processors. It was an accepted fact that FS was designed for processors available 2 years in the future.

As the developers will push the envelope further and further because of the improvement you will see in Flight you will need a top of the line PC to use Flight with all the sliders to the max with demanding addons at high resolution, this will be no different compare to any other games.

Well even a top of the line processor couldn't cope with FSX when it was released. I don't think Flight will be any different. We'll see when the first frame rates are available. If Microsoft don't learn from their mistakes with FSX then they are very silly.