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.

No worries. Not looking to defend the wording of the MS sales machine. The only thing I know for sure about Flight is that any improvement is better than none. At least it keeps the hobbie alive.

If it ran pretty well (how do you define that lol?) on my Core i5 system... and without G3D.dll errors - I'd probably switch right away.Well, maybe I wouldn't switch but I'd still run FSX.

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.

It can be a new engine, but look a lot like the old one if they have not replaced the textures and even effects. Obviously they have replaced some of the textures, but not all of them...yet.Again, Microsoft is fully aware that the MSFS code is fat and happy. They are not going to just rewrite parts of it and leave old code. They are going to rewrite it as much as they can, but bring in legacy code where it is the obvious better choice. (for example, maybe they'll bring in code for displaying a runway, or code for changing the time of day. the code they bring in could be for something way more advanced that took years to perfect, or something simpler that just doesn't need to be rewritten) There is no problem with that and I see no reason to get all emotional about it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's some good pieces of code in FSX. It doesn't mean they are going to use a lot of FSX code.Also, take a look at my comparison screenshots. You'll notice how much better the autogen size is in Flight compared to FSX. (in screenshot 5 of FSX, the trees are skyscrapers. In Flight, the trees are much smaller. Maybe still not 100% accurate, but better.)

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.

Couldn't have put it any better myself.Bryan.

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.

Good point and I do agree that Flight should be written with 64 bit users in mind.

The other point that concerns me is that Pete Dowson has already said he won't be writing FSUIPC for Flight. He feels it's too much work given his age.So unless some other clever person steps up to the plate it seems unlikely we'll have all those 3rd party utilties that can 'talk' to Flight. I'd be very surprised if Microsoft supplied such a utility and even if they did they certainly wouldn't respond to user requests the way Pete has over the years.That would be a major deterrent not just for me but for many others I suspect. There may be a SimConnect type of interface but it wouldn't be as versatile as FSUIPC has been.

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.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.

Have you try DX10 lately? I can use DX10 in FSX with some tweak in Nvidia Inspector without any shimmering with the Nvidia driver 270.61 without any weird effect but some sparse flickering runways, here is two short vid. I made not to long ago for testing purpose, taking off from Orbx KORS all sliders to the right in DX10, the small stutterings are caused by Fraps, no editing. I forgot to say, that was done with frame rate at unlimited with not frame rate limiter or any fsx.CFG tweak at all.Since Flight will use DX10 you will have a FPS boost right there.It will be a HUGE mistake from MS if Flight do not run good on a medium PC (as of today).

I will make another short vid. with a fast plane with the frame counter on, the funny thing in DX10 (for me) is that frame rate going from 45 down to 20 and up to 55 does not cause any stutterings.....

Have you try DX10 lately? I can use DX10 in FSX with some tweak in Nvidia Inspector without any shimmering with the Nvidia driver 270.61 without any weird effect but some sparse flickering runways, here is two short vid. I made not to long ago for testing purpose, taking off from Orbx KORS all sliders to the right in DX10, the small stutterings are caused by Fraps, no editing. I forgot to say, that was done with frame rate at unlimited with not frame rate limiter or any fsx.CFG tweak at all.Since Flight will use DX10 you will have a FPS boost right there.It will be a HUGE mistake from MS if Flight do not run good on a medium PC (as of today).

I will make another short vid. with a fast plane with the frame counter on, the funny thing in DX10 (for me) is that frame rate going from 45 down to 20 and up to 55 does not cause any stutterings.....

They're nice videos but they aren't really pushing the processor to the limit. If you have any 3rd party large airports like KJFK or EGLL try an approach and landing in a 737 with heavy overcast and lots of Ai enabled. That's more akin to how I fly in FS9. I suspect your frame rates will nosedive and that's on a state of the art PC 5 years after FSX was released.I really don't fly FSX. FS9 gives me all I want with excellent performance at every airport in all weathers. That's not something I've previously achieved in my 17 years of flying Microsoft FS.And yes, you're quite right to say Microsoft will be committing an enormous mistake if they don't get this one right. One might almost say a terminal mistake. This could be their last chance.

They're nice videos but they aren't really pushing the processor to the limit. If you have any 3rd party large airports like KJFK or EGLL try an approach and landing in a 737 with heavy overcast and lots of Ai enabled.

With how many passengers......-_-I'll be back.....

Have you try DX10 lately? I can use DX10 in FSX with some tweak in Nvidia Inspector without any shimmering with the Nvidia driver 270.61 without any weird effect but some sparse flickering runways, here is two short vid. I made not to long ago for testing purpose, taking off from Orbx KORS all sliders to the right in DX10, the small stutterings are caused by Fraps, no editing. I forgot to say, that was done with frame rate at unlimited with not frame rate limiter or any fsx.CFG tweak at all.Since Flight will use DX10 you will have a FPS boost right there.It will be a HUGE mistake from MS if Flight do not run good on a medium PC (as of today).

I will make another short vid. with a fast plane with the frame counter on, the funny thing in DX10 (for me) is that frame rate going from 45 down to 20 and up to 55 does not cause any stutterings.....

In FSX, DX10 doesn't really offer much more than DX9. In fact, many users seem to just have more problems with it than DX9. (some users do report better FPS with DX10, and some don't) Now it all comes down to how the engine is written. Since the graphics engine of Flight is a rewrite, better optimization for DX10 (or DX11....what ever version they use) should give a huge boost in performance. I feel like I've said this 1,000 times, but Flight pretty much has to have good performance this time. Microsoft wants a bigger audience. If they are trying to get that casual gamer involved as well, they need to give good performance on most computers that the average user of today would have. Microsoft seems to finally know that this time.

So a "real fan" buys every flight simulation that is available, irrespective of whether it's a sensible purchase or not? I guess that means that I am not a "real fan" then. I prefer to have ONE flight simulator, and if MS Flight was released tomorrow, the one feature that it would need for me to take the plunge would be compatibility with my existing FSX addons.

No Flight for you.

Alain, I don't quite follow. On the one hand you have used almost every thread in this forum to prove MS Flight is merely an upgrade to FSX code; everyone thinking MS is actually building Flight from the ground up, using older code in the process (mind the subtle difference), must be utterly wrong. So how come, in your above quote, you seem so convinced backward compatibility is out of the question?In reply to the original question in this thread, if Flight we're released tomorrow I'd get it in a heartbeat. I've always been thrilled about every MS Flightsim release. I enjoy the anticipation, the discussions like in this forum, the hopes of what the new sim will be. I don't care I have invested a lot of money in FSX addons. There is going to be a new MS Flightsim platform with numerous new possibilities that I will explore the day it comes out! And talking about all those addons, I have a hunge those built for FSX SP2 or Acceleration may work in Flight. Then again, that hunge may have been completely wrong the day Flight comes out. But this will not take away the joy of that first flight in Flight :(

It must be a generational thing and perhaps the fact that I am a software developer myself, so I know what could have been done with how much extra effort.I recall games released with very few bugs and properly written manuals. Games that did not need patches upon patches to make them playable. I guess the phrase "they don't make them like they used to" applies here as well.FYI, Civ V was released about a year ago and they are planning yet another major patch for next month. I play it sometimes, I even have a mod released for it, but it is just a mediocre effort. By comparison FSX is far better except for the fact that I will only be able to run it properly when I get my 2600K later this week. A mediocre effort to release a properly running game on the part of MS.

bet i am older than you .... I cant you believe you said games of old didnt have problems or a need to be patched.I  Puts doubt on you being in the business .. sorry!

Alain, I don't quite follow. On the one hand you have used almost every thread in this forum to prove MS Flight is merely an upgrade to FSX code; everyone thinking MS is actually building Flight from the ground up, using older code in the process (mind the subtle difference), must be utterly wrong. So how come, in your above quote, you seem so convinced backward compatibility is out of the question?

I don't know how much of FSX will be in Flight but looking at the pics one can tell that we are seeing some of the same stuff in Flight from FSX like oversized houses and trees, they may be fixing some of these problems as we speak and that will be a good thing but it's obvious (to me) that MS started building Flight from the same FSX engine, again how much of FSX will be used in Flight...I don't know.As far as backward compatibility goes and again this is only MHO, where is the money for the developers and MS if they allow you to use your FSX addons in Flight? Why a store?I have no problems with all my addons been compatible with Flight but I just can't see why MS and the developers will go for that, it just does not make good business sense.I may be wrong on this one because I don't know how that stuff word exactly but here is how I would do it with MS if I was to get in business with them as a developer, been a developer I know a lot of my stuff is pirated it's a no brainer, so lets say one can buy Flight from a local store go home and install Flight, so you have your own serial number and you activate Flight, you look around and see that there is a store you can access from Flight, you enter the store and see that there is a lot of addons you can buy to enhance your Flight experience so you decide to buy one (Ft-lauderdale airport), you enter your registration number + your customer number (after registration) and your CC number, approved (now here is the part I don't know if it's possible to do) Ft-Lauderdale airport is downloaded directly to your virtual flying world meaning that the next time you'll fly from Ft-Lauderdale airport it will be from the addon you just got without you having to download it yourself, it's already there.So as a developer the chances of having my addons pirated are reduced greatly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_world

What if the Flight computer wasn't connected to the Internet?

What if the Flight computer wasn't connected to the Internet?

Yup...Microsoft has already said that Flight can be run without internet.