This of course is exactly the reason why Flight will for the most part be backwards-compatbile with FSX.The situation is quite similar to launching a new OS: How would the adoption rate for the new OS fare if no Apps are available from the start? This is why OS versions need to be backwards compatible. TAnd the need for backwards compatibility is not just something Microsoft knows, it's the Bible they go by.Cheers,- jahman.

I don't think you can make the OS vs. Flight backward compatibility argument a sound one. Just about 100% of OS users have Apps for normal usage and just about 100% MSFS users dont use any Apps for normal usage. A complete lack of backwards compatibility would NOT really hurt flight sales in the least.

This of course is exactly the reason why Flight will for the most part be backwards-compatbile with FSX.The situation is quite similar to launching a new OS: How would the adoption rate for the new OS fare if no Apps are available from the start? This is why OS versions need to be backwards compatible. TAnd the need for backwards compatibility is not just something Microsoft knows, it's the Bible they go by.Cheers,- jahman.

The situation is totally different. All OS users have a varying number of applications installed - browsers, email, Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) not to mention business , commercial, engineering, applications etc, etc. Many FS user don't have many - a significant number have none. Microsoft is not targetting existing FS users - it's looking to sell to the wider market. The December Newsletter said it - There is distinct value and strength to be gained by welcoming a wider audience, and we can’t claim to have done the best job of it in the past. I.e. ACES were aiming FS in the wrong direction!

I think it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on the following question:What features and/or attributes would MS Flight have to have in order for you to switch from your current sim (FSX, FS9, or other) to MS Flight?

The two things I'll be looking for are- Gradual fading in of scenery as it becomes visible, instead of popping of autogen and scenery details- Improved ATC, so that you can request flight levels and runway approaches and not be directed all over the placeand then... I do hope that I do not lose all my favorite aircraft and scenery, all at once! :(

This time, even if it takes 2 or 3 years after the launch, I am not going to move over to a new platform until I have a substantial amount of addon airports to choose from and at least 2 or 3 of my favorite a/c to fly ie. PMDG or LDS.

This of course is exactly the reason why Flight will for the most part be backwards-compatbile with FSX.The situation is quite similar to launching a new OS: How would the adoption rate for the new OS fare if no Apps are available from the start? This is why OS versions need to be backwards compatible. TAnd the need for backwards compatibility is not just something Microsoft knows, it's the Bible they go by.Cheers,- jahman.

I hope so, but only time will tell. That's really the main thing for me is addons when it comes to switching sims. Granted Flight can look a lot better globally but there is no way I will be happy flying the default 737, especially after I get my hands on the NGX once it comes out. And what about AI? Suppose the vast amount of models and paints we use for AI in FSX no longer will work? Can you imagine how long it will take for a developer(s) to recreate all the commercial, military, and g/a models we currently use in FSX? Just that could take a year or two.I'm hoping that even if things are directly backward compatible, there will be some tools available, kind of like Arno's ModelConverterX, that we could possible run our stuff thru to work in Flight. If that's the case then there probably wont be much to worry about, if not, who knows how long it will be? I can live without products like GEX and UTX for a while, especially if Flight textures and vector data are better than what FSX came with. Who know's how the default weather engine will work, but I could probably get by with the stock one for a while. So then for me it's basically just down to airports and a/c. I dont doubt that the default airports in Flight will look better than the defaults in FSX, but they will probably still be a fry cry from FSDT or FT quality airports.

I hope so, but only time will tell. That's really the main thing for me is addons when it comes to switching sims. Granted Flight can look a lot better globally but there is no way I will be happy flying the default 737, especially after I get my hands on the NGX once it comes out. And what about AI? Suppose the vast amount of models and paints we use for AI in FSX no longer will work? Can you imagine how long it will take for a developer(s) to recreate all the commercial, military, and g/a models we currently use in FSX? Just that could take a year or two.I'm hoping that even if things are directly backward compatible, there will be some tools available, kind of like Arno's ModelConverterX, that we could possible run our stuff thru to work in Flight. If that's the case then there probably wont be much to worry about, if not, who knows how long it will be? I can live without products like GEX and UTX for a while, especially if Flight textures and vector data are better than what FSX came with. Who know's how the default weather engine will work, but I could probably get by with the stock one for a while. So then for me it's basically just down to airports and a/c. I dont doubt that the default airports in Flight will look better than the defaults in FSX, but they will probably still be a fry cry from FSDT or FT quality airports.

100% with you here. Regarding GEX and UTX, and scenery in general, I'm pretty confident there will be close to 100% compatibiity: While there are many reasons to re-write the scenery engine and some overdue fixes for the scenery compiler, there are no reasons to break compatibility with the way scenery is stored in files. The World in Flight will still be round, a pixel will still be a pixel.Cheers,- jahman.

I'm going to buy it on day one like normal, but realistically I'm probably going to run FSX for a while after.

I'm going to buy it on day one like normal, but realistically I'm probably going to run FSX for a while after.

The $64,000 question being "What day will that be" ???Is MS FLIGHT even in beta testing yet ???

for me,i'll be offering my support and just buy it,like i have done with every major flight sim.one thing i'm hoping for though,is an exciting enviroment,...i haven't seen much mention of it,but soundwise,i live near an airport and in flight,if i position myself in that sort of vicinity and there's a 747 coming over then you should know about it!it would be nice to have that same feeling in flight,creating sounds that reverberate through the enviroment.it would be little touches of polish like this that would make it for me.

The $64,000 question being "What day will that be" ???Is MS FLIGHT even in beta testing yet ???

If you're really offering $64,000 I'd be willing to take a stab at it; February 23rd 2012. Credit or bank transfer will be fine.

Greetings!I'm possibly (probably?) mistaken but... I don't understand the talk about backward compatibility with FSX. Why would a completely new simulator with a completely new engine and such, (have to) be compatible with a different, outdated, heavily criticized simulator? Also, I don't understand statements like "There's no way I'll be flying the default 737". What do you know about any possible "default 737" that makes you reject it already, without the simulator even being on the market yet? As far as I understand Flight will be a new sim, not an extension/continuation of the "old" MSFS series. Also as far as I understand, nobody outside of the relevant department of Microsoft knows what the default planes will be like. Then why are all those statements being made and opinions being given?Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

The thing is, backwards compatibility is wishful or hopeful thanking by people who have invested a LOT of money into there current software (FSX/2004). They simply DONT want that money to be waisted! I can understand that to some degree, but the number of people in that situation number in the hundreds at most. Do you really think MS would spend a LOT of time to make it backwards compatible for those few people? Also, it lowers the market value of the eco-system, and creates a massive vulnerability. It makes NO SENSE for MS to do that! They WANT to attract 3rd party products, and you CANT do that by offering up all there old products for free! Here is what I HOPE happens. Conversion from FSX into Flight will hopefully be easy for dev's so MS can offer a big catalog on launch. I would hope that it would be up to each 3rd party group to sell an "upgrade" from FSX into Flight for there products, and in doing so, add something new to justify it. That way you get the best of both worlds. You wont have to re-buy your products 100%, you get to enjoy the new features (whatever they are) and GFX, MS has a nice big catalog for sale, and everyone is happy! Im also sure I just saw a unicorn that shoots rainbows out of its arse and a flying pig, but it could all happen!

The thing is, backwards compatibility is wishful or hopeful thanking by people who have invested a LOT of money into there current software (FSX/2004). They simply DONT want that money to be waisted!...."

The thing is, the money wasn't wasted .. people got full enjoyment of it. To me, its the equivalent of saying every piece of clothes that I have bought should always be in my wardrobe for the rest of my life.

The thing is, the money wasn't wasted .. people got full enjoyment of it. To me, its the equivalent of saying every piece of clothes that I have bought should always be in my wardrobe for the rest of my life.

But you will eventually outgrow them, or if you get really old, you will out-shrink them Same thing applies for FSX add-ons, well... depending how different Flight is compared to FSX.Jamie ♥

The thing is, the money wasn't wasted .. people got full enjoyment of it. To me, its the equivalent of saying every piece of clothes that I have bought should always be in my wardrobe for the rest of my life.

To me its like going to movie, or a day at a amusement park. It has a worth, even if it doesn't last a life time.

The issue with backward compatibility is the same as it was with FS9. People still use FS9 for two reasons: 1. performance, 2. lack of add-on compatibility.The developers would love to just make a few changes to their FSX products and market them at full price and whatever % off for upgrades. However, this leaves us, the users, in a real bad situation, just like it left us with improperly working FS9 add-ons ported over to FSX.If we were to get a better version of a product for Flight, then fine, we should pay something for it. However, to get the same FS2002 model that has been ported over N times, and having had to buy it N times is getting a little old for some people.We are getting to the point where there are just a very few worthy planes on the market. The rest are out of date ports of some long forgotten FS version. If you all want to fly the same plane that was available for FS9 - and pay for it - go ahead. However, if you want better models, better textures, better simulation, lighting etc, then you should wish for something that would force the developers to update their products to 2012 standards.Not buying their same old products yet again would do this, however we need to have backward compatibility for this. Having no backward compatibility is great for the developers, but it will force many people to stay with FSX or even FS9, because they will not be paying yet again for the same planes they bought for FS9.As for add-on scenery, I see no problems there. Flight default textures and overall scenery will likely be a lot better than default FSX was. That will force a lot of the scenery developers to significantly update their products.The issue I have is not having to spend money. The issue I DO have is not getting a better product than what I have already paid for, in some cases more than once.