...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 Why would a completely new simulator with a completely new engine and such, (have to) be compatible with a different, outdated, heavily criticized simulator?...

Because a scenery add-on is just a data file (bitmaps and "FS World" coordinates of where to place those bitmaps). There is no simulation engine built-in to a scenery add-on. All FSX does is read the data from the files, so there is no impediment to reading old files with a new simulator. A new database engine will read your old database files, a new wordprocessor will read your old wordprocessor files, etc, etc. There's data and there's engines and whenever possible, compatibility is preserved."FS World" in Flight will be exactly the same as the FS World in FSX: Round, 40,000 km circumference, with the continents placed in exactly the same spot as in the FSX FS World (I doubt there will be any adjustments made for continental drift).Now Flight could have a totally new scenery engine to render the scenery, but the data itself that is rendered will still be the same. So there is no reason for Flight to break compatibility with FSX scenery. Why on Earth (pun intended!) would Microsoft want to do that? Mind FSX did break compatibility with FS9 scenery, but the problem was FS9 World was flat and needed to be fixed for curved horizons in cockpit views and for transpolar flights.Aircraft add-ons are in the same situation as scenery: They are just data files with a 3D object model (similar idea to FS World but local) plus an aircraft air file to configure the flight sim engine with the aircraft's flight characteristics. Again, the object model in FSX is OK (3D coordinates and bitmaps), so there is no reason for incompatibility here. As for the air file, perhaps Flight will add more parameters to be configured (making for an easy update from the add-on developper) or likely the add-on will just fly as it did in FSX with any new Flight parameters left blank.But the important point remains the same: Aircraft add-ons are just data files, and Flight could (and should) have a cmpletely new flight sim engine developped, but the aircraft object model and air file can remain the same. No need to break compatibility here either. FSX did break compatibility with FS9 aircraft because the object model needed to be expanded to include reflection and transparency ("alpha" channel). But FSX add-on aircrafft already have these features, so why would Flight meed to break compatibility?The exception, of course, is complex aircraft add-ons that use DLLs to peek and poke into FSX's binaries in RAM. In this case compatibility will most likely be broken.From a busness point-of-view, compatibility is also advantageous. For Microsoft, due to an abundance of add-ons, sales of Flight will hot-start when released, while add-on developpers and resellers benefit from sales of existing add-ons because Flight now gives an all-around better sim experience (e.g. no CTDs, fast start-up times, super FPS), so simmers will purchase more FSX aircraft and more FSX scenery right off the bat, while a year down the road new add-ons specific for Flight (higher resolution scenery, aircraft with yet more frills not previously feasible under FSX) will appear on the horizon for us simmers to buy and provide cashflow for developper and reseller business models.FS evolution is similar to Intel's Tic-Toc model: Upgrade the sim engine on even years, upgrade the add-ons on the odd years. This worked before and kept the sim ecosystem growing, so no reason it should not working now.Mind, as of yet I have not heard one valid, specific programming reason as to why Flight ought to be incompatible with FSX add-ons.Cheers,- jahman.

The biggest mistake you guys are making is to assume that Flight will work the same way FS2004, FS9 or FSX does :( , Flight will be different.The market store is for Flight not for FSX, selling Flight addons not FSX addons, do you think you'll be able to upload your FSX addons to the Flight's store to have them redownloaded into Flight?? Nope, Flight is a brand new ball game, it's not "gonna" work the same way FSX work so you better get use to the idea of "NO BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY", do you really think that MS will let your FSX addons be reused for Flight when you already paid for it....oh and forget about a small fee for making them compatible....:( I myself spent A LOT of money on FSX addons...so what...I'm still using them, should I be become a cry baby because my FSX addons won't work with Flight.... :( if I don't like that I don't have to buy Flight and I just have to stay with FSX, if I want a new sim I also want new addons for it.Sit tight cause a lot of us will stay with FSX for awile.PS: I forgot, it's all about MONEY and not about how we feel......B)

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.

if you read you argument carefully .. backward compatibility is both good and bad. :(

So your argument is that Flight will break compatibility with FSX (and seriously destroy ecosystem value) because of a requirement to exclusively download add-ons from the an MS Marketplace?I seriously doubt that.Cheers,- jahman.

"...Sit tight cause a lot of us will stay with FSX for awile.PS: I forgot, it's all about MONEY and not about how we feel......:(

I dont believe that it will be alot .. you would like to think that so that your decision not to move to Flight is easier.

So your argument is that Flight will break compatibility with FSX (and seriously destroy ecosystem value) because of a requirement to exclusively download add-ons from the an MS Marketplace?I seriously doubt that.Cheers,- jahman.

Who's talking about destroying anything??? What's the problem, what ever I got as far as addons for FSX will work with my FSX after the released of Flight, will it not??Stay with me here.....Flght addons = $ for MS because you have to buy them as you have to buy Flight, FSX addons = zero $ for MS because you already have them, so it's not about a requirement to exclusively download add-ons from the an MS Marketplace.

I dont believe that it will be alot .. you would like to think that so that your decision not to move to Flight is easier.

My point about staying with FSX was not about how much Flight will cost but more about how Flight will work and how much money one already invested in FSX addons knowing they won't work with Flight, by the way one big dev. already stated this..."The MS-Flight platform will be huge and that will be our focus moving forward, in addition to continuing to develop for FSX in parallel"

How much will MS pocket if add-ons are not compatible with Flight, so that users decide to stick with FS9/FSX and they don't purchase either Flight or any add-ons for Flight, from MS?

How much will MS pocket if add-ons are not compatible with Flight, so that users decide to stick with FS9/FSX and they don't purchase either Flight or any add-ons for Flight, from MS?

Remember we are not their target user......they are looking for the pop's and mom's who do not have a sim., that's where the money will mainly come from and from us of course.Addons will not be the primary source of revenue for MS, Flight will be, been under MS umbrella the addons will generate more money for the dev. because of the exposure to a wider public from the store and will also reduce piracy = more money in the dev.'s pockets, of course MS will take a cut out of it so it's a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Now you are writing out of both sides of your mouth!

Who's talking about destroying anything??? What's the problem, what ever I got as far as addons for FSX will work with my FSX after the released of Flight, will it not??Stay with me here.....Flght addons = $ for MS because you have to buy them as you have to buy Flight, FSX addons = zero $ for MS because you already have them, so it's not about a requirement to exclusively download add-ons from the an MS Marketplace....

If incompatibility does not destroy ecosystem value, what does?According to your line of reasoning, if MS came out with a new version of Office that was incompatible with all the previous versions of Office, no ecosystem value would be destroyed because everyone could just keep using the previous version. Databases, operating systems, CPUs, none would need to be backwards compatible then, because you could just keep using what you have. :( As var as $ for MS, you might have FSX add-ons, but you don't have Flight add-ons. It's just a repeat of FS9 vs. FSX aircraft: You often can run FS9 aircraft in FSX, but the same aircraft redone for FSX is generally a lot better. So you see yo can have both: Compatibility and an opportunity to sell the newer, better version. With the new (we hope) Flight sim engine, developpers will be able to increase the polygon count for the aircraft object model and the VC, all the while maintaining acceptable FPS, so there will be plenty of commercial opportunity to improve on FSX aircraft add-ons.Cheers,- jahman.

If incompatibility does not destroy ecosystem value, what does?According to your line of reasoning, if MS came out with a new version of Office that was incompatible with all the previous versions of Office, no ecosystem value would be destroyed because everyone could just keep using the previous version. Databases, operating systems, CPUs, none would need to be backwards compatible then, because you could just keep using what you have. :( As var as $ for MS, you might have FSX add-ons, but you don't have Flight add-ons. It's just a repeat of FS9 vs. FSX aircraft: You often can run FS9 aircraft in FSX, but the same aircraft redone for FSX is generally a lot better. So you see yo can have both: Compatibility and an opportunity to sell the newer, better version. With the new (we hope) Flight sim engine, developpers will be able to increase the polygon count for the aircraft object model and the VC, all the while maintaining acceptable FPS, so there will be plenty of commercial opportunity to improve on FSX aircraft add-ons.Cheers,- jahman.

With all due respect what's not to understand about this statement...? The important word here is parallel."The MS-Flight platform will be huge and that will be our focus moving forward, in addition to continuing to develop for FSX in parallel"

Now you are writing out of both sides of your mouth!

? not sure I understand but just in case....sure some of us will buy Flight no matter what but we are not the main target here, the day a new customer will shop for Flight he will also be exposed to the add-ons available for it in the store something we did not have for FSX unless we knew what to look for on the web., now you will have it all at the same place.

If incompatibility does not destroy ecosystem value, what does?According to your line of reasoning, if MS came out with a new version of Office that was incompatible with all the previous versions of Office, no ecosystem value would be destroyed because everyone could just keep using the previous version. Databases, operating systems, CPUs, none would need to be backwards compatible then, because you could just keep using what you have. :( As var as $ for MS, you might have FSX add-ons, but you don't have Flight add-ons. It's just a repeat of FS9 vs. FSX aircraft: You often can run FS9 aircraft in FSX, but the same aircraft redone for FSX is generally a lot better. So you see yo can have both: Compatibility and an opportunity to sell the newer, better version. With the new (we hope) Flight sim engine, developpers will be able to increase the polygon count for the aircraft object model and the VC, all the while maintaining acceptable FPS, so there will be plenty of commercial opportunity to improve on FSX aircraft add-ons.Cheers,- jahman.

You guys can not use the OS vs Flight backward compatibility argument. 100% of all OS users have apps to make the OS useful. Also, nearly 100% of MSFS users... use the flight sim without any addons.

Also, nearly 100% of MSFS users... use the flight sim without any addons.

Also, nearly 100% of those users no longer even have MSFS still installed, let alone still playing it.Regards, Mike Mann

Alain,FSX broke compatibility with FS9 for aircraft and scenery. So what happened?As far as I can tell we have a ton of - sometimes badly - converted FS9 products sold for FSX.After five years, we have a few native FSX products that are clearly superior to FS9 products. Try and list the native FSX stuff and then list the FS9 conversions.As for completely new this and that in Flight and that it will be huge and everyone will be rushing out to buy all these new and fancy Flight add-ons - there is zero evidence of any of this.We may not be the target audience, but the target audience will have enough trouble flying the MS planes and will not be lining up to buy more complex ones at $50 a pop.