Get use to that, especially around this forum... far too many folks here are simply tone deaf, the rest just run around in circles screaming they can't see the forrest for all the trees.

Jacoba it's a forum, where many opinions and ideas come together, just because one differs from yours doesn't mean they are tone deaf, keep in mind yours isn't the only tone in the forest.

Using the old code, in my opinion, means old problems, old strategies, old everything.

I got your point, I just disagree. We see it from different angles, I see utilizing old code as building on many years of experience, it doesn't have to mean you bring all the old problems with you, these obviously should be fixed and where required completely redone. But why throw away everything? Developing from the ground up you are going to run into the same problems that were encountered initially, it is going to cost tremendous amounts of time and money and the end result may actually be lacking in comparison.Let me ask you this, what if you are able to produce better performance, better looking and better in every way without building from the ground up, then is there really a difference to the end user? I get the sense that you feel like old code means another FSX, I don't think it has to. A good example of this is Windows 7 and Vista being so similar yet so different.

By using new code I think there are better ways of utilizing new technologies and not being limited by old stuff.Why are you so concerned by how much money MS will spend on this?

Let me ask you this, what if you are able to produce better performance, better looking and better in every way without building from the ground up, then is there really a difference to the end user? I get the sense that you feel like old code means another FSX, I don't think it has to.

Do you own any Orbx sceneries? Did you see MS Flight screenshots? Would you say one is based on more than 5 years old code (first lines were maybe written even 10 years ago for FS2002) and the other will come out in 2012?Besides a few tweaks here and there (cloud blending, a little better landclass and textures) I don't see much of a difference between Flight and FSX. But hey, all we got is a few screenshots, so we'll see.To answer your question... no, if they are going to produce better performing, better looking and better in every way sim than I'm all in for using old code! But I think that's like waiting for a miracle.We just have different expectations, that's all.

...if they are going to produce better performing, better looking and better in every way sim than I'm all in for using old code!

IMO wise words ;)Ask MS to rewrite the slow code and the bad code.Ask for a better looking and better performing sim.Old code can still be fast and efficient…it's one reason why old code survives.Look at FSX – I tihnk it is new code that is slow….all those new rendering features.

FSX is a special breed of software though. It probably has code from Win 95 days and before. It is a game, with a limited budget for improvements for each new release. The older the code gets, the less you get for the same budget. Also, as the game evolved, it got more complex, inside and outside, making it less modifiable and less attractive to the masses at the same time. If FSX were to be rewritten, we'd end up with FS v1.0 that takes advantage of modern hardware and looks as good as possible.We'd have great visuals, but very likely far less functionality. FSX was built over decades! At a cost many many times more than what it takes to develop any other brand new game. One cannot expect MS to rewrite FSX in one version. When I say rewritten, I mean completely new ways of doing things in a way where a new group of people work on the project from beginning to end. MS has been doing additions to FS with each iteration and rewrote code where it was necessary to keep up with customer expectations. With FSX, they reached too far - or dropped the ball if you like, but their strategy has always been to build on the old code and give us more features than we had before. To me, this is the logical way of doing things, but then I am an enthusiast. Once FS got to a point where adding more stuff just lead to diminishing returns - perhaps this was reached by FS9, but certainly by FSX - to make more money, one needs a new approach. So, if you cannot rebuild a viable FS by starting over and you cannot add new stuff to FSX, what can you do? Once we see Flight, we'll have the answer.

>So, if you cannot rebuild a viable FS by starting over and you cannot add new stuff to FSX, what can you do?>>Bail outOnce we see Flight, we'll have the answer.>>Prepar3D

P3D is of some interest to people who are early adopters and have cash to burn. I do not yet see any reason to jump on that bandwagon.

P3D is of some interest to people who are early adopters and have cash to burn. I do not yet see any reason to jump on that bandwagon.

One of the strengths of P3D right now is it is FSX compatible.The dilemma is as P3D evolves it will (or will not) become isolated in the enterprise market.That is a market that's turned to consumer games for technology it couldn't afford.But now I don't think consumers can afford enterprise prices either.The promise of ESP was they were attached at the hip.

Jumbo on final

Gentlemen, I respond to that with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmBejyk-jFs (Uploaded by me BTW)