This sim will be an option only if it has addons at least equal to NGX, REX, ORBX. IMO mere visuals without good plane modelling is for a different target group of virtual pilots.

How do you know it will be 32b Jim?

Hint: Go look at the OS requirements!

Hint: Go look at the OS requirements!

Ok, I don't see anything conclusive there.The minimum requirement is XP SP3 for low settings and Win 7 64b for high settings.I think you're right though. If it was 64b they would need to be more specific and state that XP SP3 64b is the minimum OS requirement for flight

Bingo!

Plenty of games have both a 32 and 64 bit executable (DCS A-10C and both Crysis games come to mind). I really hope they don't ignore 64-bit with this, even if it does nothing else but give addon makers a way around the 4GB address space limitation.

... If it was 64b they would need to be more specific and state that XP SP3 64b is the minimum OS requirement for flight

Bingo!

Just looked at the specifications posted by MS. For "high" graphics they say Windows 7 64-bit and 6GB RAM. For "low" graphics they say XP SP3 32-bit and 2GB RAM. I can see that it is a possible though not a necessary inference that for "high" settings the thing runs a 64-bit executable with access to 6GB RAM. I can also see how it is a possible though not a necessary inference that the thing will only offer a 32-bit executable. So, why "bingo"?Tim

Well, let's just hope against hope Flight will be a superior succesor of FSX, instead of a casual game

Well, let's just hope against hope Flight will be a superior succesor of FSX, instead of a casual game

right now, I feel like it is stepping up to the plate

The little we've been shown suggests that Flight is just FSX tweaked. Improved use of modern kit is a given - it could hardly be made worse. The big unknowns are whether FSX add-ins will work, whether MS will cripple the sim to corner the add-on market and whether you will have to pay extra for things we take for-granted with FSX like whole-world coverage. To me, it looks as much like a market-slicing exercise - ie, let's find ways to cream the "enthusiasts" - as a technical re-vamp. Whether that's overall good bad or neutral still has to seen.Tim

Since FSX has so many add-ons that are simply world class I am thinking that Lockheed martins prepar3d is the future. Since it is an aircraft manufacturing company they may be much more simulator oriented than Microsoft. They just have to lower the price a little.

Just looked at the specifications posted by MS. For "high" graphics they say Windows 7 64-bit and 6GB RAM. For "low" graphics they say XP SP3 32-bit and 2GB RAM. I can see that it is a possible though not a necessary inference that for "high" settings the thing runs a 64-bit executable with access to 6GB RAM. I can also see how it is a possible though not a necessary inference that the thing will only offer a 32-bit executable. So, why "bingo"?Tim

Agreed. Could very well be like Ryan suggested and offered in both 32 & 64 bit versions. I hope that's the case since I guess being 64b would be a good indication that it's a full geared simulator

I don't understand the people who are disappointed if Flight looks like FSX with REX, GEX, UTX, ORBX terrain addons, etc. but with better performance... isn't that the ideal? I mean how much better can a game get, in terms of visuals of the environment (besides cloud shadows) with those addons? In terms of strictly visuals, if the whole game world looks like that (the new screenshots) and performs a good amount better than FSX, I will be extremely happy.

Just my two cents.

I don't understand the people who are disappointed if Flight looks like FSX with REX, GEX, UTX, ORBX terrain addons, etc. but with better performance... isn't that the ideal? I mean how much better can a game get, in terms of visuals of the environment (besides cloud shadows) with those addons? In terms of strictly visuals, if the whole game world looks like that (the new screenshots) and performs a good amount better than FSX, I will be extremely happy.

Just my two cents.

Agreed. I would be happy with just the improved lighting / shaders for the eye candy. That, good performance, a good weather engine, better flight dynamics and an SDK that enables developers add their magic and I'm all set

6gb still sounds like a 32-bit recommendation to me. That'd give 4 for the app & 2 extra for the os.(when run on a 64-bit os)Still could be 64, but it doesn't seem that way.

So, why "bingo"?Tim

Because dazz is correct.