The engine is clearly a reincarnation of FSX's engine IMO, so I highly doubt it's going to run on Xbox.

In what way is it clearly a reincarnation of FSX's engine?I'm genuinly interested to know how you could possibly tell.

Where do they admit this?

In the last sentence I quoted from the Flight site.

Sorry, I don't see anything mentioned and ACES does not appear anywhere on that page. Can you quote the last sentence? I read about if you want future notices to subscribe to a mailing list. That is my last sentence I see.

Around and around we go... where we stop, nobody knows...

I remember when fsx was coming out, we had lots of pictures of various parts of the world (Africa, USA, Paris, Frankfurt, Germany, England and Tokio.) Many aspects of the airports and details, like animals, dolphins, birds, seaports, and various aircrafts (b747, b737, cessna, money ecc.) ecc.We had videos and pictures about all what I've said.Now for flight what have we? pictures and video about hawaii, ONLY HAWAII.And for the aircrafts? 2 or 3. No more and no one liner!!!!My conclusion comes from what I see. Flight will be only hawaii with aircrafts which are useful for flying over an island. No more. 'cause a liner shoud be useless over a single island!!!This is my think

Except Microsoft admitted ACES lost sight if it.

Microsoft issued the following statement in january 2009, so that is quite surprising:By now, many of you have heard that Microsoft has closed Aces Studio, the publisher of Microsoft Flight Simulator. This was not a reflection of the quality of the products Aces has developed, the sales performance of the games, or the quality of the team at Aces. This difficult decision was made to align Microsoft's resources with our strategic priorities.

Microsoft issued the following statement in january 2009, so that is quite surprising:By now, many of you have heard that Microsoft has closed Aces Studio, the publisher of Microsoft Flight Simulator. This was not a reflection of the quality of the products Aces has developed, the sales performance of the games, or the quality of the team at Aces. This difficult decision was made to align Microsoft's resources with our strategic priorities.

Which means "all" of the above!!! i.e everything in green!!vololiberista

In what way is it clearly a reincarnation of FSX's engine?I'm genuinly interested to know how you could possibly tell.

"IMO" means in my opinion.It looks the same. Better quality, but the same core. Everything from autogen, to ground textures, to the fact that blurries still exist in the same manner makes it clear to me.If you don't come to that conclusion then ok.I also never said it was a bad thing.

Sorry, I don't see anything mentioned and ACES does not appear anywhere on that page. Can you quote the last sentence? I read about if you want future notices to subscribe to a mailing list. That is my last sentence I see.

I repost the extract from the Flight site with the last sentence in bold

Many of you are concerned that because we want to appeal to a wider audience, we must be building an arcade game.We don’t need to create an arcade game to welcome a wider audience. But we do need to improve the total user experience if we’re to be successful in welcoming new audiences into the experience of Flight. The passion and fascination of flight is powerful, with so many different aspects to aviation and different levels of enjoyment to experience. 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.

Given that ACES were responsible for developing Flight Simulator in the past, the last clause really means:, and ACES can’t claim to have done the best job of welcoming a wider audience in the past.

Shouldn't be a factor IMO as the base API is still DX.Cheersjja

An Xbox couldn't dream of running FSX at even low settings, much less what we are seeing from FLIGHT. That'd be one he'll of a re-write.That's my unqualified opinion.

Hawaii might not be the world, but it seems to mean the world to Microsoft.

An Xbox couldn't dream of running FSX at even low settings, much less what we are seeing from FLIGHT. That'd be one he'll of a re-write.That's my unqualified opinion.

It isn't even an issue since Microsoft has stated loud and clear that Flight is a WINDOWS EXLUSIVE title!

Hawaii might not be the world, but it seems to mean the world to Microsoft.

As long as it is just the demo scenery, like Sint Marteen for FSX, I'm OK with Hawaii.

Maybe there's not much bloat in the code.Virtual Memory Map (VMMAP) from SysInternals for that for a fairly "vanilla" FSX the .exe and its .dlls require 144,828 Kb of VM. That's only 144 Mb or 0.15 Gb. The tota requirement with UK photographic scenery on the default C172 is 1,617,680K or 1.617 Mb or 1.6 Gb.

Gerry, I was not referring to the code, but precisely the opposite, which would be all assets other than code, most especially those that were retained only for backwards compatibility.Properly optimized and pared down to the essentials for the current task, they could easily have shaved 5GBs off the total scenery and art assets.Folks should also bear in mind that even though the most of the scenery and art assets have been recycled from FSX, that has absolutely nothing to do with the basic engine, which may well have been largely rewritten and/or optimized.

Folks should also bear in mind that even though most of the scenery and art assets have been recycled from FSX.....

Speculation, Bill? Shocking

Speculation, Bill? Shocking

No speculation required! Microsoft themselves said so...