There have been some really great advances since 2006 based on the FSX engine. For me the problem is (as somebody else mentioned) that the VFR flying experience is really limited despite the modern scenery by ORBX and GenX. The lack of depth perception is a major issue. It's doesn't matter how well the aircraft simulates the real thing when I turn onto base or finals and can't really tell where I am in relation to ground. Once you've experienced that for real ( PPL Student) you begin to get frustrated by FSX limitations. I don't expect to get absolute realism from a PC based simulation but in 2011 I know it can be a lot better.

I'll probably just stick with FSX. XPlane10 isn't for me, and Prepar3D is a commercial product.It is CPU limited and all, however, I've been reading that Intel is coming up with a new material to replace silicon which will push CPUs past 4 GHz, which would lead to better FSX performance, given the current engine.

FSX will stay as main platform for many years to come.

Until a future MS operating system will not run it anymore.

Until a future MS operating system will not run it anymore.

That's a very good point. We'll have to keep an eye on the Windows 8 beta testers.

Well, of course it depends on what you would like to see simulated but apart from the flying itself a lot of people like to look outside of the window and wtach the scenery. And as far as scenery is concerned we are still lightyears away from realistic scenery. Some addon airports come close, but even those don't come close to the real thing when you are on the ground. I won't be completely satisfied until things look like they do in real life... and I doubt if I will live to see that happening.

That's not so mucha fault of FSX as it is the performance of your PC. I have no doubt that given a month or two I could knock up a sizable airport, the accuracy of which would make your head spin. FSX is capable of it, but the workload and performance requirements to get that level of fidelity would be incredible. You could model every blade of grass in a field, every loose pebble of asphalt on the roads etc no problem.I've often thought about putting together an 'ultra-real' airport and taking a few screenies. I have no doubt that nobody on the planet would get more than 1fps though.

I have no intention of switching from FSX. Prepar3d looks interesting, but its far too expensive to be a viable option for me and I don't want to get tied into monthly subscriptions.However, with regard to the people asking why some are so desperate to find an alternative, one must bear in mind as others have said that FSX is 6 years old, and was built on an ancient engine to begin with. Third parties have done wonders within the confines of what is possible, but there will come a time when the underlying architecture restricts any further enhancement.

To some extent. Things such as the lighting engine are reasonably set in stone, although with things like HDR and Shade you can constantly make adjustments. The likes of A2A and PMDG have demonstrated that they can pretty much do whatever they want. VRS are in the process of building a 'fighting capability' to their VRS F-18. Aerosoft revolutionised the 'walkaround' with their Diamond Katana.You only have to read what John Venema said recently - that there is no piece of software that comes close in it's ability to run consumer-level flight simulation. If anything has been proved since it's inception it's that if you can think it, you can just about do it.

Where to next? I've already made the move to X-Plane 10. But then I also have only a couple of relatively inexpensive add-ons for FSX (Flight Environment X and Ground Environment X, around $ combined), so there wasn't as much inertia preventing the transition. For those who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on similar products, I'm sure the perception is that any similar move is more difficult, but if you think about it logically, that money is already gone whether you stay with FSX or not. Even throwing your lot in with Prepar3D is not necessarily the obvious choice because committing yourself to $120 a year(!) is not going to in any way recover the cost of those add-ons (and that's before even considering the uncertain future of Prepar3D as a consumer product).Staying with FSX is a third option, of course, but it hasn't seen any core improvements since the release of Acceleration in 2007, and in my opinion it has really started to show its age. X-Plane 10, on the other hand, is a current product that will remain in active development for the next several years.

The only way in which you can say FSX shows it's age is if you look at it by default. I'd argue that FSX with a few choice addons makes XPX look like the older sim.

There have been some really great advances since 2006 based on the FSX engine. For me the problem is (as somebody else mentioned) that the VFR flying experience is really limited despite the modern scenery by ORBX and GenX. The lack of depth perception is a major issue. It's doesn't matter how well the aircraft simulates the real thing when I turn onto base or finals and can't really tell where I am in relation to ground. Once you've experienced that for real ( PPL Student) you begin to get frustrated by FSX limitations. I don't expect to get absolute realism from a PC based simulation but in 2011 I know it can be a lot better.

That's something you're never going to solve unless you get 3D. There is no depth perception because there is no depth. You are viewing in 2 dimensions. You do not have the dimension of depth available to you!

I'll stick with FSX and it's outdated GFX engine, 32-bit single task code and dodgy weather until PMDG et al start developing for a different platform, whatever that may be.

Actually the thing about depth, they have made the autogen x2 size so that it adds depth, but i don't like it, i fly at 3.000 ft and it's like i am flying at 1.000. The only way to get depth in a game like this is maybe by using track ir. It adds.

Well as far as where Flight Simulation is going for me - I just took a trip to the local PC components vendor and assembler of my choice today, gave him a budget and said "Build me an ark computer!" and I did say unto the man behind the counter, "Ye shall build it thus:CPU options - Core I7 3930K Sandy Bridge E - or equally good AMD penchantGPU nVidia GTX 580 or super-clocked 57032 GB ddr3 1600 RAM (or appropriate if AMD)Liquid coolingPretty tower (pretty is a must - I am fed up with grey ally boxes)"It should push FSX around the sky quite nicely. I wonder what it will do with Flight. The publicly available information does point at a higher graphics processing is needed... although it has been optimised as a game.If Flight bombs, I will still be good for FSX for another 6 years at least. My outgoing computer is AMD FX62 based, built in 2006 - So that is where this flight simulator user is going. and the options are open then for PREPAR3D as well

Hi Jazz, Would love to know myself how my new rig performs on FSX but just cant be bothered reinstalling the countless number of free/payware addons for it. I know i still would be slightly dissapointed,as i have said if FSX were to support multicore cpu and better gpu solutions i would never have walked away. I build a new rig every 2 years and i know in my heart of hearts after a lot of hardware upgrades since release of FSX that i will never be content with its performance.

I think you might be pleasantly surprised!Start with FSX SP2 + Orbx scenery + a couple (three) of your favorite airplanes.No more..