Anyone know if this is the case? I think it would be a pretty wise move to completely redo the engine behind FS, as long as they knew what they were doing, of course. I heard somewhere that FS2004 is going to be the last of it's kind in terms of engine, file system, etc. Anyways, just wondering if anyone had any idea about that.

Just as long as it doesn't end up like the CFS3 engine :-erks.-Derek D

I hope so.. it's time to really take advantage of the DX9 engine, particularly pixel shader.

A couple of things I definitely want to see is planes casting shadows upon themselves like you see in Lock-On... and ground that actually reflects weather... reflective/wet-appearing sufaces for rain, etc.

Not to mention HT support (or rather the interminable cry for MS to incorporate multi-threading support)...Not forgetting inclusion of the additional Prescott instruction set/s & overall better compiling of the end code.

Yeah I've been advocating a whole new engine for quite a while - it's time to get rid of all the backwards compatibility stuff still hanging around from FS98, 2000 etc and create a real modern engine that can take advantage of the new video cards and run at 60+...

I think MS's move to an XML interface to the panel API has been a great thing since it was introduced in FS2002. I'd like to see the idea extended to an XML framework in the gauge/panel system that could be used to create flight management computers.Right now, as far as I can tell from my meager panel/gauge programming experience, anyone who wants to create an FMS for an aircraft must do extensive programming in C++. I can't imagine that the existing XML gauge framework would support an FMS gauge. However, with an extension to the existing panel/gauge framework, perhaps MS could support VNAV in autopilots, SID/STAR/airway databases, performance tables, etc. that a panel/gauge programmer could use as building blocks for an FMS.Just a thought.Sincerley,Rob Prattrpratt(at-sign)wordandsound.com

AMEN !!!Aside from the obvious "grandious" improvements needed with the current engine (which is "well aged" by anyone's standards), I have to TOTALLY agree on the VNAV/LNAV for autopilot with respect to XML for FMC/FMS design.....real good point.Sadly, MS could have incorporated this a long time ago in so much as an expanded sdk with an update for the SID/STAR db.Considering this is the biggest franchise for the MS gaming arm, they really continue a nasty trait of "set it & forget it" upon release....It's truly an inexcusable lackluster effort when you put **EVERYTHING** in the "2004 PC gaming world" into persepctive.Cheers.

Hi, Be aware about new engine and Performance.All New visual feature added means FPS HIT already before implemented in the sim. A new engine does not means new or better and even not good performance. I think it's a "psycologic" wish when we want a new engine and think things will be better and have better performance, the perfect exemple are flyII (at the release), cfs3 and lomac, full of bugs and poor performance. If you want a new engine with new things and get rid of the old thing, there a risk for no or less 3rd party addons for a while, no documentation and nothing until the sdk. Lomac use the latest video cards feature, the performance is great? No, and the ressource take worser 3x then fs2004 at full setting and it's convers only few area with less texture then fs2004 with only very few clouds. Imagine Msfs user forum running lomac at full and their frame rate are low with only few clouds and nothing real weather.Like you have seen in the past: Flight simulator will always get lower frame rate then others type of software at full setting. Flight simulator will always have more feature to enjoy for 2 years then less feature and to increase performance(close your eyes and take the slider to the full right and complaining about frame rate, I am not able to manage myself). Performance have nothing to do with advantage of the cards adn new technologie. Users think the clouds in fs2004 take fps hit, but they don't aware about the complexity of all the clouds formation and fs2k4 have unlimited 3d layers compare to others that's have (1 layers of clouds only and thiny cumulus) set one cumulus layer in fs2004 and you will have better performance then others sims, this is the best clouds engine available and for the frame rate, and the performance will double at 2006 system spec.. (I have seen them all and they are limited to cumulus formation and thiny layers)There will always be the same pattern on each version, no matter new technologie, computer, cards or not. In msfs it's the entire worlds, this is means each new version there will be new things, feature area, more landclass, building, city, texture size, mesh compare to the previous version, etc.. you will already have frame rate hit without touching anything with new video cards yet and new feature, you will still see the compressed format and everything there is, there will always things that's are not right and accurate etc. This have nothing to do with coding etc, same thing in x-plane, FLYII etc.The advantage of a new sim, is the computer technologie increase each 61 years or new thing and speed, this is means flight sim have new room for new things visual and others things added, but still limited in performance compare to others and will still be behind others game in feature graphics spec.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Aside from improved API implementation (as already mentioned in one example before) serious recompiling of some backend code could enhance the raw sim performance greatly.The very reason that MSFS is such a burden on hardware resources, is an indirect result of core programming. I can't think of a better application (aside from AutoCAD & select few others) that would benefit so much from SMP, but the support is just not there & never has been. I would easily forgo a short term 3rd party inavailibility for an engine with improved threading & code execution. While not every new gaming engine is for the best, I can also think of a few that rocked the industry.....Cheers.

In that poll recently taken by Avsim most people what better scenery. I dont understand why this is?!? I would rather see Microsoft focus on making the flight dynamics true to life, and making an engine that works with 3rd party developers instead of against them as it does now. I could care less about a graphics system that only slows down my dated computer. I would only like to see the system streamlined.

Hi, In that poll recently taken by Avsim most people what better scenery. I dont understand why this is?!? ``In every msfs version, the majority of the users want eyes candy related and the visual feature more then anything else, this is means, the demand are not high about flight dynamics and these stuff, this is probably why there is no 100% focus on fde and panel (specialy when there is 3rd party do the job), in fs2002 wish, a very high demand was the 3d cloudsweather for fs2004.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Yes, be careful what you wish for! We quickly forget how hard it was and how much work has gone into deciphering the internals of FS98/2000/2002/2004...an all-new engine means starting from scratch in developing a new IPC interface, unless MS were to make the internals available, which would be both unprecedented and unexpected.A Nintendo-like graphics subsystem that will only run MS default acft or acft developed by those who can afford a software development kit costing thousands of dollars (like CFS3?) would be something less than progress.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Let's face it, the fs engine is outdated. Of course backward compability is a nice thing to have, but there is a point where you have to move on. I don't know how old the game engine is, but looking at the internal structures it at least roots back to FS2000. At the point FS2006 comes out it would be 6 years old! I think it's a good time to lay a new foundation for fs that can carry the way into the future.I'm not into computer tech that much, but I'm confident if MS would take full advantage of all the new technology that has been developed in the recent past, FS could make a major leap forward. I understand the concerns of the 3rd party developers, but what I MS would create an engine that would be much easier to handle, thus much faster development times for 3rd party? No hardcoded limitations, infinite possibilities?I hope that MS creates a marvel!!And I'm looking forward to see it!cheers,:-beerchug Claudio

>In that poll recently taken by Avsim most people what better>scenery. I dont understand why this is?!? I would rather see>Microsoft focus on making the flight dynamics true to life,What I don't understand....... is why a flight simmer hopes to get a desktop PC to "feel" like a real airplane, while "I" fly a real airplane to marvel at the scenery! :D Not everyone agrees with my above paragraph, but it my case it's very true. Flight over the mountainous/desert regions of the western US is what I live for, and the better it's duplicated on the desktop, then the happier I am. As to MS focusing on making flight dynamics true to life....... why?There are many third party dedvelopers out there, that will spend months or years on creating just one airplane. And in several cases, the dynamics exceed those of any "other" desktop sim I've used. I use aerobatic routines to "judge", since I flew aerobatic routines in a Pitts S2B years ago.L.Adamson