I am no expert on the inner workings of the fs programming, but I would think it is time for a new engine. They just need to keep things open so that the 3rd party developers can work their magic. Of course, it might not be fs2006 if they take the time to sart from scratch. Probably later on. That would be fine with me, as I think fs2004 will be on our systems for quite some time. Unless hardware makes some major advances in the next few years, I know I won't be "maxing out" fs9 anytime soon.

New engine or not, there are certainly things that can be improved up on.-Higher texture resolution and better texture management. A sim from 2003 should support higher texture resolutions than one from 1997. It does not. Flight Unlimited II from '97 did 4.0m/pixel, FS2004 only does 4.8m. No performance hit - FS does mipmapping and DXTC so the memory usage is minimal, about 40-50kb for each 256x256 texture tile.-True, reflective water - no performance hit on modern videocards. Lomac and Micro Flight already do this from what I've seen-Runway/windshield effects such as water, snow etc. done with pixel shaders. It would look *real*.-Cloud shadows and visible rain from clouds - X-Plane already does this-Support for more detail mesh. Good elevation data is becoming cheaper and more available. The NextMap Britian for example uses 5m source data but can only be rendered at 38m (LOD10) in FS2004 and LOD11/19m in FS2002. How about improving things instead of making them worse for each new version?

Right on Larry! I confess I've always been into the scenery. To me, Flight Simulator is a way to explore the world, to go up and look down. Simulating an FMC is interesting in its own right, but being able to see the mountains I'm familiar with in their true shape and texture is really exciting, or to go to a place I've never been, and yet find that it is familiar to me because I've explored it in flight sim. I can't afford to fly in real life, at least not at this point in my life. But Simming provides me with at least a taste of the experience that Larry describes.

And how much are we all willing to pay for this wonderful new simulator?

ChrisYou are absolutely right!For one I can not keep up with this hobby anymore because with a child at school and a house to pay off, I can not replace my computer every two years. At the moment I have (what I consider) a reasonable good setup with a P4 3 Ghz and 512 DDR with FX5900Pro video card and it is a constant trade of between quality and frame rates.I've got so tired of all the tweaking and still have to settle for some basic problems like the enormous drop in f/sec when you fly with real weather ... no approach lights during the day if the visibility drops to say 7 - 10 ... not to mention a few other things as well.I will be cautious to think that a new engine will improve anything and whatever will come, will mean better, more expensive hardware.Alas! Still hoping to see your new FS_SKY soon for FS2004.;-)RegardsTerblanche

Hi Alex,>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.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

If the code was optimised, the resolution updated and a new engine created, I for one would be prepared to endure the learning curve providing MS were upfront about continuing development WITH the community.As for the question about how much to pay, it's meaningless to a dedicated simmer. I've so far spent more than four times what I spent on FS2004 just on payware addons. I have rudder pedals, yoke, joystick. I recently upgraded the computer specifically to get improved performance out of FS. Hundreds spent.For most REAL FS fans, we could pay twice what we pay now IF the code was optimised as it would make better value of those accessory purchases. If it meant a better sim but that no older version of payware would work then so be it. Time marches on, there weren't too many Spitfire parts in Concorde. It WILL change sometime. Why not now, when the technological developments would make it a sensible opportunity?Allcott

Wonder why it takes a year to create the plane? Because developers have to work around the system, it's that bad. They have to use loopholes and are working against the system, delaying development.

Hi Gosta,I could care less about the default planes, Microsoft just needs to make it easier for 3rd pary devs to make excellent flight dyanmics. That means providing a better base to work with.

I am playing on a Dell Inspiron 8200 Laptop. 2.0 ghz p4M ATI 9000m video512mb RAMI think I will probably have to buy a new computer to run the next version of MS, that's why I am reluctant to ask for graphic changes my computer can't handle. :)

Hi Alex,>Microsoft just needs to make it easier for 3rd pary devs to make excellent flight dyanmics. That means providing a better base to work with.:).Cheers,Gosta.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

"As for the question about how much to pay, it's meaningless to a dedicated simmer. I've so far spent more than four times what I spent on FS2004 just on payware addons. I have rudder pedals, yoke, joystick. I recently upgraded the computer specifically to get improved performance out of FS. Hundreds spent.For most REAL FS fans, we could pay twice what we pay now IF the code was optimised as it would make better value of those accessory purchases. "How much you pay is meaningless?? I'm fortunate enough that at this stage of my life I can afford hobbies.... some of them pretty expensive. I am currently getting my private pilots license and that isn't cheap. But I can remember not so long ago when $50 USD was a huge hunk of change for me. I have been involved in aviation as a career for 20 years and have been flying flight sims since the late 80's and yes, I like to think of myself as a "REAL" FS fan.MSFS can't be all things to all people. It can never satisfy everyone. I think MSFS has done a pretty good job of finding the middle ground. There are professional sims out there... just check any FBO or Sporty's online, you'll pay big bucks and be extremely disspointed when you look at the graphics.MSFS isn't perfect..... but I'm happy. I think for the price and what it has to offer it's a reasonable trade-off.Happy simming!

Many of those who simply state the need for a new engine based on grounds of the current ones' age never heard of Falcon 4.0That engine is 6-7 years old by now, and has been improved greatly over the last years - looking almost as good as the famed LO-MAC by now, being much more realistic and offering MUCH better framerates.All without a new start from the bottom up.You can do very much even with an old code without replacing it, and I for one don't think the FS code is necessarily at the end of its lifetime yet.

>How much you pay is meaningless?? I'm fortunate enough that>at this stage of my life I can afford hobbies.... some of them>pretty expensive. I am currently getting my private pilots>license and that isn't cheap. But I can remember not so long>ago when $50 USD was a huge hunk of change for me. I have been>involved in aviation as a career for 20 years and have been>flying flight sims since the late 80's and yes, I like to>think of myself as a "REAL" FS fan.Yes, really. Meaningless. If you want it and can afford you'll buy it. If you want it and can't afford it you won't - and if you don't want it you wouldn't be participating in this debate anyway, you'd be off fishing, crocheting or aimlessly shooting things on a computer screen. I spend more than I should, but less than I'd like to, like a lot of us. If I don't think I'll get value for money, then I don't buy. So the actual costs (up to a point) are actually meaningless!The `value` - which is really what we're discussing here - will only be justified on release of the new product. If MS were to decide that instead of selling it for $50 they'd sell the next version of the sim for $200, as their economic forecasts told them they'd lose 60% of their 1 million customer base but they'd make shedloads more money from the likes of you and me, then you and I would have to find the money or not participate, wouldn't we? So the question is what would MS have to do to make the next version have sufficient added value to justify either an increase in price, or an overnight obsolescence of all existing addons which we've paid money for? Obviously, start from scratch. The only question is whether to change now, or later.It's a fact that the world moves on, and the computing world faster than anything else. With 64-bit computing around the corner, new shaders, DirectX versions and PCI-Express and dual-density DVD (to name but a few of the emergent technologies) NOW is the time for MS to optimise a new engine for the new technology, and frankly so what if it leaves many of the existing customers behind stuck in a timewarp? >MSFS can't be all things to all people. It can never satisfy>everyone. I think MSFS has done a pretty good job of finding>the middle ground. There are professional sims out there...>just check any FBO or Sporty's online, you'll pay big bucks>and be extremely disspointed when you look at the graphics.>>MSFS isn't perfect..... but I'm happy. I think for the price>and what it has to offer it's a reasonable trade-off.Me too, but I have no expectation that the upgrade I've just started will be anything like enough for the next version of FS, so it doesn't matter to me if they choose to start from scratch now rather than later. We're all in the same boat. Allcott

The one feature I would applaud for a future FS version would be a MSDN for FS. By this I mean some form of premium developer support. Some method for developers to obtain direct feedback from the framework producer and offer input on required hooks for further development of the base engine (Flight Systems & Environment modelling and world database).Our small community has plenty of talent for generating aircraft (flight dynamics & avionic systems), scenery (object, texture design) and even environment enhancements. At time however I get the impression that these skilled developers spend more time discovering how existing system hooks function (or fail to function) than actually using the existing interfaces or suggesting possible enhancement for the next release cycle direct to the Microsoft Developer Team.[table][tr][td]Todd IngallsMember of [link:www.grid.org/services/teams/team.htm?id=5E79C613-0A60-4A3B-BDC1-F9EE49F2D4FE]Join the AVSIM Team Fight Against Cancer!][/td][/tr][/table.