>>I guess I am just saying I think you aught to tone it down a>bit.That's curious. I spoke with a VERY senior (non-games) Product Manager at MS at the weekend while at a show where the public are excluded (and therefore people are likely to speak their minds) and he remarked that the enthusiasm and keenness shown in forums like these actually helps MS as it assists them in making product decisions. Can't see why the games dept should be any different.So, far from toning it down, tell it like you think it is. I have no idea why you might think we are in any danger of `frightening` MS, at the very worst they'll laugh a bit. But maybe they'll take some of our suggestions on board. The interesting thing about the survey for European users is that it does feature large boxes for contributors to express themselves, not just the simple tick boxes one usually finds. Obviously, the prelim work for the next version is underway.Allcott

>>>>>I guess I am just saying I think you aught to tone it down a>>bit.>"I have no idea why you might think we are in any danger of>`frightening` MS, at the very worst they'll laugh a bit. Excuse?Please, do not put your words in my mouth on this forum. Second, unless you suffer from split personalities and you like to reply to yourself, my reply was not to you.Take care.

>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.Couldn't agree more Jimmi, actually starting with FS5.0 Texture res was completely unlimited, in FS98 through FS2k2 I was using 1meter res textures for my Rochester photoreal scenery project and to be limited to the rather coarse 4.8 just makes me puke!

"SLI doesn't care what version of DX you use."No, but to realise the full benefits of a native DX9 GPU & driver set, guess what DX version any game will have to be able to implement? It won't stop FS from functioning, so your comment is technically correct...."Software doe not have to be SLI enabled nor be "optimized", SLI has already been programmed into NV45 and to use it you will need a dual PCIx16 slot MB (not dual CPU) a good Powersupply and the Drivers take care of the rest. :-)Titles like FS won't see as much gain as others as they rely more heavely on CPU and memory subsystem but it will certainly do a great deal."You right about the dual CPU, I agree to the extent that I never made mention of it. Additionally, I mentioned that a code revamp would allow MS to enable DX9, not SLI. Further, it has been murmured (otherwise purported) that there will be NV45 optimisations for game developers to take advantage of that involve SLI directly (much like MMX, SSE2 etc...). So I stand fast on my initial comments...With respect to CPU & mem subsystem, I cannot argue (which is why I have been crying " S M P " throughout this whole thread). While FS won't see as much gain from a pumped up video subsystem as it would from good CPU utilisation, the massive texture requirements of FS would see plenty of boost just the same.The clunky memory architecture of the menu interface has been around since the advent of hip hop (if that's what your referring to on your last comment)....Just like hip hop, it's long overdue for a severe #### whipping.Cheers.

>>>>>>>>I guess I am just saying I think you aught to tone it down>a>>>bit.>>>"I have no idea why you might think we are in any danger of>>`frightening` MS, at the very worst they'll laugh a bit. >>Excuse?>>Please, do not put your words in my mouth on this forum. >>Second, unless you suffer from split personalities and you>like to reply to yourself, my reply was not to you.>>>Take care.Paul, I was responding to your posts about toning it down, regardless that it wasn't aimed at me. We often see people worrying about MS feelings in here, as if they might take exception to what is being said and down tools or something. I assure you they don't. So there is no need to ask anyone to tone anything down, there's a duplicate thread running that's taken all the heat out of this discussion leaving us with considered, measured repsonses here. So if someone wants to get enthusiastic about their contribution, let them.In the market where I work MS have to have VERY thick skins, and they continue to develop, market and put themselves in the firing line. It's profitable. That really is the only concern for the FS franchise. Is it profitable (yes, it is), and could making changes affect that profitability (good or bad)? The real problem with this `updating/upgrading` discussion is that it is preaching to the converted. Existing customers all. If we could show that a more sophisticated engine would result in a lot more (new) customers, we'd get it. If we could show that we few would be prepared to pay much larger sums of money for an improved game engine, leaving the mass market to enjoy the simpler version, then we might get it. Otherwise, it's a question of all of us saying that if we don't get it, we wont buy the next version. And that isn't going to happen. One thing I wish MS would consider is using their resources more effectively. Why reinvent the wheel? There are many different commercial aircraft and scenery producers out there. Why not simply get into partnership with them, or the best of the Freeware people, and let THEM create what they are good at, leaving MS to get on with refining and developing the core product. MS's attempt at a Boeing 737 is so average, why bother at all? There are freeware and payware versions that just leave that model in the shade. So why don't they get the team working on other things, and contract out the creation of panels, aircraft, high-detail scenery and sounds? Getting the aftermarket involved at an earlier stage would solve all the problems of having to wait until long after release and SDK's before sophisticated addons are available, would ensure people who actually know what they're talking about are around for product definition, alpha and beta testing and are actually in the `loop` from very early development, heading off potential problems before they occur.Allcott

I think it will balance itself out. Even if we demand a feature but that will be so demanding it will render FS 2006 unusable they will of course not implement it since if they did people would hang them ;)We give them what we want in it they implement it the best way they can.We want change hopefully they will think it