I just read the most ridicules post I've seen in awhile. The original poster and many others that followed must be new to FS. A request for a whole new Graphic Engine (not "Game Engine", Flight Simulator is not a Doom or Half Life type product. Just because it's on the shelf next to them, it's still a simulation in every since of the word) will open up a whole new slew of issues. I guess many of you don't remember or weren

What's really crazy is opening another thread on the same subject just so that YOUR opinion is the first in the list.Your opinion is also wrong, in my opinion. In a market where a year is a lifetime, with new versions of DirectX and a new generation of graphic cards on the market, the `old` engine is very tired. It is also nothing more than an accumulation of patches, fixes and updates on tired old code. Allcott

AllcotI am sure when MSFS was created it was given a life expectancy how near to that life limit it is???Then Microsoft will have to determine whether there is any mileage both from an economic but also from a political angle in going to the massive expense and time involved in creating a brand new sim ground up.Sims are very expensive and time consuming to create when there are quick to make, profitable games they can turn their attention to.Rememeber we are in a minority in these forums for what we want from the sim. Our thirst for extreme realism isnt shared by Joe Bloggs gamer.Joe Bloggs gamer wouldnt have a clue what was real and what wasnt and Microsoft has to balance what Joe Bloggs requires and what the hardcore simmer wants.Remember too that MSFS is a creative tool which allows third parties to improve on the core programme and even set up sub enterprises to create for MSFS.Sadly the image of MSFS took a bad hit with 9/11 and I wonder whether there will be the political will to start a new expensive sim disregarding even looking at the economics.There where warning signs not long ago that Microsoft "may" not support future versions which was denied by the team at Microsoft.I would love a brand new sim created by the genious at Microsoft but my main worry is that when the time does come to start from the ground up that Microsoft will call it a day and look at more popular, instant profit releases.I hope I am wroungPeter

Allcott, I need you to tell me what exactly did I say that's not true or 'wrong' as you put it??? :-wedge

"... and many others that followed must be new to FS'I guess many of you don't remember or weren

I don't need to add much to the posts from Allcott or Mike, but I shall....The wind of change can be a painful thing, but without pain there is generally no gain & that's what the whole "gaming engine" debate is ALL about. Obviously those that don't want to escape their comfort zone for "2 or 3 more releases" are forgetting something fairly obvious: skip the new version/s until you feel comforatble buying & the gaming engine has evolved to one's liking. Whether simmers view FS9 as a sim or a game is imaterial, because I assure you that Microsoft view it as a game & budget for it accordingly, so any references to a "gaming engine" is for convenience & expediency, rather than a cheap shot at the simulation.That said, many individuals (Mike & Allcott NOT included to name but a few) have cleary demonstrated an ignorance (NOT arrogance) towards the interplay of core programme code & its effects on hardwrae performance & thus EFFICIENCY. The two are very closely intertwined at different levels. The biggest advantages available for FS(X) is multithreading & improved API function. Multithreading (simulated "somewhat" in Intel's HT) lets you exploit parallelism in hardware, which would directly affect texture loading; who doesn't want better texture loading?However, the time to develop SMP in gamelogic is extensive (if they started in 1999 when the CURRENT FS engine was in its infancy stages, we might be using a much more effiecient simulation today) & I don't expect MS to leap forward with this step. There are many setbacks to overcome with SMP logic, like synchronisation, debugging & rescource isolation to name but a few.....right now I get better performance WITHOUT HT enabled, partly because of outlying windows process', resource sharing & the inherent limits to simulated multithreading....But clearly the improved API function calls would make a world of difference for both end user & developer.Regardless, all of the great things to come (if they come) won't "fly" very long as hardware is quickly outrunning the current FS code.The more efficient the code, the more you can take advantage of hardware, the more you can take advantage of hardware, the more you can either (a) add improved eye candy OR (:( crank the sliders up....Theres really little to argue with here.....Cheers.

>Whether simmers view FS9 as a sim or a game is imaterial,>because I assure you that Microsoft view it as a game & budget>for it accordingly, so any references to a "gaming engine" is>for convenience & expediency, rather than a cheap shot at the>simulation.>I have been a beta tester for MSFS................ and I can assure YOU, that it's "not" only viewed as a game by Microsoft personel. It's well known by both us & them, that the program use ranges from gaming to serious PC simulation. If it was designed as gaming only, there would have been no purpose in supplying any real world data-bases such as navigation, airports, and topography.A number of the MS team are also pilot/aircraft owners. But they have keep in line with what appeals to the majority, rather the the minority such as hard core simmers, pilots, etc. This is where third parties fill the gap.L.Adamson

Hi, "FS2k2 and FS2k4 is a refined version of the FS2000 code."The engine is clearly from CFS2 not fs2000, fs2000 engine is in the trash can from a long time ago, you can have a entire new sim without you notice if it is the same engine or not with having directx9 feature with the same engine, you can have totally new feature visual and everything things new from the ground and up with the same engine. DirectX 9 is implemented capability in fs2004, it use for now the the multiplayer feature, this is means you can have anything related to directx9 to implement on visual and others things for future.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Okay...You picked out the one thing that was arguable with my post (albeit no mention of the budget disposition for this "programme" with respect to solid categorisation on earnings reports).However, "labels" on the "programme" are rather a MAJOR sidenote to the issue at hand.Cheers.

FS needs to evolve. If old planes don't work, that's too damn bad I'm afraid. Progress is seldom painless.As far as FS being the best looking sim out there right now, that's laughable.FS does have to do something which most other sims do not which is model the entire world in an affordable package. That MS has done pretty well so far. What would a new graphics engine mean anyway for end users? Nothing besides perhaps a few incompatibilities with older planes. We're already seeing aircraft that will ONLY work with FS9 and not FS2002.

"As Real As It Gets", this is a big statement but one that also is a driving factor for most of the people that use this sim. People want to come as close to really flying an aircraft as possible, some people think that means the flight model, some the panels, others clouds or scenery, even ATC, each person is different but motivated by the same goal.....flight. I laugh when arguments start here about what is the most important part of a flight sim, because it is all equally important. To an individual it may not seem to be this way but it is to Microsoft because they are out to please all of us not one of us and God forbid if they ever try to focus on one area and ignore the rest. Ok, so some people want a new graphics engine, some don't, so I'll tell you what I want...if Microsoft thinks that they can improve anything to make it more realistic and if they can make it function properly then I say go for it! Personally if they stated tomorrow that they found a way to generate scenery (or anything for that manner) that is much more realistic but no current add-ons can be used with the new release, I'd say go for it! Why? Well new add-ons will be developed, better ones, and we would be that much closer to reality. I would be a little sad that the products that I have paid for are now worthless, maybe I would run two sims on my system so I could enjoy the old stuff but when it comes right down to it I want the realism. Will the new product have bugs? Probably, but every version has it's bugs. I do not like the bugs very much but unfortunately it is a part of life. As for developers having to change the way they do things, sorry, this is also a part of life when it comes to anything having to do with a computer. Change is usually a good thing especially when realism is the goal here. Maybe sometimes Microsoft has gotten it wrong but I would rather have them try than to stagnate. I am sure that one day we will have a version that will simulate everything very accurately, a day that I am sure we all look forward to, but until then we have to suffer through the various advances that will get us to out ultimate goal "As Real As It Gets".Best RegardsPhilip Olsonhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

>As far as FS being the best looking sim out there right now,>that's laughable.>This is one of those subjects where a "bunch" of well done screenshots from several simulations and the right place, time, & subject, can make winning points. Until I lost my HD without backing up hundreds of pics.............. I could always use a pic from MSFS, FLYII, or X-Plane to make a point.For instance, a shot from FLYII with photo-real scenery, looks convincingly real. And then I had some using FS9 & the Phoenix area that looked very real also. I even had an old one from FS2000 & the PSS 777 that was mistaken for the real thing several times.So what "Flight Simulator" looks the "best" ALL the time? I don't know.....L.Adamson

I usually don't participate in these types of threads because many things are written with emotions running high and I personally choose not to take a chance on adding any fuel top any fire. But after reading through all of the posts, particularly Mr. Olson's, I feel compelled. Understanding what a wonderful community AVSIM is, and that forums serve an important purpose, it was refreshing to see Mr. Olson's post, which seemed to take a step back and put some things into perspective. What follows are my observations based on quite a few of the threads I have read- not just this one, although this is as good of an example as any.I have no argument with anyone wishing to make points, observations, suggestions, etc. This activity furthers our "collective" special interest, flight simulation. But tossing in comments which are intentionally demeaning or degrading seems 1) pointless; 2) selfish, and 3) lessens the credibility of the author.Pointless because there is nothing constructive about these comments. Call it insulting, call it flaming, or whatever, points made in threads will carry more weight in terms of validity if these unnecessary remarks are left out.Selfish because making/criticizing points this way is based on a narrow focus, and seems either to try to elevate the author's perspective above others, or imply that their credentials are somehow superior, entitling them to judge. Flight sim is broader that any of us, or any group of us. I personally don't think any of us have high-enough credentials to pass judgement on what's being said here. But I do find it appropriate to examine all the issues brought up.Finally, credibility is lessened because the focus of many of these posts seems to be based at least as much on belittlement as on fact, logic, hypothesis, etc. It's difficult to take anyone's thoughts very seriously when they are entwined with derogatory comments.The risk I have taken with this post is coming across as somehow "holier than thou," which I know I'm not; I'm not trying to preach here. I actually thought that many valid points were expressed, and would have found this thread much more engaging were the posts mostly made in a more constructive, mature manner. I believe that the relative anonymity afforded by the internet creates opportunities that would be better thought out in person. I know I could simply not read threads with these dynamics. Usually I don't. Sometimes, as in this one, I read in hopes that it will become more focused. Instead, I find myself thinking that some authors really need to reconsider their communication skills.I know I'm not saying anything new here. But please, if you want to be taken more seriously by me (perhaps merely a "typical" simmer), leave the vitriol out. I know many others feel the same way. My suggestion would be to consider if your post will confine itself to the furtherment, enlightenment, examination, etc. of our mutual interest- flight SIMULATION. If there is something else of a private nature, if you want to insult, if you wish to name-call, please use a method appropriate for it instead of bringing it into a public forum.My two cents.Alex Momeyer

Chris I'm just curious, can you point me to the information published by Microsoft that suggest FS2k4 is derived from CFS2. I actually didn't know that. All I know is all the puffy clouds mountains that weren't triangles over the ground, sun in the sky etc. all first showed up in FS2000. I would like to get that info so I'm not misinformed next time....Thanks...

O.K. Albaro Villegas, you show me another sim that looks better than FS2k4 representing the whole world... Go reinstall FS2000 and you'll get a good idea at what starting over is really about... It's not just about backward compatibility... By the way, have you ever designed anything for Flight Simulator??? My point above was just to say I don't we've reached the full potential of the existing code. Why throw something out that still has room to grow. All the issues mentioned can get fixed with the existing code. Let's get the weather, SID/STAR, and many other issues fixed first before we move on to a whole new code...