Hi Dillon, It was stated on interview with Ms before the release of fs2002 use the engine from cfs2, and you don't need others ressource than cfs2 it self. It is really easy to the see the ground rendering system between cfs2 and fs2k2 are the same, they use the first partical effect system from Cfs2 and the effect folder, the new coastline , rivers, road blending, target FPS slider etc all from cfs2. Fs2k4 is the 3rd generation of the cfs2 engine.Fs2000 was never upgraded since it was a broken engine, even with the existant hardware you can't do anything with it.New engine have nothing to do with new clouds, sun, sky and everything, these external implementation already done are added to a code, you don't need a new engine to add new things. A new engine is empty and are only platform's that's can able to run things and feature to the software. You can still add 1000 ton's of things to the current engineThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

"count me in, first - what makes you think that this product will even be produced 6 years from now? second - do you really want to be running this same code at that time (10 years old for g*d sake man)?"First off let's get off the doom and gloom bandwagon... Until Microsoft tells me otherwise I'm going to believe this product is going to be around for years to come...Second yes I would love to see this same code be around for a few more years and developed to it's full potential: 1.10m source data mesh for the entire globe. 2.SID/STAR procedures. 3.ATC operations on the level of Radar Contact. Including various accents depending on where in the world you were flying.4.Framerate friendly Weather that included such occurrences as Hurricane

"You can still add 1000 ton's of things to the current engine"This is what I was trying to get people to see. I don't think we need a new engine at this time....

What I want to know is how can an opinion be wrong? Not agree? OK. But wrong?

"Second yes I would love to see this same code be around for a few more years and developed to it's full potential: 1.10m source data mesh for the entire globe. 2.SID/STAR procedures. 3.ATC operations on the level of Radar Contact. Including various accents depending on where in the world you were flying.4.Framerate friendly Weather that included such occurrences as Hurricane

"Unfortuantely, most of the items listed here would exceed the limits of the current core logic of FS9 with respect to peformance & even capability."Can you point me to the documentation that brought you to this conclusion??? I'd like to read it for reference. :-roll

Sure, I've included the links to the documentation that brought me to fairly obvious conclusion about the list of items on FS9 enhancements (referenced in my previous post). I believe these conclusions are the ones to which you'll find I'm referring.I would urge a review of the aforementioned list, then a SOLID read of the documents to which you have indirectly requested (& I have provided in the links). Make sure to read around the msdn site extensively because there's some good info to be had there (on APIs alone).....Unfortuantely, that doesn't cover a good portion of the subject list; some items mentioned would require access to FS9 high level source code which I'm not privi too. That said, I have included links to the FS9 SDKs as well.....A thorough read of all the information I have provided, coupled with the SDKs, a solid knowledge of XML, C++, VBA, SQL, etc..etc..etc.. mixed with a solid understanding of current 'IBM compatible' signaling, data transfer, storage & BUS protocols & standards [[with a final crosscheck back at the list in question]] & it should all become fairly self explanatory at that point.The links:1) http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default....1_cpp_start.asp2) http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default....dx9whatsnew.asp3) http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...wnloads_sdk.aspIf that isn't enough to convince anyone, then I would be glad to get into SMP, 64 bit apps & the whole deal. This is beyond the scope & purpose of this forum with respect to debates of this nature. This topic is saturated & should be buried; I don't understand why some are so awkward with accepting & moving on. Oh well....Cheers.

Guys,Both sides of this argument have well thought out opinions. Just one problem: neither of the sides can be proven right. I don't know of anyone that frequents this forum that has access to the source code, and knows the full potential (or lack thereof) present at the moment. This thread is nothing more than a spirited debate, where noone can ever be right.Sounds like politics eh?

O.K. let's see, I don't know what your trying to prove here but the links provided (DirectX 8/9 and Flight Simulator 2k4 SDK) doesn't add any legitimacy to your argument. I'll explain: 1.10m source data mesh for the entire globe.Adding this information to the scenery of FS2k6 does nothing more than make for a larger install. I don't understand your correlation here... 2.SID/STAR procedures.Once again this can be implemented with no barring on the DirectX version. 3.ATC operations on the level of Radar Contact. Including various accents depending on where in the world you were flying.Once again this is something that can be put in the next version of FS no matter what version of DirectX is present (nothing below 9 of course). 5.Every Airport more detailed than we have now (where applicable, jetways and detailed terminals).Added scenery, none dependent on DirectX version.6.More support for Freeware/Payware developers (this could cover a wide variety of issues).I guess your last link was in agreement of a better webpage on FS2k4's site. Other than that who cares about the DirectX version when we're talking about tools to make everyone's life easier.7.Outer Space for those who would like shuttle flights or traveling at high altitudes in the SR-71 (more so high altitude flying like in the X-1).Once again another added feature for the scenery...8.Better tools for add-on developers (FDE tweaking, etc.).I don't have to go here again...9.Much improved Autogen.Another scenery refinement...The only thing that might possibly bring a little legitimacy to your above post is this:"4.Framerate friendly Weather that included such occurrences as Hurricane

What's wrong with a spirited debate??? :-bang :-samurai :-sword

You won't lay down your interminable "maintain the code" argument will you?I have really tried to be nice about this & I shall continue to do so. Saying this nicely, have clearly demonstrated a thorough lack of knowledge with respect to APIs & I think we should leave it at that (of course you didn't read any of the SDK reliance on API function, BESIDES DirectX)....I'm not going to counter an invariable "counter-er". I really hope for everyone's sake you are right, it would be $50-$100 less I would be out of pocket.You win, your list is the best & this code will be around for 10 years "optimised the way you like it".The END.

Ooh come on now... We really shouldn't end it this way...You win.... :-badteeth :-beerchug

Yep,We really should end it this way; I've got too much blood on my keyboard from beating this deadhorse already.You told me I won, you know you can't take that back right:)Cheers.

Well as one of the originators of the request for a new engine, I'll respond:FS absolutely is a "game engine" in the sense that Doom or Half-Life are. It models different things than those games (physics/aerodynamics and a large world area) but there is a core engine driving the graphics renderer and physics just like there is in any current 3D game.There's a big misconception going on here as to the meaning of the term engine as myself and others use it: That big list of improvments that could be made (SID/STARs, more autogen, 10m mesh etc) - that is not the engine. Those are resource files that the engine uses to create the sim - making a new engine does not mean losing those things or starting over. The engine is the core programming that makes the sim do what it does - it's not a feature in the sense that aircraft, scenery etc are. What overhauling the engine means is MUCH higher video performance and quality out of the sim and better physics/flight dynamics because the sim will be processing it's resources and displaying them on the monitor MUCH more efficiently. The current engine, as far as I can tell, does not take advantage of the awesome capabilities of todays video cards - this is the reason we only get ~30FPS on our Radeon 9800's when the card runs almost every other game out there at 60+. Microsoft *made* DirectX, I don't see why everyone here seems to think that it's out of their reach to make one of their flagship products up to date with the rest of the 3D gaming world.Imagine if they'd never released Windows XP and just kept adding more and more onto Win9X even past ME - we'd have a pretty disastrous OS right now if they hadn't realized that it was time to move onto something new with XP and the upcoming Longhorn. That was three OS versions on the same "engine" if you will. We're now at 3 and possibly 4 (if there's any FS98 code still left) versions on the same core engine for FS. 3D cards just barely existed when this engine started. It's time to move on to something that's optimized for current hardware.

>>My two cents.>>>Alex MomeyerI'm sorry Alex, but this is exactly the same as the post that started this particular thread. You have nothing to contribute to the debate except the sound of your own `voice`. We gain nothing in this thread from your proselytizing. Your eloquence disguises the plain fact that you have nothing to say on the subject, so you really should have kept quiet or started this discussion in another forum.This is precisely why starting a second thread outside of the previous one was `wrong`. It happens all the time in this and other forums as it invites tangential posting, clouds issues and promotes personal attacks.And if someone can't see that loading new code on bad code is actually bad programming and is the CAUSE of the requirement to look afresh at the basic programming or that, after a point, it's ALWAYS better to start from scratch, then there's little point in continuing the discussion. The analogy is akin to loading up your 1920's vintage car with luggage until it fills all the available space, then putting more luggage on the roofrack, then trying to drive it up the motorway. Sooner or later, when you can't get the passengers in, and it can't keep up with the traffic in the slow lane, realisation dawns it's time for A BIGGER, FASTER VEHICLE. FS has reached that point. Especially as the `roadworks` are essentially complete and faster roads with more lanes will soon be available to speed our overloaded vehicle to its destination.Incidentally, the ONLY way the seemingly inocuous and `easy` extra features outlined above can be supplied to the user is by switching to DVD. That alone requires a key code change that delves deep into the heart of the program, and we already KNOW that the next version will only be supplied on DVD. It's only a question of which format. Allcott