To be honest, I feel that the FS Engine is up to the JOB. I think (Now Im no Expert In this) but the use of .bmp for everything is one of FS's Major drawbacks, Why dosent it use Jpegs which are of the same quality but have a much smaller footprint?I wonder does it have a culling method where by only what your looking at gets drawn? Im not trying to be smart here, Im just asking hoping that someone better informed can lets us know.I think the FS engine is more than capable but it would take a long time to update it as I guess all scenery formats would have to change, again I could be wrong. I guess MS can do pretty much anything and Im sure we are only scratching the surface of what the engine can do.I would also hazard a guess that the engine is more capable than we think.Whatever MS do, Im sure deep down they have our intrests at heart, and after all, they know whats coming round the corner hardware wise, and I guess they have to be careful, that they dont over do it as that would stop a lot of people from upgrading.After all FS is about flight, not DirectX 9 Shader effects, whilst I agree nothing beats a good looking airport and plane ETC, what FS does, it does well.However I hope they can make it look even better than FS2004 with comparable fram rates.Just my 0.2 Euros.Jason

Guys, don't let us overlook one issue. One reason (for me the major one) why this video look so good, is its smoothness. And this is, because it is a rendered video. I assume, that on today's state of the art PCs this sim wont't perform any better than a slide show.Wolfgang

This was shown around 2 months ago, it's not even remotely related to FS2006 (which hasn't even been announced).Now, regarding FS' shortcoming, don't blame the textures... Blame the idiotic logic it has. There's too much loaded into FS at one time, which is dreadful on the system (besides the fact that this engine is STILL building on an old and tired graphics engine that is flawed and needs to go). In terms of programming, FS has been a MESS lately. The graphics are obscenely lacking compared to basically anything produced in the gaming industry in the last few years, yet the performance is worse.Hopefully this version will get a revamp and optimization instead of building on old code.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

"This was shown around 2 months ago, it's not even remotely related to FS2006 (which hasn't even been announced)."Hi Dan.Which is why I went back and verified where it came from. Once I did the CAE google search and found the contracts, it was between slim and none that this was FS2006. (Would be nice though, huh?)I really do hope that the next version has a new graphics engine to keep up with the rest of the industry. Seeing new games come out and the possibilities gets pretty exciting. But wondering when FS is going to catch up is getting pretty old.And yes, I don't care if one single aircraft from FS2004 will work in FS2006. It's high time, IMHO that planes that worked in FS98 don't work anymore, or FS2002, or even FS2004.They have built the platform on a very old engine, and for all the money spent on this, we as the consumers deserve cutting edge graphics in this next iteration, IMHO.I honestly don't care about backward compatibility with any aircraft if we get improvements to the same things we have been asking for. (And have been threaded to death in the forums)It's getting pretty old to see quite a few Payware developers using FS98, FS2000, FS2002, 2D panels and selling them as cutting edge, by slicing and dicing a little here and there. What a joke, especially when old reviews are around showing pretty much the same panels. :-lolSo when will we get a new graphics engine?Hopefully that is the reason why no new announcements, or accurate predictions as to what we have to look forward to.If the difference is not major, I very well may just keep FS2004, and ride into the sim sunset until a competitor puts out something better, or MS catches up to the rest of the gaming industry. I enjoy what I have, but I'm probably not interested in putting more money into marginal improvements. (And IMHO, the diff between FS2002 Pro and FS2004 is marginal.)Regards,JoeGrab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Rendered video yes, but the smoothness of it alone should drive MS and card producers to incorporate image blur so that when we get only 20 fps, it still looks silky smooth. Show me someone that can do that with FS, and they've got a sale.

That looks cool, but I really (really)hope this new version doesnt feature the Airbus A380. That airplane isnt even in service yet. The sim will approximate fantasy.

Yes, CAE is a major firm which actually BUILDS the full versions of the professional flight simulators used by airlines.John