One thing from the DX9 shader rumour, if true, I wonder if that means the next FS will take advantage of SLI. I think it would be great to be able to run FS with 'everything' On and Maxed and get nothing less than 60fps - Always.

I filed a complaint with NWA last year because of the blurry scenery underway from Amsterdam to Seattle.Never heard back from them.

"I filed a complaint with NWA last year because of the blurry scenery underway from Amsterdam to Seattle.Never heard back from them."Funny, because I was seeing random texture blurring on a recent flight to SoCal. As soon as we passed Palm Springs, the ground became blurry, as if choked by smog. Probably was choked by smog. Let me know if NWA gives ya any freebies--I'll file a similar complaint with SWA :)

I think we are forgetting the impending 64-bit generation of PC

MS must abandon backward compatability eventually, for performance's sake and development time's sake. I'm reminded of Sun and how cold booting your typical SPARC Solaris workstation can take anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes, mainly due to the vast number of backward compatability modules which are loaded into memory.I think you underestimate how time consuming and performance degrading it is to maintain old interfaces across multiple product revisions.

I thought Long Horn was already available (for testng anawyas).Forgive any incorrect assupions, i have currently come back from town completey ###### out of my mind...... tried my hardest at spelllings

I think Windows XP Pro x64 is in beta or, at least, was when I last checked. I also thought it will be released this year. I think Longhorn is different, but I'm not exactly sure. Maybe the experts here will clarify that.

Have already heard complaints about it being too real...They advertise it as a "game" and many users expect it to be a game.---Those who have seen my messages for years, Know how addicted to the FS I've been.... Now, I have another addiction which takes as much time ! Between FS and this, it takes most every waking hour. Just Click to see what I've done lately, Bobhttp://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZsouthwestQ5fartist

Exactly! The more M$ supports older versions of anything the more they limit the advancement of their technology. It's hard enough to program and test a game, now people are demanding each new version be backwards compatible with the last? Thats ridiculous. If you can't accept that, then live with what version runs best for you and buy up all the add-ons for those. Or be smart about what add-ons you buy and from what companies since we all know which ones will most likely work harder to update their products for the next version.If FS10 were only compatible with the next generation hardware, it would look exactly like everyone wishes it to look. If you turn around and demand it ALSO be compatible with the previous few generation hardware, don't expect much but a pumped up version of the last. (which is exactly what fs9 is)At least M$ figured out (if that rumor is true) they shouldnt spend so much time making basic scenery and basic aircraft, they can't even do that very well. Personally I am in the process of building a next generation system and can't wait for FS10 to hopefully take full advantage of that.

Microsoft maintain backwards compatibility over a limited number of releases.You can't use FS98 and most FS2000 addons in FS2004 for example. I expect support for non-GMax scenery and aircraft will be completely gone in FS2006 (or whatever it's called), it's pretty minimal even now.Dropping backwards compatibility completely would cause such an outcry of indignation from the hardcore users that it would seriously hurt sales... In fact just the unfounded rumour that FS2002 would drop backwards compatibility completely caused a major row on just about every forum back in 2000 (a year before there was any product announcement about FS2002 at all).

Longhorn versions are in internal testing of course, but they're far from complete.Just as FS2006 (or whatever) will be available internally to the development team in some state of completion.

I think there is an element of this that you can see coming through in some of the forums for highly sophisticated addons. Anyone who appears to be not in the "precisely how it is done in the real world' camp is encouraged to adopt that mindset with minimal delay. Varies a bit, some forums are more tolerant than others, but it is a factor. The problem is that it is just not possible to be fully across the growing number of addons especially aircraft that fall into this category. If you have the PSS airbus series, the Fanda Dash 8, PMDG 737, PIC 767/LDS767, Flight1 ATR, aeroworx Beech Kingair, etc etc in your hanger, plus Radar Contact, FS2Crew, Reality XP GPS, ActiveSky and goodness knows what else and devoted a week or so to being on top of each addon in turn by the time you got to the last one you have forgotten all you learnt about the first one. So you have to make choices some you will want to be "type rated" in but for others a passing knowledge is all you will want.Bruceb

True, but that affects only a small percentage of Microsoft's customer base.If it didn't Microsoft themselves would have long since incorporated such features as PSS or PMDG offer into the core product...If the sales volume of a typical addon in this class is 10.000 units that's a lot. The sales volume of FS200x will be in the order of 2.000.000 units per version.