>FS9 includes shaders already, the water is programmed as DX>shaders. So the answer is yes, it can be done, because it>already is done with the existing data structure.Of course FS9 include shaders, but those are pixel shaders. I was thinking more about vertex shaders, that change the geometries. For example, a vertex shader could be used to create all sort of vertex morphing, used in some games for character animations, but could be used, for example, in model animations, VC animations ( very limited and slow, right now ), scenery animations, etc.In this case, the current data structure wouldn't be enough, because the shaders as used today are hard coded, not stored in the scenery file. To make them really powerful, it should be even possibile to define them locally, in the scenery. >This is the most modern approach of doing this.>There isn't any better algorithm to date.It was a clever choice for a flight sim, but it has its limitations. For example, the vectors will always appear flat over their base texture.You can't have, say, a 3d road with this approach, the sunken riverbeds that vtp provides are quite coarse, because they simply modify the base mesh, but if it works ok for rivers, certainly is not very good for finer or more complex stuff, like roads that cross over each other at different heights, or galleries.However, it's not the only possibile approach, for example, the terrain could be rendered with Bezier patches. There are already game engines using this approach:http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/...r/rayner_03.htm( site requires free registration )Another approach would be using Diplacement Maps in hardware, so the terrain mesh takes the height information from a specified bitmap, so the data structure could be used just to store information about that bitmap name, just as if it was another texture, without storing the actual height data. This technique could be used by all 3d objects, not only the terrain. This means, for example, an airplane model could be made with a low-polyon geometry, and a displacement maps that was created based on the hi polygon version of the model. The cpu send these 2 data set over the bus ( saving a LOT of bandwidth comparing to sending the full model + the additional LODS ), and the gpu can put the two together, and create an high polygon version again, on the fly, with Adaptive Tasselation depending on screen size, so the final number of polygons generated will always be the right one.This technique was introduced only with DX9, but latest cards have the hardware support for it, but it would need a change in the 3d structure for 3d models, and even a different GMax exporter, that should be able to create the needed data sets. The Far Cry engine, for example, uses this approach for 3d objects.However, I'm speaking hypotetically. From what I saw at IFC in Blackpool at their presentation, MS is trying to use the most of the current "special effect" shaders tricks, like bump and normal mapping for all kind scenery, to make the sim just looking better, without changing it too much.regards,Umberto Colapicchioni

I am all for moving forward but for the time it takes all my add-ons to be updated/re made for a new version it might be the next-next version before I switch. I like what I have now I know it could be better but to fly around in a default aircraft for 6 or more months "aint gonna happen".

I think that we should stop and take the probervial 35,000 foot view (no pun intended)of the sim to see what we really have.Out of the box, MSFS performs just fine thanks to GMAX allowing relatively good performance as compared to its predecessors. But, there are a growing number of us here who have suped up MSFS and have pushed the envelope to its limits.Huge mega-detailed airports, scores of AI aircraft, hyper-realistic 3-D cockpits, super-complex aircraft with thousands of seperate parts, multi-layers of photorealitsic fluffy clouds, high fidelity sounds, complex wave mapping, 32m terrain mesh, pinpoint accurate roads, streams and coast-lines along with megabytes of textures in any given view are what bring MSFS to its knees, NOT, the underlying scenery engine. The issues that we have today are largely of our OWN making.That said, there are indeed ways to minimize the impact on our systems and companies such as FLYTampa have proven it so. This is opposed to Simflyer's that bring even the most powerful PCs to its knees. This is just an example.We can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want hyper realism and detail ad nauseum then no matter what the underlying engine happens to be, it will indeed tax your system at the highest levels. Microsoft can start from scratch if they so desire, but when you add on all the icing, we are back at the same old argument.Sure, there is much room for optimization in the underlying engine, so I think that is were MS should focus, not starting over. In the same token, the 3rd party developers need to make sure that THEY are doing everything to optimize performance. AND, most importantly, WE need to be realistic about our systems and our expectations! If one has a P4 1.8 Ghz and 256MB of RAM one can't install every single add-on, turn up the detail sliders to 100% and then expect 150fps! Of course, MS can go with a multi-cpu supported sim to take advantage of dual core and multi-cpu setups. Scenery on CPU1, Aircraft physics on CPU2, Gauges on CPU3, Weather and clouds on CPU4 :-lol. No problem there and a sim with more detail and smoothness than a Level D sim....but probably at a cost rivaling a Level D simualtor :-lolAt the end of the day, I'd rather see MS stay with ONE PLATFORM and tweak the heck out of the scenery engine and adding far more realism to the weather and ATC engines. Backwards compatibility too should be realized since we are at the tail end of the FS2004 product life cycle and are JUST getting a realistic 747 and have yet to see a realistic 777, A320, A340, etc for the sim. I personally don't want to wait another 3 years for what I already have and I don't want to use two sims. Regards,Mike T.

I agree, Christian; the existing program represents a huge investment in time and money. That's a much bigger issue to MS I imagine than a desire on the part of the user base for performance improvement. What is the business case? How many more copies will FS2007 sell with a revamped engine? Not many I imagine.As a developer, I am constantly amazed at the complexity and flexibility of the program. (and yes frustrated by the limited support and meagre documentation!) Recreating such sophistication, which has evolved over years, would require an enormous effort.Yup, it's easier for me if MS has backwards compatibility, but a new engine would just create new opportunities too. If MS does go that way I hope for vastly improved support, but until MSFS has any close competition I anticipate incremental features over the next few years.Jon

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Consoles have changed everything. I saw a show a while back comparing the investment in a movie versus the rate of return. Halo, if it were a movie, would be one of the most if not *the* most successfull expenditure of capital. If MS does indeed release a FS for X box, they may put some effort into a PC version but that trend may not continue. But the level of talent among developers and the fervor of enthusiasts is just too much for simming to go away. Freeware shells in the next years will begin to push the bar just like freware aircraft and scenery push payware. *Every* comercial shell producer will have to put out more effort or get out. Flight simming started with small groups who thought it would be cool to fly planes on their desk, and that spirit is still kicking.A freeware shell may truly stink on release, but there is far more potential for improvement from cooperation. There is also less or no development restrictions from imbedded source code.***** And if the EULA of the sim allows it, why can't a person or group whose creations have real value port them to a freeware sim at a profit?****A group of individuals collaborating thru the internet can accomplish amasing things. And just imagine if a site like Vatsim or IVAO could harness the power of all the processors linked to it? That's being explored and found to work with other apps.So the bottom line: Within ten years *much* more effort gets put out by comercial PC shell producers *notice plural* or they will be superceded. Either way, we win.Best Rgeards, Donny:-wave

The Flight Sim team is hiring a graphics developer right now. Here's your chance to make sure Microsoft uses the latest graphics technology by doing it yourself! :-)Details:http://members.microsoft.com/careers/searc...67-47e8a54695c8

About 6 weeks old, sorry.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Sales and Supporthttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_dev_team.jpg http://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_proud_supporter.jpg

>The Flight Sim team is hiring a graphics developer right now.> Here's your chance to make sure Microsoft uses the latest>graphics technology by doing it yourself! :-)WOW! Who said MS didn't monitor these boards ? Hello Adam, thanks for posting. Well...Seattle for me is a little bit far from home, but I'm sure you will find a good candidate!best regards and good luck with FS,Umberto Colapicchioni

I agree with Mike T.Most of us may want a new graphics engine because the other games today make FS look "old", but the fact is economics rule business. For those people that say chuck the old engine and all the add-ons and bring on the new stuff.... how long are you willing to fly the default planes and the default scenery? The new version may blow away the current version, but is that enough to hold the interest of the hard-core simmer? We all know the majority of FS sales goes to people that never buy add-ons. They play with the sim until they are bored and the sim then ends up on the bookshelf. Even with an amazing "WOW" factor based on a new graphics engine, the hardcore simmer is going to eventually put the new version on the shelf unless a new addon comes along to renew the interest.Microsoft provides scenery and aircraft that are acceptable to sell the product. For the hardcore simmer, these items are marginally acceptable. You'll be waiting a long time for all the things you've come to expect from your sim to be acceptable. I'm not talking 6 months here, but more like years! If people are already happy with FS9 and all the add-ons, then where is the incentive for the developers to spend big money converting to the new platform? That's quite a business risk, not only for the payware developers, but for Microsoft as well. Of course there will be new products developed, but if enough people hang onto FS9, there won't be anywhere near the windfall of products developed for the new platform that we see now with FS9.Mike's suggestion has plenty of merit, from the standpoint of the hardcore user base as well as the product developer. There's plenty of optimization that can be accomplished in combination with incremental advancements by Microsoft.I don't favor a completely new product unless Microsoft admits that they have taken the current graphics engine as far as it can go. Just because we see what other game makers are doing (in a limited environment, not worldwide) is not a reasonable, nor economic reason to scrap the entire program.Finally, if you've been around flight sim for awhile, you already know that new graphics means quirks and bugs. If people complain about stutters now, from a mature but not fully optimized graphics engine, it worries me to think what will come from people that are limited to flying in a default world with default aircraft and there are quirks in the engine. The frustration level will go through the roof!My vote is to make as much advancement as possible, but consider how it affects current add-ons. If some add-ons continue to work and there is significant progress, that's fine. However, don't throw it all out the window just to make a quantum leap forward in technology. A futuristic, lead-edge FS may seem cool when we first get it, just like all new versions upon release, but it'll only take us hardcore users a couple of months to realize we stepped back into the dark ages when there are few add-ons to keep us happy.Bruce

See "The Little Wheel Goes in the Back" comments on his blog.http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/I told you who he was once and da AVSIM powers delete my post so I will let you figure it. He is Lacey's bud/partner/manager -- Oh, Lacey uses his real name on his blog so I am not telling you something you can't see on first look.Find Lacey here:http://www.steve-lacey.com/In Lacey's own words.."Looks like one of our PM

Bob,Very interesting! Thanks for the links to those blogs. It seems those folks that are not allowed to respond have found an alternative way to respond. :-)Apparently progress will be made without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Precisely what those folks voting #3 (the light green) wanted.Bruce

I go with I don't give a **** if it will look like this (and I have several $100 in FS9 addons):http://www.newairplane.com/en-US/FunStuff/Pictures.htmlLeo

Amazing how much better informed we can be with just a little feedback like this. It's a big help.PM=Project Manager.Hopefully there are many questions that can be answered this way.Jon

Actually, PM == Program Manager.

Or maybe PM = Prime MinisterHope this helps,JimActiveSky Sales and Supporthttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_dev_team.jpg http://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_proud_supporter.jpg