>Allcott,>>How do you know that Tim Robinson is a "non-expert" on simming>matters? Are you a member of the Society? The periodical>concerned is called "The Aerospace Professional" and is issued>along with "Aerospace International" each month by the Royal>Aeronautical Society. The society that issues it is a well>respected organisation with some pretty well qualified>aerospace individuals who know what they are talking about. >I'm not sure at all that Tim Robinson would write any>non-expert stuff in such a well respected magazine.>>KFD (MRAeS)Quite simple. Who? He may well be an expert on other aspects of simulation, but I've nver seen his name allied to a technical treatise, contributing to technical forums (including the extremely technical flight model developer forum) or as an author of any addon, payware or freeware. Remember, I am talking about Flight Sim, not flight simulation. I agree that doesn't say he isn't an expert, but if he is, well he's kept his light so well hidden under his bushel it must be black as night down there!Allcott (ACII, FCII and more - none of it relevant here)

>>Those aren't FS10. They're just from a development of the>FS9 engine >using a new version of DirectX, if memory serves.>>The pics i

Ron,That is almost the same presentation that was shown at the AVSIM conference, and those were not shots from FS10, just some of the possibilities.And the magazine had the same pictures, and they are not from FS10.The blooms and wet runways that everyone is showing may or may not be in FS10.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Sales and Supporthttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_dev_team.jpg http://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_proud_supporter.jpg

J.T.:In the past, I have agreed with more of your postings than not, even though your approach tends to be one of "an iron fist without a velvet glove". :-) But, on this, I am not sure that I agree.MicroSoft has almost ALWAYS pushed the envelope on hardware for MSFS. Sure, you may be able to run FS9 on a 486 machine, but at what frame rate and smoothness? Just try running FS9 on their minimally recommended system.Although I am sure that there is no conspiracy (well, almost sure) between MicroSoft and hardware manufacturers, I have always had to upgrade my hardware when a new version of MSFS comes out. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. She can smell an MSFS release a mile away! :( BUT, I now just have an AMD64, 3400+ anchor that is slowing me down. I need an UPGRADE!!!Wilson

Oh well...If money is their only concern then I guess we would have seen a copy on the shelves on July 29th,two years to the day that COF was released.Uh...where in my post did I say that FS10 would REQUIRE a dual core and SLI? I merely stated that with this technology here today and cheaper next year that they are waiting to write the code to take advantage of the new technology. If you have an advanced rig that can use those then you end up with faster fps than someone who doesn't,it doesn't mean the program won't run on a lesser machine. Lets meet back here after the details of FS10 are released and see if the program doesn't take advantage of dual core processors and a SLI setup.David

At the AVSIM conference, the representatives from MSFS were merely showing the kinds of technology they are evaluating and they were quite clear that their presentation concerned the technology only and not anything that would or wouldn't be included with FS10. The team members (MSFS team) can not nor will they discuss anything about any future versions of Flight Simulator or if there will even be another, but you can assume that there will be. From everything I've seen, FSCOF is still selling very well, and I would speculate that its sales are being maintained at sufficient levels giving the team a bit of a breather, allowing them to spend more time on a number of possible improvements. Sometime or somewhere this idea that Microsoft has a well established rule, about when each version of Flight Simulator will be released, got started (approximately every 2 years, give or take a few months), but this is in reality not true. If you go back to the time during the release of FS98 and all versions since, the marketing climate at that time was what drove the MSFS team to release FS and not some obituary tradition.Just a few months following the release of FS98, the first version of FLY! was released and that sim looked great, especially the screenshots on their packaging. FLY! was initially quite successful (sales) and it was obvious that Microsoft needed to do something to maintain their market share. Their answer to FLY! was of course FS2000, which was visually light years ahead of FS98. Rather FS2000 was better looking than FLY! is irrelevant, but the screenshots on the original packaging gave it an appearance that it was superior, plus they (MS) offered a helicopter and jetliners, where FLY! did not. The sales of FS2000 were brisk and there were all appearances they (MS) would maintain their market share, but FS2000 was too far ahead of its time and performance issues were paramount among the various simulation forums. Most don't remember that FLY! was having similar issues, as the technology needed to drive both FLY! and FS2000 exceeded the available hardware. As the rumors of FLY II surfaced, the MSFS team prepared a new updated version of Flight Simulator (FS2002) that would not only correct the errors of FS2000, but would also include some new ideas (new texturing and autogen specifically being just two improvements among several) and coinciding with the hardware technology, which had also advanced sufficiently to cover the enhancements. FS2002 was delayed several months on its release, due to 9/11, and it wasn't until February (I think or it may have been sooner) of 2002. It was barely 16 or 17 months later, July or August of 2003, that Microsoft released FS2004, but this was to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first flight celebrations in the fall of that year.In my private conversations with the MSFS group, attending the AVSIM conference, we discussed the demographics of the purchasers of Flight Simulator and such, but any discussions concerning future versions was treated as, ..don't ask, don't tell! I didn't (ask) and they didn't (tell). So, is any of the technologies shown at the conference going to be in FS10, I haven't a clue, though I would suspect it is highly doubtful.Bear!

Im sure they can release FS10 to satisfy the techies with their WarpDrive computers (hee hee) and the rest of us with "average" machines.Microsoft can take a cue from very high-detail demanding games like Far Cry, Doom 3 & Half Life that all have very customisable sliders to cater for every machine. In fact I have seen Far Cry run on a pretty low-spec PC and it still looked amazing (and stays fluid too).FS9 of course already has sliders but I feel they will need to include more "fine-tuning" sliders for FS10 to customise it to run on machines of various power.Im not a programmer but I guess they can also include a button to enable /disable FS10's dual-processor mode which will crank up the detail to obnoxious levels to those with 2 physical processors.

I agree with those that say that MS will base it's decisions on the sales of FS units. That is what they are business to do.I do believe there is a point in time however, when they will face the reality that their product is the defacto standard of both professional and recreational flight simulation.This has come about primarily because of the huge third party participation, and the fact that the technology has progressed to the point of almost unlimited design flexibility (primarly because of dual core and 64 bit processors and operating systems). Also dirt cheap DVD support is a factor.It may be that this is the point in time where they hitch up their pants, and take the big leap as described above.I believe this would be very favorable for their long-term financial interests for the product.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I am sure there are some dedicated people on the MSFS team, but they are a small division of a major corporation that made more in the first few weeks Halo was released than many high budget movies do in their entire run. You can't tell me they invested that much. They have always been followers, look at Sublogic's ATP which was delayed by their litigation against anything they came out with for years after.I don't see how "sophisticated progrmming" and "massive hardware requirements" are so joined at the hip. Isn't one of the goals of good software to minimise the load on the hardware? Unless of course your operating software is bundled with almost every new computer...One of the best things you can do is WAIT a year or two after FS10 comes out to buy it. X-plane 8 will have matured by then if you need a new fix, and there are hopeful signs in the "open source" flight sim world. MS will either put out more effort or fold, and if they choose the former, FS11 might just be something real special.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

"FS2002 was delayed several months on its release, due to 9/11, and it wasn't until February (I think or it may have been sooner) of 2002."Indeed it was sooner. I recall picking up my copy of FS2002 in late October.

I too am a member of the RAeS but that doesn't mean I believe everything in read in its, or anyone else's publications - and I don't believe this. News to me implies more than speculation - and as far as I can see everything about FS10 is speculation at present.

So, unless you've seen his name he's a "non-expert". I dare say he hasn't seen your name either.

Sure Microsoft pushes the envelope. Everyone in the games industry does that.But they'll always make certain the game will run (albeit at less than maximum settings) on the common hardware of the day.What the OP seemed to suggest was that Microsoft should abandon that and state as minimum requirements a system at the very high end of what money can buy (or even a system that doesn't exist yet and won't until some time after the product release of the software) and that the maximum options should be able to make full use of hardware available at the bleeding edge several years after that.Those are different philosophies, one makes sure the product can grow with the anticipated development in hardware while still retaining a market at time of release, the other is the hardware junkies' wet dream (or nightmare, if he's a hardware junkie on a limited budget).

>FS9 of course already has sliders but I feel they will need to>include more "fine-tuning" sliders for FS10 to customise it to>run on machines of various power.>There are so many options already that many people get thoroughly confused.They then just set it all to "max" at the suggestion of some people here, then come back and scream bloody murder because they get only 5fps on their 486.>Im not a programmer but I guess they can also include a button>to enable /disable FS10's dual-processor mode which will crank>up the detail to obnoxious levels to those with 2 physical>processors.Wouldn't work like that. Something like that would require a basic rewrite of the entire graphics kernel of the application, effectively meaning you end up with 2 graphics engines side by side.Think double (or more) development cost and leadtime.

Professional flight simulation doesn't use FSx (or Xplane or Fly! or whatever PC based system).They use custom software on multimillion dollar machines.It's only people in these here forums who think they can fly a 737 because they've managed the PMDG model.