they supposedly are planning on rebuilding the graphics engine from scratch to take advantage of new technology to allow for better framerates and better graphics with shadows, lights, etc. This engine is as old as FS2000 I think. It's time for an overhaul

I'm the first to say that there's room for improvement, but you're being mighty pretentious. What's packaged in FS evidently works, the sales show it. You're not the majority here, this whole community is a minority of the FS user base that, while important, needs to realize that its expectations are just extravagant sometimes. While I'd love to have a new engine altogether, the current one, as long as it's not overloaded with add-ons, does not exhibit the erratic behavior you're reporting. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the FPS are A-OK too as long as you don't cram your FS folder silly with modules, complex gauges and obscenely heavy sceneries. I know one guy who struggles to keep his FS folder under 30GB, when the original install is probably 10% of that. And in his case, it works perfectly fine as long as he does "maintenance" on it. How you expect FS to perform flawlessly with all the crap most of us stuff into it is beyond me.You also complained about having to spend money to get "what should have come default". Microsoft is NOT (and should not) be in charge of developing complex ANYTHING, they do the framework, and make that framework as easily expandable as possible. THAT is their job. Utilizing that framework to create complex ANYTHING is the job of the 3rd party developer. Trying to mix the two would be disastrous.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.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. :)

People love to complain. Imagine your life without flightsim, period. Kind-of difficult to imagine isn't it? Be thankful for what you have, and stop lamenting about what you want. No one has to upgrade to the next version of flightsim, windows, or any other software. You can load FS5 on your current rig and get 200 frames per second but would you like it? And yet, if you want to enjoy the fruits of technological progress, why wouldn't you want to upgrade your system every few years? MS does a great job, and I'm greatful to them for continuing to develop a product for such a relatively select market. I'm also greatful for the many talented developers, both freeware and payware, that add so much to our enjoyment of this hobby, and to sites like AVSIM for working so hard to pull it all together and give us a meeting place to exchange ideas, software, screenshots and talk aboout it all. Happy As A Lark,http://www.animation-station.com/planes/images/plane001.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Only this game can get away with doing a half assed job of depicting scenery and expecting 3rd party developers to do the rest. Imagine the next Grand Theft Auto series for the PC, and Rockstar decides "were just going to create a bland city and let developers create it all"I am just comparing it to other games. If they do ONLY the framework, then they have absolutely no excuse not to make better improvements than they have been doing.

Daniel,I absolutely agree withe very single sentence. Also comparing FS to something like "Grand Theft Auto" is complete fallacy - the software, architecture, everything is different.LOMAC is apparently a very recent simulation with fairly modern 'engine' not hindered by any 'legacy' code. Yet it doesn't impress you with spectcular frame rates. The fact is that flight simulations are very diifferent beasts than other popular tiles on the market.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

"Only this game can get away with doing a half assed job of depicting scenery and expecting 3rd party developers to do the rest. Imagine the next Grand Theft Auto series for the PC, and Rockstar decides "were just going to create a bland city and let developers create it all""Wow, talk about a flawed comparison. You're talking about a simulator that has the entire world and comparing it to a videogame that depicts a big city or a state. By the way, I didn't see you bring up GTA's graphics, I wonder why... :-lol"I am just comparing it to other games."Which is precisely the problem. Except for Sims 2, I simply can't think of a game that gets as obscenely stuffed with add-ons and that stretches so far beyond the scope of the original game. FS isn't offering you a city, or even a state; it's offering you the world. Do you realize that? Do you have the foggiest idea of what would be required to produce anything nearing the quality of what 3rd party developers are doing? You'd be waiting at least a decade, AND paying thousands of dollars. Oh, but then you'd complain about it being so expensive. :7 " If they do ONLY the framework, then they have absolutely no excuse not to make better improvements than they have been doing."Ummm, yes they do. The vast majority of their customers are perfectly happy using an out-of-the-box installation. That's what I don't think we're agreeing on. FS is not GTA... There isn't a community within GTA demanding that the car physics are 100% accurate, wanting to add over 100 new cars, thousands of skins, new cities, new missions, and STILL expecting the game to run as good as if it was straight out of the box.I mean, are you realizing how ridiculous such expectations are? :-lol I also want them to do better, but going around demanding and making it sound as though they're required to give you the world in a box for $50 is just ridiculous.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.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. :)

Don't be surprised if some of the photos(especially the ones showing the shadows of the clouds on the ground) on the Boeing site are FS10. :)

First of all GTA was just an example of a video game company deciding to make half the game and expecting other developers to add something else.Secondly, the vast majority of customers are NOT happy with a default installation, they might buy it, play it for a bit, then move on to something else. Only a very small percentage of that community stays with the game and continues to play it.My expecations are not ridiculous. I think it is ridiculous to claim a software company who has more money than most countries on this planet cannot possibly do anything but make a good engine and surroundings and nothing else. I expect more from 2002 to 2004 than we got. I expect more for the next version as well. How many people honestly fly the default airplanes and the default scenery? They are bland and boring, they do not give enough of a sense of "being there" that is great practice for the real thing. Traffic avoidance, learning the rules so you don't go onto the runway at the wrong time when a heavy is landing, staying far away from the next aircraft landing so you don't go around, getting afcads to allow for more realisic parking spaces navaids and frequenices, etc.I am very thankful that there is such a big freeware community, and the payware community continues for the most part to raise the bar. I just hope Microsoft comes back with an even more impressive version than FS9 that takes advantage of the latest technology so we all don't have to have super computers just to run a good add-on airplane, add-on airports, and add-on AI traffic and scenery

"Secondly, the vast majority of customers are NOT happy with adefault installation, they might buy it, play it for a bit,then move on to something else. Only a very small percentageof that community stays with the game and continues to playit."Hefty claim... No facts to back it up, I assume? "My expecations are not ridiculous. I think it is ridiculousto claim a software company who has more money than mostcountries on this planet cannot possibly do anything but makea good engine and surroundings and nothing else."Oh, because we know that Microsoft doesn't have other things to attend to besides FS, right? FS is all about 3rd-party developers, man. MS acknowledges this, and that's reflected in their work."I expect more from 2002 to 2004 than we got. I expect more for the next version as well."If your statements here are any indication, I fear that you'll be greatly disappointed regardless of what the team does."How many people honestly fly the default airplanes and thedefault scenery? They are bland and boring, they do not giveenough of a sense of "being there" that is greatpractice for the real thing. Traffic avoidance, learning therules so you don't go onto the runway at the wrong time whena heavy is landing, staying far away from the next aircraftlanding so you don't go around, getting afcads to allow formore realisic parking spaces navaids and frequenices, etc."You don't understand, do you? What you see here - AVSIM, us, EVERYTHING - Is a tiny % of the people who buy FS. FS is madly successful, and a large chunk of the people who buy it think it looks cool, buy it, and probably never even discover AVSIM, VATSIM, LDS, PMDG, FlyTampa, or anything of the sort. And even if they do, most can't be bothered to learn how to use anything complex, they seek entertainment and not a full-time hobby like we do. ####, even within this minority we are, a good portion of the people don't fly properly, or care for accurate models, and I won't even start with traffic avoidance, procedures, etc. I can tell you because I WAS ONE WHEN I STARTED USING FS. I flew through FS98 and part of FS2000 without knowing AVSIM even existed, and in FS98 I couldn't even land a plane, I used to not want to turn the plane because I couldn't get it back into straight and level flight. I flew what was out of the box, as boring and unappealing as you claim it is, and I was perfectly happy because I didn't know better. So don't think it's so farfetched, I think you'd be surprised. And I'll say it again, the current engines do exceptionally well out of the box, and with a reasonable load of add-ons. ANY game is susceptible to a degree of instability with add-ons, and we're not using ONE; we have many at a time, each doing its thing. That kind of stuff messes with the stability of the engine, you know."I am very thankful that there is such a big freewarecommunity, and the payware community continues for the mostpart to raise the bar. I just hope Microsoft comes back withan even more impressive version than FS9 that takes advantageof the latest technology so we all don't have to have supercomputers just to run a good add-on airplane, add-onairports, and add-on AI traffic and scenery"FS has always been on the edge of the system scale at release simply because again, this isn't Doom 3, with tight hallways. This is an entire world that's being displayed, a non-linear game. That's also why it's never had the latest graphics. I hope for a big change, but I'd never come to expect (or imply that the team is somehow obligated to come up with) the latest graphics and lots of detail in all areas. Realistic expectations are important.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.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. :)

>My expecations are not ridiculous. I think it is ridiculous to>claim a software company who has more money than most>countries on this planet cannot possibly do anything but make>a good engine and surroundings and nothing else. I expect more>from 2002 to 2004 than we got. I expect more for the next>version as well. Then you are going to be terribly disappointed. This is what the Lead Project Manager, Mike Gilbert has to say about the content of the sim (bolded emphasis is mine):"The actual content in the box is aimed at a broad user base and is something of a technology demonstrator. Anyone who knows our third-party community is aware that they are ones creating the truly masterful individual aircraft and scenery. So, when we hire for an aircraft artist, for example, we don't really want the person who can create the best possible aircraft with the current technology. We want the person who will help us create the next generation of technology. In my experience those people are few and far between. The question is not, can you create AutoGen tiles that look better than anyone else's but, instead, could you have developed the system (patent pending) for rendering them? You can use a construction analogy if you want. There are a lot of very talented home builders out there but we hire architrects, not builders. Are there architexts that can pick up a hammer and saw and fashion a house? Sure, but is that really what their job is?"There, that's straight from the "horse's mouth" as the saying goes. Note that there is no claim that they "cannot," but rather is that they do not.Now you know...

Shawn,I think you may be on to something. I've looked at the screenshots on Boeing's webpage. The ones showing the 787 and the beautiful sky and clouds look photo-real. The clouds were probably added from real photos. The screenshot of the flight deck facing the runway looks fantastic. The lighting of the taxi ways and runway look real.Now, look at the videos. The videos remind me of FS2004. The skyline haze, sky and cloud colors, terrain mesh, water color, aircraft strobe lights, and sun glare all remind me of FS2004. It is very possible that FS10 and Boeing's flight simulation software share similar graphics technology. I suspect that the 787 will be a new addition for us flight simmers in FS10.I just hope that I will be able to afford a PC upgrade next year!David

"How many people honestly fly the default airplanes and thedefault scenery?"Actually, the VAST majority of purchasers of MSFS fly default planes and scenery. This the biggest mistake made by many high end FS users. They think they are in the majority when, in reality, they are a small minority. Yes, that includes developers such as Bill and myself. Our products are purchased by that same minority, and we too are in that minority. So, this is nothing negative against anyone, just the facts!MS makes FS for the majority of users, and supports 3rd party developers who add to it / tweak in for the minority of users.Now, would we all like to see an improved "engine"? Of course, and I am quite certain MS is working on that.Like it or not, the majority of MSFS's user base are not high end users who visit forums / web sites such as this. Read what Fr. Bill said above, as he is right on the money.So, we have 25,000 registered forum users here, and that is less than 2% of the MSFS user base (do the math, and yes, it is at least that large). Take the rest of the FS forums / web sites into account (obviously folks often register at more than one web site / forum), and you will not get much past 10%, more likely 5%. ;-)Hey, Fr. Bill? Looking forward to meeting you, and sharing some wine with you soon! ;-) Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!By the time I got FS9, the patch was out and it was selling at Staples for thirty bucks. That will most likely be true about FS10. Especially when I saw the dev team member's quote.Imagine the percentage of users who got FS9, absolutely dying to try out a J-3 and knowing nothing of Avsim or enhancements being available. Think They're happy? The default .air file for the Cessna 172 and the overall function of autopilots have been steps backward. Unless Rob Young doesn't know what he's talking about...:-) Yes, later versions of other sims have stepped backwards- but was there a producer pushing MS to release at a certain date regardless of maturity? Methinks not.It's a fact that too large of a market share in any industry stifles innovation. Who in their right minds would pour a lot of capital into a rival shell now? There are notable exceptions like the Veneviveones 690B, the Super Hornet and the Christen Eagle, but the general rule is that terriffic aircraft are available for FS9- at around thirty bucks a pop. I don't fault the addon devs, they earn it for the most part; but doesn't anyone see the direct relation to the quality of the default and the cost of addons? Like Aeroworx said, there ain't much to work with. The best hope now is freeware shells maturing to the point that MSFS sales drop and they either "rev it up" dramatically or drop it. The void wouldn't stay empty for long.You know what I wish for? No more new default aircraft, but a framework with more aircraft systems support and improved flight dynamics for what they got. Oh, and an IFR hood would be nice.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

FS initially never crashed on me. It is poor written add-ons and usually the user itself that brings FS down on its knees. May it be, because they're trying to fly with all sliders maxed with a PII or because their lack of maintenance on their machine. You cannot expect to get all the worlds detailed airports rendered and VFR scenery around the globe for $50 (now $20).Progress has been made with the addition of shaders, improved (but still inadequate) ATC and SDKs that let developers create the best addons possible. Who would have thought about an add-on like the PMDG or Flight1 three years ago?The engine itself is just fine. I can fly without problems and have a really stunning scenery (granted, with a ton of add-ons) and acceptable frame rates.From what I have seen, the new engine will be even more stunning.Cheers,Pat

I'll tell you though, the CryTek engine in Far Cry is something to behold for detail It's really quite amazing. I think FS could be done in a similar way and you could end up with something nice. The water effects, motion, etc, tells me you could get pretty dang smooth, pretty and detailed using something more like that. Dunno how well adapted an engine like that would be for something like FS though.Noel