"PCGAMER does not just publish "Hype""I agree Randy. I can't see them publishing any story without some background validation--they're a respected enough source. However, even the best trade magazines have been fooled in the past. How many magazines printed as gospel that there were WMD's in Iraq (not making a political statement btw, just an example of how the best of the best can be fooled)?-John

A "short article" - I haven't seen it but it's described as only a page or two long - probably means the writer was working from a wish list of features and has not seen the beta of the real game.Heck, a short search here on Avsim can find a million words of "probable" features in the next version of FS.One of the improvement they cite in their article is more AI traffic This has me interested - it's the first thing I've heard where FS might raise the limit on inbound aircraft for a runway to more than five. The current system of adding the sixth inbound aircraft to the first approach point creates the flocking behavior we hate. Maybe... I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Its on the front page of PCgamer, i really doubt the author of the article is just guessing here. I certainly will buy this issue to see what "details" of FS10 is in there.OHN

I wonder if there is anything more to the article than what is scanned into the post. Either way, I wouldn't read too much into pre-release information. We can't make assumptions based on what was and was not mentioned.

>A "short article" - I haven't seen it but it's described as>only a page or two long - probably means the writer was>working from a wish list of features and has not seen the beta>of the real game.>>Heck, a short search here on Avsim can find a million words of>"probable" features in the next version of FS.>>One of the improvement they cite in their article is more>AI traffic This has me interested - it's the first thing>I've heard where FS might raise the limit on inbound aircraft>for a runway to more than five. The current system of adding>the sixth inbound aircraft to the first approach point creates>the flocking behavior we hate. Maybe... I'll keep my fingers>crossed. MS has been working on a new version of flight simulator for a while now. We all know this to be fact, we have even seen screenshots of wet runways and reflections of water etc. The artical is not saying what might be, it is saying what will be. There is no speculation in the artical and it CLEARLY states Feb 2006 - mind you something a reputable game magazine is not going to do IF it is not sure. Certainly they know the new "name" when no one else does, would they makeup this too?? Naysayers should hold back on this tidbit for the meanwhile.[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|

Randy,We're not saying they're making it up...LOL, we're just saying they might have gotten some of their facts wrong.

Well, come February, one group will be able to say to the other "We told you so".:-)

> MS has been working on a new version of flight simulator for>a while now. We all know this to be fact, we have even seen>screenshots of wet runways and reflections of water etc. Which were explicitly stated not to be shots from a new version of FS, merely what it is known to be possible. FSX may well show up in February, but I'm tired of hearing those wet runway shots referred to like they were from a new version of FS when as far as we know they aren't (no offense).

>Randy,>>We're not saying they're making it up...LOL, we're just saying>they might have gotten some of their facts wrong.>>to do that in the biggest published pc gaming magazine would be suicide, especially when stating information about the biggest computer industry company. You open yourself up to lawsuits (the real kind, not the claims people have been throwing around here lately)This could be coming from microsofts marketing department rather than its actual production department... but just because "you" haven't heard anything doesn't mean they weren't invited to get an inside scoop

I hope this is true. FS9 has been around for 18 months ... time for a change :)

>>biggest computer industry company. You open yourself up to>lawsuits You are living in the lawsuit "phantasy world". Even if they had got some facts "wrong" that's is hardly a ground for a lawsuit. Plase learn ABC about the law in this country.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

me allready looking at the savings, true or not the misses aint gonna be happy me, she even knows, you don't just buy the sim, you pretty much buy the sim AND a new system or at least parts to upgrade :-roll :-roll :-rollAVGAS

>me allready looking at the savings, true or not the misses>aint gonna be happy me, she even knows, you don't just buy the>sim, you pretty much buy the sim AND a new system or at least>parts to upgrade :-roll :-roll :-roll>>AVGAS:-lol---------------------------------------"If it doesn't have a VC, I won't be flying it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/smug.gif" ... hang on a minute .... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/unsure.gif ... that is too restrictive! Most flight simulator planes don't have a fully functional VC .... I'm happy to fly non-VC planes such as the brilliant iFDG range, Samdim's fantastic aircraft, POSKY's wonderful planes, and many many others! I'm the richer for it :).

Indeed we can. :-)

Who exactly is gonna sue 'em? If they've dropped a few 'hints' to get speculation fuelled (and highten interest), there's nothing new in that. It's called marketing.Things get 'delayed' in the FS world, some indefinitely. Anything from new/enhanced products to support forums, but it's all 'healthy hype' and keeps the speculators guessing.....When MS really has a new product to announce, believe me we'll know about it. Until then, wait and see.Toni.