Check out the comments to Steve Lacey's latest blog http://www.steve-lacey.com/Thomas

If history repeats itself, this wont be a major update. Odd version numbers have in the past been big upgrades and even numbers have just been minor updates. I personally dont care if its major or minor, just give me a new version. The upgrades that I want to see arent that big of a deal anyway. Fix the weather issues, properly sloped runways with the ability to tweak them, and I would be pretty happy. I dont think a Febuary release is so out of this world. Not sure why folks would say that just because a magazine has just now mentioned it. We have no idea what has been going on behind the scenes. For all we know, the FS survey from MS might have been for FS11, not FS10. I do however love reading the nay sayers comments. They always seem to be so "in-the-know". And as history has shown with the nay sayers, they are always wrong. For instance, saying that FS9 wont allow addons, saying that the MSFS survey was one big VERY elaborate hoax, and now saying that a legit gaming magazine is full of BS. Keep'em coming, I love reading them.Scott

>>I do think you owe the FS2004 beta testers (I was one)>more respect. Betas are a cross section of the community, >each offering his or her own area of expertise. No one >person knows it all and I don't feel it fair to hit on >the weaknesses of a few to 'diss an entire beta process. >No one has to know the points you cited, as long as the >beta community as a whole represents the world the product >will be released in.How true it is that no one person knows it all at least based on all the different assumptions I read on many forums of how people think FS9 works. Since the release of FS9 many don't want to spend the time to know how the points that were cited interlace in the overall makeup of the FS.It is about time MSN quit using beta-testers that don't understand how each endity must interlace properly. Previous versions of FS did not have the complex coding that is used to make the Scenery, User Aircraft and AI Traffic work together as one set of instructions.In the past you could be an expert in one area of beta-testing but MSN knows along with a few others that FS9 needed people that understood this interfacing of all areas. Almost 2 years later since FS9 was released and most don't have a clue. Just read the responses to post.It is becoming more important that the choosen beta-tester knows how FS works and not just what he/she is an expert in. No dis-respect intended but if you only know mesh/landclass and not how the airport scenery, user aircraft and AI Traffic inter-relate through many type files that have to be read on start-up then what's the point.When I read Reggie's post I understand what he said. I did not see any statement that requires "you owe beta-testers more respect". Artifical Intellegence in FS9 is an extension of Scenery. The User Aircraft must also interface into these two areas. Many Scenery Designers don't understand "just because it looks good doesn't mean it works with the rest of the interfacing" (AI/User Aircraft).Many user aircraft Designers don't understand the relationship between the flyable complex plane and the Scenery default database it is flying in.AI Plane Designers don't even know that their plane must fly LDA, Curved and Circle to Land type approaches that are the MSN standards for default aircraft in FS9. It seems as long as it lands straight in thats ok.This is just 3 basic simple features of FS9 so what did the original beta-testers test? Is that lack of respect or just choosing someone to test something that they should not be a part of unless they understand how everything works together.

Okay - most beta testers did their job very well.But there is a substantial group of people who frequently tell us that they know things don't work and why - despite demonstrated evidence to the contrary "because I was a beta tester".I've been through / participating in more than one beta test, including some from Microsoft - never Microsoft Game Studios - the publisher of FS.One thing I would hope to see, but don't expect - is the release of SDK's near the release of the product - not 6-9 months later like with FS2004.

I think everybody is missing the real story here. If you look closely at the article it states that version ELEVEN will have air sickness bags! So not only have they gotten the scoop on version ten, but we are already getting an insight into the next version. WOW!-Shawn

I'm a relative newcomer here at the avsim forums (not to FS though - I have owned just about every version!).I would just like to share some of my thoughts with you and hopefully try to put forward a bit of logical thinking on the FS10 (FSX) story - please don't jump on me, they are only my thoughts!..If MS do release FS10 (or FSX) in February there is no doubt that this will have krept up on us as quite a surprize. However, it is easily possible that they could do this for the reasons I give below.1. MS have demonstrated the working technology recently. Most of us have seen the pictures of wet runways / buildings reflected in the water / bump mapping of aircraft textures / new sun effects etc. And although MS quoted they were not from the next version of FS, they were definitely being demonstrated in some form of modified version of MS, and that version would have been around for a few months.2. They have made no secret of the fact that they have been working on a new version for a while and they have actually employed people specially to develop the project. These staff would not have been sitting around doing nothing for the last 18 months! The next version (Tweaked a bit not fully re-written) should be getting fairly close by now.3. Most of the features that are being talked about would not require a major rewrite of the basic program; they could be implemented fairly quickly because they are just graphical enhancements - the features on the graphics cards and DirectX are already there, FS just has to be 'plugged-in' to these features. (Not trying to under-estimate the amount of work done by MS programmers here - just trying to put it into perspective as probably not too much of a code re-write for the new version of the program).4. MS would want to launch the next version either before Vista or after Vista but probably not at the same time - they don't want anything to detract from the launch publicity of Vista, and I don't think they will use FSX as a selling point for vista because a) they have never done this with a specific game before, and :( FSX will have to run under WinXP anyway or they won't get the sales (we should all get a nice new version of DirectX 10 for WinXP anyway if this is needed for FSX).Just some of my thoughts. Also, my AMD4000 and Radeon X800 runs FS2004 easily at 25 fps (1600x1200 resolution 16xAF 4xAA) - it is only the poor cumulus cloud textures (has always been a problem - microsoft seem to understand this and seem to be looking to fix it or work around it in the next version), and AI traffic textures that make it stutter (due to loading in loads of different 32 bit textures all at once when approaching airports).If it is mainly graphics improvements (eye candy) it should not increase the processor dependancy. What I am trying to say is that the frame rates should stay the same because most current graphics cards will easily handle the increased graphical complexity without effecting frame rate - FS in mainly limited by raw processor speed at the moment, not graphics cards.If most of the improvements are eye candy then we should all be able to use or 'import our current FS2004 aircraft - I know a lot of people want improvements to the flight dynamics in FS and as long as we can easily adjust or convert our old aircraft then I don't mind (spent too much money to just write them all off!). If I had to hazard a guess it would be thet MS wont touch the flight dynamics for the next version of MS.The other thing we should all know and expect by now is that the program does not have to be 100% finished to be released - MS would release a patch within a few months! He He! I'm not knocking MS for this. Programs are that complex these days it seems quite hard to get them out 100% working first time - I have eventually had to patch just about every game I have bought over the last four years.PS. Now we (think we) know when FS10 is being released, could someone please start a new thread 'When is FS11 being released?' He He!

"It is becoming more important that the choosen beta-tester knows how FS works and not just what he/she is an expert in. No dis-respect intended but if you only know mesh/landclass and not how the airport scenery, user aircraft and AI Traffic inter-relate through many type files that have to be read on start-up then what's the point.When I read Reggie's post I understand what he said. I did not see any statement that requires "you owe beta-testers more respect". "Jim,Please don't come here aiming to start a fight. Reggie didn't, and that's not my intent as well. Reggie made a statement about the qualities of the beta testers that I felt needed a response, not only as a former tester, but also as a moderator. Here is his quote:"I've seen plenty of posts from people who were supposedly beta testers - and most don't even know the GPS is able to display and use real world approach procedures. Many scenery designers - who were supposedly beta testers - don't even know now how to set an elevation so the AI and user aircraft correctly use the airport."I feel that showed a bit of disrespect for those of us who participated in the process although Reggie did not mean it in a malicious manner. I do consider myself to be a fair expert in MSFS, and I doubt many here in the forums will argue with that. I have add-ons ranging from aircraft, to landclass, to programs that interface directly with the MSFS engine. That's more than the average user I would say--but it makes me no better or worse a tester than the newbie who asks Microsoft for a shot at testing. No company wants only a tier of "expert" beta testers. They want real world users--and as such we do odd things sometimes that the "experts" don't anticipate. Programmers (I am one) like that--we call it malicious use--but we mean that in a positive way. A malicious user helps us find the bugs in code, or weakness in validation routines, that the expert may not simply because the expert out of habit does things "right" most of the time.The inclusion of average users into the beta process is just that. These are unpaid participants who other than a first chance to use a product, mostly fade back into obscurity. What they contribute is invaluable and is as important as the developer who writes payware for a living.-John

>http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry586976529>>Released around February 2006? I think probably not. Announced>then perhaps?As far as MS being tight lipped, it is easier to keep your head down and get your work done if you don't have to respond to all the Chicken Little's. FSX?For all of us needing relief for info on the power needed for FSX, ...Grab Toto, Click your heels and Just repeat the words "there's nothing like programmable shaders"...."there's nothing like programmable shaders"..."there's nothing like programmable shaders".... Most of us have the hardware already and FSX will unleash it. Rather than worry, just think of the leap it was when FS98 first supported a real 3d API! That is what

John In no way I am trying to start a fight. If my choice of words did not reflect that I am only expressing my views and if I offended you I apologize.I am only agreeing with what someone else posted and gave some examples of how FS9 interfaces. My post was not pointed at any one person but what I would like to see with future testing of any FS program. If that is not the way it came across then once again I am sorry.

Well, sorry to say but if this is what FS10 is going to offer..they can keep it and I cannot believe nobody has mentioned this yet but... The article says FS10 is designed for taking the full effect of the gaming enhancements of the new MS operating system, Vista. Super, so us users not only got to buy FS10 for 55 dollars (roughly) but then we get to all reformat our computers to get rid of WinXP and load up Vista. I imagine getting a copy of Vista will set one back 200 dollars at least. So now to get the full effect (per the article) We have to spend 250-275 dollars plus reformat! And all this so I can have animals running around, nice rivets on planes, shader and lighting enhancments and ground AI??? I will give credit to MS though. They design FS10 to be optimized for Vista thereby getting everyone to dump XP and purchase Vista because when people start screaming that they cannot get FS10 to work right or FR's are crappy, the first question from MS will be...Do you have Vista installed? If not, you need to. Forget it!!!

Thanks Jim--sounds like we're on the same page. -John

Eric,Note: Taking advantage of Windows Vista does not mean 'required' for use. Although we don't know either way for sure.

Jeff, I agree 100%. What I was trying to convey was that it is optimized for Vista..not XP which all of us have. You and I both know many many users pull there hair out trying to eek out 2 frames here and 2 frames there so many will go the Vista route hence the large cost increase to upgrade.

>I hope the next version of FS is around the corner :-jumpyI don't. I'm happy with FS9. I've invested a lot of money in great add-ons for it that may or may not work in FSX, which may or may not even function on my computer.

>Thanks Jim--sounds like we're on the same page. >>-JohnJohn, as a beta Testers you know most of you really sucked, hey you guys really messed up not catching the missing railway bridge in tallahassee and as well as a few thousand other things! :)If you would just have changed your monitor settings from 800x600 to somthing else you might have seen some of that stuff! He He!FSX!