I have to say that now we know FSX will be in the fourth quarter of 2006 the news is a relief.February would have been too soon not just for developers who have only just released new ground breaking products for FS2004 but for many of us who are enjoying FS2004 and all the addons we have purchased.To start all over again at such short notice would have been a bit like moving house when you have just got your existing house into the shape you want :-)On a positive note we now know that there will be another version of MSFS and have some time to plan our transition to the new version as will FS2004 developers.Maybe someone in the know can explain what we will need come the latter part of 2006 to get the best from the new FSX and the timescale of adding the software and hardware we will need?Finally some of the discussions on the feb release got a little heated NO hard feelings?Peter

Well I did not get heated but got into the thread against you ;-) but you were right so apology here Peter. Anyways I am with you, just knowing there is going to be a new FS is the best news that I could get for an incredible year we have had already.[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|

>Maybe someone in the know can explain what we will need come>the latter part of 2006 to get the best from the new FSX and>the timescale of adding the software and hardware we will>need?Well, now there's the problem, Peter. Anyone who does know anything at all is prevented from speaking out in public.Therefore, anyone who does speak out in public about what they "know" should immediately be suspect:1) Even if they actually DO know anything, can you really trust that what they're saying is true? After all, someone who breaks an NDA cannot rationally be considered a very trustworthy source... ;)2) The odds are much higher though, that those who speak out in public don't actually KNOW anything, but rather are simply basking in the warm glow that some folks pay attention to them... :-smile12

my appologies to everyone. But the people questioning the feb release date were going off assumptions while my assumption was that PC Gamer wouldn't release a mistake. I wish it would be released in feb but can wait until a year from now.

Actually, the people questioning the February release simply believed the statement made by Microsoft themselves as posted by Francois Dumas on Simflight. There was no "assumption" at all on their part, but only on yours... your assumption being that PC Gamer does not release mistakes, but Microsoft does. Which was a very silly assumption to begin with.The reasoning of many people is rather weird. Since AVSIM today published the EXACT same MS-produced information that Simflight already published yesterday, you suddenly accept that it is true. Why wasn't the EXACT same information NOT true yesterday? This "logic" sure beats me!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

Jaap,I think people just tend to 'believe' print publications more than they do those which are online. Given the gravitas PC Gamer holds in the United States, for them to err in this way is quite unusual.Again, the delay in AVSIM posting the article was because the original note we received from representatives of MGS was not unambiguously in a "for publication" format, so we decided to check first before publishing -- we felt it was better to ask and confirm than to go ahead blindly in this case, particularly given the confusion which already existed!Best wishes and a prosperous 2006 to you,Matt

It would be great if the relased the sys reqs ahead of time. I dont want the game to come out. I run to the store in excitemeant and find out my computer can not handle it. :-roll

>It would be great if the relased the sys reqs ahead of time.>I dont want the game to come out. I run to the store in>excitemeant and find out my computer can not handle it. :-rollAnyone who's lived through the transition periods from FS98 to FS2000, from FS2000 to FS2002, and finally from FS2002 to FS2004 should be able to confirm that the following statements are generally true:1) If you have a system that's currently "gasping" and barely able to run the current version, you will surely not be able to run the new version any better, and most likely it will be worse.2) If you have a system that's well-tuned and performs at an acceptable level under most conditions, but is still not "top of the line hardware wise," you will likely be able to run the new version, but most likely somewhere between level of #1 and #2.3) If you have a system that's current state of the art and the current FS version "sings and dances" with grace, you will be able to run the new version, but possibly somewhere between #2 and #3... ;)4) On the day of release, the hardware necessary to run the new version at 100% of its potential hasn't been invented yet, and likely won't be seen for at least one to two years. :-walksmile

>my appologies to everyone. But the people questioning the feb>release date were going off assumptions while my assumption>was that PC Gamer wouldn't release a mistake. I wish it would>be released in feb but can wait until a year from now.You know about the old saying regarding assumptions, I guess :)

>It would be great if the relased the sys reqs ahead of time.>I dont want the game to come out. I run to the store in>excitemeant and find out my computer can not handle it. :-roll>I agree, but every time I have read the specs from MS regarding what you you are supposed to need to run the latest version of MSFS, it is always the spec to guarantee around 3 FPS ;). Probably multiplying everything by 2-3 would get you close to good performance.

Bill Even more interesting is that all these new technologies will be coming out around the release date of FSX.FSX is designed to work best with the new technologies.Most developement and beta testing internal and external will be on the old technologies ???? just an interesting thought :-)Peter

All the best to you and yours too, Matt!Jaap.

Actually we try to hit at least 10FPS (base install with sliders to the left) on our min config machines. Problem is, almost no one here runs the base install with sliders to the left!

Just what I was thinking. Well said, Bill.

>Actually we try to hit at least 10FPS (base install with>sliders to the left) on our min config machines. Problem is,>almost no one here runs the base install with sliders to the>left!at my former job, we only had one or 2 people who actually had really good machines, the rest of us were stuck on low end or middle of the road machines when testing, you find the most bugs that way, and you also know if it performs pretty well on those machines, the high end ones will be so much better. heres hoping the graphics engine is updated to allow for higher frames with sliders and scenery maxed