What does anyone know about forward compatibility? I am kind of hesitant to buy anything now in fear that it will not work in FS X.Intersted in what anyone might know.Rob MorrisonFS Enthsiast

At this point, I don't think we know for sure. Just based on past releases, many, probably most in fact, of the current add-ons will either work as-is or the developer(s) will patch them for FSX (usually free). But, there are some that, I'm sure, will never be right in FSX. My guess is that most everything made specifically for FS9 can probably be made to work with FSX. Anything from the FS2002 era and earlier, would fall into the "really suspect" category. But, at this point, I'd ask the developer(s) what there plans are if their is any significant amount of money involved. DougEdited 'cause I can't spel

The answer to the question is, "that depends..." :)If any package can be made to work in FSX just as it does in FS9 easily, then it will likely be done.If the model must be extensively remodeled, retextured, reanimated and recompiled to enable all the "new features" of FSX, and gauges must be reprogrammed to work properly with the any changes that might made to the API, then it is likely that two things will occur:1) it will (perhaps) take some time (days? weeks? months:) for the updates to occur.2) there will quite probably be some cost differential involved.I suspect that many developers will take both approaches into consideration before making any decisions.

I'm wondering if I'll have to re-engineer the tomcats, with Dino Cattaneo 'retiring' from FS, I might need to build a new one from scratch if it doesn't work :SThat's why I now have the philosphy of using high res mesh models to start with and then dumbing them down, that way the wheel doesn't need to be re-invented...See I figure if you have a high poly count master, you can easily reduce poly counts, but if you start with little information you have to rebuild the whole gosh darn thing every time because processor speeds etc can handle the higher res stuff...

"See I figure if you have a high poly count master, you can easily reduce poly counts, but if you start with little information you have to rebuild the whole gosh darn thing every time because processor speeds etc can handle the higher res stuff..."That makes no sense to me. Your goal as a modeler should always be to get the most efficient model you can info FS. Just because you can design a 200,000 poly model doesn't mean you should. It's not like they come out with a new version of FS every couple of months. Besides there will always be others working on their own version of the same model.If you are using your design for other venues other than FS, then I can see this as CG models are significantly higher detail, I've got an A-10 in 3DSMax that would choke any flightsim and it would take a significant amount of work to reduce the polys to make it work in FS.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

>The answer to the question is, "that depends..." :)>>If any package can be made to work in FSX just as it does in>FS9 easily, then it will likely be done.>>If the model must be extensively remodeled, retextured,>reanimated and recompiled to enable all the "new features" of>FSX, and gauges must be reprogrammed to work properly>with the any changes that might made to the API, then it is>likely that two things will occur:>>1) it will (perhaps) take some time (days? weeks? months:) for>the updates to occur.>>2) ****there will quite probably be some cost differential>involved****.>>I suspect that many developers will take both approaches into>consideration before making any decisions.Might as well plant the seed early, eh Bill? :-) :-)

According to the FS team, they will try and make addons from FS2002 and FS2004 compatible :)http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/B...68x60/trust.pngwww.mozilla.org :)

I thought the FS Team said they build for 1 version back.Meaning FS2004 stuff will work with FSX.FS2002 stuff will work with FS2004. etc. etc.Isn't that what they said?Rhett

HiThey have said a couple of times their goal is two versions back, but they cannot always guarantee that.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

>>I suspect that many developers will take both approaches>into>>consideration before making any decisions.>>Might as well plant the seed early, eh Bill? :-) :-)Yes, Paul... Most certainly. There's not really much point in simply "making it work" in FSX. The differences between a full-featured FSX model and the FS9 version is about as wide as an FS98 model and FS9 model... ;)

>What does anyone know about forward compatibility? I am kind>of hesitant to buy anything now in fear that it will not work>in FS X.Does any one have a comment on Hard Drives2, 4 , 8 or 16MB Cache ???Striped or mirrowed Sata ???10,000 rpm seem to be quite expensive.etc etcThanks in advanceTas

The guys on the team have really worked hard to insure that FSX will be compatible with any HDD.

I remember Tom.But we can also make some educated guesses - and they are strictly guesses - based on what has happened with recent versions.Aircraft modeling was substantially changed with the introduction of gMax. I don't see the MS team scrapping that direction of modeling in this version.Aircraft gauges have been evolving and some of the older standards might go by the wayside.The general format of texturing seems to be stable - but I'm concerned about .0AF and .R8 and .PAT files for some of the basic standards like the VOD textures and a few more.The .BMP texture structure seems to be solid, though night textures might change. I could be totally wrong about this one - on both parts.Scenery has been going through a transition with FS2004 converting large parts of the system to .XML based source. However key elements like roads, utilities, airport polygons and more are not. Taxiway signs are an interesting example. At some airports they are XML based, at some they are not.Scenery appears to be the most vulnerable area in my opinion. Many of the top selling, most praised FS2004 sceneries do not follow the SDK recommended file structure.Mesh is a question, but I don't think the basic underlying structure has changed enough to be an issue. Again, I could be wrong.AI Traffic is still relative new, only two versions old. I would expect some significant changes. Whether or not these changes will require new aircraft models - I doubt - but they may require new flight dynamics, as did FS2004.User aircraft flight dynamics - will probably change - how much is the question. For the flying to be "improved" the simulator has to be changed, which will impact flight dynamics.I'm still disappointed how much the big names in the user aircraft market continue to ignore the default FS2004 real world approach system - trying to replace it with their own. We'll see what FSX brings.I don't expect much change in the VoicePack area - I just don't see Microsoft and the team committing the hundreds of hours necessary to rebuild the system. Adding voices with regional accents takes several thousands of recordings.Utilities always seem to be the area of most impact and concern.Many of us rely so much on certain utilties that we cannot fly without them. How many posts have you see "I won't fly without ______" and since these flying utilities frequently access core parts of the program, changes in those parts creates issues.Some favorites always die with each new version of FS. I was heartened to see the FS 9.1 patch acknowledge FSUIPC. At least MS knows we need things like that utility.

Ah yes. That is correct. TWO versions back is what they said.Thanks for the fix.Rhett

>That makes no sense to me. Your goal as a modeler should>always be to get the most efficient model you can info FS.>Just because you can design a 200,000 poly model doesn't mean>you should. It's not like they come out with a new version of>FS every couple of months. Besides there will always be others>working on their own version of the same model.>Hi Mike, I think the point of what I was saying was missed... I wasn't talking about having a 200,000 poly aircraft fs FS now... I was talking about starting with a high res master and dumbing it down...It's easier to cut down poly counts to whatever will be acceptable given processing speeds etc over time...If you start with a low poly count, you have to rebuild the aircraft from scratch each time a new version of FS comes out...If you have a Hi-Fi master to work from, you can more easily cut poly counts down to whatever you want... I've done experiments and it's easy to do... I've taken a 3D poly scan of a real human that was at least over 250,000 polys and reduced him to 10,000 and imported him into FS... I used Lightwave 3D as my authoring tool...>If you are using your design for other venues other than FS, then I >can see this as CG models are significantly higher detail, I've got >an A-10 in 3DSMax that would choke any flightsim and it would take >a significant amount of work to reduce the polys to make it work in> FS.Yeah I do have other avenues, as it is some FS models are plenty good enough for use in film production ;)