Like all of us, I am excited about the announcement of the next FS installment. A few things made me refer back to my MS developer kits though.Optimized for Windows Vista? OK, what does that really mean? Well, in Windows Vista, you can set 6 levels of game ratings and restrict who can play what game by title and rating. So what it probably means is that FS2006 will follow the Windows Vista model for game restrictions. There's no release date yet (to my knowledge) for the next version of directX, and fundamentally, it's the directX API that brings optimizations to gameplay, not the OS.Windows Vista has an "optimized" graphic GUI, but that does not mean better graphics during gameplay. What it means is more advanced Windows "Themes" like the ones we were introduced to in Windows XP. Unless you play FS2006 in window mode, I don't see how a new GUI will affect gameplay.If anything, I expect drivers to actually be worse on the new Windows Vista platform until they have a chance to mature. Sound, graphics, gameplay... I don't think FS2006 on Windows XP will be much different from FS2006 on Windows Vista. Unless of course directX 10.0 is released with Windows Vista and becomes the new graphics API for that OS.Perhaps the only thing that might affect gameplay is the fact that Windows Vista has support for the Xbox 360 game controller. So for those of you that want to assign more buttons... maybe that's your ticket.I'm excited about FS2006 for what it is and all that it is yet to be. I am excited about the chance to develop new add-ons for my fellow simmers. As yet though, I can't see how FS2006 will optimize my fun just by being installed on a Windows Vista machine. Heck, will Winodws Vista even be released by then end of 2006? FS2006 may beat it out of the gate!-- Outer Marker

I assume "optimized for Windows Vista" means Bill would really, really, like you to buy Vista. So you have the $250 Flight sim :) I haven't read much lately about the status of graphics for Vista, other than many of "big deal" things were pushed off from the initial availability (to SP1 or something) and that a DX10 for WinXP would be done. But beyond that, I haven't seen anything.It does raise the question. How solid is Vista for "Holiday 2006"? No Vista, no FSX?scott s..

I think if I heard correctly last night that Vista is basically done, and is in testing. I'm sure a few odds and ends may be added and/or cut, but the beta I've seen is doggone stable, alot more so than Whistler was (the XP Beta). Whistler was pretty junk, gold-plated ####-ness, in other words. None of my friends cared for the beta at all, and were hesitant to get XP because of this. Vista Beta 1 has been rock-solid smooth on three different systems I've played with. Sure it could be broken if you tried, but Whistler crashed when you sneezed.Basically I'm trying to say that I think Vista is done, it's just being polished. And from what I've seen, I'm also going to be purchasing it the same month it is released. Yes, I like it that much.Sorry I didn't know that word would be edited? No it didn't start with "s", I'm not that crass. Sorry guys :)http://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gif-Jeremy BurchSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifHappy Flying!

What about native support for dual or dual core processors?http://www.cpavirtual.org/images/banners/MyNewCrapBanner.jpgEric Thornton - CX001

Vista is 64-bit system. That alone means that program can address and use more than 2 gigabytes of ram. Consequences of this are huge for a game like Flight Simulator, I believe.I also think FS10 will run on WindowsXP-64bit with DX10 installed as good as on Vista. P.S. Native support for dual processon have been here since windows NT as far as I remeber (I used dual pentium pros machine few years ago). It's a matter of writing the application in a way that it uses that opportunity and this is not trivial thing.

Vista has both a 64-bit and a 32-bit version. How else could Bill get all the XP folks to upgrade :-)? One would assume that FSX will certainly be a 32-bit application for the same reason. The Conventional Wisdom says folks are going to be slow to upgrade to Vista if they upgrade at all. The primary distribution pipe for Vista is going to be new sales as far as the home user is concerned. Just for my own part, there is nothing I've seen that would cause me to upgrade to a 32-bit version of Vista. I'll only go to Vista when I replace this WinXP box with a 64-bit system. Until then I'll happily run my 32-bit version of FSX.Doug

> Vista has both a 64-bit and a 32-bit version. How else>could Bill get all the XP folks to upgrade :-)? One would>assume that FSX will certainly be a 32-bit application for the>same reason. The Conventional Wisdom says folks are going to>be slow to upgrade to Vista if they upgrade at all. The>primary distribution pipe for Vista is going to be new sales>as far as the home user is concerned. Just for my own part,>there is nothing I've seen that would cause me to upgrade to a>32-bit version of Vista. I'll only go to Vista when I replace>this WinXP box with a 64-bit system. Until then I'll happily>run my 32-bit version of FSX.>>DougI didn't know there was 32bit Vista, thanks for info.I agree 100%, especially about slow upgrade part, but I'd like to see 64bit multithreaded version of FS :).Ditto about upgrading to 32bit Vista, no sense doing it.

I guess there will be one version of Vista, which will install and work as either 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the hardware it's run on.Little more cost for Microsoft to make it that way, and they save a lot on manufacturing, warehousing, etc.Whether it's worth upgrading from XP on the same hardware remains to be seen. The user interface looks quite a bit improved to me, especially the 3D window environment could be a real productivity boon.

FWIW, there are two distinct downloads of Vista at MSDN, 32bit and 64bit. If it was one-install fits all I would think that's how they'd be distributing it now.

Vista will include DirectX10.The 360 controller is available for Windows XP as well, right now.64 Bit OS can access more than 4GB RAM. XP can (could) use up to 4. After SP2, it can only use ~3.5GB. Drivers may or may not be an issue. I think they may be as good as XP's when released.--Vista has a lot more to it that just looks. Although they ditched the new WinFS for an initial release, it still has a lot of new features behind the scenes. Play FS2004 on NT4. Or 2000. No reason to be running WindowsXP at all. It's just a new theme for Win2K.

In the interview with Chris (Vista) he says that Vista will come with DX10 as stated above, but also as I remember that there will not be DX10 for XP - you'll have to upgrade to get it. He also mentioned an 8X speed increase with DX10 over DX9, but I assume this is a best case scenario and will not be true for FSX (hopefully there will be some speed increase, though).Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

I believe he meant that the increase in performance is very specific to certain tasks. He didn't mean that you'd be getting 8x the FPS in any real gaming situation, just that some graphical goodies can now be done with "less effort" (which can mean better FPS, of course; just not 8x or whatnot) :)