In this video clip of the CES Keynote talk (Bill Gates & others), there is a short preview of FSX (the birds actually fly! :) during which the Vista Production Manager (who is giving this part of the presentations) says, "...the game developers actually have a little bit more than a year to continue working on the product..."The FSX section is at about 31 minutes in the clip (although it's all quite interesting)56Kbpshttp://metahost.savvislive.com/microsoft/2...20060104_56.asx100Kbpshttp://metahost.savvislive.com/microsoft/2...0060104_100.asx300Kbpshttp://metahost.savvislive.com/microsoft/2...0060104_300.asx

Symantics I think. FSX doesn't "need" Vista as the vast majority of the early-on FSX sales are going to be for 32-bit XP boxes.Doug

> Symantics I think. FSX doesn't "need" Vista as the vast>majority of the early-on FSX sales are going to be for 32-bit>XP boxes.>>DougExactly, it will run on XP (with DX10 installed) as good as on Vista. MS wants to sell their new operating system (and this is cool) but at the same time they aren't stupid and want to sell FS as well.IMO "fully optimized for Vista" means, "ok it will run flawlessy on Vista, but we want you to think that it will require Vista" ;).Not sure about 64-bit version, if there will be any, but it should run on XP64 just fine.

I found this quote from Tim on another website's forum:"All I can say is that I, and several of the other FS devs, are still running WinXP on our dev machines and let you conclude from that what you will :->"End of story...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the release of FSX is contingent on the release of Vista. I'm sure it's not. However, true, this preview was shown as part of a Vista showcase, but his words were, "...more than a year..." before completion of FSX. Was it a slip of the tounge, being cautious, or could this guy know more than the slim press release we have so far, and the miles of completely uninformed speculation?

Perhaps you haven't seen the Q&A ?http://fsinsider.com/articles/flight_simulator_x_faq.htm(first item)Cal (CYXX)

ISTM that FSX is going to need, or at least full performance will require DirectX10, or whatever the next API will be called.The question I have, is I don't see any good reason for MS to release an XP version of the API in advance of Vista. That would seem to me to just slow the adoption of Vista, which after all is the reason MS exists, not publishing games (though the game studios obviously have their own business plans, MS has always focused on the core OS product). MS' ability to get an OS out on anything like sked is an open question.I just hope Vista doesn't force the FSX developers to close out requirement generation too soon, that is, if some Vista stuff isn't quite ready and FSX development has to drop features that depend on Vista to work in order to complete design and coding.scott s..

MS has already said they will not release DX10 for XP at all. It well only run on Vista (which will support both DX9 and DX10). The question I have is whether or not there are any features of DX10 used by FSX that would make the upgrade from XP to Vista worthwhile. For example, if I can get a framerate boost I might be persuaded to go to Vista earlier than planned. But if I'm only going to see the shadows cast by the rivits I'll probably stick with XP. Only time will tell...Doug

>Perhaps you haven't seen the Q&A ?>I doubt there is any FS fan on the planet who hasn't pored over that Q&A. It's just that some of us find it surprising that a senior MS guy, making a major presentation immediately after Bill himself, would not have gone over all the details very carefully beforehand. It was quite clear that he was talking about the FSX product when he used the "a little over a year" phrase.So, did he get it wrong? We have two statements from MS which appear to conflict if the assertions in this forum about what "in the holiday 2006 timeframe" means are correct (as a European it doesn't mean anything to me :) ). Or, with a wider interpretation of "holiday 2006" are both statements correct, and we are looking at February 2007? Hmmm, didn't PC Gamer start with a mention of February - just the wrong February? They do seem to have got just about everything else right :)--Bryn

Hey dudes, cut Aaron some slack. He had a lot to cover in the demo and he's not on the FS team, after all, so a little slip up on stage concerning dates should not be a cause for alarm. The offical word is that FSX will ship for holiday 2006 and will run on XP *and* Vista.

Thanks for setting the record straight TD, it is appreciated here.I find it very refeshing that you guys can participate more openly on the forums these days.

Personally, I will go with what a team member says:http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/ (thanks Jason)Cal (CYXX)

If you don't think so, just look at this video at 2:17.Check out the controller the MS developer is using.Also, if you don't believe that MS is commited to FS, just listen to this gentlemens description of the current user base, the plethora of addons, and FS's realism factor.My thoughts are this is only the begining.Cheersbt

>Hey dudes, cut Aaron some slack. He had a lot to cover in the>demo and he's not on the FS team, after all, so a little slip>up on stage concerning dates should not be a cause for alarm.>The offical word is that FSX will ship for holiday 2006 and>will run on XP *and* Vista.Thanks td, I was hoping to prompt a clarification from someone in the camp. At the time I posted pixelpoke's blog entry had not appeared.I hope Aaron realises he owes you all a beer or two.Looks like brilliant work so far, well done all of you!--Bryn

And what about non english speaking countries? will we have to wait after the american (and the rest of english speaking world I guess) release because of translation work? Will it be translated while the game is being finished so we have a world wide release instead?For me english is not a serious problem, I can read it pretty well (maybe I