Hi all, it's just an idea, why don't ask the ACES about dropping backward compatibility with fs-addons and start in the next version (i hope we will have it...) a new sim with better support for dual/quad (or wathever core will be..) CPU, GPU, SLI and whatelse... how many here would go and buy it also if no backward compatibility will be with the addons we have? I have been reading that backward compatibility is the reason that make fs looks obsolete.. it's just my thought, maybe i'm wrong but let them know also what we think about it..Alberto

It's a risky strategy, but I agree with you, it should be dropped.To alleviate the problems with add-ons, ACES could provide more up-front SDK type info for developers long before the next retail version arrives, to reduce the lead-time between retail release and grade-A add-ons (Level D, PMDG, Active Sky etc).Imagine a sim optimised from the ground up (literally ;)) for Dual Core, DX10, Vista, without all the legacy code for add-ons originally built for Win'98 / FS98 and everything in between.How would add-on developers feel about having to revisit their code for a fresh code base in FS11? Would they complain about having to reinvent the wheel, or would they be happier about having a more streamlined engine to work with?I think the better developers would jump at the chance for a fresh approach to the FS engine.

A new version which was not backward compatible with my favourite add-ons would need to have an awful lot of new features and substantially improved stock content for me to consider buying it. To give some indication of how important compatibility with existing add-ons is to me, I'm not sure at this point when I will be buying FSX as I doubt I will use it much until most of my must-have add-ons have been ported over.

"must-have add-ons have been ported over."well, if they are, ported, over, this is not backward compatible. So if a new version is not backward compatible, this would be no different in this respect: your must-have add-ons would have to be ported over too.Hope this helps!

>How would add-on developers feel about having to revisit their>code for a fresh code base in FS11? Would they complain about>having to reinvent the wheel, or would they be happier about>having a more streamlined engine to work with?I think developers should push for this. More obsolete add ons means more sales on new add ons.

while im all for it as well (a completely new engine build from scratch) let me remind you guys just how long it took the fs series to come THIS far regarding addon quality with the current 20 year old engine. A new engine would mean MUCH longer development times for 3rd party addons for the first couple of years. For those of who who remeber the FLY! series, the aircraft modelling was extremely labor intensive and the flight dynamics were much more complicated (and realistic). The first 2 years of its existance only saw a few new planes developed between FLY!1 and FLY!2, but even back then (dunno about today) the dynamics were miles ahead of where the msfs dynamics are even today.So i feel it would be a positive move for all of us, however the addons might be a real problem...i can see alot of developers dropping it, especially the freeware ones. Just ask PMDG as they were responsible for 1 of the very few addon planes being sold at that time for FLY! ( i think rob young was also involved in a project)...Wilco was another, then there were i think 2 more freeware planes available and that was it after 2 years. The panels took forever!The point i suppose is that an entirely new engine might mean an entirely new level of patience and attitude necessary among the users, and could potentially wipe out a large portion of the current addon market.Im still for it though...i believe its a necessary thing, and HAS been for the last few years already.Dave

I've got a ton of add-ons in my FS9 installation, and not one of them is an FS8 add-on. A couple are upgraded versions from what was originally developed in FS8, but I wouldn't cry too many tears if I lost them.I would have no problems if MS tossed backwards compatability out the window, even if it meant fewer add-ons to choose from for a while.

>Hi all, it's just an idea, why don't ask the ACES about>dropping backward compatibility with fs-addons and start in>the next version (i hope we will have it...) a new sim with>better support for dual/quad (or wathever core will be..) CPU,>GPU, SLI and whatelse... how many here would go and buy it>also if no backward compatibility will be with the addons we>have? I have been reading that backward compatibility is the>reason that make fs looks obsolete.. it's just my thought,>maybe i'm wrong but let them know also what we think about>it..>>AlbertoHi,If that is going to happen, this FS community will be devided into two FS communities (if not already with FSX). One FS group with averege to high PC

I disagree.First, I think the success of FS over the years is only because the change between versions does not require a complete start over - unlike many games which fade out.Secondly, no matter what you compare FS to in the gaming world - FS is still multiple orders of magnitude more complex than any other game. Having the entire world makes that unavoidable.Just look at one recent post which condemned FSX as useless based on one 20 mile stretch of coastline. How many miles of coastline are there in the world, and one 20 mile stretch will determine the value of the game?FS will always require an open architecture to allow us to customize data.But one of the biggest hurdles is the complete lack of one world wide source for data - be it airports, coastlines, roads, population maps, whatever. Even Google Earth and Local.Live.Com have the majority of the world viewable in manner which makes picking out 1 mile long runways impossible.Lastly, FSX did bring the major developers into the process early - they've had plenty of time to learn about the major changes, what impact it will have on their addons and what will be required to convert those addons to FSX compatability.But like smart business men, they have NOT produced a product until they see and test with the retail version of the game.That's one of the problems with the computer gaming world - the ability to update code so late in the development process.Addon developers know better than to bet the farm on beta code.But they are MONTHS ahead of where they were with FS2004.

I would like to see Flight Simulator head in two directions. Continued refinement of FSX for the PC, and an all new version with new engine developed for X-Box. And as long as I'm wishing, I'd hope that the aircraft were compatible. From my very non-expert viewpoint, the majority of issues seem to be with scenery, as opposed to aircraft. The X-box seems to me a less expensive hardware solution as opposed to expensive PC upgrades.

Hasn't backward compatibility already been dropped? It appears that none of my favorite addons are going to work in FSX with out drastic re-writes. LDS 767, PMDG 737-747, Dreamfleet A36, Captain C-130 plus all the addon airports. I thought that was one of the goals of FSX to be friendly to our addons.A curiosity, the developers act like they were caught by surprise at the new code. I've read that major developers were in the loop a long time ago and that their new releases in progress are all written for it. Dreafleet hasn't even decided if it will re-write the A-36It's going to be quite a while before I make the switch over if ever.Terry

.

Hi,No, it has not been dropped. Backwards compatibility has only been assured for aircraft *that follow the FS2004 SDK* and do not go beyond it. I believe all those addons go well beyond the SDK. This means they will need updates for FSX. This was known back when you purchased them (I don't mean to imply that you knew it though) - and I can tell you that any addon for FSX that goes beyond the FSX SDK will require an update for FSXI.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

I for one wouldn't mind if they would drop it, in fact I would encourage it. I already hoped for this drop in FSX, well that has not happened but I think there is soo much more possible if they would just let go of the idea that add-ons that worked in a previous version should work in the next version.This is how I see it:You get yourself a sim like FS9 You spent a lot of time tweaking it until your satisfied with the way it looks , flies ect.You buy sceneries and other add-ons to use WITH FS9, you didn't purchase them to use with the next version of the FS series.You enjoy flying with it.Then eventually the next version of this sim will be released, you have 2 options.Either you buy it and accept the fact that previous add-ons do not work in the new sim.Or you stick with your old sim because you don't think this new sim is gonna offer you as much as your customized old sim.Well and maybe option 3 you just install both of them.Well and maybe designing an all new sim from scratch is gonna take longer then 'upgrading' the previous version I would be more then happy to wait a little longer and really get the feeling of "wow! this is a big step forwards" then with every version that comes out "well maybe in 2 years we will see the true capability of the new version" I got myself FSX just 2 days ago, I completely removed all traces of FS9 on my PC, was it easy? No it wasn't I spent many many hours getting FS9 to look as good as it does nowadays. Do I regret removing it? No (lol well maybe a little ;-) ), as much as I liked how it looked and the way it ran on my rig, it's time to move on, even though that means Ill have to use a sim that with the hardware I use at this moment doesn't run smooth and doesn't look nearly as good as my FS9 did. just my 0,02

I kind of feel like the original poster and some of the rest of you, want "revolutionary" change with each version.That is closer to what we would get if backwards compatibility was dropped.On the other hand, what we have been getting in FS is "evolutionary" change with each version. A little at a time.As to which is better, whew, that's a big question.I think this is related to the frequent discussions about how FS is not like any other sim or game out there.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian