Like many of you no doubt, I have cupboards full of flight sims and add-ons, dating back to the Commodore 64, I've even still got a copy of Flight Simulator before it was a Microsoft product. However, as many of you will appreciate, one pill that you have to swallow with flight sims is that you need decent computer equipment to run it satisfactorily; this means that being a dedicated flight sim fan isn't exactly the cheapest hobby in the world, which ironically, reflects flying in the real world 'If God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us more money' as they say. But that is the path that many flight sim fans choose to follow.Now, with all that in mind, I appreciate that all the add-ons one purchases for the latest version of FS can add up to a tidy sum, so there is value in having things run with the next version of FS, but, and it's a big but, when I buy the latest version of FS (usually on the day it comes out, because I am sad) I want it to push the envelope.Savvy flight sim fans will know that flight unlimited and fly both had markedly superior flight modelling in many areas (they were worse in other respects, but lead in flight and weather modelling) yet they were faced with an uphill struggle against the might of FS and, add-on development issues aside, it was ultimately what killed them.It is heartening to see that FSX has things like thermal activity implemented, but by way of example, I should like to see thermal activity become a function of the normal weather parameters in the sim, rather than a scenery-type object which has to be designed and placed. And if Fly and FU had to die, leaving FS to hold the torch, I want to see FS start running with that torch. So screw backward compatibility, I want forward compatibility!

I'm impressed with how this question was received here on AvSim.I posted basically the same statement on another forum and it wasn't taken well at all. My post was more along the lines of multicore support which if I read things right will mean a brand new start with a clean sheet FS engine.FaxCap

I really think all backward compatibility sould be dropped in the next version if it will approve the flight simulator series. We have to make a sacrifice, for the sake of making the next version one of the greatest, and let the aces team move forward into the future, and not not having to worry about backward compatibility. I think most of us will be fine with fsx for the next few years, and some otheres with fs9, while I imagine the devlopment of fs11 will be very long if it removed all the backward compatibility and started with some new and more updated code or maybe?, I want to say a thank you to the Aces team for there hardwork on fsx and looking forward too the future of this great sim.:)

I agree the turnaround for a completely new FS will take a (long) while. However, I think it has to be done as well.1) The graphics engine is running out of legs.2) The way it works is currently not friendly to future microprocessors. Multicore/multiprocessor is here to stay.3) This would give the devs an opportunity to make it more beautiful and perform better, but also to address some mistakes from the past in the way things work under the hood. I'm referring mostly to the way the planes fly -the physics have actually gotten worse over the years.-turboprops have never been modelled correctly-the atmospheric model needs an overhaul.-lighting is limited-vc could be re-thought.-mixture leans out too fast-engine sounds decrease in pitch with decrease in manifold.The list goes on.I know these things don't sell the product as much as the nice puffy clouds, but they are the things that keep me from plunking down on FSX for a while (I will eventually- I like eye candy as much as the next guy).So, yes, a redo would be a good thing.

I totally agree that a complete recode of FS would be awesome, backwards compatibility or not, but I seriously doubt it's going to happen any time soon. Why? Well, for the same reason politicians don't repeal laws or taxes, no matter how unpopular, because it would be unprofitable (for THEM) to do so. There are enough simmers out there that simply would not buy a new version of FS if they couldn't use at least a good number of their addons from the previous version, and MS knows that. Flight Simulator is a seriously expensive product to produce, even for a company with the resources and marketing punch of microsoft, and they're unlikely to do anything that will negatively effect their bottom line. Unless the new version turns out to be total crap, and it isn't, I don't expect to see a change in policy there.I wish we could look back at the posts from the time when FS2004 came out, we'd see some awfully famliar forum exchanges I think. :)FSX *will* replace FS9, just as utterly and completely as FS9 replaced FS2002. The hardware will catch up, the tweaks will fix that which hardware can't, for the most part anyway. It won't be pretty, or smooth, or fun, but it will happen.I personally have only one request of the dev team at this point. There are hidden variables in the FSX.cfg that can be messed with. We've seen a few already. There were tons in the FS9.cfg, one or two of which only became generally apparent a few months before the release of FSX. Can you spare us that this time? PLEASE? I'd like to know what they ALL are....now, before the dev team moves on to something new and forgets. :)Simmers are tweakers. End of story.Cheers.

I agree. If the next version is completely new and incompatible with FSX, then so be it.I'm sure FSX carries far too much baggage and that may be why frame rates are a major problem. It's obvious a new version should be designed with multi-core processors right at the, shall we say, core of the new sim. Forget dual or quad core processors. According to New Scientist, Intel is talking 80 processors on a chip by 2010. Moore's Law seems to have hit the wall, so multi processors is probably the only way forward - until Dell starts selling the first quantum computers.With a brand new engine, Microsoft could do some things to ease the transition, for example to provide a range of aircraft and scenery converters and to provide at the very least provisional SDK's to the community a year or more before release.If they could do that it would have my vote. Best regards, Chris

Hi all,Its my First my post, but not on this forum, I just lost my old account.With regards to backwards compatibility I think in someways we have lost it on this release, I mean all Addon makers are quoting a lot of work for getting our add-ons back up and running in FSX.I think there are quite a few changes under the hood of this release that we will see more of as add on devs get into the core of this release. I left FS9 a year ago because I could not put up with the CTD's during long flights, i applied all the fixes etc etc, but it just kept on CTDing. Anyway I am to a little disappointed with the sim in some areas i.e no dual core, bad use of my cross fire X1900XTX's but that's life I guess. I have doubts about DirectX 10 being the sims saviour as it not taxing the current hardware, so i cant see what DirectX 10 is going to do, but i am left to be corrected on that, I mean DirectX 9 will run in DirectX 10 but only through emulation, so how can an app written for directx 10 work in DirectX 9 now?? or is there an upgrade on the way?However I am sure in the Long run FSX will come good, I am sure of that. I mean now on a flight from KSEA to visit Mount Rainer in the Bell chopper looking down at moving traffic is an awesome sight!!Ok I've got 9fps and the Graphic cards are not blowing out heat like they do with say Company of heroes or any other game does lead me to believe that the engine is just not a GPU based engine, but at the end of day Im still flying and having fun, yeah I believe I got the hardware to run it maxed but the engine is not designed for it.I think its a case of, give us an engine to tax our cards and CPU, not we need better hardware.Jut my humble opinionJason

Drop the compatibility I say.I think over time just like with hardware, you sometimes have to bite the bullet and take the plunge with a whole new system. Probably between fs98 to fs2004 Hardware upgrades could be done fairly easily, sockets on motherboards hadnt changed too much, or even where they had(AMD chips) you could still stick with what you had and just increase the processor speed, AGP was about the biggest difference back then. But since that time, now you need a whole new system to keep up with the changes, Motherboards wont support new chips, SLI PCI express as come around, dual core and multicore around bigger power supplies needed to run it all, you cant just open your case and pop something in the only way to go is a new complete system really. So to me this time FS should have taken the big leap also and said too much has changed in harware to delvelop for older systems. So they should have taken advantage of the new features that the new technology allows, developing a sim that would run smoother with even higher features. Yes it would alienate some users who cant afford yet to upgrade, but as i see it that is already the case anyway, and those that couldnt would do as people are doing now, stopped with FS9 until prices and money was available to catch up. Its no different now from some of the games that are getting released that people without fast graphics and multicore processors cant run anyway, UT, Prey etc.Why do i think this, well look at FSX now, it runs farily poorly on peoples systems now, yes it not as bad as some people make out, lower FPS dont seem to give as bad an effect as they did in FS9, but when FS9 came out, people were able to say yes it doesnt run on my system but if i go to my local pc shop I can get a better chip, more memory or graphics card and it will. Now though even if you brought the fastest most expensive system goign you still wouldnt see a vast improvement, why because FSX doesnt take adavantage of any of that technology, SLI and Dual core is almost becoming old technology yet the latest FSX doesnt even take advantage of that yet! All the addons for FS9, from planes, to even scenery is pretty much useless in FSX, developers are releasing new versions not patching, so whats the difference had MS just dropped all support for old addons and written a totally new one? PMDG will charge for the new FSX version not patch it, UK2000 scenery apart from latest releases doesnt work properly with FSX so again he will be writing new versions. And really the proposed patch later next year to allow support for DX10 will probably mean that developers will be wary about what they release only to find the Patch renders them useless again or needing to do it again to take advantage of the new features that DX10 offers.I read somewhere that the team developing FSX didnt want to release it yet, that they still feel the software is in a beta release, it seems to me that those counting the money rather than those with a passion for it made the decision for it to come out now.I own it and yes i can get it to be flyable, but I've got no addons installed for it, as most dont realy work with it properly, I cant see as yet, of a way too buy a better system to make it better as there isnt support for anything better, I cant buy any addons to enhance it as none support it yet. So all i use it for at the moment is playing about with the missions(love the heli ones), and use FS9 for proper simming, and as it stands until probably late next year that will be all i do with it, by then Vista, DX10, and Quad Processors will be out and have dropped to a sensible price, which will mean me reinstalling it on a new system, so why didnt MS just wait till then, refined it even more, given the adddon developers more time to develop for it with a published SDK. and then we would have a sim worth buying. Rather than one i have brought that really isnt that useful at the moment, its a bit like having a new car delivered but the keys get delivered months later!RegardsJames

I agree, drop the compatibility if necessary. We can always run FS9 or FSX until the add-ons we want are developed for whatever the next version of Flight Sim is. Just like we can enjoy BOTH FSX and FS9 now.Tony