This is a plea to MS (ACES) to come up with a patch that will enable scenery and aircraft/gauges developed for FS2004 to work in FSX, all be it without the full functionality perhaps that is built into FSX, or at least enable them to be patched easily by developers.I, like alot of other serious Flight simmers, are holding off purchasing FSX because the myriad of superb add-ons that have been developed for FS2004 are now simply useless in FSX.I have no doubt that FSX will eventually prove itself to be THE platform for the future, but the lack of backward compatibility is an enormous oversight on the part of the developers, which is and will no doubt continue restrict sales of FSX.HELP your market ..... PLEASE !!Regards,Stuart

>This is a plea to MS (ACES) to come up with a patch that will>enable scenery and aircraft/gauges developed for FS2004 to>work in FSX, all be it without the full functionality perhaps>that is built into FSX, or at least enable them to be patched>easily by developers.>>I, like alot of other serious Flight simmers, are holding off>purchasing FSX because the myriad of superb add-ons that have>been developed for FS2004 are now simply useless in FSX.>>I have no doubt that FSX will eventually prove itself to be>THE platform for the future, but the lack of backward>compatibility is an enormous oversight on the part of the>developers, which is and will no doubt continue restrict sales>of FSX.>>HELP your market ..... PLEASE !!>>Regards,>StuartI tend to look at it from the other point of view. Issue a patch that removes ALL backward compatibility, but introduces all the new features and elements that had to be held back because of the insane demands for compatiblity. FSX is not FS9. Why should there be any compatibility whatsoever? We have Vista and DX10 coming, so what better time to start afresh?Someone in another forum put it perfectly:"For the sake of re-using a $30 dollar addon you end up having to spend $700 bucks on hardware updates." It is actually costing us a fortune to have that `feature` included. Time to throw it away?And as it turns out, this backward compatiblity is proving to be a very limited function anyway.Allcott