FSX has been out what, one, two months? Next to no addons exist for it so far, compared to FS9, so it doesn't need much foresight to predict this poll getting a 99% "yes" vote. Whoopdee.Now let's really try to look into the future. The poll get's signed by enough people to make ACES actually decide a rewrite of the codebase to be in order (no chance in ####, but what the heck). In two and a half years, when everyone's FSX folder has grown to 30-80 GB with addons, ACES happily announces that the next version will be released in about six months and that it will feature a completely rewritten codebase. Which means that it will run at maximum performance on the current hardware, but besides that will feature absolutely nothing new (extending features AND rewriting the codebase was impossible) PLUS, as an added bonus, all backwards compatibility for your precious addons will be lost.Get real. If there will ever be a new (code related) approach to flight simming, it won't come from MS.Oh, and by the way: I vote for cake.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Uhhh .... what if FSX already features a new graphics engine? :-eekI would like to see a new engine IF the current one is dated :)

Uuh... although termed different in the initial post, most people seem to favor a rewrite of the whole codebase, not just the graphics engine. And uuh... at least during development Aces stated more than once that they are "just" expanding on the existing engine. Seeing how it behaves very similiar to FS9 with regards to texture loading etc. confirms this expression.So uuh... it's not really new. Spiced up, yes. New, no.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Rewrite: NoOptimise (truly): YesThe more than welcome performance patch is also a statement of poor code optimisation (I know, I know no software is bug free etc.).I wouldn't be too surprised If the anticipated patch doesn't include all performance improvements that the team could come up with... But then again I was trained to think about malam fidem everywhere...Regards,

YES! YES! YES! YES!FSX will be the first flight sim i will skip, because of it's old engine... It's the same old engine made back in 1997... Think about that... It needs total rewrite for multicore processors (not only dual) and of course videocards.

That to much a black vs white view. There are many shades of gray.A new engine without the competability stuff can support more new hardware features.Old add-ons can be rebuild from their source files using the SDK for the new & beter format.A more fluid FS is a feature in itself. Most time fluid nice graphics beat stuttering great graphics.

YES,but I think I'm indoctrinated? http://www.americanpatrol.com/_icons/BS_No.gif

NONo complete rewrite required in my opinion. Just performance enhancements are necessary, especially for AutoGen. The engine is well capable of photorealism already (see the related 1m photoscenery threads in this forum).A framerate problem arises when too much geometry is on screen (autogen objects, other scenery buildings, etc). DirectX 10 promises to incur less overhead at the API and driver level when handling large numbers of objects, so a port to Dx10 is the way to go. Some aspects of the rendering engine will have to be rewritten anyway to conform to DX10 standards.I found a gross inefficiency in FSX when loading FS2002/2004 style photo terrain, which should be addressed also in one of the following update patches.

Yes. It's been my opinion for some years.Some effort could be put into the creation of conversion tools so that aircraft and some scenery could be converted to the new standard.Also a simple rule should be observed: no current features should be lost unless replaced by something better (e.g. flypast mode, mouse as yoke, look down map view etc etc)I think FSX is a superb flight simulator and the best I ever used. But without all the baggage it carries it could have been a lot better.Best regards, Chris

YES.....DO IT RIGHT THISTIME!!!!!!!!

My old, but quite alive horse (FS9) is just fine thank you. I do have FSX and would you know it it's all the graphical enhancements with shaders and what not that slow it down. Looks great at 10fps though right up to the point it gives me a headache from all the stuttering. My vote is NOOOOOOOOO! and Darth Vader is not my father.Carlos

Hey I installed the PMDG 747 in the system I was originally running FS9 on PIII 512RAM and ATI9250 and I got 6fps. I could, however fly the default Cessna over New York City with 20fps even with simple clouds and 5% traffic, normal autogen. I can't do that in FSX so this is a step backward. Even the latest and greatest Coreduowhatever won't push anything PMDG at a big city airport past 6 fps. I can fly my Carenado props out in the middle of nowhere just fine though. So for now we have FS9 for our PMDGLDSDFF1PSS etc. and FSX for the bush and island flying. Anyways, looking at this post I say wow, a lot of people must hate FSX. I think it has a lot going for it even if it is frustrating at times. Give it a chance, it just came out a couple months ago, and it will have a whole new graphics engine which is of course DX10.Carlos

What ever they do...The high resolution graphics need to be up to the standards of FSX or surpass them. Do not go back to the mudddy hand drawn look of FS9!Do away with the FS9 type, cartoony auto-gen houses, and at least use the eye pleasing photo-real city texture effects of FSX, or even better!MSFS could even improve on the moving airmass present in FSX, which is far and above the stagnet air of FS9 and everything before!L.Adamson

No! No! No! What make anyone think there will be any performance gain by starting from the ground up (and it would be so expensive that Microsoft could quit on FS). I mean polygons are polygons and they need to be drawn. Then there is weather and AI planes, cars, boats and zebras. Then all the shaders, bloom and neet effects. All this takes processing power. As Aces has said Multi core is no magic bullet because threads have to wait on other threads etc. What we need is a multi core processor that can combine its cores so it appears to the OS as a single very powerful core. Then FSX and many other softwares will benefit. The way it is now having extra cores is only good for multitasking.Carlos

Maybe, but try preaching that against the outcry which would ensue in my scenario. :)Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg