I think what you are really referring to is the overall code base of FS, not the graphics engine. The graphics engine has been updated for the latest drivers and direct x features. And as I understand it we are still only seeing FSX in light of Windows XP and direct X 9. When Vista and Direct X 10 comes up that should be a whole new ballgame.The other thing you have to understand is that you can not compare FSX to First person shooters or Strategy Games and their engines. I have tried some very impressive games of these sorts. However, it is very clear that they do not demand as much as a flight simulator would.Simulators take a whole heck of a lot of more resources to run the bells and whisles we see now. What we probably all need to do is upgrade our systems to duo core processors, vista, and higher end direct x 10 graphics cards. Then we would see a FSX in a new light.I am sure if the code base was completely re-written things would run a little faster, but the reality is to get as real as you can you need to really upgrade your system.Just a clarification.

Thank you for your continual emails about updates for your product. I wish all developers were as informational about what was going on with their products, which often are like an internet mystery search puzzle to find out about updates...I look forward to seeing what you are doing for fsx!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>I think what you are really referring to is the overall code>base of FS, not the graphics engine. The graphics engine has>been updated for the latest drivers and direct x features. >And as I understand it we are still only seeing FSX in light>of Windows XP and direct X 9. When Vista and Direct X 10>comes up that should be a whole new ballgame.>>The other thing you have to understand is that you can not>compare FSX to First person shooters or Strategy Games and>their engines. I have tried some very impressive games of>these sorts. However, it is very clear that they do not>demand as much as a flight simulator would.>>Simulators take a whole heck of a lot of more resources to run>the bells and whisles we see now. What we probably all need>to do is upgrade our systems to duo core processors, vista,>and higher end direct x 10 graphics cards. Then we would see>a FSX in a new light.>>I am sure if the code base was completely re-written things>would run a little faster, but the reality is to get as real>as you can you need to really upgrade your system.>>Just a clarification.>>This has been said many times in the past, and clarified by Aces themselves! Vista itself is not a magic bullet that will solve all of FSX's performance woes. It does allow them to enhance the visual quality even more, and as such it may even add to FSX performance problems. The only way FSX performance will be improved, is if Aces finds and fixes a bottleneck(s) in the code (a bug) or if that's not the problem, find some other way to optimize the code. I'm running a P4 3.8 Ghz 2GB system and am getting performance at busy airports and cities comparable to what I get in FS9 with a complex aircraft like PMDG or LDS. That's without using the default aircraft and using the FPS friendly aircraft of the Overland group! We've already seen what adding a highly detailed visual model, like the CS-757 does in FSX, so I have doubts, PMDG, or LDS aircraft will fare much better at least without stripping some details from them! Core2 Duo's or even Quad Cores, doesn't help much either as FS doesn't take advantage of the muti cores. In fact most of the people reporting decent (not great - I haven't heard anyone report that yet) performance are those like me with single core processors with a high clock speed. So multi core may hurt more than help performance!

YES. Very few addons work right now with FSX without requiring some sort of tweaking or an update from the publisher. FS9 gives me my backwards compatibility and FSX at this stage of its life doesn't seem to have the headroom to run any serious backwards compatible upgrades anyway, even if they were to exist. So once again, YES.Gary

What is the purpose of a new release we should ask. I think, Microsoft wants to make money out of it. So if this is their parameter and if with previous releases accomplished that, then they couldn't care less about this post.Stelios

YES! YES! YES! Please!

Definitely yes; do any re-writing necessary. If this leads to new, even more amazing 3rd party addons, then who needs backwards compatibility?

REwriting the core MUST accompany REthinking the approach to the MSFS product, lest we end up with no backward compatibility, a new core engine but the same old performance issues with FS11.REwrite AND REthink, OR RElive.... Besides, right now I think that the only thing that is TRUELY backward compatibile is the Avsim MSFS Forum posts around the time of each FS release. You can reuse the same complaint posts with every MSFS release with minimal editing dating back to FS95! Somehow I don't think that was the backward compatibility that Aces was shooting for.

Yes. Rewrite it :)

Another idea is to merge FSXI with Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth. This is the future of Flight Simulators.Stelios

My answer is YES.I think it should be pretty clear for Aces to figure out that the current engine is outdated and useless. It's like fixing up a old car, you can paint the exterior and replace the interior to make it look brand new but you're still stuck with the same old engine which isn't going do much when it comes to perforance which of course is the biggest thing.

Its the experience I have with FS-X that makes my YES a no brainer. If FS-X is the best they can do with backward competablity then they should have dropped backward competablity.You can't design high performance software by committee. You need to make tough design choices to get a good performing program. Alas in the case of FSX there where not enough of such design choices made.

YES, YES, and YESChris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

YES.

You would think someone would be able to write a program that analyzes aerial photos and turns them into FSX landclass. That would be nice!