we talk about representation of the real world and there are now 2 ways to go about this.1- *Reconstitute* the lay of the land with finer resolution "sub-data", mesh, lc, textures.2- *Reproduce* the lay of the land with satellite photos.I think that these 2 ways are mutually exclusive and that a radical innovation is needed to have either work acceptably due to the enormous amount of data to be processed in both cases.So that, regardless of the way, a radically new programming approach is needed. This is a fundamental research deal and that kind of research is not liked because it's expensive and has no predictable return on investment. Safer to wait for/bet on the hardware.So this is not just a rewrite of the graphic engine, as I see it, this is a whole new approach to simulation that is waiting.

Yes. Rethink and rewrite the code for FS11. If ACEs were to do this then it would be great of them to make that decission now and let us know their intentions.That way we: A) would know that any addon purchases have a high chance of not moving forward to the next version.:( Addon developers could continue developing for FS9 since FSX has its limits.C) untie ACEs hands so that they could create a new sim with only preformance in mind.With the whole sim connect and authorized gauges and what not of FSX that I've read about FSX is really not all that backward compatible in the first place so why not make the next version from the ground up. I mean if FSX was so backward compatible shouldnt more FS9 addons already of been patched for FSX?

YES!!

Yes!

>I think what you are really referring to is the overall code>base of FS, not the graphics engine. Thats exactly what I was saying, when I posted early in this thread,"Graphics engine?, Huh??"Who says it's the "graphics engine" that is the problem here?Actually for that matter, the part on the gfx is still yet to be determined, with the changes we'll see in the next 8 months.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

YES

Lest we forget, ACES ALREADY HAS a flight simulator release under their belt well prior to FSX, for a slightly different genre but still created under the Microsoft FS product line "umbrella", which differed from it's predecessors via a completely rewritten core/gfx engine/architecture/whathaveyou and also which came about as a well-intentioned effort to provide "completely new groundbreaking performance and expansion possibilities" at the expense of ABSOLUTE ZERO backward compatibility. It even got patched, too - twice.And it only clings to life today due to the very small but dedicated base of users, addon developers and online multiplayers. Plus the fact that some computer vendors include it as part of a software bundle sometimes as a freebie. Sadly, approx. 90% of it's original audience either went back to the prior versions, or moved on to it's competition which offers very little if any third-party addons, but has the feature of being highly "configurable" (and which is also updated/patched on an almost annoyingly regular basis). So, for that sim, the world slowly gets smaller, and smaller and smaller. In comparison to its heyday (which also represents the peak time of complaints by dissatisfied users jumping ship) that world is almost tiny, now.But if you're saying that still sounds like a real sweet deal, then just be-bop on down to your favorite software retailer and have them point you at a copy of CFS3. In essence that's what you're asking to be done to the MSFS series, here.Personally, lots of us do still like it, but otherwise, be careful what you ask for. Because you just....may....get it.

If backward comp is holding back performance - YES.(Hopefully) I can run the previous version on the same machine. I'll then dump it when the devs catch up to the new platform. Seems to me though quite a graphics revolution would be needed to call up anywhere on the planet in (insert other title) detail.regards,Mark

Affirmative!

The best thing that could happen to insure Flight simulator continues to improve and customers wants/needs are delivered is-CompetitionAnd YES....... Flight Simulator needs a complete overhaul from the ground up.Otherwise MS should stop waiting 3-4 yrs betreen versions and release one every year with new planes,sceneries,fixes ect.

Competition. Yep. Plus, give it a neat-o name. Something cool like "Flight Unlimited"....no wait...."Fly!"....no wait...."X-Plane". Yeah.Great idear, why doesn't someone do this??!!!

For all of you that wan't something different and "competition" maybe you should be flying X-plane. As for me I will stay with MSFS because I've tried X-plane and didn't like the visuals or the "highly heralded" flight dynamics one bit. Well, back to flying my FS9 and FSX.Carlos

I got a poll running over at fs2004.com about this.http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=98766Everybody is for a rewrite.:)

>Everybody is for a rewrite.:) Well, as I said - big surprise. Ask again in a year or two, when everyone has loaded up on addons.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Someone once said: The purpose of software is to drive the innovation of hardware (or something along those lines). ACES has done that with FSX. However, it should be done with innovative code, not antiquated code. If we hold on to backward compatibility for too long, it will become dead weight. And those old add-ons will get pretty stale after a few years. I say, rewrite after conferring with industry leaders on where technology is headed. I know, easier said than done. However, ACES said that they didn't optimize FSX code for dual processors because they didn't realize that would become the standard when they started FSX. Multi-processor servers were the norm at that time. It was only a matter of time before they hit home PCs. FWIW: I like FSX. System upgrades are the norm in this hobby. If it wasn't for FSX it would be for something else.