I'm gonna go with no.I've got FSX tweaked to a point where it's running somewhat decently, and I really don't know what's so wrong with it that's got everyone so upset. I suppose, not being a "hardcore" pilot, I couldn't understand the way that the default 172 doesn't sideslip properly, but I did the sailplane training mission the other day, and I have never been that completely at awe with a computer game before. So, yeah, until I find something that I think is terribly wrong with it, or that I can't fix myself with a quick add-on, then I really can't advocate the unknown quantity that is a total rewrite of the codebase.

>>> YES: Rewrite the core graphics engine, minimal backwards compatibility will be OK.>>> NO: Keep the current one, just patch it up for FS11 with the new features.No doubt, there are significant performance issues. However, without source code in hand, it seems presumptuous to say that a total rewrite is needed, or that the code is "antiquated".As a professional programmer, I admire what ACES has accomplished. If you read through the SDK's and white papers (particularly pertaining to the graphics engine), it really gives you a sense of how complex this really is. FSX performance is often compared to other games. Although these comparisons can be useful, in many ways it is not a level playing field. What would the results be if those games had to model the entire world? Since neither YES or NO as stated does not reflect my opinion, I am casting a write-in vote:ACES, please address the issues as you have committed to do in the near future (pre-DX10). How you do that is entirely up to you.Regards,Rich

>YES: Rewrite the core graphics engine, minimal backwards>compatibility will be OK.>NO: Keep the current one, just patch it up for FS11 with the>new features.Look, the DX10 patch isn't out yet, so just wait untill the jury can come in on seeing what happens when we have to DX10 version on a G80 equiped Vista system.Untill then there is no point to this, everyone here wants new with all the candy etc...Untill there was a DX version period of FS5 it too was a slide show, brand new state of the art DX2-466 systems strugled 4-6FPS!!! Wow! until real 3d cards came out and a version of fS that supported em, so just wait and then judge.

>>YES: Rewrite the core graphics engine, minimal backwards>>compatibility will be OK.>>NO: Keep the current one, just patch it up for FS11 with>the>>new features.>>Look, the DX10 patch isn't out yet, so just wait untill the>jury can come in on seeing what happens when we have to DX10>version on a G80 equiped Vista system.>>Untill then there is no point to this, everyone here wants new>with all the candy etc...Untill there was a DX version period>of FS5 it too was a slide show, brand new state of the art>DX2-466 systems strugled 4-6FPS!!! Wow! until real 3d cards>came out and a version of fS that supported em, so just wait>and then judge.You're putting too much faith in Vista and DX10 and it's been said over and over again that Vista/DX10 isn't going to be the silver bullet when it comes to fps.

YES! YES! YES!I cannot say YES enough!!The new FS needs a new rewritten engine that concentrates on improvements and performance. Please don't let the constraints of backwards compatibility ruin the next release of FS!Obviously the VAST majority of simmers would like a new "built from the ground up" streamlined engine geared for performance. Toss out the old and look to the future!

"YES: Rewrite the core graphics engine, minimal backwards compatibility will be OK.NO: Keep the current one, just patch it up for FS11 with the new features."YES.SD

>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.>And over at the X-Plane forums, I'm seeing a call for a complete rewrite too! :-lolIMO, X-Plane is okay, as I've known that the flight dynamics were over hyped for years. The global scenery has some great mesh data, but overall, it's FSX that generates a great sensation of flight, although some tend to disagree. L.Adamson

Ever think about how much more data is being proccesed in FSX?16X on the ground detail alone, and it updates these textures better than it did in FS9.If a new graphic engine will help with performance I'm all for itBut we don't get anything for nothing.And who says we have to throw the baby out with the bath waterWhat magical thing will happens performance wise If Aces did drop compatibility?I don't know, do you? John

Much of the graphics engine for FS11 was new, including a new mdl format, animation system and of course the new shaders. Though I do think allowing backward compatibilty in FSX slows things down somewhat.CFS3 moved to an all new 3D engine... but look what happened to that. The CFS community ended up somewhat fractured. CFS3 was ahead of its time but not fully completed (sound familiar?) and CFS4 based on the same engine appeared to reach alpha stage before being canned by MS.Interestingly there's a position being advertised within ACES for a development lead to develop a world simulation game engine to power all their sims...... maybe an all new engine? Also makes sense to have a common core world 3d engine powering all their sims especially from the development perspective.http://members.microsoft.com/careers/searc...tCol=DatePosted

YES

YES

Hmm- do what you gotta do to get better performance gains like dual or more core support, better weather simulation, etc. Take advantage of all the new hardware and software stuff and forget about backward compatability totally. What the heck is the point in backward compatability (for payware) when we need to re-purchase the thing 90% of the time ANYWAY?

YES

Without question.... Yes !It's time to move on to the next phase of FS.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

I dunno, Tom.Yes, we are a very vocal community among ourselves. But really, we are such a small portion of the purchasing base for FS, do you really think that backwards compatability was driven by our vote, and, really, that backwards compatability kept ACES from making the drastic changes many vocal people here seem to think it needs? (I happen to be of the belief that if such drastic changes would have brought drastic performance increases they probably would have done it)It is my belief that, having worked for a software company before, it's really hard to get an established software package to change directions drastically. And when they do, things are REALLY messed up for two or three versions, if in fact they ever recover. In just about all cases, huge changes are in the realm of startups (remember Fly, ProPilot, Flight3?), and the established software builds off of what it has in place, making evolutionary changes. Remember when PTC was the startup? Now they are established and other companies are blowing past them.It's all about money. And the less work you have to do to get the job done, the better. And the more robust you'll be.I think it is correct that FSX has the largest change volume since FS2000. And we are going to pay the price for that for a while till the change bobble settles down.What I'd love to see would be some interaction from the flight dynamics guys at ACES. They've been very vocal about scenery and texture design and other features, but I have not heard much of anything from the flight dynamics people. I sure hope that Ron Freimuth's conversations with them bear fruit.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180