YES.

Yes.We didnt get any backward compatibility with FSX anyway. We lost afcads for the traffic, old format texture reading speed for satellite imagery add ons, hardly any payware planes work. Thousands of dollars of addons are down the tube and we get a speed hit to pretend we have backward compatibility.I deleted FS9 during the FSX beta because I love FSX but I think we got the bad end of the compatibility vs speed equation.Plus the question is about the graphics engine, not the entire code.

>We didnt get any backward compatibility with FSX anyway. We>lost afcads for the traffic, old format texture reading speed>for satellite imagery add ons, hardly any payware planes work.There is losts of photo scenery for FS9 that works perfectly in FSX. To install my FS9 Horison Sanfrancisco scenery, all I needed to do was go to scenery library, and direct it to the data folders already on the hard disk. Works perfectly.:) And I get moving cars on highways, all new FSX airport buildings, bridges, city buildings etc.

If backward compatibility issues are a problem for Aces, and are holding back the progression of new code & features, then I would say YES, drop backward compatibility for the next version. Then from the new code onwards, backward compatibility could again be respected.I would also say, do a full Keyboard Layout overhaul.

YES and again YES... needs to be done

Frankly, with the current "backwards" compatibility I think I could do without it in future releases of FS.. I have spent more time trying to make things that are supposed to work in FSX work than I ever did with FS2004, even some products that have been patched to work with FSX..I would like to see Optimization of the current product, minus Vista and DX 10.. Simply because I am not sure I want to waste anymore money on trying to make FSX run good.

YES

>>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.He's not putting any faith in DX10 or Vista. All he's saying is that WE CANNOT DETERMINE at this time, whether or not the graphics needs to be overhauled.Let's not jump the gun and assume anything, until after DX10 patch is out. Maybe it needs overhauling, maybe not. 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

Afraid in my ignorance, I am not sure whether a "New Graphics Engine" is the answer. Appears to me that the problem may be upstream of there, so a reluctant Yes, but conditional relative to what else may need improvement even more.Happy flying:RTH

YESJAR

Horizon must have constructed it correctly then. I invested in a lot of the megasceneries which are thousands of little files. In FSX the blurries are 10 times worse then they were in FS9 because FSX is worse at loading imagery made with lots of files. They are not planning to patch it so its all useless.I might have to move to the UK to fly on usable scenery in my local area.

>12 or 6 months ago, had you suggested sacrificing backward>compatibilty, it would have been met with screams of>indignation by hundreds of your fellow forum denizens. >>I find it interesting, not to mention ludicrous, that now,>just a short one month or so after product release, that there>are those of you that would sacrifice backward compatibility.>>>Where was this "poll" a year or more ago? Why did the majority>not encourage dropping the backward compatibility when it>really counted; during the design phase? To take a "poll" now,>after the concrete has set, so to speak, seems to me a waste>of energy and bandwidth. >>I would suggest that long before the next release enters>design, that the community have some serious discussions about>the "sacred cows" such as backward compatibility, that we seem>to hold so close to our hearts. Maybe by doing so, we'll free>up MS/ACES to do what they really would like to do; unleash>the next great flight simulator.Tom,With the greatest respect to your opinion are you saying that FSX is actually back-compatible now? From what I have seen and tried less than 5% of the packages and most of the SDK

I forgot to insert the following from RealAir: http://www.realairsimulations.com/content1...ort_fsxupgrades

this read should be put up as sticky up there. From horses mouth:http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200...patibility.aspx

YESIt's a must-do, DX10 threw (backward compatibility) out the door, and so should FS.Thanks