>If you guys skipped this whole DX10 nonsense, you could've>been almost an entire year into FS11. Oh go on then, I'll be the first to point out the obvious:They ARE almost an entire year into FS11. Unless anyone seriously believes that FS11 could have been based on DX9, their first order of business (after fixing known problems with the FSX engine) was always going to be to port the engine over to DX10. Only after doing that can they start working on new graphical features which take advantage of what DX10 has to offer; this work will take us gradually closer to that nice picture with the frothy waves.ACES have committed to releasing a free update which lets us experience some of the fruits of these labours without having to wait two or three years for the rest of FS11 to be done, although there was never any obligation on them to do this. So why exactly are people complaining?Colin

Maybe so, but maybe if they weren't so focused on this DX10 mumbo jumbo they could put the entire development team on FS11. FSX looks good as is, why not just leave it and focus their efforts on bigger better things that might actually pay off in the end.

I'm not sure you understood Colin's point. The work being done on FSX's DX10 patch will automatically contribute towards FS11. FS11 will no doubt be a DX10 game, so they'll need a DX10 engine for it. Guess what the FSX DX10 patch gives them? A DX10 engine. Or were you expecting a complete re-write of the game from the ground up just for FS11? Nope. It's going to be another new layer on top of FS2004 (or is that FS2002? I've lost count).In any case, if you absolutely have to find something to complain about I guess the point you COULD raise is that Aces shouldn't be "wasting their time" on the Acceleration add-on, since THAT is purely content (such as it is) for FSX and does not contribute towards FS11. But then again... who's to say FS11 won't just "happen" to come with a P-51, F-18 and an EH-101. Or at the very least the multiple helo turbine feature they're adding in with Acceleration. Or carrier operations. It's been done before.I just hope they will improve both the models and textures of the previous (FS9) generation planes this time around, unlike they did when bringing some of them over from FS2004 to FSX - the King Air 350, for example, has a LESS detailed VC in FSX than it does in FS2004. Imagine that.

>>I can't remember exactly how long it took to run FS9 at>>average 30 FPS and maximum settings - was it yesterday ? >>;-) >>>>>>Heiko>>>>>>It took me until yesterday, when I got my Core 2 Duo E6750.>:DI'm still not there.:( haha

True, but that begs the question, why would anyone from Microsoft seriously publish that screenshot in the first place?? Doesn't it?As for FS11 -- if that ever happens it will be 2011 at the earliest (based on past release schedules). There is A LOT that can happen between now and 2011.The recurring theme from Phil and Microsoft seems to be: Hardware just isnt' good enough -- being a heavy hitting coder, I've used that excuse a few times myself -- but ultimately I've had to spend the time to make it work better (as did Phil).Does it seem strange to you that a 8 CPU core system (running at 4.0 Ghz and a FSB at 1500Mhz) with 8GB RAM and RAID0 10,000 rpm SATA-3 drives with TWO 8800GTX Ultra (1.5GB VRAM) capable of 206 GB/sec memory bandwidth almost 80 Gigatexel per second texture fill rate and 28 Gigapixel per second pixel fill rate -- isn't enough performance for FSX?? Well it is strange, but when you factor in to key facts about FSX:1. It was not redesigned from ground up2. It's stuck in 32bit land and 2GB limitThe hardware is here today, it's just the code that isn't.Robin.

I agree, its the code and not the hardware. It takes plain old persistent never ending work in order to optimize a program's code to it's fullest. Simple as that, the more work put into it, the better it's going to be. Lucky for us, people such as Phil are still working on optimizing the code. Personally, i don't think they should redesign from ground up for FS11. All this hard work wasted. They should stick to the original and keep optimizing their hearts out. I think optimizing for DX10 (sending more work to the GPU) is going to have more potential then redesigning a program for 64bit.

At some point you hit a wall of optimization (it isn't an infinite process) of code, in this case that wall is 32bit 2GB limit. I don't think 2GB is enough physical RAM to accurately replicate a well textured "infinite" global environment and leave room the rest of code to do other tasks that also require a good chunck of RAM.But either way, morphing mountains and blurry textures (regardless of how you want to define these they do exist) just will not fly for the end user come 2011. Especially when a host of real DX10 games start hitting the shelves this XMas where people are going to say "why doesn't FSX look as good as this" -- accurate or not.I really don't understand the big resistance to 64bit -- I've coded apps for OSX using xCore UB and the 32bit vs. 64bit is a none issue for the most part. I've also done 64bit apps using VS 2008 Beta 2 without much of an issue going from VS 2005 32bit. The xCore dev tools do a much better job at making it almost seamless, but both camps get the job done without too much pain. It's a considerably easier task than migrating from DX9 to DX10 - I can assure you that.I think the real resistance to going with 64bit is that it would require a re-work of the scenery engine to effectively use the additional address space along with the fact they would need two builds -- 32bit and 64bit -- but the source code could for the most part remain as one with the right compiler directives -- I'm sure Microsoft have this all worked out as they've done it before with the various 32bit/64bit flavors of WinXP and Vista.Seeing as 64bit CPUs can be had for $50 or less, I don't see much of a hardware barrier at all.Also, when I say "start from scratch" that does NOT mean all code is dumped -- rarely is ALL code dumped unless the code is very poorly written with no supporting documentation. Starting from scratch means optimizing the design (NOT just the code) for today's hardware with an eye on future hardware and most likely re-using a good chunk of existing code and re-work other chunks.

Not to worry. FS will eventually go 64-bit. Whether this is FS11 or some later build, it will eventually happen.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Well, you seem to have more knowledge then me in this subject so perhaps FS11 will go 64bit. I guess I wouldn't mind it! If you think about it, FSX should keep people plenty satisfied for some time to come. This might be a good opportunity for ACES to spend a large chuck of time (like 4 years) rebuilding and developing a new hardware optimized version - with full 64bit and DX10. I have faith ACES will do the right thing - what ever it is!

>Not to worry. FS will eventually go 64-bit. Whether this is>FS11 or some later build, it will eventually happen.It will become a 64-bit app as soon as 80%+ of the target user base have 64bit machines......which can be as long or as short a time as you might care to imagine... ;)

I don't know where or why you make that assumption? Where did this 80% number come from? When a 64bit CPU is 80% target is even relevant.This CPU will run circles around your P4: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103037 and is $54.99There will be a group of people that always try to extend the life of their hardware as long as possible - fair enough - same happened with CD to DVD drive hold outs. But for the gaming world, the bar of minimal hardware requirements along with obvious affordability of current hardware -- you will not find there is a magical 80% number. A quick google search and I've found anything from 70%-90% home computers are 64bit capable, but none of the sources I would trust. So please do share you source -- IDC is one of the few sources I trust in terms of market research (probably because a long time ago I used to work for them and know the process) and I can't find any public numbers from them.Hopefully your not suggesting everyone should wait til your ready to upgrade to a 64bit capable processor? ;)Robin.

The Valve Steam survey still shows 75% of everyone on single cores, http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html, so I believe the installed base of 64-bit machines that can actually run FSX is a small subset of the overall market.I think what Bill is getting at is, its hard for Flight Sim to move tht way until the market has moved that way. That is just economic reality. We cannot target a small subset of the market. We wont win approval for the project that way.

Single core is not relevant to the CPU being a 64bit processor -- so I'm not sure how relevant that info from Steam is? Main stream affordable 64bit processors were out long long before dual core and now quad core CPUs.That aside, why did you bother with multi-CPU support in FSX if your market was only 25%? (but again this has nothing to do with 64bit)I know exactly what Bill is getting at and like I said, if you can find reliable numbers on 64bit capable CPU market share then please do. IDC is a great source but costs money to get their data -- that's part of how they make a living. Market research data can be golden when you know what to look for, hence why IDC costs.As far as economics, I agree -- as I've pointed out 64Bit CPUs are being sold as little as $25 -- this IS an economic reality.

I use the Valve survey to show how speculative the multi-core work already was. Its one of the few gamer surveys that is kept current; so its a good estimation of hw out in the real world.Moving to 64-bit is even more speculative.The cost doesnt matter. The market share does. It could be 1 dollar, but if no one was buying it dosent matter. 64-bit CPU market share on the desktop is low.

Ok so I'm still not sure why you equate that survey with 64bit capable CPU market base?It's all speculative so I'm not sure your point? Even purchasing IDC data still requires some speculation, but it's a lot more accurate than using Valve survey or EA's or anyone elses -- trust me, I've worked for them, these folks go well beyond what Valve can do -- it's their business to do so.You have NOT shown any evidence that 64bit CPU market share is low? All you've done is pointed to single core (again, nothing to do with 64bit) numbers from a single survey source (Valve's Steam) of which you don't even know how many FS'ers use Steam?