I guess really the ball is in ACES hands now. If they are going to go about FS11 a totally new way in regards to building a new scenery engine (for lack of more technical speak), I hope they get the 3rd parties involved early on and go forward with it. What I sense now in the community is the majority of the people (me included) have finally realized that for this franchise to succeed, we are going to have to get behind ACES and let them start with a fresh slate so to speak and do away with back compat for the next generation of this sim. We all MUST allow them to do this otherwise I forsee the end if FS11 is anything like FSX was. Many will just throw their hands up and go to things like xbox like that 3rd party dev said many posts ago. I think we need a fresh slate so that this sim we all love can be allowed to re-energize us and get us all excited to fly again using it. To think of the possiblities of all new lighting techniques with regards to the sun, going under a cloud deck, clouds shadowing, terrain, performance, etc... will get us all back in the saddle so to speak and everyone in the community on the same page...no more dual platform stuff like we have now with FS9/FS10 (which will last likley until FS11).But like I said, none of this is possible without ACES doing it. So again I end like I began, the ball is in ACES court.

>Steve, I want to thank you again for starting this>discussion: it's the mostly useful and productive thread on>any MSFS forum I can recall.>>Some of that of course is just sharing the pain, and purging>the frustration, but I think that's cathartic and there are>useful and productive suggestions here for the future, both>for developers and Aces.>>Well done, all.>>JonAnd to add to that, we should thank ACES via Phil for their participation in this thread which in my recollection has never happened with this level of openness and candour. All sides in this debate should be congratulated and encouraged to continue in this vein.Well done all,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

i love lamp......(after 16 pages i felt the need to throw something in)!!!Josh:)

I believe the discussion can be boiled down to a simple truth,Sp2/Accel ( AS IS )remains the only currently supported version insofar as Microsoft is concerned, they have moved on.. so should we .There are no other checkboxes on the dropdown menu.

Not sure if it has been said in all these pages but the thing that seems so strange to me is that these major changes have been brought in with a service pack.With regards compatibility with older aircraft etc. then, as far as I'm concerned, they can abandon all that if its requried to progress with a new engine etc. but you don't make changes like that in an SP you leave it until the next major version.SP2 should have concentrated on fixing the bugs from SP1 and RTM. Adding the DX10 preview should have been seen as an additional option (even though it was a promised thing from the start)Instead they decided to have a stab at a couple of bugs, totally ignore some others that had been brought to their attention months before and make changes that would break things for other users. That is not what a service pack is for...The only thing that has affected me with SP2 is the vsync issue. I now have to force it on in the drivers but just something as simple as this... why the need to change it? - or were they hoping the extra few fps gained by unlocking the sync may be seen as a gain purely from SP2?

Wait until you need to update monthly.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

For the past two years I have thought that a flight sim would do much better as a well-designed open source project because of the great complexity involved in a realistic flight sim. MS would shudder at the thought; however, there is a place for a for-profit company working in conjunction with an open source project. MS could help in splitting up the project into intelligent sections (flight dynamics, scenery, environment, ATC, etc) and assign a few of their top programmers to work with the project and retain a right to market and advertise the sim within their own package to make a profit, probably adding new airplanes, scenery and situations as with Acceleration. Developers would know very early what is in the core code and could already have products available at the release of a new version. There would be no secrets or surprises. 3PDs would definitely want to be part of the open source project as they have a vested interest in having a stable, cutting edge and marketable sim.There are examples of this working already such as Netscape with the Firefox code and Sun, IBM and RedFlag with the OpenOffice.org code plus all the Linux versions running the internet.MS has been open to a certain extent, which has allowed 3PDs to develop the many add-ons which are available. In view of the rather anemic move of consumers from FS9 to FSX after 14 months, they would be wise to rethink their strategy and go the next step for the good of flight simming.The fact is that console gaming is blowing PC gaming out of the water. I was rather amazed as a COD player when COD3 was not even released on the PC--although COD4 is now out for the PC. As someone earlier has suggested, this is primarily due to the difficulty and expense of getting everything running right between the software, hardware, drivers, etc. PC gaming software developers really have to come to grips with this problem to keep PC games competitive.Ben

Ben, we wouldn't hold our breath until MSFS beomes open source. Nice dream but probably not realistic.:-)Microsoft is not a company that is bent toward assigning its folks to assist open source people.If Microsoft were to drop further PC FS Development in favor of Xbox FS Development then dedicated PC based flightsimmers would be frozen to the current offerings until some enterprising group decided the PC Flight Simulation market is still strong enough to warrant development of a brand new sim.If we are hearing correctly, MS is committed to at least vNext with the possibility of a complete or heavily altered rewrite which would not promise backwards compatibility.Hardware/Driver folks are making great strides to accomodate DX10 for the flagship Vista OS and now FSX. The advent of Dual and Quad core CPU's, faster memmory, greater FSB speeds, means that those who upgrade hardware benefit the most whether it is desktop or FS.My own recent hardware upgrade amazes me....no crazy tweaking, just flat out enjoyment:-)

Phil,Don't forget the hobbyist/little-guy developer (which is how all the heavy-hitters started out) with this new plan. I hear the word "cost" and become concerned. I would hope this conversion tool would become part of the SDK.Jeff

Open Source ?I shudder to think..... FS..... designed by a committee.It would remain forever a "work in progress" -- like X-Plane.After reading this, and other similar threads, I'm beginning to think the experiment by ACES to involve 3PD's is slowly going awry.Maybe they need to take it back to WYSIWYG.Cal - CYXX

Same here on the hardware upgrade-amazing!Only tweak I did was to set autogen buildings at 0 and set trees to the max. No performance change but just looks more realistic to me.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

"After reading this, and other similar threads, I'm beginning to think the experiment by ACES to involve 3PD's is slowly going awry."Not really, just getting the parties back to the same page.:-)

This an astute point worth visiting...For freeware to remain viable, the tools required to target the SDK must not be cost-prohibitive. Assuming that a hobbyist/freeware guy doesn't pirate, a tool lik 3DSMax is VERY expensive. Gmax is a godsend for the freeware guy and if "vNext" only accepts the output from a $3000.00 modeling tool then you can expect to see the freeware landscape dry up. Many of the top pros all started modestly as freeware folks.Gmax, FSDS, AF99 and Flight Factory are all tools I've dabbled with and all were offered at a price which was/is friendly to the freeware/hobbyist.In ACES' new openness with the community it seems that most fanfare and attention is afforded to ACES' cooperation and working relationship with the well-established 3rd Party studios. It is cost-effective for these pro-level 3rd party develoepers to invest in pro-level tools, but the 3rd party market got its start using the cheap tools I mention above.Phil/ACES, as you plan FS11 (vNext), please don't trend towards tools that the "little guy" can't easily access/afford. The use of open and existing standards (like XML) is also welcome.Thanks,Jeff

Hi Steve,It's 0140 here in Scotland and I've just read this fascinating thread - can't sleep not flying again 'til 3rd Jan so I need to unwind out of "roster pattern".I recognise your name from the Flight1 boards over the years and thought I would re-iterate the sentiment that you're a name to be trusted. To be fair that goes for Flight One as a company as well - credibility established the hard way and ethically in my view re service and product fixes/enhancements.Just thought I'd congratulate you on the thread... now if only I could get SP2 to install (error 2908 followed by 0x80131700 !)... or perhaps I should let sleeping dogs lie.SP1 was a disaster to install and I really don't fancy a full install again. Still it's all part of Microsoft's famed "lower Total cost of ownership" - three days lost re-installing and configuring :-lol Keep up the good work, and best wishes for the festive season.RegardsAlex757 DriverEdinburgh

Alex, don't be discouraged. Many of us have had nothing but positive results from SP2.I've seen great improvement personally and many of the Team Members report the same.Oh, and we'll echo the respect that Steve and the F1 group deserves. That's why we have used their wrapper system from day one:-)Happy Holidays