>...we are dropping FS9 compatibility.Very sensible decision.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Joe, My Dad used to say: "Wish in one hand and s* in the other. Wishes are nice but usually not practical. As long as I have used MSFS which has been since 1984 it has always been billed as a Flight Simulator; NOT and ATC simulator nor weather simulator. I believe that MSFS has always given us a very good package for the amount of money that it is sold for. I also believe that because they give us the basics as far as ATC, and reasonable weather gerneration that we get quite a lot for the amount of money the AVERAGE person is willing to spend on a game or simulation. By doing this they leave plenty of room for the developers to do what they do best and that is to create both aircraft,weather modeling and add-on gauges that the hard core simmer wants as opposed to the average user who just wants to get in and fly. As hard as it might be to believe I think that MS actually expects to make a profit after receiving no returns during the development period. Sure they could add on all the bells and whistles but all it would do is price the game out of reach of the average user. If it only appealed to the hard core FS enthusiasts the average joe would opt out because of the price both limiting the marketability of the product thus limiting the return on their investment. There are many games/simulators out there but I have yet to find one that achieves the realism and graphics of MSFS which encompasses the enitre planet. And that's my take on it. Craig

It is certainly a goal to keep compatability with FSX content, yes.Would we require a re-export through the SDK to update content headers? Or just load as-is? Unknown at this time, except we know we need to keep the effort the 3PDs need to expend there low.

>FSX .dds texture format scares me because it almost reminds me>of the introduction of GMAX in FS2002 to replace FSDS1, then>in FS2004, FSDS1 models weren't even compatible. I fear that>.dds might be the only texture format recognized in FS11,>which, if that happens, you would probably see most people>stick with FS9/FSX or run dual sims to be able to run their>models that don't have .dds mapping. Especially being an>aircraft repainter myself, I would like my textures for FS2004>aircraft to be able to be used in the next flight sim.I don't wish to 'hijack' the topic, but I simply cannot allow this misconception to remain unaddresed.Ron, DDS format is nothing to be scared of. The only difference between a DDS/DXT5/3/1 image and a DXT3/1 BMP image is that the DDS format has been "pre-flipped vertically." This is done for performance reasons.By having all textures saved "pre-flipped," it eliminates the need for the sim to do so before blitting them into the video stream... :-smile12In fact, to demonstrate just how benign DDS format is, take any of your FS9 SDK built models, convert the current bitmaps to DDS format, and note that they will load and display perfectly in FSX... :-hah Now, to add my 2cents to the actual topic, what I'd like to see is more robust and fuller access to the sim itself via the SDK. Right now, in order to accomplish some goals - such as a full FMS/FMC - we devs have to resort to some truly mind-bending 'tricks' to obtain the data needed. In fact, in some cases we have to create our own databases since the information needed is IN the sim's DB, but is completely inaccessable via the standard SDK paradigm.Similarly, with regards to such things as a "Weather Radar" the data needed is completely inaccessible without resorting to way too many "outside the SDK methods," which makes development costs rise to rediculous levels, and compatibility with the basic core platform problematic.

Always been basically my take too. Couple things though:It's a wonder default atc doesn't just quit with what we've thrown at it thus far :) but I would like to see a bit more volume handling capacity somehow straight out the box. Right now one needs an accelerated voicepack, increased taxi speeds, and 'aismooth' to help out.Weather - the wind transitions thing - be nice to get this tamed fully. Even the best autothrottles struggle when these occur.Finally - given (in pc timeframes) reasonably decent, modern hardware - performance, performance, performance - the heart and soul of it all, the fps without which all else is rendered naught.regards,Mark

<<>>Exactly right Bill!

I don't have any specific requests right now, but I'm delighted to here that FS9 will be dropped. It annoys me that FS9 (albeit a great product) is still so popular. I can't help think that progress isn't and won't be made until more people adopt the newer platform. It seems some add-on developers are being forced to continue to develop for FS9, forums get confused between FS9 and FSX and it becomes a complete mess. I'd personally like to see every add-on released from now just for FSX. I realise this might be a little controversial..but hey..just my opinion.Rich.

Weather is such an important aspect of aviation thus, a kick a** weather engine for realitic conditions and proper graphical depiction is foremost on my list. That obviously includes correcting the wind shift issues, visibility transitioning etc etc. Regards, Kendall#1: [email protected]/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 4GB Ballistix Tracers PC6400 EVGA 8800GT - 174.74 beta Seagate 250GB 7200.11 CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 - X800XT Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

Rich,<>That's a ridiculous statement! I don't understand why you would be annoyed. I have both FS9 and FSX and use them both. Which do I prefer? Probably FS9 because it looks great with all the 3rd party addons and I get three times the fps I do with FSX.People aren't forced to buy the new version. They'll buy it if they prefer it to FS9. The fact that so many haven't shows FSX was flawed and do a degree remains so. At the time it was released not even the most powerful harware could run it effectively. At computer fairs here in the UK the performance of FSX on Microsoft's PCs must have embarrassed their staff enormously. SP1 helped a lot but only now - 20 months into its life cycle is it possible to get decent performance.Commercial developers aren't daft. Why work on developing packages for FSX when so few have embraced it? Things are improving now but many developers are keeping buyers happy by releasing packages for both versions for the price of one. That is unprecdented and tells you a great deal about FSX.How does the saying go? You can fool some of the people some of the time or all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. FSX was released 12 months too early.If FSX hasn't sold well it's because DX10 was a mess and its release preceeded Vista. I'm sure Microsoft won't make that sort of mistake again.

As an fs9 only user I agree with you, the platform must cut strings and move on clean. I do think however that the mess is due largely to last point I made about performance. It truly underpins all else, and fs9 spoiled us rOtten :) - especially us heavy iron flyers. We were already engorged on candy but with fps to spare, and it means more to us than anything the wonderful FSX could offer. To my surprise we seem to wield quite a lot of financial power in this market.Having skipped FSX I certainly look forward however to reinvesting in my second favourite hobby with new hardware and a clean slate in future. It can only get better I'm sure.regards,Mark

Ray,A little unfair of you to call it a 'ridiculous statement'. I did say it was just my opinion. I just feel that we can't move on if we carry on like we are. It's almost like one step forwards two steps back. I agree that FSX came with its fair share of problems initially. I really hope that lessons were learnt there.Yeah..developers want to make money..so they bow to the masses ;)Rich.

Rich,<>I always think carefully before sitting Post but I couldn't think what other term to use. Would you expect people to blindly move to a flawed version just because it is the latest version? No, I'm sure you wouldn't. Many would have switched to FSX if they didn't need the power of a Krell to get decent performance. Why switch to a new version and watch your frame rates plummet?Many people stayed with FS9 because it would have been ridiculous for them to spend a lot of money that still wouldn't have given them decent performance. I meant no personal insult to you Rich but didn't your statement answer itself?Why would I give up a version I have heavily invsted in for over 2 years and switch to a version that wouldn't run effectively with my 128Mb 9800 Pro card. Many people couldn't afford the sort of computer needed to run FSX so they had no alternative but to stay with FS9.Then there are people like myself who probably could afford a new PC but with all the despair around DX10 and Vista I just felt the timing wasn't right a year ago. I recently build a new PC and FSX is now pretty decent but with my only 3rd party airport (Heathrow) frame rates drop to around 12 on approach and that is with stock Ai at 40%. With the same airport in FS9 and with Ultimate Traffic at 100& it's 35+. Which one to use? What do you think? :-)

With regard to the windlayer then it happens in real life too. especially around a jetstream and also with large tempeture changes.martin

unknown at this time, all I can say is they will cause a lot of work if we need to keep them.

I want the ability for Addon scenery vendors to do custom Taxiway and Runway textures without any back door work. We have lost this in FSX and it has done too much harm when it comes to Airport sceneries!:)MannyApart from that,1. Ability to use multiple PCs (Networked PC Setup for Sims)2. True Multi Core support