That's logical and realistic. I think those of us who are not programmers are prone to underestimating the complexity of getting these enormous applications to "run faster". Evidently this is not the sort of terrain that can be leapt in ten league boots; one step at a time is the order of the day; so it is probably best to remain hopeful while keeping one's own expectations properly measured - and, I suggest, trying to keep other people's feet on the ground too. Tim

Someone above pointed out that non-programmers have a hard time understanding how difficult it is to make big changes to a large code base. The other thing I think they have a hard time understanding is how difficult it is to maintain two separate branches of the same code base, i.e. an old and a new, particularly if relatively complex changes are happening on each one.It increases the work load by perhaps not quite a factor of two, but not far off, especially when you take testing into account.So I'm quite happy that they're leaving FSX alone. Patching it further would just delay FS11.Colin

One thing folks should keep in mind:Trains are not airplanes! What I mean is that TrainSim has some different requirements from FlightSim.For instance, your train should never reach 30,000 feet altitude, unless maybe your conductor lights a smoke the instant he crashes your consist loaded with pure methane into another train loaded with cheesy bean burritos. On the other hand, in aircraft, you spend much less time looking into poor peoples' back yards than you would in a train (thank you Sarah Silverman, for that quote).Close-up model and texture effects and ground-based graphics would be the norm for TrainSim. Hundreds of permutatable and repeatable objects and textures are the norm for FlightSim. While there is some overlap in terms of their implementation, there are also some unique hurdles that the new FlightSim will have to overcome. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

>Hi ,>>and why no update for current FSX.>>Can`t belive it is impossible..........Why? That should be obvious... there's no more money in the budget, and they have everyone busy working on the core platform, TS2, ESP2, and FSvNext! :)Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't enjoy chewing the same bit of cabbage forever! :-scatter

>One thing folks should keep in mind:>>Trains are not airplanes! >>What I mean is that TrainSim has some different requirements>from FlightSim.>>For instance, your train should never reach 30,000 feet>altitude, unless maybe your conductor lights a smoke the>instant he crashes your consist loaded with pure methane into>another train loaded with cheesy bean burritos. >Or if you expose the crownsheet on the boiler. Not so much an issue with Diesels though.

>Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't enjoy>chewing the same bit of cabbage forever! >:-scatter Hey Bill! What do you have against cabbage!!! Easy up now, we don't want to start a flame war over cabbage.:-outtaVicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.65Evga 680i A1 with P31 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx XG 174.74 702/1620/792Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpg

>One of the main>reasons that FSX had so many issues is that the graphics>engine was originally made for software rendering, which has>far different requirements and expectations. The change to>hardware and multi-threading did not suit it well. We hope to>improve that this time around.">>"FSX was never intended to be a software rasterizer, but its>engine is based on a bunch of the previous Flight Simulators>before it, so it gets to inherit some of the nastiness of them>as well as the good."That's really funny. In the past, when people in this forum complained about the inadequacy of MSFS engine exactly for those same reasons, they were usually quickly dismissed and labeled as whiners from the I-Know-It-All kind of guys. :)Marco

>>That's really funny. In the past, when people in this forum>complained about the inadequacy of MSFS engine exactly for>those same reasons, they were usually quickly dismissed and>labeled as whiners from the I-Know-It-All kind of guys. :)>>Marco>Even funnier... some of the "know-it-all" types actually recognized that the reason was due to backwards compatibility. Something I see people screaming about all the time."I bought "product x" for MSFS [ver#], what do you mean it doesn't work with MSFS [ver#]? That's absurd!!!"So... enjoy your chuckle... while the "know-it-all" types enjoy theirs. ;)

>Even funnier... some of the "know-it-all" types actually>recognized that the reason was due to backwards compatibility.And do you know what's even funnier? Some of those people were saying that a rewriting of the graphics engine for MSFS was not desirable nor to be expected. Well, seems like ACES finally proved the "whiners" right. He who laughs last... :)Marco

Seems a leap to me.Some want backwards compatibility-some want the future...The last laugh is what makes the most profit for MS-and that will be the next version I am sure. Whining either way for sure-what we do best....http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Ha ha, correct Geof:-)

Great, no more patching of that crap engine. Hopefully the next version will even heat up the graphics card :-lol

Still... Who wants to theorize as to what the 2nd top feature is apart from performance, see Phil's comment above which says "it is also fair to say we are doing a lot of work on the engine and right now performance is in the top 2 features so it is not an afterthought."* Better lighting? Even raytracing support ie Larrabee?* Better physics maybe?* Better SimConnect interface, opening up much more of the internals?* Better AI, ATC?* Better weather depiction, cloud shadows, rain, etc?Any thoughts?

As a ground based design wannabee, I hope it relates to terrain and airports. The troubles that exist because of the level airport problem are insurmountable. Now trying to do some airport modifications, the limitations of the textures both in numbers and blending don't allow someone to try to make things "As real as it gets!"

Yes sloping runways would be nice!