I'd still be prepared to bet that even after the supposed "rewrite", a surprising amount of the original code will remain. As it should, because presumably not all of it is broken.On the other hand I don't think anyone ever argued that a major overhaul to take full advantage of modern graphics cards and multi-core CPUs would be a bad thing.Colin

"Who wants to theorize as to what the 2nd top feature is ..."Dude ... two words:Foamy whitecaps.;)

>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....>>>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/IMO, It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. IF at all possible, if there is a migration path to bring over "Legacy" aircrafts and Sceneries, it would be profitable for everyone. I understand, a major overhaul like a complete rewrite may require complete cut off from the past. But if that happens every 2-3 years (a new sim version comes along), that's not such a good idea.Manny

that would be rendering features for Trains, since that is the next release.its going to be a while before we get to any Flight features that have no overlap with Trains.if you take a moment to think about it, that makes perfect sense.

I was extremely happy to see Aces so forthcoming in their assessment of the poor performace of FSX (and the dire need to move forward with something fresh for TS2 and beyond). I think that everyone (except those who kept telling us everything is fine, shut up and be greatful, etc) felt that something broke the back of MSFS with the release of FSX. However, without Aces confirmation, it was all academic.From what I could glean from that little gem of info: take a look at the performance of FS9 which is mostly the same code as FSX but screams with "very good" visuals. Take a look at the performance of FSX, mostly the same code as FS9 but limps along with "excellent" visuals.It looks like that "old engine that could" could only take MSFS as far as FS9. When FSX came with spectacular reflections, 1m texture, et al, that poor "engine that could" said "HECK NO I CAN'T!!!" and went teets up :-lolI'm excited again knowing what the powers at Aces are working on with TS2 and beyond, no skeptical thoughts here...hardware rendering is your friend! Besides was FSX really worth the "backward compatibility"? Most pre FSX scenery doesn't work and many pre FSX aircraft don't work anyway so it was still necessary to start from scratch with addons with FSX.The best is yet to come!

These guys are seriously just wasting their time. They do not have the skills to build a decent graphics engine in house. They should outsource this to Crytek and focus on the content only.Crysis has a "secret" photo realistic "ultra high" mode that makes FSX look like a relic. And this coupled with this fact that the environment is fully interactive and breakable.The other thing to remember this code had already been shipping.. since last year!! And it contains a full featured sandbox editor to boot!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190183.jpg

>These guys are seriously just wasting their time. They do not>have the skills to build a decent graphics engine in house.>They should outsource this to Crytek and focus on the content>only.>>Crysis has a "secret" photo realistic "ultra high" mode that>makes FSX look like a relic. And this coupled with this fact>that the environment is fully interactive and breakable.>>The other thing to remember this code had already been>shipping.. since last year!! And it contains a full featured>sandbox editor to boot!>Oh boy, here we go again! :-roll

Dear dazza,> .. They should outsource this to Crytek .. Here's just one little nasty fact to burst that dream bubble:Quote from http://www.crytek.com/technology/cryengine-2/specifications/ :"This feature allows optimal usage of CPU and memory to display closer objects and terrain at a fine level of detail while enabling long view distances of over 8 kilometers."So how much is 'over 8 kilometers' ? Well it's not over 9 kilometers, otherwise they would say so. Maybe it is 8192 (= 2^13) meters.So what should a CryEngine2 based FS 11 should draw beyond 9 km ? 100 % opaque haze ? A brickwall ? Nothing (black emptyness) ? Or a huge banner "stay tuned for CryEngine v3 in 201x" ?I you have some elaborated brilliant ideas how to improve the FS engine, lets hear and discuss them.Or, to get filthy rich and famous, grab the sources of FlightGear ( http://www.flightgear.org/ ), implement them yourself and show MS Aces how it should be done ..However, remember that Phil Taylor spent several years at ATI and in the DirectX team. It might get pretty hard to show him a trick he doesnt already know.Kind regards, Martin

Why would I want to fly a plane through a bunch of trees?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

>Why would I want to fly a plane through a bunch of trees?>>Jim>Sshhh, dont tell anyone, but thats the magic dx10 screenie of cryteks upcoming bird simulator ..SCNR ;-P

So this is a poop scoop?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Your incredibly naive and gullible.Have you not even tried Crysis and flown the planes and helicopters?This is a video of the spitfire in Crysis. As you can see the graphics are amazing and embarrass Microsoft developers.

They know what Microsoft do not: How to write cutting edge scaleable software.

Steve Heijster from ACES is a fantastic guy to play Guitar Hero II with.

:-hang

Oh Mandy!-those trees ,leaves,and light look great at 19.6 fps!I think as a pilot a view like that would be bad news however-I think I'd prefer this view at twice the fps....if I ever saw scenery like that I'd be dead...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=273245&page=http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/