frankla

sorry..double posts.

Thats a bad move. Jeesh. PC gaming is becoming a niche in and by itself.

How do they patch console games?

To me FS5 was okay. I hated the FS95/ FS98 look. The scenery looked like a moving land fill.

The word "features" (plural) is disheartening a little. I assume multiplayer is just a single feature. So what would the others be? Did they explain it in the article? Good find Jamie, somehow the view from top is a little ..well...underwhelming. I thought the docking area would be larger and blended into the adjacent scenery.

I don't know why it posted it multiple times.

Hey you said we shouldn't buy Flight because that would be rewarding Microsoft for its greedy behavior. You didn't say we shouldn't buy it because it might be a terrible software. I assume you are just trying to punish MS for some previous bad experience, not because of what your perception that Flight will be. If Flight ends up being a bad software, we won't buy it. But it has nothing to do with rewarding or not rewarding MS.P.S. Can you point me to where people have painted Flight to be so bad so as for me not to buy it if it only was half as bad? I wonder how you can speculate on it being bad if no one has used it yet.

Hey you said we shouldn't buy Flight because that would be rewarding Microsoft. You didn't say we shouldn't buy it because it might be a terrible software.

That is the most logical scenerio

Wow..I have a feeling you don't like MS. So you rather kill continued development of flight simulator than to "reward" MS. Gosh..I hope you are not like that in your relationships with people in your life. You wouldn't have anybody left.

within months of disbanding ACES they had job advertisements for work on a "flying game". That was about over 3 1/2 years ago.

Huh? Well that is a convenient way of trying to save face in case you are wrong!! With that statement you could never be wrong!

LMAO at "Folks, follow me here".

Amen. Well said. To make it multithreaded, they really have to start from scratch. Its like trying to make a sky scraper on top of an old multi story building by adding stories. It doesn't make sense to add to the old building. Its cheaper and faster to demolish the old building first. By the way It has been nearly 4 years since they started development of Flight not since they told us about it last August. Finally I wanna know how we will ever prove Alain wrong if MS never tells us about it. This could be an endless debate. Its been nearly four years. It doesn't take four years to enhance preexisting code. .That I can believe. For example, you won't need to find a way to redo the clouds if you don't intend to change them. It doesn't mean the engine is old

Good find! :(

Jeesh Alain. I am impressed too. By the way the fish are okay. LOL Darn I am jealous.

What else can we do but have fun? We are done speculating So you don't believe that is an actual screen shot?

LOL you have been on the role this month.

Is it made with collaboration with PMDG ?

Is that your trophy wife Alain?

Default airports can not be custom scenery based because there are over 24000 of them. Microsoft's job should be to allow creation of detailed scenery without significant performance penalty. Once they create that, Third party developers then can run with it and create very detailed airports you desire.

I have never had issues with you regarding your statements that microsoft wants us to buy from their store. As far as I have been involved in these forums, most people have argued with you and Mathew regarding your STRONG statements that Flight is a dressed up FSX. Even your post that you are referring to above, is about how Flight will be a repackaged FSX. No where in this video, there is a suggestion that Flight is a dressed up FSX. If anything, above video, if true, gives more reason to think you and Mathew are wrong.1) They say, It must run on todays computers, not tomorrows. It then must be multithreaded. That means you can not use the existing FSX code which is really single threaded. (You can not squeeze any more performance from FSX code. They did their best with 2 SPs.)2) They want to offer a new flight physics for 3PD. I don't see how that can be with just a reworked FSX code.Consider above and tell me how you still think Flight is still just a souped up FSX?Finally, I want to say that I have a problem with the way you and Mathew state your positions: Condescending and all mighty Know it All. You find any opening in any thread to restate the same arguments over and over again.When people stopped going over the same arguments, you complained that nobody wanted to answer you. Now you are again trying to rub it in. Why can't we just agree to disagree until we know for sure. When we do, then lets promise to not rub it in like adults that we are.

ROFLMAO

Grand Theft Auto? How so?

Your comment about "ridiculous small details" interest me because for a while I have thought that if I were Microsoft, I would eventually expand the franchise from Flight to World simulator. I really would not be surprised if they indeed plan on doing it. All the basic programming is already there, so why not? In addition to Flight you can plug Train and Ship simulators on it, you can create site seeing/trip planing modes,commercial battlefield simulations locations, etc. You can create drives to and from locations. I wouldn't be shocked if they eventually created a world in which you could create characters in it. Off coarse be prepared to see product placement in this virtual world. But hey they do that in movies now and it doesn't bother me. Are we, flight sim enthusiast, going to be excited about a possible world simulator? We should. It would make sure that millions more people will use the program and that in turn will cause the development of the platform to continue way into future.