Hej to anyone,

what do you think, will the next flight simulator (Microsoft Flight) work with todays addons? Maybe someone has something new about that.

I hope so, but I think probably it will not be compatible. What do you think?


Josh

You can write comments or feedback to Microsoft Flight. I did that to tell them, that I would not buy the next Flight Simulation if it is not fully compatible with FSX-addons for the reason Edwin has already said.

Everyone should do this as well. Maybe they will react.

Feedback e-mail: msflight@microsoft.com


Alex

There is always the possibility that there may be backwards compatibility. FSX does have it, but some modifications were needed to make them look better. That is why there was a flood of FSX updates to the then current FS9 addons (at least there was with aircraft). Over time there came the native FSX addon aircraft. It just took the developers a while to learn the new ways of FSX. It might be the same for Microsoft Flight. Only time will tell.

I had not bothered with scenery addons in FS9. I have only done that since FSX. So I can't really say that side went.

Well that's my two bobs worth.

Mark

EDIT: Microsoft's policy on the MS Flight Simulator series has always been that they are made for computers that are not yet available. This, supposedly, means that they will have a longer life. I know it took me a few years before I had a powerful enough computer to be able to get a good performance from FS9. It was/is the same for FSX.

"make FSX add-on's compatible in MS Flight"

There in lies the very problem that we have today. In order to ensure new products are compatible with old ones means old code must also be retained. Because a certain level of backward compatibility has always been maintained in MSFS, equates to a lot of the problems we have today when it comes to FPS issues. Some of the code in FSX dates back as far as FS 2000, and the only way to make it run fast is with sheer computer horsepower. It is likely a fact that if Microsoft threw away any and all compatibility that you would actually see a much faster, much more capable simulator. In fact you would get more detail with less computer resources. Sometimes in order to fix something, one has to completely break it. I'm getting the impression that this is what Microsoft has in fact done.

At first this may cause fear, naturally as add-on's can certainly add up on the financial side. But at the same time, it also allows developers to introduce new features that can never be implemented under the present code being used without once again unacceptable performance hits or requiring even more PC horsepower, which is really a bad way of going about it. This is why FSX requires so much PC horsepower, it's using 10 year old inefficient code. One must take some joy in the fact that the models themselves are always going to be pretty much forward compatible, it's the systems and flight dynamics that will need to be re-done which will take the most investment in time. This gives me comfort that the C.S. models in use today, will eventually migrate into any new simulator that Microsoft puts out after the system reworking has been done. One such example is working weather radar. Currently it is impossible to do with the current coding in FSX. If "new" old format coding/subroutines were inserted into the program, your computer would now be even further bogged down. Simply put, when it comes to flight simulators, a major rework is in order. Just making a 64 bit version alone would create huge improvements even with current specs of mid range computer rigs.

In conclusion, it is actually the desire to retain the past, that keeps us from moving forward where we currently should be and want to be. If this was not the case, all programs today would be 64 bit code and we would all be enjoying the leaps and bounds that it possess, but instead, we still see most programs still using the very old less efficient 32 bit system and we remain within its confines. Why? Because most people still use 32 bit systems, and are lucky to upgrade hardware every 8 - 10 years. Although I too hate it, I have come to understand that to get the flight simulator I seek in the future with all the features I want, Microsoft needs to finally tear down the 15 year old building, and start from scratch and use technology from 2010 forward, to create a leaner, meaner, and more resource efficient flight simulator. Doing so will not discard FSX third party content, it will just mean they; (third party creators), will have to reprogram it and adopt its newer more capable features. In the end we will all benefit from it and eventually realize that at some time, this must happen for improvements to continue in our little addiction.

Cheers,
Thad

great observation, High! as a retired software exec, I concur with all your comments. A clean slate MSFS would be great. Users of previous versions could still use them until ready to move on. The flight sim community seems robust enough to welcome a fresh entry.

One could speculate if not M$ will provide instant, downloadable add-ons?! They'd control who can make and provide scenery, planes etc. and skim off on those purchases. Score is 2-0 for M$.

Bjorn

If Microsoft Flight starts out like FS9 and FSX, I'll buy it, but my computer will probably not run it very well. It always takes me around three years to get a powerful enough computer after every release. I even had that problem with FS98!

Karolina wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

The worst part about the release of a new version of Flight Sim, is the learning of the new creation method required. That's why it can take a while for the next generation addons to make an appearance.

nightflyer wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 3:18am:
I'm with you 100% on that. Many won't. They have paid a lot of money for their addons and not being able to carry them forward upsets them.

As you say. Backwards compatibility is holding up the of advancement Flight Simulator. It's time to move on. Let's hope that MS Flight is a completely new flight simulator.

Mark