I read from the official FSX Q & A on this site that FSX will be backwards compatible. There appears to be a deffinate statement to this effect and if true would be a welcome feature.

Possibly there could be some confusion on the exact meaning of backwards compatibility.

From the Q & A you can understand if people think FSX aircraft will work with say FS9.

I strongly suspect this will not be the case and what MS actually mean is FSX will accept FS9 aircraft.

Truly this represents forward compatibility on the part of FS9, and NOT backwards on the part of FSX.

Some might be preparing to buy FSX on the strength of this claim alone.

I do feel this is a point needing clarification, along with some info on how FSX will be coded. i.e. XML ?
If it is XML I personally won't bother with this sim, CFS3 was enough.

Impressive screenshots !! From these you can see high comp specs are needed. Maybe this could be the excuse I need for an upgrade

I wonder if FSX will run on a MAC via X-Platform ?

Regards all
Jasper

Quote:


The XML language has been around long enough for addon developers to understand and utilize [look at Bill Lyon's freeware addons]. Even scenery developers are familiar with it since the XML is useful for placing library objects within FS. And don't forget, the latest gauges are now XML-based [which is much easier compared to the old format].

CFS3 was a completely different engine. That was M$'s setback. In the case of the XML, developers like it because it allows a full range of options when creating animated parts and effects [like the rain drops on the DVC windshield] when creating Visual Models.

Most of the members in the FS community are already aware of the backwards-compatability issue and are already aware on which way it works for years. We then pass on that knowledge to newbies who are new to FS [just like what you're doing right now].

So, XML is already here and has stayed here for over a year because everyone likes it. A lot of people didn't like CFS3 because of the way the game engine worked.

If you are to get any of these huge great advancements from previous versions of FS then backwards compatability will go out the window.

Quote:



gotta be careful, cause only the latter models of FS2002 would be compatible with FS9, and thus FSX.

Ramos

TacitBlue makes a wise point about the FSX flight engine, doubting it will be as good or better.

From the screenshots released this sim does look very impressive, I think most people will have realised this product is only going to run properly on high-end systems.

Personally, I would build a new system specially for this sim but am holding back for one main reason: 'the flight engine'

There are rumours to say that FSX will be a combat sim, whether or not this is true I don't know but I hope the thing doesn't include a multiplay file checker along with lousey dynamics. That would spoil it.

I had to 're-write' the CFS3 jets as stand-alones because of this.

We shall see  but fact is MS have not as yet released enough info. Maybe they havn't decided themselves which way FSX is going.

P.S. anyone know of a good M/Board with PCI express, 3Ghz+ that will boot from SCSI Ultra360 ?

Regards
Jasper

Quote:


Well and Gigabyte or Asus LGA775 boards will do fine, but I doubt that your gonna find a SCSI port sorry

Cheers
Cameron

It should boot from that, cant see why it wouldnt

Cheers
Cameron

Meanwhile, back on subject ... 

Quite a number of my FS2002 aircraft work fine in FS9 (with some dynamics tweaking) - but there are some that don't, strangely. These are the Freeware Flight Group's (FFG) 737 models. Being something of a 737 collector, FFG's -900 was one of the very few -900s out there, and was excellent in FS2002. However, the engine interiors disappear in FS9, leading me to suspect that the FFG 737s were originally designed for FS2000 and upgraded. (Having to use a flyable Aardvark -900 at the moment until someone designs a bespoke -900!)

So I really do hope that FSX will be compatible enough to be able to use my current collection. Otherwise, I can't see me buying it immediately, or at least until enough addons are available to make it worth while....

I guess that it's always going to be a challenge for the developers to move forward with software like FS, where so many talented people out there go to great lengths to write addons for the current version of it. Doesn't happen in many other software products as far as I'm aware.

An alternative might be for the developers to cover all the bases and provide a complete range of addons with the product as 'standard' - but then who in these forums would want that? Half the fun is with tinkering and adding things on.

On a constructive note - at least it would challenge the current sim population to get busy PDQ!

Quote:


CFS3 only failed because it had a different engine than all the other sims in the past [except FS95 and earlier]. If M$ continues to use the same engine as usual, then FS will live on. And right now, there is a 99% chance that M$ will still use the old engine since they are concerned about compatibility.

$10 says that FSX will not fail.

BTW, making a sim [let alone the whole world] is a daunting task and all sims are prone to errors [like video game glitches]. Look at Orbiter Space Flight Simulator. The   sim crashed to the desktop whenever you orbit too long [especially if you are traveling from planet to planet]. X-Plane is not immune either. They still have to fix the water landings [seaplanes tend to bouce too much] and it should have a simpler Aircraft Maker program. So, as the old saying goes:

"Nobody is perfect."

Quoted:CFS3 only failed because it had a different engine than all the other sims.


Actually the flight engine in CFS3 is the same as FS2002.

Problems with poor modelling in the flight engine do seem common to all versions.  Examples are: ground speed scaling, and altitude factoring in particular with jets to name but two faults.

What we are talking about here is not rocket science for the developers at MS, there are issues with all MS sims which for some bizarre reason just reappear with each version. I am sure these are not the result of error but are deliberate, possibly down to some marketing strategy.

It could be that MS wants to clearly deffine their product as a game, rather than a simulator. A 'simulator' in the true sense would demand certain basic attributes correctly modelled, and for MS this means the danger of a standardised product which is good for us but not good for them. In other words, if they make a perfect product they would put themselves out of business.

Better from a sales point of view to effectively keep it as a game, and keep on selling new versions.

I have read quite a lot about FSX on the net and it is interesting to see most of the sim community has common views about MS, FSX and sims in general. I think what is happening now is that the community has matured to the point where much will be expected of this latest offering, and they will expect to see none of the endemic traits of the other versions.

"Please MS, no more springy bouncy stall ridden pitch"

Regards all
jasper

Quote:

I was inclined to agree with you on this Kat but after reading his comments carefully Jasper is referring to the flight model, not the graphics engine. http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/readers_faq.asp
Quote:

lol