backwards compatibility, really ?

[x_jasper]

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

[flyboy 28]

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

Probably not. If it's to be optimized for Vista, I'm almost positive that it wouldn't work for it's competition.

[Katahu]

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.

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.

[Felix/FFDS]

Backwards compatibility, as I've seen over the past FS versions,  generally means that models built for FS9 can be used in FS-X with no problems.  It probably also mean that models built for FS2002 specifically will also be FS-X compatible.

Just as FS2000 models had compatibility problems in FS9, I would not expect FS2000 models to even be loadable in FS-X

(The above is *my* own, unsubstantiated, opinion)

[Woodlouse2002]

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

[ctjoyce]

Why do we care? Why not wate for the add ons that were moddled for FSX. I'm sure that we are going to see drastic improovements in moddleing and texturing.

Cheers
Cameron

[legoalex2000]

Backwards compatibility, as I've seen over the past FS versions,  generally means that models built for FS9 can be used in FS-X with no problems.  It probably also mean that models built for FS2002 specifically will also be FS-X compatible.

Just as FS2000 models had compatibility problems in FS9, I would not expect FS2000 models to even be loadable in FS-X

(The above is *my* own, unsubstantiated, opinion)

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

Ramos

[TacitBlue]

Why do we care?

Because we all have our favorite aircraft. Plus, it just seems watefull to have all of these great add-ons that we couldn't use with the new sim. On the other hand, if the new engine is so much better (kind of doubt that it will be), then I wouldn't really care.

[x_jasper]

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

[Katahu]

LOL @ x_jasper!!!

My friend, don't listen to the romurs. Bill gates knows fully well that FSX is sell much better if it's kept as a normal flight sim.

Hands down that M$ will release FSX as a normal flight sim [as it has for ages].

[ctjoyce]

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

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

Cheers
Cameron

[x_jasper]

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

Cheers
Cameron

Sorry, I meant bootable from PCI slot that has ULTRA360 scsi card. No matter though it was a hair brained idea anyways.

Regards

[ctjoyce]

It should boot from that, cant see why it wouldnt

Cheers
Cameron

[x_jasper]

Some don't. Our current microstar will communicate no problem via PCI scsi, but will not boot from it.

Only reason I tinkered with the idea was because FS2004 on my Son's machine writes to hard disk during running, despite 512Mb DDR.

Secondly, SCSI Ultra 320 is nice and fast  :)

However if I build a new machine I'd probably include enough RAM anyways to cope.

I am waiting to see what is said about FSX after it's release before making any decisions. I don't mind so much the power needed to run the graphics, but if it has a lousey flight engine I certainly won't bother with it.

I'm very weary of Microsoft's deffinition of accurate dynamics.

So it all hinges on a few details really, but thanks for your help it is appreciated.

Regards
Jasper

[microlight]

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....