loki

Well, they aren't planning on releasing for the Xbox next year. PCs will be the more powerful platform and be more capable than the Xbox. Always have been, and probably will be for some time. A number of games with both desktop and console versions will take advantage of the desktop's additional power, often with higher resolution textures and more detailed scenery, and sometimes other differences too. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/09/the-new-ms-flight-simulator-taught-me-how-to-fly-an-actual-plane/ The play best on Xbox thing is aimed at the Xbox's primary competition, the Playstation. With the latest updates to Windows 10 and the Xbox, Microsoft is slowly bringing the console and desktop together under one roof and one platform. Xboxes will be those who don't want to mess around with hardware etc. that want to turn it on and play, and the PC will be for the ones who want more flexibility and/or the most powerful computer money can buy to have the best experience possible. So sure Microsoft wants to get some of the Xbox market flying in the sim, but so far they have given every indication that the PC version is first and foremost in their work at the moment.

I don't see how having 3 modes means the PC is not the ideal platform at all. What it does mean is that they're trying to bring the enhanced scenery engine and visuals to as many users, both PC and Xbox, as possible. With the amount of data involved, there is no way any current PC could reasonably download and store all of it, and many people still don't have high speed (say >15 Mbps) or reliable internet connections. They've also said the vast majority of the developers are focused on the PC version and that they will be working on the Xbox version later. Having an Xbox version will be a great option, though will likely have limitations compared to the desktop PC.

Photoreal scenery, like Megascenery, is flat, whereas the upcoming sim's scenery is much higher resolution as well as being drawn in 3D.

Hmm, have you read any of the articles talking about the new sim? What we do know is that Microsoft has around 200 developers working on this as well as some of the best cloud server resources in the world to throw at it. There will also be 3 modes for scenery to adjust for differing levels of interest speeds and access. One is streaming directly from the cloud, though it will cache data for areas you regularly fly in. The second is a pre-cached mode where you can download the areas you are interested in ahead of time and save them locally. And the final one is a sure offline mode with lower quality scenery for those with really poor or no connection at all. The recent event where they brought in people for some hands on time was apparently running a 25 Mbps connection, and looks to have worked quite well. If it is aimed squarely at the Xbox crowd, which includes many people in the flight sim community too, why would they have spent so much effort on enhancing the flight, weather and atmosphere modelling? Not to mention the other areas they have been and will be working on. So yes, the proof will be in the pudding, as they say, however this is shaping up to be a proper successor to FSX.

While Microsoft has had issues with their QA, I don't see how that is related at all to any EU regulations. And the latest Windows 10 feature update gives home users more control over the updates too. It also isn't clear yet how the new sim will be managed either.

I'm not familiar with the EU regulations, but I don't see that as being a big issue. The main reason for companies like Adobe and Microsoft going away from version numbering is the move to SaaS and subscription models. On the developer's side it creates a steadier revenue stream and, for the user, updates are pushed out more frequently without the need to do major version updates.

Is it really that critical that we refer to it exactly as Microsoft does? Adding 2020 to the name removes a lot of ambiguity, depending on the conversation. Not to mention the long aviation tradition of giving aircraft, among other things, nicknames different from the official title (ex. A-10s are probably called Warthogs more often than Thunderbolt IIs).

For those interested in following updates from the Asobo team, and signing up for the tech alpha testing program, here's the website. To sign up for the insider and tech alpha, you will need a Microsoft Account. See the FAQ on the site for more details. https://www.flightsimulator.com/

So basically you want the new sim. :p There is plenty of information out now that covers just about everything you've brought up. https://fselite.net/originals/an-overview-of-the-technical-details-for-the-new-microsoft-flight-simulator/ The sim has 3 modes when it comes to scenery. First is the full online live streaming mode, second is the ability to pre-download areas you are interested in, and the last is a completely offline mode with reduced scenery quality. One area of testing they appear to be interested in is download speeds and performance. Currently all screenshots and videos are coming from a pre-alpha build, which means there is probably plenty of room for performance optimizations and improvement. It will also be possible to run current FSX add-on aircraft in the sim, likely with minimal updating or tweaking. This won't get you access to the improved flight model though. https://fselite.net/originals/hands-on-with-the-new-microsoft-flight-simulator And something that people seem to forget is that having multiple sims installed on your PC works just fine too.

Don't think they've said anything more about FSX itself. I wouldn't expect much more than bug fixes, and it possibly being added to Xbox Game Pass, or something similar.

I think the suggestion is more along the lines of what Microsoft is doing with Windows 10. They've claimed Windows 10 is the last version of Windows and will essentially evolve over time without major new versions or upgrade cost as happened in the past (ie. Vista to 7 to 8 to 10). If MS can create a steady revenue stream, perhaps through a combination of new purchases, add-on sales through their own online shop and the Xbox Game Pass, they may do the same with the new sim. Presumably the next version of X-Plane will be a paid upgrade, on the other hand.

He's referring to the new forum here dedicated to the upcoming sim from MS. As for DominicS, he's been around here for some time now. [emoji4]

I would suggest watching the interview on the front page here, as well as read many of the articles that have come out in the past couple days, rather than go with what you heard somewhere. Add-ons will available from multiple sources the same way they are now, for example.

Parallels and VMware's Fusion both support Windows versions going back to Windows 2000, if not further. Running old versions is one of the key reasons to run a VM. As for FS2004 on Windows 10, it does run well, though may need a couple extra steps compared to previous Windows systems. There's plenty of information in the forum here for those that need it.

It is possible if you use Apple's Boot Camp to run Windows on it. Another option is a virtual machine like VMware's Fusion, though these would have more overhead with both the macOS and Windows running, as well as the sim.

Have you checked out the latest footage? It isn't just flat photos of the world.

It's a little more complicated than that. 32 bit Windows desktop operating systems are limited to 4GB of address space due to Microsoft's decisions, while some 32 bit Windows server OS can access far more thanks to PAE support in the CPU. There were issues with third party drivers and system stability on desktop systems that lead to Microsoft capping the memory limit. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases

While il88pp's statement is misleading, for a long time there was demonstrable evidence that Intel CPUs had better performance in the areas that mattered to FSX (Intel had much better single core performance while AMD started going towards multiple cores), so were the best ones to buy if you were looking for the best performance. This didn't mean AMD CPUs didn't work, just that you would likely be lowering the settings a bit further to get the sim running smoothly. With more recent CPUs, the difference has dropped with CPUs from both sides being more powerful than their predecessors, and both sides are able to run the sim better. Similarly on the GPU front, there were demonstrable cases around the time FSX came out where an AMD card would take a performance hit while the Nvidia ones wouldn't. Flying through clouds was one situation. Nvidia also provided specific driver updates for FSX long after AMD stopped caring about the sim. AMD has long since changed their GPU architecture, removing those issues with their GPUs. It is not uncommon for games and applications to run better on one CPU or GPU over another, and can be more than just opinions trying to push and agenda. FSX will run fine on most Windows computers these days with the right settings.

No, that is not why people recommended Intel and Nvidia at all. Microsoft also works closely with AMD too.

Seeing as very little is actually known about the new sim, claiming it won't be very good is a little premature. Visually it's looking very promising, but we will have to wait for details to really know what the rest of the sim will be like.

They can certainly put on a good show!

Yep, there are manual as well as electronic flight computers. https://www.pilotmall.com/collections/flight-computers

Anyone want to buy a Mig-29? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29292/you-can-buy-paul-allens-mig-29-fulcrum-jet-fighter

North of the 49th it is generally considered good practice where possible. Something like one radio tuned to the en-route frequency and the second to 121.5, unless checking ATIS, for example. There's lots and lots of land and not a lot of people, so a passing aircraft might be the only one in range. Although these days with personal satellite beacons and 406 MHz ELTs available, 121.5 may not even be used for an emergency.

Depending on where you are, there may not be anyone in range of the radio. For back country travel, one of the emergency satellite beacons that are available might be better. ResQLinkâ„¢+: https://www.acrartex.com/products/resqlink-plus-plb Garmin Inreach (I use an Inreach mini): https://buy.garmin.com/en-CA/CA/c12521-p1.html?series=BRAND11460&sorter=featuredProducts-desc Spot: https://www.findmespot.com/en/