Sadly I don't see Microsoft doing anything cooperatively on MSFS. Even worse, I see them using the unfinished FS11 code as a weapon: as VAPORWARE. Vaporware is software that never gets produced or coded. Vaporware's purpose is to keep other (smaller) developers from spending the money and effort to create a new product. The threat of Microsoft putting out a new version of FS (with no intention of actually doing it) is enough to halt develpment by any other software development company given the massive financial costs.

A bit like the grumpy child taking his ball home so the other children can't play with it any more.

After reading the januari Computer Pilot (http://www.computerpilot.com/content.php?pid=4&mid=133) about the commercial applications of X-Plane and the recent message in the PMDG forum regarding the ESP project ( http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=241934) I'm thinking that Microsoft was after a market already cornered by Elite (http://www.flyelite.ch) and X-Plane.In this (ESP's intended) market its good to have a small adaptable code base. No need for a whole world scenery with AI traffic, living world and ATC. Just a local airport in full detail, an interface to custom hardware, one detailed aircraft and the further adaptations needed by the customer. FS doesn't have a history of being smal a adaptable and with ESP they where entering a new market which clearly has more (and already established) competitors. Why would they try to go for that market? I think the answer lies in the current perception of the PC game market. There is a sentiment that boxed PC games are dead. They feel that the future is in online services like Live and Steam. With the failure of ESP the 'child-projects Flight Simulator and Train Simulator' (Robert S. Randazzo /PMDG's words) where also dead.I'm sure MS wil keep selling FS-X. The budget editions of Age of Empires and FS2002 are still available so why would this be different for FS-X. I'm also sure they will eventually sell FS-X Acceleration via their Live network. The complete termination of Trainsim 2 however points to a Microsoft that wil never develop these games again (come on, TrainSim was close to a release date and they didn't even finish that). This is the end of an era. Luckely we still have the original games from the time before all gaming became an online service :(

I've been thinking about the PR lady's response shortly after the bomb hit and how she described "Live" experiences and "flying games." I realize that we've been given a more clearly worded statement recently, but I wonder if by "Live" experiences they mean some of the cool technologies people at LiveLabs are cooking up? http://livelabs.com/While not all of the projects at LiveLabs are directly related to flight simulation, it does seem like they are exploring interesting interface and visual approaches. I'm just trying to look at things from a positive angle.

I've been thinking about the PR lady's response shortly after the bomb hit and how she described "Live" experiences and "flying games." I realize that we've been given a more clearly worded statement recently, but I wonder if by "Live" experiences they mean some of the cool technologies people at LiveLabs are cooking up? http://livelabs.com/While not all of the projects at LiveLabs is directly related to flight simulation, it does seem like they are exploring interesting interface and visual approaches. I'm just trying to look at things from a positive angle.

I'll make a prediction. I think if there is a sim it will be like the Google flight sim on steriods. By that time the quality of images, cities will be breathtaking and make todays database driven scenery look primitive.Unfortunately I also have a gut feeling that the flight portion-accurate cockpits, instrumentation etc. will be glossed over. Probably just simplistic enough to get together with a friend and "fly" over your house and ooh and ahh.Anyway-my prediction. I hope I am terribly wrong.

I'll make a prediction. I think if there is a sim it will be like the Google flight sim on steriods. By that time the quality of images, cities will be breathtaking and make todays database driven scenery look primitive.Unfortunately I also have a gut feeling that the flight portion-accurate cockpits, instrumentation etc. will be glossed over. Probably just simplistic enough to get together with a friend and "fly" over your house and ooh and ahh.Anyway-my prediction. I hope I am terribly wrong.

Could be - BUT - since they are archiving the code, they could direct any new team to incorporate the old "realism" features as baseline. But I agree that it is more likely that someone with little invested in the history and legacy of MSFS may just well create a "flying game" for us. The Conundrum will then be whether to support the red-headed abomination or not.

If I recall correctly (I have had so many versions) Fs98 had clouds that looked like giant ice cubes-at the same time the competition like Pro Pilot and Fly had clouds similar we see today in the sim. Fs98 also had vector hand drawn mountains missing mountains ranges like the entire rockies when Pro Pilot had similar to what we see today.Fs2000 corrected these deficiencies and also added the first real weather download (something I had been hoping for-requesting since 1998) and very smooth instrumentation. The complaints were stutters on the outside view -and a patch was issued that made the instruments stutter and the outside view smoother-seems "eye candy" is more important to most-I was ticked-the smooth instruments suited me fine.So yes I agree-they have each been an incremental improvement-the "bad version" thing is bunk.There was a post about this from one of the programmers a few years ago-can't remember where it was.

Maybe I should have stated performance wise.....98 was good, FS2000 was a stinker with performance. 2002 was good (2004 wasn't much different to 2002) and FSX performance stinks.I could care less about added features if it brings the sim to it's knees.

I think people need to grasp the fact that the core platform is owned by Microsoft. They are not planning on selling it to anyone. The people who have been involved in the action at ACES can not do it all again just like that from scratch even if they all gathered up at a motel and made code for 5 years in row.

The Core platform is the base fo ESP. With the current worldwide ecconomic situation, maybe the world is not ready for ESP yes, or Microsoft to develop it .. but one day, in the future, it will happen.The idea of the same team of ACES getting back together is not going to happen. Having been treated this way once, would you set yourself and your family to be treated that way again ?Having "halted" ESP ( and FSX & TS), Microsoft is now set on a path of potentially slipping behind, leaving the development of ESP type system wide open to other companies.Google already has the Search engine market, and with it's Google Earth technology, has the potential to enter the VR market. If they do, Microsoft will have a real battle to regain that market.Vista sales are low, probably Windows 7 will not do a lot better. Plenty of other option are being developed every day. Companies are not going to keep updating to the latest OS and MS OFFICE products, at unrealistically high prices, when products like Open Office are available. Microsoft's days are numbers -- the writting is on the wall.Who is buying shares in Microsoft ? I know who has sold a LOT over the past couple of years :( BGIf there "was" going to be a FS11, it was years away... so why get overly concerned about what is happening at Microsoft in 2009 ( unless you are a Microsoft employee ).I for one, am far more excited and hopeful about the Flight Simulator Products, what COULD be, in the next few years, that I would be, looking at another "update" of MSFS, in the stores in 2-3 years time.GeoffAlso, as this is a FlightSim forum, I may not get lynched if I say "Thank God , no more wasted effort on a TS" !! :(

But for now, let's focus on what's ABOUT to happen and let's wait for more news.

This comment has a lot of "vapor" in it. Wait for what exactly?Nothing is about to happen. ACES Studio programmers have been fired. FSNext code is being archived. Train Simulator II has been cancelled.No new Flight Simulator for the PC will be released by Microsoft.That's what's about to happen.

I am afraid frankinla and gjharrall are right - FSX in 5 years will run like FSX today. Chip designers are hitting more and more a clock speed wall which will lead to more CPU cores. Have a look at the game development the last 5 years - how f.e. the graphics advanced. I can't imagine to be satisfied flying FS8 today. Hopefully there might be others filling the gap, or MS restructures the team around it's flagship.Very disappointing.

Do you mean the CPU-architecture, bus bandwidths, storage devices etc. will not change over the years?

Do you mean the CPU-architecture, bus bandwidths, storage devices etc. will not change over the years?

He probably means that advances in computer technology won't suit FSX ... ?

He probably means that advances in computer technology won't suit FSX ... ?

FSX hasn't been designed in a way that it can take advantage of multiple cores, etc. It's got that "more ghz = faster" way to it."Traditional" games, you can throw a newer graphics card into it, and it'll go faster every generation, FSX just requires higher clock speeds to keep up. Tech is expanding horizontally now I guess you could say, where FSX requires vertical expansion.That's how I see it at least.I guess they irony was "As real as it gets"

FSX hasn't been designed in a way that it can take advantage of multiple cores, etc.

Pardon? Didn't SP1 distribute the load across multiple cores?Cheers!Luke

Pardon? Didn't SP1 distribute the load across multiple cores?Cheers!Luke

SP1 only distributed the scenery load/ indexing onto additional cores. This helps with blurry issues people had with ground textures, but it didn't bump the frame rates much or any. In most cases it only added 1-3 frames maximum. This was tested by someone here who used affinity masks to disable different cores to test the frame rates. The frame rate increase were negligible. I am afraid having more cores will not help FSX achieve its potential and allow for headroom for complex add-on. FSX was produced when technology was at a fork in the road and the wrong path was gambled on. This is what makes demise of FS11 more painful.

Pardon? Didn't SP1 distribute the load across multiple cores?Cheers!Luke

Ditto on what frankinla said. Software has to be designed to take advantage of multiple cores, and multiple graphics cards as well. That's why a performance decrease was actually seen in some cases with SLI setups.Interesting article from The Register, some thing that particularly made me cringe:

Planned features included voice recognition with air traffic control, first-person mode, a full fledged career mode with a job board and a currency system, a lighter-then-air aircraft class, and skydiving. "We were starting to focus more on the game aspect of it than just the simulation," the ACES insider told us.

:( :(

Actually, it seems to me that where ESP goes, so goes FS.