Just one question with this "live" stuff.What happens when all the internet providers (mine already has) start putting limits on bandwith usage every month?Will we actually have to go back to interacting with people/family? :(

Probably! But interacting with people/family is probably already a "problem" for a lot of FS users. Just ask a few "significant others" of FS enthusiasts now.The bandwidth usage limit may not be as big an issue as it seems. At least not for everybody. It might depend on your geographical location, service capabilities, and service providers. There are many Internet users now who have unlimited bandwidth usage with their home computer setups. I do. Do I pay a premium price for it? Sure, but I also pay extra just to fly FSX. Computer upgrades, addon prices, hardware addons...it's all the cost of the hobby. What somebody spends is up to them. If they want to fly FSX RTM, all they REALLY need is a computer capable of running it. Yes...oh it hurts to say this...but FSX is sold "as is". You don't get a joystick, yoke, rudder pedals, etc included in the box. ANYBODY who thinks they will get a "realistic" flying experience using their keyboard or gamepad to fly a flight simulator isn't being realistic to begin with. This hobby cost more than...a LOT more than...just $49.95. I do a lot of online simulation racing. Use a lot of bandwidth in the process doing it. If I want to do it, I make the decision to pay for the service. If not, then I don't do it. Simple as that. Economics 101.The direction any new flight simulation takes as far as "Live" can be very varied. There is nothing to say the end user has to STAY connected for their entire flight simming session. If a "subscription" or even the original price of the service allowed the user to do an initial download ("live"), then run the "mission", etc, offline, there would be no need for the user to have anything more than a small software application that allows the initial connection and download. Anything downloaded could be "erased" from the computer after the "mission" ended, and a new set of files, etc, downloaded for the next flight session. It could easily be combined with a constant online function also for those who can and want to stay online during the session, just like many of us do with things like VATSIM. Nothing is cast in stone about any of this. The only thing that is for sure is that FS11 is not going to be developed anymore. The nature of the next generation of Flight Simulation, even by Microsoft, is anybody's guess right now. But there are some very good "hints" out there...even from Microsoft's own leadership. When everybody settles down and quits viewing these people as the "Evil Empire" who has no clue what they are doing, things will settle down. Then we will all be faced with new choices. just like with every past release of the FS series. Some people will embrace the changes. Some will just complain like they always have. That won't change.FalconAF

...Enter the "boxes". Fully self-contained. No upgrading of hardware components, swapping out video cards every time a new one comes out, changing drivers, ad nausium. You buy the "box" with the flight simulator application designed specifically for it. You end up with a "common" user base, all using the same equipment, and 90% of your end user "problems" are solved. You can still allow for the attachment of joysticks, yokes, rudder pedals, etc to enhance the experience. But the concept is a realistic one based on the amount of problems encountered by the end user community today with the current state of simulations.

As far as simulation goes today, the more I think about it, the more I see that the "Flight Sim Box" with a "same equipment" with little if not no "technical knowledge needed to maintain the computer", sounds like using X-Plane on a Mac?

True, most people don't know anything about their computers. Nor do they want too. I keep hearing that the desktop is going to go away. You'll be doing everything on your handheld. Yuk! Does this mean than everything is going to be dumbed down into a single underpowered unit that "does it all?"I'm no expert. It has taken me a year and a half to work up to the rig I have now. FS has taught me alot (though not enough) about computers.Not really interested in online gaming. FS is the only game I have.I am old, but I am not one to hold onto the past just because that's what I know. I am not afraid change, but it has to make sence to me.Bob

I am drawing the same conclusion as McCrash. MSFS is dead as we currently know it. Any future attempt will require too much money and time to develop. As this year progresses you will see fewer downloadable files for FS. Users will soon be posting reports of add-on developer X closing its doors. And on, and on it goes.Not the end of the world mind you, just what I see happening. Maybe after twenty-four years of flight simming, its time I give FS a rest cause there won't be anything else like it.Walt

Flight Simulation is going "online", or "Live", or whatever you want to call it. And if you don't think Microsoft is going to be part of that...

Microsoft, no doubt, will have a flight game that they distribute over XBox Live. You don't have to be a tea-leaf reader to discern this.Microsoft will, however, no longer market a flight simulator.

Just one question with this "live" stuff.What happens when all the internet providers (mine already has) start putting limits on bandwith usage every month?Will we actually have to go back to interacting with people/family? :(

NO WAY, MAN!! (just kidding - we need to eat sometime!) :( PS; Right on, Falcon... Microsoft has been lagging behind for a while - and may now catch up with a vengeance.

If MS intended to maintain the franchise in some form they wouldn't have dumped the team.As we all know, the ACES team consisted of pilots, people who'd been with the team for years ... in general, experts in their respective fields. It is a hugely complex undertaking to develop a civilian flight sim. IF MS simply wanted to transition development into a non-desktop release, they would have reorganized rather than simply dumping everyone. Simply put, MSFS is a vestige of old school PC gaming, and it's something MS no longer has an interest in. It might be (somewhat) profitable, but it doesn't support a larger strategy (whatever that is).And as for this "Your desktop is the internet" thing, it's been promised for years and we are still several years away. It'll continue to move that direction via small steps. Many of us today use a mix of web-based and desktop apps. But, bandwidth remains an issue. Heck ... I've got this crazy fast Comcast and the streaming rate for Google Earth is like mud on a hot day. Check out how much is being loaded every time you run MSFS. I sure has heck don't want that coming at me over the intertubes. I am pretty confident that MS is not going to suddenly reveal their amazing FS11, "now with more internet". It's deadSomeone else might pick up the IP at some point, but I doubt it. MS will hold onto it and let it stagnate. We'll get a few more years of life out of FSX, and then we've just got to cross our fingers that some small development house pulls off a miracle.

As far as simulation goes today, the more I think about it, the more I see that the "Flight Sim Box" with a "same equipment" with little if not no "technical knowledge needed to maintain the computer", sounds like using X-Plane on a Mac?

Just a question Jean Luc. Does the Mac allow installation of multiple controllers Xplane doesn't appear to support in windows?I can't even get past the joystick setup on windows in Xplane-hat switch, radio stack, go flight module etc. e.g. only basic hardware such as rudder pedals, yoke positions, and throttles seem to be supported. Seems at least windows has no trouble going with what I have, and fsuipc does the rest in fsx.A Mac does sound appealing after dealing with Vista-however I have so much trouble with my iphone (I love it despite that); that I am wondering also about the Mac trouble free mantra also.. :(

Microsoft, no doubt, will have a flight game that they distribute over XBox Live. You don't have to be a tea-leaf reader to discern this.Microsoft will, however, no longer market a flight simulator.

Well...I'll just pass on the "tea-leaf reader" part of the reply above, and get to the rest of it. As it seems it is your only remaining "jab" available at Microsoft, let's kill it for good, too. So, you think that just because FS may end up on an XBox, it will then be a "game" and not a "simulator":"Microsoft will, however, no longer market a flight simulator"Guess what? It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. The terms "simulator" and "simulation" are thrown around like candy today in the computer world. The "gaming" industry uses them all the time, when technically they should be using another term. I won't hand-feed you all the variables, but this link and it's sub-links should give you a much better idea of what a true simulation/simulator is:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...on&ct=titleWhen it comes to using computers for simulation, here's a good definition of what a simulation on a computer is SUPPOSED to do:"(computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program; "a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated"Try explaining that concept to most "flight simulator" enthusiasts. A flight simulator can very well exist without having to have ground graphics (autogen), 3D clouds (a simple white/grey masking of the outside view will do), etc. Additionally, there is "Physical Simulation" and "Interactive Simulation"...two completely different types of simulation. Sadly, any "flight simulator" is also called a "human in the loop" simulation, because it involves a person in the use of the simulation. In THESE cases, the PURPOSE of a TRUE simulation is to train, educate, or prepare the individual for an action or undertaking that would normally be too dangerous, costly, or inconvenient to undertake in the real-world. It is NOT intended to provide ENTERTAINMENT.Your conclusion that just because a flight simulator may be on an XBox instead of a PC (or Mac) makes it a "game" instead of a simulation is totally wrong. If it wasn't, then ALL previous versions of Flight Simulator would be classified as a "game", and Microsoft has NEVER produced a true flight SIMULATOR. You can't use it to get certified (trained) as a real-world pilot.The below is quoted from one of the links included in the previous link above: "Strategy games

So, you think that just because FS may end up on an XBox, it will then be a "game" and not a "simulator."

Yes ... that's exactly what I think, but not for the reasons you believe. It's not because I hate Microsoft, or want to bash the XBox. The XBox, the WII, and the PS3 are excellent gaming platforms.If Microsoft ever releases anything flight-related on XBox, it will be a game because the XBox isn't suitable to display, for example, lots of very small gauges. Most people's television sets just don't have the resolution to display small gauges showing the minute changes required for IFR navigation, for example.You can make a very enjoyable flight game on the XBox, but you cannot make a Flight Simulator (perhaps one day, but not today).And that's why Microsoft's PR spokespersons have been very careful to refer to what they have planned for the future as "flying games" ... and not a flight simulator. It's not that I am making the distinction between "game" and "simulator" ... it is that Microsoft itself makes this distinction. Here, let me quote their PR representative: "You should expect us to continue to invest in enabling great LIVE experiences on Windows, including flying games, but we have nothing specific to announce at this time."And yes, we're not morons dude. We realize that Microsoft Flight Simulator isn't like a real military-level flight simulator.If Microsoft had any intention of marketing a simulator, it would not have eliminated the Studio, because those employees hold years and years of institutional knowledge required to make a simulator work (things like where to find the data necessary to recreate the navaid infrastructure in the United States and Europe). They fired the knowledge base. You don't do that if your intention is merely to port to a different platform. You do that only if you no longer have any strategic interest in the software.Microsoft is laying off developers. But, it is hiring advertising salesmen. I dont' say that to bash Microsoft. I say it because it's important to pay attention to what the company is actually doing. This sheds light on where it is going.Flight Simulation is no longer a strategic objective.

Guess what? It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. The terms "simulator" and "simulation" are thrown around like candy today in the computer world. The "gaming" industry uses them all the time, when technically they should be using another term. I won't hand-feed you all the variables, but this link and it's sub-links should give you a much better idea of what a true simulation/simulator is:

It's splitting hairs a bit to talk about the definition of simulators and games. I think everyone here admits that MSFS is primarily a "game", but the term "Flight Simulator" has a long history of usage in PC gaming and we all understand the general concept. It's a genre of PC gaming.I'd also suggest that it's easy to assume that any Flight "Simulator" produced for the 360 would have an emphasis on gaming aspects versus simulation aspects. It's not a knock against Microsoft. It's the reality of the platform and the audience. I think it's natural to be disappointed in the decision to dump the Aces team. I've actually been suprised by the reasonable tone in the forums, all things considered. It's a big deal. It's the potential (likely, I would say) end of the franchise. There are many thousands of people who enjoy Flight Simulation as a primary hobby. There are active pilots here who use MSFS to practice. It may be the end of an era.

--------- Flight Simulation is no longer a strategic objective.

------------Almost certainly true. With the coming economic typhoon, the strategic objective for MicroSoft and all companies will be simple survival !!!!How many copies of VISTA do you suppose GM and Bank of America are buying these days?Alex Reid

------------Almost certainly true. With the coming economic typhoon, the strategic objective for MicroSoft and all companies will be simple survival !!!!How many copies of VISTA do you suppose GM and Bank of America are buying these days?Alex Reid

Alex ... with all due respect ... Microsoft isn't in "survival mode."As a corporation, Microsoft prints money. It is one of the most profitable companies in history. It made $4 billion in the last quarter - arguably the worst quarter for American business in half a century. Typical annual net profit margin is in the 30% range. That's unheard of for almost any other company. Microsoft has virtually no debt and is actually hiring more employees (laying off programmers, hiring internet ad salesmen).Whatever explains the strategic thinking behind the elimination of Flight Simulator ... it has nothing to do with corporate profits or the economy or "survival."

------------Almost certainly true. With the coming economic typhoon, the strategic objective for MicroSoft and all companies will be simple survival !!!!How many copies of VISTA do you suppose GM and Bank of America are buying these days?Alex Reid

Probably none, Alex: both probably have site licenses, and both are probably running XP Pro plus the complete MS Office Suite on their admin desktops. Their back-ends are most likely some flavor of Unix. Their front-end clients where there is a customer interface will most likely be custom-written applications talking to those large Unix boxes. Thousands of them. In the BigBoy world of computing Microsoft plays a small part. Client-server is king. Oracle. IBM-AIX. HP-UX. Solaris. Microsoft has a share, no doubt, but its business demographic is spread wider and at a lower, smaller and more general business level.

To all the simmers out there; KEEP ON SIMMING, LET THEM WORRY ABOUT THE CHAOS THEY HAVE CREATED. :( Lets not grief as yet. MS hasn't said that they are canning it totally. We simmers must just believe that they will go on with FS development. How about a suggestion to Mr Gates for him to start a MS Games Co, it will only benefit a lot of people outside of MS. MICRO-GAMES seems like a good name. In the long run he will still be able to make money and give back to all the MS gamers.