I don't think it's fair to compare iPhone applications to Flight Simulation applications -- at least not for the next 5-10 years anyway. But I agree Apple is VERY heavy handed in the control department -- their forums for example would probably delete (within 15 minutes) any thread regarding speculation of any of their products. But I don't think "speculation" violates and terms of use for this forum?Colin,Re-write of the entire project isn't as drastic as you might think/fear unless it's a lot of legacy code pile on top of more legacy code and then a ton of compatibility logic to keep the 3rd party vendors happy. But as I understand it, Aces broke some of the compatibility anyway. It is often easier and faster to develop a project from scratch, then to try and patch a long line of legacy code. I've done this very process a few times and why it can be faster to start from scratch is because of the development tools -- they continue to progress and improve over the years helping developers (such as myself) get more done and quickly.I believe Microsoft should developer for the end user (the consumer), not for 3rd party devs. 3rd party devs may come and go, but without a core product there is nothing -- and nothing is what we have for a future of FSX. I believe Phil had stated that 3rd party vendors was their #1 commitment which I feel was a mistake. Flight sims are tied to top tier technology, the get the best of the hardware one can't compromise -- a lot of compromises were made IMHO.If their plan was to just repeat (i.e. take FSX and update parts of it for FS11) what they did going from FS9 to FSX, then I can see why Aces got the axe. I hope that wasn't the case. There was and is a real need to have Flight simulators supporting 64bit address space and the 64bit extensions espeically when dealing the common complaint about "stutters" (slow tile/texture loading from disk) the small detail radius problem and other memory restrictions that cause several issues for FSX -- a 64bit product was needed -- multi-core was needed, multi-GPU was needed -- all of these technologies equals a re-write from scratch. Sure they could/can leverge "some" of what they have, but the plate needs to be clean.And maybe it was funding -- maybe it just wasn't sold well to the funders -- who knows, but more of the same isn't going to produce results. Lets hope something was at least learned from this and the same mistakes aren't repeated if and flight sim product does emerge. If the money isn't there to do this project right, don't do it.P.S. I was suprised to read that Aces actually consisted of about 200 people.

Speculating now, I think, gives the community an opportunity to provide important feedback into the proposed development of Microsoft's next flying game, so I think it's important and valuable to speculate now. We are, after all, just chatting around a hangar ... right?So, assume for a moment that Microsoft will distribute only approved product through the Live pipeline and that only approved .dll would run in the sim (Phil Taylor suggested that very approach as a means of quality control).What risks do you think that poses to the third-party developer community?Would, for example, a 3PD spend a year developing an aircraft, only to risk Microsoft then declining to distribute it since it might compete for dollars with an add-on they're considering or developing?I think these are very real risks, judging from Apple's heavy-handed tactics regarding its iPhone developers, over whom they exert complete and total control, with the threat of declining to allow their products to run on the iPhone if they fall out of line or otherwise anger the wrong God.I'd hate to see Flight Simulator be taken down that road because I think it would just create a thriving market for X-Plane development.

It would be a licensing nightmare for MS to approve every add-on

If their plan was to just repeat (i.e. take FSX and update parts of it for FS11) what they did going from FS9 to FSX, then I can see why Aces got the axe. I hope that wasn't the case. There was and is a real need to have Flight simulators supporting 64bit address space and the 64bit extensions espeically when dealing the common complaint about "stutters" (slow tile/texture loading from disk) the small detail radius problem and other memory restrictions that cause several issues for FSX -- a 64bit product was needed -- multi-core was needed, multi-GPU was needed -- all of these technologies equals a re-write from scratch. Sure they could/can leverge "some" of what they have, but the plate needs to be clean.

Even if a new from scratch version of FS had been in the works, it would not have been a 64bit one. 64bit platforms, while growing everyday, still make up a small percentage of actual PCs.

Could you provide the sources of your information? The information obtained via Steam http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ -- shows 65% 32 bit. Those numbers were reported at the end of Jan 2009. Assume a 2-3 year development period to produce the next best flight simulation, I'd would expect those percentages to increase in favor of 64bit hardware and operating system (especially Windows 7 push to 64bit). Also, give people a reason to move to 64bit platforms.Unfortunately though, coding a flight simulation based on "average" consumer survey data and/or data obtained via hardware checks (aka Steam services) is flawed logic. Projects should be coded for their intended audience -- I can't confirm this, but I doubt the "average" flight simulation enthusiast (the intended audience) would represent the same hardware/software as an average generic consumer reported by Steam.Also, if starting from scratch, it is not terribly hard to create a 32bit and 64bit version. However, trying to retro-fit a existing 32bit version is indeed more time consuming, but this is yet another good reason to start from scratch. Also, the long term benefits of doing the project right from scratch are huge -- sure pay a little more up front in resources and development time, but the pay-off if done right would, IMHO, provide considerably better ROI (return on investment) compared to the the approached used going from FS9 to FSX.3rd Party devs need to take a back seat -- if the core is built with compromises for 3rd party dev, the product will fail. A failed product does NO good to any 3rd party dev. By all means provide flexibility but don't compromise the core product for this flexibility -- dev tools can be built later. Get the market interest (consumers) and the devs will follow. Aces approached this completely backwards.Like I said, repeating the same old same old is a waste of money and time and is NOT going to secure any future for FS. Do it right, or don't do it.

I doubt the "average" flight simulation enthusiast (the intended audience) would represent the same hardware/software as an average generic consumer reported by Steam.

I doubt that the "average" flight simulation enthusiast is the intended audience. I feel our numbers are too small to justify Microsoft developing it just for us. It has to target a wider market.

Aces plan sounded pretty ambitious to me

Still I

You might be correct, their could very well be no market for those that just like to fly. I guess it's time to move from simulation to a real 172 or one's choice of a aircraft money pit (but even that is limited as many of the smaller airports in my area are also closing down).My only hope is that if someone does indeed produce a new flight sim, please do NOT do same old same old as that will only ensure flight sims are never ever again attempted on a PC Windows based platform.But we have X-Plane, which I must admit has weaknesses also, but it has some positives.Aaah well, times change.

I would gladly pay 15-30$ a month to experience something that could come close to being as visually compelling and realistic as what is currently available to real world Airline Pilots.

I think you'd be in the minority. Most of this is pretty static content, and unless we are offered constant navigation database updates, scenery updates, etc., I think a subscription model is a bad value. Of course the software company would love it, and that's the direction they have been trying to drive the market to for years, but I don't think it is something that we need to be overly eager to accept unless there is a real benefit to it.

Of course the software company would love it, and that's the direction they have been trying to drive the market to for years, but I don't think it is something that we need to be overly eager to accept unless there is a real benefit to it.

I hear you

How about a model such as this?1. Subscription to PC LIVE is free2. Purchase of the base platform and one scenery "region" (user selectable) is available after subscribing, cost is reasonable (~$40?)*3. Purchase of additional scenery "regions" for download is reasonably priced (~$10?)4. Purchase of additional aircraft for download is reasonably priced (~$10 to $25 based on level of complexity)5. Development tools (aka SDKs) are available for either a modest cost, or for free6. Additional, non-certified, freeware or payware aircraft are available via the existing web based sites.I'm not suggesting that this is what will happen of course, but it is one reasonable possibility... :(* The base platform would most likely be purchased via the traditional retail process, either brick-and-mortar storefront or via mail.

How about a model such as this?1. Subscription to PC LIVE is free2. Purchase of the base platform and one scenery "region" (user selectable) is available after subscribing, cost is reasonable (~$40?)*3. Purchase of additional scenery "regions" for download is reasonably priced (~$10?)4. Purchase of additional aircraft for download is reasonably priced (~$10 to $25 based on level of complexity)5. Development tools (aka SDKs) are available for either a modest cost, or for free6. Additional, non-certified, freeware or payware aircraft are available via the existing web based sites.I'm not suggesting that this is what will happen of course, but it is one reasonable possibility... :(* The base platform would most likely be purchased via the traditional retail process, either brick-and-mortar storefront or via mail.

Heh. that would represent a compromise...in essenceWhat an interesting little threadIn showing these six possibilities, are you implying that the franchise needs a new economic model?

How about a model such as this?1. Subscription to PC LIVE is free2. Purchase of the base platform and one scenery "region" (user selectable) is available after subscribing, cost is reasonable (~$40?)*..........

How about this?I pay a reasonable one time price for the next version. I get at least as much content as I did with the previous version with updated features, graphics, etc. :(

How about this?I pay a reasonable one time price for the next version. I get at least as much content as I did with the previous version with updated features, graphics, etc. :(

I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning

Heh. that would represent a compromise...in essenceWhat an interesting little threadIn showing these six possibilities, are you implying that the franchise needs a new economic model?

No, I'm not suggesting any such "need" at all, but merely speculating about a possible model that would fit MS's decision to restructure their PC Games to work within their PC LIVE paradigm.Proposal #1 is predicated on the current "free subscription" to PC LIVE.Proposal #2 is suggested as one way to keep the hi-res content of any future release on a single DVD.Proposal #3 follows from Premise #2; there would need to be a way to offer additional scenery regions via purchased download.Proposal #4 is predicated on their desire to have a "trouble free" method of ensuring additional aircraft downloads.The last two Proposals are suggestions to help make the previous four Proposals more palatable to the "hard-core" flightsim community. :(