About four months ago, MS pulled the plug on any and all interaction with outside parties. The advisory and developer newsgroups have been closed, and they've firmly shoved corks in all the bungholes to prevent further information escaping.At this juncture, we have no way of knowing what -if anything- is being done... Frankly, I have real doubts now about any future product from MS.As long as hardware is available and the operating system supports them, FS9 and FSX will remain viable flightsims for the next few decades, and anything else that is released will have to be carefully evaluated as to its merits as a replacement and/or alternative flightsimulator.

The fact that Microsoft may release some form of flight simulator in the near future must surely be a deterent to anyone thinking of backing (especially financially) a new flight simulator.Q: What's your competition?A: Microsoft are still selling FSX and although, it's said there won't be a new release, it's rumoured that i't's working on a new flight simulator product.Q: When might that be released?A: We don't know.

As Aerosoft is a direct competitor addon-wise... I would think any company that doesn't publish addons would be a far better candidate. My opinion.Also... they will not be making a remake of either FS9 or FSX... for Microsoft has flat out refused to allow anyone to purchase FS. This means there will most definitely be compatibility issues. They also won't be calling it "Flight Simulator", unless they wanna get sued by MS.

HelloWhat if they call it "Aerosoft Flight Simulator" there is nothing to prevent them doing thatFactor in that they may also already have a bunch of nice airports and aircraft that they can build this Sim aroundand you can already get a picture of what they may achieve.

What if they call it "Aerosoft Flight Simulator" there is nothing to prevent them doing that

The mere term "Flight Simulator" cannot be used in a videogame since it's owned by Microsoft.Not a big issue though, since Aerosoft could call it "Aerosoft Flight Simulation" or "Aerosoft Flying Simulator" or "Aerosoft Flying Simulation". :( Marco

I think the bigger issue with whatever FS related product MS may (or may not) release in the future is one of trust (or the lack thereof) between MS and the addon industry. Clearly there are financial benefits for developers of addons for a hypothetical MSFS Windows Live edition (ala Apple store model) due to the much larger market but if publishers and developers are nervous then where does that leave you?Would two markets be a bad thing from a publisher/dev point of view? The "Pro" market using Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 who mostly demand in-depth functionality, hi- fidelity flight models, a million options and top notch graphics; and a secondary casual market via MSFS Windows Live which would sell "dumbed down" & "MS approved" versions of the original Pro product... could be pretty cosy?

The fact that Microsoft may release some form of flight simulator in the near future must surely be a deterent to anyone thinking of backing (especially financially) a new flight simulator.

My understanding is that Aerosoft are not looking for financial backing from 3rd parties, at least not at the moment. Also bear in mind that Aerosoft have a professional division for the real-world civilian and military simulator industry so for them (Aerosoft) the development of an "ESP equivalent" would be, and indeed is, a big part of all this. Us hardcore flight simmers are hardly the only ones who would benefit from this proposed new flight simulator. In and of ourselves we are nowhere near a big enough market to develop a new flight sim for anyway...

My understanding is that Aerosoft are not looking for financial backing from 3rd parties, at least not at the moment. Also bear in mind that Aerosoft have a professional division for the real-world civilian and military simulator industry so for them (Aerosoft) the development of an "ESP equivalent" would be, and indeed is, a big part of all this. Us hardcore flight simmers are hardly the only ones who would benefit from this proposed new flight simulator. In and of ourselves we are nowhere near a big enough market to develop a new flight sim for anyway...

It doesn't really matter where the finance is coming from - there is still a risk. Even if the simulator is developed using Aerosoft funds the expenditure will still have to be justified internally. Others in the company may have different ideas where the money should be spent.

It's also important to consider that Microsoft's Flight Simulator uses an archaic, inefficient, custom-designed graphics engine hog-tied by backwards compatibility constraints.There are modern 3D gaming engines far better suited to the task already developed and available for licensing right now--and they leverage multi-processor and modern shader engine graphics developments and trends, too. Good worldwide terrain and nav databases are also out there available for licensing. So Rome doesn't need to be rebuilt from the ground up...a great deal of what needs to be done really involves integrating a flight dynamics engine onto a modern, updateable graphics platform. There's MUCH to be gained by ditching the very limited MSFS flight dynamics engine and building something open and subject to peer review.I think it's in the realm of doable, and with a high-probability that we'll be looking back on Microsoft Flight Simulator like we do at Bruce Artwick's original FS.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, I agree with a lot of what you

But..I think you (like many) don

I

I keep thinking what game engine out there is suitable for something flying as high as 50,000 feet? I guess there must be a way to cheat or something with the current engines massive multi-player games have big worlds but there cut up in big zones. most advanced game engines are not designed with such a huge seamless world, it will be very interesting how this turns out.

It's also important to consider that Microsoft's Flight Simulator uses an archaic, inefficient, custom-designed graphics engine hog-tied by backwards compatibility constraints.There are modern 3D gaming engines far better suited to the task already developed and available for licensing right now--and they leverage multi-processor and modern shader engine graphics developments and trends, too. Good worldwide terrain and nav databases are also out there available for licensing. So Rome doesn't need to be rebuilt from the ground up...a great deal of what needs to be done really involves integrating a flight dynamics engine onto a modern, updateable graphics platform. There's MUCH to be gained by ditching the very limited MSFS flight dynamics engine and building something open and subject to peer review.I think it's in the realm of doable, and with a high-probability that we'll be looking back on Microsoft Flight Simulator like we do at Bruce Artwick's original FS.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Great Post Bob!Wolfgang

Dead on... if you look at the Unreal engine the level design is based on an inverse scheme to what FS does. Where FS builds a 3D airport around the existing world, Unreal builds the level based on nothing being there in the first place. So the idea of licensing another 3D engine is flawed in the sense that most engines are not designed for you to basically walk around/ fly around generic CAD buildings without any limitations. And the real problem i find is if Aerosoft needs to charge 30 dollars for a single airport, how are they going to build 10,000+ of them and then sell it to us for $60. If you guys really want a new flight sim check out x-plane, it's only $30 dollars right now... and I guarantee hours of enjoyment, so long as you want to actually fly and not let the FMC/Autopilot do it for you. Although that is an option as well with the freeware vasFMC

Oh yes, because the 'blade' modelling of X-Plane is so superior to FSX..............not.The basis of FSX still dates back to FS2002. No wonder it is a poor performer. Throwing more and more eye candy at a 10 year old engine was clearly asking for trouble.I hope Aerosoft can do something that Microsoft couldn't or wouldn't.

What does blade element theory having to do with level design? Or did you not even read the paragraph you just quoted!

The basis of FSX still dates back to FS2002.

It was my understanding that there are code elements in FSX that date all the way back to FSfW95, though I may be mistaken. All respect to add-on makers out there, but FS's biggest stumbling block was backwards compatibility. If they, and the third party industry, could stomach severing all ties to the past, and make a completely new engine to build off of for the next 3 or 4 versions, I think it would totally redefine what's possible in Flight simulation in terms of flight model fidelity, eye candy, etc. Burn the source code. Destroy the design bibles. Start with a whiteboard and a gang of brainstormers, and rock on, I say. Whether that be MS, Aerosoft, or some up and coming group (Cascade Games Foundry, I'm looking at you), if someone took that step, I'd be as excited as I was the first time I saw FS5 after a decade of ega graphics.Jon/KSEA