Actually the Xbox 360 has the ability to install to the Hard Drive, and also, games such as Final Fantasy 13 have proven that you can have multiple disc games.

Yes, that is true, but the ability to install games was just introduced about a year ago if I recall correctly. Plus many Xbox 360 players have the original 20GB Hard Drive. When you first install the hard drive there is only 14GBs (or 16?) of space left for the user to use. I read an article about multiple discs and although Microsoft allows it, many people do not like the idea about having to insert another disc to play other content of the game. My Xbox 360 drive only has a few demos and some arcade games and I only have 8GBs left on my 20GB hard drive. Microsoft has never said Xbox LIVE and has always said Games for Windows LIVE anyway, so until I see the exact phrase "Xbox LIVE" in one of there job positions, announcements, or press release, I will assume they are not developing for Xbox. I, as an Xbox 360 owner since 2007, would absolutely hate the idea of flight simulator on the Xbox. The Xbox was made for some games but no console can be made for a complex simulator. If a flying game has full flight control functions and has an ATC system in it should not be put on any console.

If a flying game has full flight control functions and has an ATC system in it should not be put on any console.

You are assuming what any new version will contain.Microsoft is reported to have said "We are looking for an experienced person to own our testing for Gameplay and Multiplayer features". I suggest that this means that the next Flight Simulator will be much more of a game, with similar features to other Games for Windows, rather than a simulator for enthusiasts. It's possible to conceive of this being purely a flying game aimed at those who buy other Games for Windows.It's been my view that Nicrosoft recognised that the market wouldn't support an expanded version of FSX. Being realistic, I don't belive its new features would have been of any interest to the general public and the fenthusiat market is too small a market to justify futher expenditure. I've seen nothing to make me change my opinion.

You are assuming what any new version will contain.Microsoft is reported to have said "We are looking for an experienced person to own our testing for Gameplay and Multiplayer features". I suggest that this means that the next Flight Simulator will be much more of a game, with similar features to other Games for Windows, rather than a simulator for enthusiasts. It's possible to conceive of this being purely a flying game aimed at those who buy other Games for Windows.It's been my view that Nicrosoft recognised that the market wouldn't support an expanded version of FSX. Being realistic, I don't belive its new features would have been of any interest to the general public and the fenthusiat market is too small a market to justify futher expenditure. I've seen nothing to make me change my opinion.

Yes, it might be true since they said "Gameplay and Multiplayer" but it may mean they are going into making a story mode or something such as FSPassengers to bring it even closer to life. Also the multiplayer of FSX was huge failure because of gamespy. There is no ability to ban in game, you cannot see who is transmitting, sometimes it's impossible to log in, and the list goes on. They may be looking to fix the areas of failure in FSX. Also I remember there was an article on a website over a year ago when ACES was shut down and there was an interview with a team member. They said that FS11 was going to use features from Train Simulator 2 such as animated passengers and they were going to have gates with movie scenes and some kind of story/airline pilot mode if memory serves me well. So that might be what they are trying to be doing. But ACES was integrated into Microsoft Game Studios say that may have an effect on the "simulation" as you have suggested.But... lets not forget that Flight Simulator X was a Games for Windows product as well, and I have no doubt that it sold well. Games for Windows is just a way to market to let customers know that a product will work on a 32 or 64 bit operating system, has the ability to use an Xbox 360 gamepad as a yoke, joystick, gamepad etc. I guess time will tell for this new product, but I pray to God that it will be a simulation and not an Ace Combat type game. Or if they will make a game I hope that the new team will at least revisit FSX and bring us some kind of Service Pack, update the graphics engine, etc.

You are assuming what any new version will contain.Microsoft is reported to have said "We are looking for an experienced person to own our testing for Gameplay and Multiplayer features". I suggest that this means that the next Flight Simulator will be much more of a game, with similar features to other Games for Windows, rather than a simulator for enthusiasts. It's possible to conceive of this being purely a flying game aimed at those who buy other Games for Windows.It's been my view that Nicrosoft recognised that the market wouldn't support an expanded version of FSX. Being realistic, I don't belive its new features would have been of any interest to the general public and the fenthusiat market is too small a market to justify futher expenditure. I've seen nothing to make me change my opinion.

Multiplayer has been in MSFS since at least FS02, and honestly, I hope they implement a better multiplayer system anyway given Gamespy was a huge failure. As for Gameplay, that is a very general term, and can be used for anything that is considered to be a "game", which includes anything from an FPS, to a full on sim. The term Gameplay is not indicative of the style of gameplay the next MSFS will have.See this wiki article for a more in depth explanation of the use of the actual term.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay

Multiplayer has been in MSFS since at least FS02, and honestly, I hope they implement a better multiplayer system anyway given Gamespy was a huge failure. As for Gameplay, that is a very general term, and can be used for anything that is considered to be a "game", which includes anything from an FPS, to a full on sim. The term Gameplay is not indicative of the style of gameplay the next MSFS will have.See this wiki article for a more in depth explanation of the use of the actual term.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay

I won't disagree with you about gameplay. However, my point remains that Miscrosoft closed ACES, dispersed its staff and stopped development of FSX into FS11 - in my view because it decided it wasn't commercially viable. Given that, I can't see Microsoft continuing development using a new team.My opinion is that whatever new Flight Simulator emerges it won't be FS11 and will be aimed at a wider gaming market than represented by the enthusiasts who visit these forums for commercial reasons.

I'm looking right now at 10+ PC game boxes on my shelf that have the "Games for Windows LIVE" logo, written on the side. ALL this means is that they have MS's Games for Windows LIVE client built into them - it's sort of like Steam, it has a friends list, downloadable content store, automatic patching through the client etc. If something says Games for Windows LIVE, by definition it is not an XBOX 360 game.More here:http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-us/about...forwindows.aspxI agree with what Peter wrote too about the use of the word "gameplay" - that is a standard term in the game development world (FS has always been considered part of the Games division by MS, it's just us in the community who say it isn't one), not something indicative of the idea that a new FS would be an arcade game or something like that. Gameplay in this context means literally the mechanics of what a player goes through while using the software, nothing else.mgh,Multiple people associated with the former ACES studio have stated that FSX was not a commercial failure. It outsold FS9 in fact and was on top seller lists for a long time.

----------------------------------------Multiple people associated with the former ACES studio have stated that FSX was not a commercial failure. It outsold FS9 in fact and was on top seller lists for a long time.

It may not have been "a commercial failure"- read: that it turned a profit. But did it meet the corporate ROI (Return on Investment) target for Microsoft ?? Lots of quite profitable products are abandoned (sometimes sold off to other entrepreneurs) simply because they don't achieve the profit to investment ratio set by management for its capital. And that means year over year on an ongoing basis- not just periodically when a new version is released.It's ROI that determines "keep or dump". Capital dollars have no loyalties nor favourites.Alex Reid

mgh,Multiple people associated with the former ACES studio have stated that FSX was not a commercial failure. It outsold FS9 in fact and was on top seller lists for a long time.

"Let bygones be bygones."One possible reason for stopping work on FS11 could have been that the future returns on the future expenditure on developing it further wasn't acceptable commercially. Microsoft may have decided it could get a better return by applying that expenditure to a version with more features attractive to the wider, general, market.Stepping back for a dispassionate view, surely we must agree that FSX is incredibly detailed for the money. I suggest that many of the changes requested in these forums would have very little effect on sales to the wider market. For example, how many buyers in that market would really care about the precise details of ATC or even know what SIDs/STARs are? Sales to that market must surely be the key - Flight Simulator would not have survived all these years solely on sales to us enthusiasts.

"Let bygones be bygones."One possible reason for stopping work on FS11 could have been that the future returns on the future expenditure on developing it further wasn't acceptable commercially. Microsoft may have decided it could get a better return by applying that expenditure to a version with more features attractive to the wider, general, market.Stepping back for a dispassionate view, surely we must agree that FSX is incredibly detailed for the money. I suggest that many of the changes requested in these forums would have very little effect on sales to the wider market. For example, how many buyers in that market would really care about the precise details of ATC or even know what SIDs/STARs are? Sales to that market must surely be the key - Flight Simulator would not have survived all these on solely on sales to us enthusiasts.

I actually agree with this, the only way for a game or it's add-ons to survive is to make sure that it gets in to the hands of as many people as possible. If you only aim to get the sales of enthusiasts, you aren't going to get very far. You need to balance features, value, and accessibility for commercial success. This does not mean water things down, it just means make it beginner friendly enough to the point at which beginners can get in to it.

This does not mean water things down, it just means make it beginner friendly enough to the point at which beginners can get in to it.

I think, in practise, it does mean water things down. Surely, developers will initially decide what are the essential features neccessary to achieve a commercially acceptable return. At that stage they could consider other more advanced features and then balance the costs of including those features against the additional return they'll provide. Also, there'll be a budget for development which will put a cap on the amount of work that can be done in any case.Also many companies give responsibilty for specifying and selling a product to the Marketing Division. The role of the Production Division is then to provide the Marketing Division with a product at a given cost - obviously less than the selling price. Both divisions can then concentrate on their own special expertise. I could imagine this sales-led approach being used by Microsoft.

I doubt aerosoft sim 2012 will be a success unless they get PMDG, levelD, a2asim, etcetc to make A/C for it.Aerosofts airports are awesome, but it's no use without good A/C. Aerosoft's default A/C will probably be better than MS's default A/C.. but i doubt they'll be good enough

One possible reason for stopping work on FS11 could have been that the future returns on the future expenditure on developing it further wasn't acceptable commercially. Microsoft may have decided it could get a better return by applying that expenditure to a version with more features attractive to the wider, general, market.

While that may very well have been the case Gerry, it is also quite possible that the decision to axe ACES had nothing whatever to do with ROI (past, present or future), but rather is the case that the new paradigm senior management wished to implement for marketing, gameplay, multiplayer experience and allowing tighter control vis-a-vis third-party addons had changed.In simpler terms, ACES' work on FSvNext and TrainSim2 was being coded based on the "old paradigm" and they (ACES) either could not or would not implement the requisite changes, or embrace the "new paradigm."

In simpler terms, ACES' work on FSvNext and TrainSim2 was being coded based on the "old paradigm" and they (ACES) either could not or would not implement the requisite changes, or embrace the "new paradigm."Hello BillThat pretty much tells me all I need to know about whatever product MS is working on as FSvNext.Unless it is opened up for small 3rd party developers then the hobby is in real danger of stagnating going forward.I have only tried the X-plane demo and did not like it much, but then I think back to FS9 and FSX straight out of the boxNot exactly beauty queens either of them, they are only what they are because of the development community.I am tempted to give X-plane another look now that the Rex folks have made the move over.Which Dev team will be next?PMDG and Realair two of our best Development teams have taken the jump from one sim platform to another in the past.This may only be the start of many moving over if MS take to long to bring out a FSvNext product that appeals to the Sim community.Beechjet 400 for X-plane anyone?

While that may very well have been the case Gerry, it is also quite possible that the decision to axe ACES had nothing whatever to do with ROI (past, present or future), but rather is the case that the new paradigm senior management wished to implement for marketing, gameplay, multiplayer experience and allowing tighter control vis-a-vis third-party addons had changed.In simpler terms, ACES' work on FSvNext and TrainSim2 was being coded based on the "old paradigm" and they (ACES) either could not or would not implement the requisite changes, or embrace the "new paradigm."

I don't disagree that that could have had an effect. But if what ACES were developing (FS11) was not what senior management wanted and ACES couldn't/wouldn't implement what was wanted then, surely, the new FS is still not going to be FS11?Senior managment could also have been concerned about ACES's ability to deliver, based on the furore when FSX was released?

the only way for a game or it's add-ons to survive is to make sure that it gets in to the hands of as many people as possible.

Which seems to be the premise for FSNext in terms of 'longevity' and long term revenue generation via Add-ons a la 'Apple Store' style. If you read ALL job postings, it becomes VERY obvious this is one of the things they are trying to do. They want to create a 'marketplace' around FSNext so they can (like apple) generate passive revenues via community/user expansions add-ons which are natural to the FS ecosystem. I guess selling just 'licenses' is not enought, and probably after ESP MS decided it needed another approach... just a guess of course, no idea what MS is thinking :)