I'll be over here, popping some popcorn as this thread develops. :)With so LITTLE to go on, there's really no need to get worked up at this point.What we do know from the press release (*and is always subject to change):

• Windows Live enabled/capable (It's announced as such)
• Exclusive to Windows and no XBox/Mac ("Microsoft Game Studios also announced the internal development of "Microsoft Flight", a new Windows exclusive.")

What we don't know:

• The intent and scope of the Windows Live integration. (Could be lots, could be very little)
• What bringing a "new perspective" means. (Very open ended)
• Anything about new or changed features. (None hinted)
• Anything about system specs. (Nothing mentioned)
• Anything about timelines or completion goals. (Silence)

With so many unknowns, and very little information to go on, our discussions here will be very speculative. Keep that in mind when forming expectations. Why drop the word "Simulation":That word may instill some fear into the hearts of a very casual gamer. Simulation to some might equal bordom or complexity. If MS is looking to continue to make the flight simulator franchise more accessible via new features and gameplay options, as they have been doing between FS2002, FS2004, and FSX (adding missions and other features), perhaps they thought that dropping the simulator moniker might invite more people to try it out.Are you afraid of a "new perspective"?:Lets take a deep breath on this one. I can see the fear in some peoples eyes over this line, worried that the depth we've enjoyed with the MSFS series will somehow be dissolved into an arcade flying game. Can Microsoft add in easier gameplay features and modes without removing the depth, expansion, and features we've become accustomed to? Of course they can! Remember when FSX was in it's development? There were plenty of people mortified that the much-touted missions engine was to be the death knell for simulation as we knew it... this turned out to be an overreaction of epic proportions. Missions only added to the feature set, and didn't take any of the expansion and depth we enjoyed away. Is it in Microsoft's interests to remove such functionality? Remember that Microsoft was careful in their press release to add that the new product will welcome everyone, "including long time fans" - this tells me that we have little to fear. That video was awesome!:Well, with no indications as to whether or not it was a rendered video, or any sort of in-game video, it's probably in everyone's best interest to consider that to be a rendered package - probably not indicative of gameplay. Keep expectations lower... NEVER FORGET THE "MAGIC" DX10 SCREENSHOT and what it did to your expectations. :) Looks like my popcorn is done. Time to munch and read the scuttlebutt! Have fun!-Greg

What is the status of the Aerosoft's simulator? Does anyone know?

I am certainly not privvy to any inside information on this topic but the latest is that Aerosoft is very actively engaged in putting together the documentation required to decide whether building a new sim (i.e. investing millions of Euro's) is in fact a viable long term endeavour. I do know that the proposed release date would be no earlier than 2013 (as opposed to 2012 as previously suggested). Furthermore, I can say that Aerosoft have of course been well aware for a good while now that MS are planning something on the FS side and to the best of my knowledge todays news will not affect their decision in any significant way as they have been operating all along on premise that MS will in fact release a competing product.

Those MS guys are so tricky...Maybe they just didn't like ACES ???Regards,Scott

As a developer, though, my biggest fear is not really the Apple Store concept (which admittedly is a bit irksome as it takes away a bit from the rapport and direct contact I have with my customer bases)... my biggest concern is that instead of having one dominant Flightsim platform, you're going going to have a hugely fractured user base with some users sticking to MS Flight, some going to Aerosoft's new sim, some to X-Plane, and some to whatever else is coming out.Developing for one platform is hard enough as it is.... Developing for three or more would be problematic to say the least.

I would say which ever one is the most realistic and easy for developers to get into will be the one you'll get the best bang for your buck as a developer but the whole FSX debunks that. Although FSX is more advanced it takes more expensive tools and know how to developer for it. A beginner can't get into it like FS versions of the past hence more freeware is produced for FS9 than FSX (but that doesn't stop the push to pull towards FSX). So if this new sim comes out more on the gaming level versus sim history shows us people make excuses for it because it's new. People gravitate to the new thing even if it's not the best thing. X-Plane is just in the middle somewhere in all this. So in a world of Aerosoft Sim, 'Flight', FS9, FSX, and X-Plane my money would be on 'Flight'. Microsoft would really have to screw this up (which is possible) for 'Flight' not to be the dominate sim. I'm talking things like dubbing it down to only offer certain regions of the world to fly in, you can only play the thing online, and totally cutting out add-on developers from being able to develop for it. 'Flight' is by no means the death nail for FS9/FSX in fact it could further expand the divide. If the development team consist of Aviation enthusiast then we have promise with 'Flight', if it's the opposite we'll have a whole other problem on our hands and a much more fractured community.

Maybe 'Live' is an option not a must have for use. You'll have the option to use it as a stand alone if so desired. That would be the best case scenario... Are all 'Live' games a must you have to be logged on to use them?

I think that, without exception, you have to be logged on, but I might not remember it correctly. A small list:- For Halo 2 you have to be logged on, or you can't seem to even play the game;- Fallout 3 always was a bit puzzling. it seems you can't play the game without being logged on.However, there are also games that are simply "Games for Windows", without the "LIVE" tag. Those can be played without being logged on. To be honest, I'm not even sure you can log on with these games at all... I think that, to play MSF, you'll have to be logged on, though. It is also a way for MS to make sure you have a valid serial, I think.

Are you afraid of a "new perspective"?:...Remember when FSX was in it's development? There were plenty of people mortified that the much-touted missions engine was to be the death knell for simulation as we knew it... this turned out to be an overreaction of epic proportions. Missions only added to the feature set, and didn't take any of the expansion and depth we enjoyed away. Is it in Microsoft's interests to remove such functionality? Remember that Microsoft was careful in their press release to add that the new product will welcome everyone, "including long time fans" - this tells me that we have little to fear. Have fun!-Greg

...but it probably took away development time, that could have been spent on other parts of the sim that were and still are deficient, like AI air traffic and ATC! I agree though FSX wasn't as bad as many made it out to be, and you still hear periodically from those that haven't even tried it for themselves!!!

I would say which ever one is the most realistic and easy for developers to get into will be the one you'll get the best bang for your buck as a developer but the whole FSX debunks that. Although FSX is more advanced it takes more expensive tools and know how to developer for it. A beginner can't get into it like FS versions of the past hence more freeware is produced for FS9 than FSX (but that doesn't stop the push to pull towards FSX). So if this new sim comes out more on the gaming level versus sim history shows us people make excuses for it because it's new. People gravitate to the new thing even if it's not the best thing. X-Plane is just in the middle somewhere in all this. So in a world of Aerosoft Sim, 'Flight', FS9, FSX, and X-Plane my money would be on 'Flight'. Microsoft would really have to screw this up (which is possible) for 'Flight' not to be the dominate sim. I'm talking things like dubbing it down to only offer certain regions of the world to fly in, you can only play the thing online, and totally cutting out add-on developers from being able to develop for it. 'Flight' is by no means the death nail for FS9/FSX in fact it could further expand the divide. If the development team consist of Aviation enthusiast then we have promise with 'Flight', if it's the opposite we'll have a whole other problem on our hands and a much more fractured community.

I sort of agree with that. Flight will probably be a success on the whole - it's now the question whether it will be a success for us. To be honest, if we get a sim that looks better then FSX (or the same even) but works smoother and more reliably, I won't really be complaining. We have already seen that addons managed to fill many gaps in all existing FS versions. It seems that up to some point, all weaknesses have been overcome in previous FS versions, so why wouldn't this be possible in Flight? We'll just have to hope that developing for Flight will be easier, or somewhat the same, as it is for FSX, and that MS's GfWL works out well for the addons that are released.

The official Microsoft Flight website is causing terrible stutters and single-digit frame rates on my system. Anybody have any tweaks?

I don't know what to think about all of this :( . The full beauty of FSX has only just come to fruition in my opinion in the last year or so thanks to 3rd party developers and hardware advancements. I'm sure this NEW sim will be neat somewhere down the line, but for the short term future I'm going to be content with what I have. I do think ORBX involvement can only be a good thing, if true, but we'll need to wait and see - my uneducated guess is 8-12 months before we hear ANY further news about it. I'll remain cautiously optimistic in the mean time without getting my hopes up too much.

If ORBX is involved that's the first genius decision any version of FS has ever seen. I've been saying for years MS should cut corners and let add-on developers have direct influence an control in the development of FS. Instead of trying to do everything in house use the many add-on developers to help develop the sim. A whole world looking like ORBX's Northwest scenery would be outstanding. Now I can look at that 'Flight' preview video and have a little confidence the actual sim wouldn't be that far removed from it. It's still not officially confirmed ORBX is involved though, or is it? :(

So in a world of Aerosoft Sim, 'Flight', FS9, FSX, and X-Plane my money would be on 'Flight'.

Why? Just because it's a well established platform? Some might argue it actually. The whole concept of creating the FS platform by developers that know what the community wants sounds more delicious to me than a platform developed by MS which is pretty much incognito within the community during the development process.

[*]Anything about system specs. (Nothing mentioned)-Greg

History has show us even when the official word has come out in this area it's usually wrong and I mean 'false advertisement' wrong. It's so wrong one might win a law suit if it was taken to court... :(

It's still not officially confirmed ORBX is involved though, or is it? :(

That's the rub with most NDA's - you can't even acknowledge that you have agreed to one, nevermind say anything about the product(s) that you might be working with. If they are under an NDA, it could mean they are actively assisting on the new product, but it's more likely that as a 3rd party developer, they are granted insights into the new product or the alpha testing phases, perhaps consulting to give the development team ideas on making the product add-on friendly. Orbx, like many other developers, will probably enter into NDA's to get a peek into the underpinnings of the new title so they can prepare products or services for the new system. Historically, Microsoft hasn't gone to established outside developers to assist on a simulation... while there's always a possibility this will be a "first", history and occam's razor are more aligned with all the 3rd party NDA participants being there for preview and possibly add-on interfacing consultation. I'd love it if I was wrong, but I bet Orbx isn't getting any hand-on time assisting with creating the scenery or back-end code. -Greg

I'll have to echo the concern that the community may become fragmented but I think MS could diminish the possibility if they start releasing more information to the community. The hope would be that one viable next generation sim would become apparent to enthusiasts. Right now we have two of our top developers (ORBX and Aerosoft) going in opposite directions. Aerosoft isn't going to be included in the Flight party unless they drop their plans for a competing product.I'm not saying that they should but if we could pick a winner earlier in the game, it would be better for everyone. After all, why would Aerosoft go through the time and money to release a product with direct competition from a company with MS level resources. The problem is we can't pick a winner without more information. If Flight allows 3rd party development, it doesn't do MS any good to have one of their key developers going in a completely different direction either.In addition, I agree that 3rd party development is the key to being the sim of choice for our market. Being able to customize my world is what fed my addiction for the last 10 years.This is kind of exciting but it seems to create more questions than answers.

A whole world looking like ORBX's Northwest scenery would be outstanding. Now I can look at that 'Flight' preview video and have a little confidence the actual sim wouldn't be that far removed from it. It's still not officially confirmed ORBX is involved though, or is it?

I think the expectation of the whole world looking like Orbx PNW is unrealistic . . Maybe the 'Live' concept requires you to purchase content-rich areas as they become available.. It seems that Orbx are involved to 'some' extent given John's comments about (no further comment) on their website.Eric

Aerosoft already said today that they're not dropping their project due to MS's announcment. I've read it in their forums today.