Hello Jim.I have to say, I think what is being discussed in the threads you have highlighted is a going a bit away from where this thread was intended to go. Maybe I interperet John's original post differently than you, I'm not sure. What I think he is saying is that rather than go through 6 mos. of what seems like endless waiting and frustration for compatibility patches and bug fixes, why not instead delay purchase of the next version until these issues are resolved. In all honesty, I agree with him, that a person with no develpoment interest in FS should indeed wait, I think they would find the transition a lot less painful. In addition, I'm sure each and every developer out there would appreciate the time to work out the issues of patching their products in relative peace. Unfortunately, I know that this will probably not be something that most people will be willing to do. One question I have always wondered on, but never asked, is why aren't the known developers, those that have been around for years, and most likely will be around for many more, not first on MS's list at beta time for each new FS release ? I'm talking about Flight1, Dreamfleet, PSS, Lago, even Wilco if I must. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have have FS betas in the hands of Graham Waterfield, Jim Rhoads, Enrico Schiratti, Pete Dowson etc., than even my own hands if I were chosen. I think that would be benificial not only to the developers themselves in having a headstart on the new version, but for MS as well in getting some serious quality feedback (not that they didn't from those who tested, not trying to offend anyone, but come on). I understand FS isn't just designed for us junkies, but I can't see how getting beta copies into the hands of these guys first and foremost would hurt anything, in fact I think it would have the potential to make FS a better sim overall. Any thoughts ?

>One question I have always wondered on, but never asked, is>why aren't the known developers, those that have been around>for years, and most likely will be around for many more, not>first on MS's list at beta time for each new FS release ? I'm>talking about Flight1, Dreamfleet, PSS, Lago, even Wilco if I>must. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have have FS>betas in the hands of Graham Waterfield, Jim Rhoads, Enrico>Schiratti, Pete Dowson etc., than even my own hands if I were>chosen. I think that would be benificial not only to the>developers themselves in having a headstart on the new>version, but for MS as well in getting some serious quality>feedback (not that they didn't from those who tested, not>trying to offend anyone, but come on). Maybe some of these designers DO beta test, and then of course MS could always make last minute changes that require a re-work for updates.Just maybe.....L.Adamson

Hello Mike.I agree with you, we have all seen way too many people expecting way too much, way too soon. Way.On the other hand, if a developer decides on an "upgrade' as opposed to just a "patch"(which in my book is simply semantics, by the way), then that is the decision they make, and not a decision I should be grateful or ungrateful for. In fact, it is my opinion that the developers will not have held up to the agreement made at the time of sale until these products are compatible with FS9. When I purchased the products I mentioned in my earler post, I did not by them for FS2002. I bought them for FS2002 with promise of full compatibility with FS9. That is what I was sold, and, please pardon me if this seems harsh, I'll be damned if I'm going to be made to feel as if I'm being done such a tremendous favor when these guys actually follow through. I will not be impatient, rude, demanding, or disrespectful in the meant time, firstly because to do so accomplishes nothing (except cause more grey hairs all around), and secondly because I understand just how hard these guys work, but they aren't doing me a "favor" by keeping their word. It's kinda funny, to me, FS9 is so rich in improvements over 2002, mostly subtle, sure, but definitely noticable over all, that I have not been able to sit around waiting for patches. I have been flying, and enjoying this new sim immensely. Of course it will be great when my FS2002 favorites can be brought over to join the fun, but until then, there is plenty to keep me busy. Blue skies.

Hello L.Adamson.I'm sure we all know that many of them do, but in my opinion, obviously not enough. I'm also sure MS does make these last minute changes, 'tis the nature of the beast, but I do not see how being there when they are made could hurt.

Hi everybody.I have to agree with Brian who said that the developers aren't doin us a favor when they keep to their word. Of course it's a lot of work to do all these patches and bugfixes but it takes too long, way too long.Especially the PSS guys r annoying me with their A 32X patch 4 FS9. It's been almost a month and there is still no patch for the A 320 sereies. They promised that the patch will be realeased very very soon after the release of the A 330/340. DID THEY KEEP TO THEIR WORD? NO! But which patch is realeased instead? A PATCH FOR THE A 330/340!!! (not only one patch) NICE!! I mean, y don't they just work out proper products that don't need a general improvement from a - z b4 releasing them? Y don't they just test them long enough and repair all the bugs? We guys who bought the A 32X payed 50

Looks like we'll have these discussions/problems upon every release of flight sim.Seems like everyone wants everything to be compatible with the next version. I especially want my payware scenery/aircraft to work!

Boy, it's threads like this that make me ever so glad I don't do payware and strengthens my resolve to never do so.Look at all the anxiety I have avoided.And don't try to tell me I'm missing out.Cal (CYXX)

I am not sure if I will buy FS10 right after the release as I did FS9. I have a fair amount of money in all of the add-on's for FS9 and have been through two computers to make it run really well.FS10 may be such a compelling product that I will run out and buy it and fly happily along with default aircraft. This may or may not happen. When FS9 came along, I had not invested a lot of money in addons for 2002 but used default or freeware. But addiction to FS9 has been expensive and wonderful for me.I am taking a wait an see attitude. If I lose all of the payware and the new FS10 is only good versus great, then I may wait also.

Ditto.My fantasy--though it is probably a pipe-dream--is that Microsoftwill follow the example of the FS9.1 upgrade/patch and try to do the same thing in regards to at least the next version of FS.In other words, come up with an "upgrade" that can be installed on top of one's current install of FS9 (and all of the addons that the respective user has installed over time), as opposed to an entirely stand-alone software package that is seperate (and carries the same backward compatability issues that we've all had to tough out).I'm no software engineer; for technical reasons, this may all be imposssible. But over the years I've used numerous software packages, many/most of which can be upgraded to the latest version without having to reinstall the software and basically start from scratch, as has been the case with FS all along.Don't get me wrong--if FS10 represents a huge leap forward from FS9, which was a huge leap forward in and of itself--I'll buy it. Yet given all of the time and money I've sunk into FS9 addons and tweaks, I too am going to hold off buying it if it is yet another start-all-over again proposition. I'll hold off all the longer if it looks as if I won't be able to use my favorite addons/aircraft with it.I'm waiting with baited breath for the coming MS announcement along with everyone else!!;-)

EVERY single piece of software is a beta with the difference that nowadays you can patch it over the Internet. Only a few years ago, you couldn't patch anything and had to live with all the 'bugs' - what is worse?PCs are very complex, because of the HUGE variety of hardware and the complexity of the development cycles. If someone would test every single combination of hardware and every single line of code to make it "perfect" than the innovation would be ZERO, because it would take years to throughouly test everything and by that time it is outdated.While I agree that *some* software is not mature for a production release, the majority works flawlessy for me.I am amazed how non-computer savy people just use the word "beta" to express their dissatisfaction of any product without knowing any detail of complexity that is involved in developing it, especially for a simulator like FS. I know that software won't probably be perfect when I buy it, but as long as it works and doesn't crash on me, I am happy with it. Bugs will eventually be found and eradicated and the product will eventually be improved.Pat

You're missing out. :-)

There we go again.Someone flaming a product for being BAD before there's even an official statement about the featureset or scheduled release date.

Just wanting to know why a thread from 2 years ago was resurrected.Scott

I don't know why this old thread is alive again http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/unsure.gif

Fitting really to have it resurrected. I think this is the first thread about FS2006/FS10/FSX/whatever on these here forums.Better to reuse it than to post the same thing all over again ;)What is really sad is that someone complained about bugs in FS10 when the product wasn't even in active development yet.