Phew! My head is reeling after wading through the previous somewhat acrimonious thread, so here I am, trying once again, in the fervent hope that this last plea for help will produce some useful feedback.If you have been following the various other threads you will have noted in one, the "FS2004....NOT a niche product (part 2a)..!!" brief thread that, much to my surprise, Tom Allensworth very kindly offered to consider running a poll providing I came up with the goods, so to speak.Elrond, to his everlasting credit, has submitted the following suggestion:"Do you consider improved customer support for patches and direct developer interaction in a proper forum to be a top priority for Flight Simulator's future?YES FOR BOTHYES FOR PATCHESYES FOR DIRECT DEVELOPER INTERACTIONNO FOR BOTH"Frankly, I think he may already have achieved what I had been hoping for, but found great difficulty in the formulation. What is needed is a clear, concise, unambiguous statement that neither upsets nor offends and this may well satisfy those aims.This, quite evidently, is a very important issue and should not be treated lightly. If we are successful in achieving sufficient positive response in favour of cultivating a real sense of partnership with Microsoft Gaming Studios, then the future for our sim will, undoubtedly, be assured for many years to come. Surely this is a worthwhile venture and should not be used as cannon fodder for those bent on muddying the waters. Can I suggest instead that those voices of dissent make their feelings known by casting their vote at the appropriate time.I've no wish for this particular horse to fall at the first fence, which is why I decided to throw this request into the ring hoping we could all put our collective heads together and decide on the poll's construction. Once it is clear we have a concensus I can make the formal approach to Tom Allensworth.What do you think?Mike

Hi There Mike, :-wave"Acrimonious", pretty apt description. But I understand people having some strong feelings and wanting to discuss them energetically, with the hopes that things don't get too violent. ;)I don't want to try and convolute your trying to come up with a good question for your poll. But my opinion is something like this...A MUCH earlier release of SDK's would be 'top priority', imo. I would like to at least see the SDK issue get thrown into the mix.Patches would be considered very important in my opinion. I think FS2004 is a great version of the product and obviously the development team took pride in their work. But patches would show MS cares about it's product and customer base much more than is currently displayed by the current complete lack of concern for patches for MSFS by them. I would vote 'YES FOR PATCHES' even if the term 'top priority were left in place.Developer Interaction would be very nice indeed, but I don't think I'd vote 'YES FOR BOTH' if the term 'top priority' is the term to be considered.Just my 2 cents for you to consider. I do think the question is worded very well, but as I said I would like to see the SDK issue thrown in somehow if possible.Cheers,Jim

"Do you consider improved customer support for patches and direct developer interaction in a proper forum to be a top priority for Flight Simulator's future?YES FOR BOTHYES FOR PATCHESYES FOR DIRECT DEVELOPER INTERACTIONNO FOR BOTH"Probably meaningless. Most everyone here would say YES!!Why should opinion's by a small part of the FS market mean much to MS?Ron

Hi Jim,I agree that releasing the SDK's at the time of sim release is a top priority. The advantages to Microsoft, the add-on developers, and the simming community are easy to see and of great importance to all parties.But I believe including too much in a poll would be counter-productive to it's goals. If you and I want the SDK release issue included, then surely others would want what they rightfully feel are important matters included. Very quickly the extent and complexity of a poll would become overwhelming to the community and Microsoft alike.To Mike and Elrond...Trailing to my previous point, I would remove the choice of polling about the patch issue. Seems to me the first thing we need to establish is a working dialogue with the FS developers. From that point forward we can voice our suggestions, concerns, and desires. And Microsoft can keep us abreast of their position on such matters.

Hi Ron,"Why should opinion's by a small part of the FS market mean much to MS?"Hope others reading this don't object to my reposting the following ...yet again!"No developer worth its salt is likely to continue expending much effort on a product if sales are weak. Sales of FS continue to be strong on the back of the enthusiastic reception given it by the Flight Sim community. This enthusiasm rubs off and the masses are persuaded to buy. Unfortunately, the complexity of the sim and the lack of sheer raw excitement is likely to bore many into abandoning the "game" sooner rather than later.I wonder whether any surveys have been conducted to determine how much repeat purchasing in fact occurs. WE keep buying the product because for us the sim provides experiences we love to enjoy and cherish. The average man or woman in the street does not and will likely never share our enthusiasm. Could it be that every two years the '99%' are composed of a new generation of individuals who have become 'infected' vicariously by our enthusiasm and buy more out of curiosity rather than from a genuine desire to spend time trying to appreciate what this sim really has to offer. Obviously many of these souls will hopefully become infected and will replace those of us who have either lost interest or, sadly, dropped off this mortal coil. Overall however, the numbers probably remain about the same, I suspect.As I have stated before here, and also in the other threads, the development team are clearly proud of their magnificent work and rightly so. Flight Simulator is unique amongst simulations and, I believe, receives the ongoing level of attention it does simply because WE are here to spur it on. Without that support the prospects for future worthwhile development could be under threat. Can Microsoft really care so little? I sincerely hope not."Mike

Hi Jim,"I would like to at least see the SDK issue get thrown into the mix."...noted, as indeed are the rest of your good points. Thanks!Mike

......the first thing we need to establish is a working dialogue with the FS developers"How to others feel about this suggestion?Mike

I'll keep this short since so much has been said in my other thread...My Vote:Yes for Both... -- "Improved customer support for patches and direct developer interaction". --We need some kind of dialog with the developers of FS (not Microsoft Gaming Studios as a whole). The Flight Simulator branch located it's own building (previewed on the old Flight Simulator Insider page). We would need no more dialog than what is expected of any other game developer or business concerned with customer satisfaction. An efficient way to find out what's the latest on patches and/or updates (patches shouldn't be an option but a necessity if enough people are finding problems. If there are features that Microsoft could add that's not beyond reason, they should implement them and not tell us to wait until the next problem/version. I remember when FS5.1 or 98 came out, I can't remember which but Microsoft had took away the ability to add add-on aircraft. Enough people were so ###### that Microsoft opened the sim back up to allow what we have today. It seems we are dealing with a different company today because more than enough people are ###### about the FSDS compatibility issue in FS2k4. Seeing that FS2k2 and FS2k4 are so close in terms of technology, let's face it FS2k4s

.... with the developers of FS (not Microsoft Gaming Studios as a whole). We would need no more dialog than what is expected of any other game developer or business concerned with customer satisfaction. An efficient way to find out what's the latest on patches and/or updates (patches shouldn't be an option but a necessity if enough people are finding problems. If there are features that Microsoft could add that's not beyond reason, they should implement them and not tell us to wait until the next problem/version."At this stage, the above might be regarded as stating the obvious. However, I do think it is important in that it may help us decide on where to place the emphasis in any statement or poll options.Anyone else care to add their thoughts?Mike

maybe microsoft should take longer beta testing before release, and have three or four years between each fs,i for one take my hat off to microsoft in progaming fs to run pcs with so menny deferant specs, and not takeing the simplest route and make it for a consol that would be a sad day for us all;(

Bump...

I think the way this question has been put, the author's seem to think that a shared problem exists, that both MS and the author's share this issue, and therefore resolution should be a top priority for MS to take action on.I put it to you, that the author's are the only ones with a problem.To expect a party that perceives they have no problem to place solution of the "not problem" as a priority over solving their real perceived problems is kind of silly.just mho...Bob Bernstein

Interesting...O.K. what your saying is the author (correction the FS Community in general) think there's a problem with service and support from Microsoft's Flight Sim department and Microsoft in turn doesn't see any problem... So why should they do anything or want to do anything.I guess that's why someone has to say something no matter how silly some seem to think the issue is, heck it

>Interesting...>>O.K. what your saying is the author (correction the FS>Community in general) think there's a problem with service and>support from Microsoft's Flight Sim department and Microsoft>in turn doesn't see any problem... So why should they do>anything or want to do anything.Basically, what he's saying is true. FS enjoys a LOT of sales, and evidently sales ain't dropping, or you'd see action on their behalf.>>I guess that's why someone has to say something no matter how>silly some seem to think the issue is, heck it

Dillon, perhaps your emotions got the better of you....<>I never said the ISSUE is silly, I said the POLL is silly if you think it will induce change without first establishing who's problem is being addressed. Don't expect action from the party that does not benefit from the solution. BTW, this is a life truth, not just applicable to the present discussion.<>I agree, and I think they do listen, but you've got to know how to acheive that dialog. My reason for thinking this is that they are quite successful. That's only probable if they listen to the market. You may, however, find that the marketplace is large and complex, and the voices that get heard may not be yours. That's NOT the same as asserting that they don't listen. <