I haven't uttered a single "howl of indignation", and I certainly don't think that Microsoft owes me anything.

Ok.

The best solution would be FSX SP3 and a completely new Flight. I am one of those who still fly FS2004, even though FSX is my main sim. Sure, FS2004 looks dated, but as an IFR simulator for the Aeroworx King Air 200 it still kicks butt. With FSX SP3 I'd be happy to fly Western America with ORBX and FS Addon scenery for a long time to come. Then start fresh with Flight and buy new scenery addons from a completely different part of the world.

I haven't uttered a single "howl of indignation", and I certainly don't think that Microsoft owes me anything.

It is also, equally true, that we don't owe Microsoft anything! If they can't/won't put out a product that can meet our expectations then don't buy it. If we could all do that, we would (eventually) get the flight simulator that we want, as opposed to getting the type of simulator that Microsoft thinks we want. For example; Windows 7 was released, quite quickly, when everyone didn't rush out and buy Vista.Regards, Mike Mann

What's better 25 new features per release. Or waiting at least 5 years in between releases... I"ll take the former.

It is also, equally true, that we don't owe Microsoft anything! If they can't/won't put out a product that can meet our expectations then don't buy it. If we could all do that, we would (eventually) get the flight simulator that we want, as opposed to getting the type of simulator that Microsoft thinks we want. For example; Windows 7 was released, quite quickly, when everyone didn't rush out and buy Vista.Regards, Mike Mann

This is post is interesting .. MS would have to produce, at a minimum, 50 versions of Flight to cover all the type of simulators people want.So in practice, MS tries to give us want we want .. but invariably they have to compromise, they put in a little for all.  But in the end, they cover the largest demographic in terms of features and benefits.

What's better 25 new features per release. Or waiting at least 5 years in between releases... I"ll take the former.

Me too!

This is post is interesting .. MS would have to produce, at a minimum, 50 versions of Flight to cover all the type of simulators people want.So in practice, MS tries to give us want we want .. but invariably they have to compromise, they put in a little for all. But in the end, they cover the largest demographic in terms of features and benefits.

I disagree with your interpretation of my post. What I meant was people wanted a good running Vista on a regular computer, didn't get it so they waited, Microsoft responded with Windows 7. People want a good running FSX on a regular computer, don't have it and I say if Flight doesn't as well, then people should wait. Just as there isn't 50 versions of Windows 7, there doesn't have to be 50 versions of Flight.Regards, Mike Mann

Part of the problem is throwing a new version of FSWhatever every X years over the wall. We would all be better off with incremental versions as happened with the FSX SPs (until they stopped). We could be at SP4 right now, with all the bugs worked out and a DX10 full implementation. Oh, and I would be happy to pay good money (say $50) for each additional SP if it really improved the flight sim experience for me.Cheers,- jahman.

Rise of Flight comes to mind as a great example of commited developers! I also use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and the develoeprs take user feedback seriously and upgrades the sofware continually. Software is and should be a dynamic product.