I know a lot of developers visit this forum, and i would like to know are the guys at M.S. liasing with current industry companies such as FTX, Flight1, aerosoft et al over flight ??What concerns me is that ok perhaps a total re-write is long overdue but is flight going to be it?I have invested a lot of money on scenery, a/c upgrades and hardware for an FSX that is finally starting to fullfill its promise when released, will all our hard earned cash be destined to the bin with flight? is there anyone out there working with M.S. that can give us an honest bit of guidance? will current a/c and scenery work on FS 11??I for one am getting more and more p--sed off by the promises of a/c that never seem to appear, and as these ever extending delivery dates go on and get closer to the release of fsim 11 I am getting less and less prone to buy their products if we are only going to get a few months use out of them, or are they talking to M.S. and already re-jigging things for FS 11.I think this game of secrecy being played out by M.S. and others will be self defeating all you have to do is look at the quantity of things being created by the public for fs9 it is still 20 times the stuff being made for fsx is M.S. going to try to reduce this with FS 11 are they going to try and re-instill the ability for joe public to make free add on's therebye re-energising our hobby, or are they also intending to keep that secret??I could understand the secrecy if there were competing simulators , but there aren't any so why not give us all an idea of where their mind set is?

Hi,There are 2 reasons why specific information cannot be released:1. NDA'sand2. The software code is not into place. Things change in regards to features and nobody is going to announce things and then right before release say: "opps sorry, we needed to change x, y, and z.None of this is any different than any other FS version or any other piece of software out there. It's not like Flight is right around the corner, ready to be released. Be patient and there is no reason to be mad at anyone. Also, no one is saying you need to purchase Flight the day it is released and then immediatly stop using FSX with all your purchases.Also the release of FS9 vs FSX freeware has nothing to do with any of this and is not self defeating.

Nigelporter, newby...I agree with you 100 percent. The existence of past practices is undisputed. But the product also went to a total and complete demise !!! That calls for change. Did MS keep quiet about Windows 7 when Vista was a total dog. No they didn't. I have not used FSX for over two years now. Why ? Simply because everything beyond about 2 miles was blurry, and the frame rates stunk at places where I liked to fly, while running on a fairly decent computer. I decided that it was not up to me to constantly try to make it work with tweaks. It was up to the software provider who sold the product to me. They didn't, so I quite. I really did not think MS could come back in the game, so I decided to just "hang it up" until a 5+ ghz computer came out at a stock running speed.Given the disaster of FSX, I think they owe their loyal followers a little more than they are giving. That has been, and continues to be, my opinion. If MS wants to continue to have a less than stellar public perception, that is a decision that they make for themselves.One forgets that when FSX bombed, they abandoned the "keep you mouth shut" policy within their designated group. And virtually every single person on this forum, their core customers, loved it. Who can forget Phil Taylor ? Now they go back to where they were when they were stuck in the muck of silence, and I detect a lot of the dissatisfaction just as you express. I have it too.Take a lesson from Simon & Garfunkle MS.And in the naked light I sawTen thousand people, maybe morePeople talking without speakingPeople hearing without listeningPeople writing songs that voices never shareAnd no one daredDisturb the sound of silence"Fools", said I, "You do not knowSilence like a cancer growsHear my words that I might teach youTake my arms that I might reach you"But my words, like silent raindrops fellAnd echoedIn the wells of silenceBob Las Cruces, NM.

Bob,FSX was the BEST SELLING version of ALL TIME proven by OUTSIDE SOURCES that track software SALES. Please don't paint this GLOOM and DOOM picture just because you don't enjoy FSX. MS "owes" us NOTHING. The posters from MS were doing so ON THEIR OWN TIME and were posting WAY before FSX "bombed". If you are so unhappy with MS, PLEASE find a new hobby becuase hobbies are meant to be fun and you are not having FUN with this one.

Jim...We simply have a difference of both opinion and recollection. And that's OK. We have totally different interests and prospectives on and in this hobby.Now, looking back in hindsight, I think the demise of Aces Studio could possibly be the best thing that could have possibly happened for the FS world. And frankly, Microsoft clearly stated at the time of the closure, that their involvement with the world of FS was not over. For reasons that we will never know, certain important things were not addressed in version after version of the flight simulator. I suspect therein lies part of the reason for the drastic changes we finally saw. Microsoft's stated move to the cloud and it's integration to, or competition with, powerful portable devices, with in some cases other operating systems, may be another. Unlimited access of 4g or even a 5g wireless connection to a cloud, and on some kind of a larger (than cell phone) tablet is the wave of the future. This is a big time threat to Microsoft as Blackberry, Ipod, and Android/Linux operating systems on wireless hardware are real and they are now.Unlike most others, I got tired of the very flawed but well-intentioned product of FSX. I did not get tired of Flight Simulation and frankly miss it. So as I so stated, I am willing to wait until I can fly without those flaws. That could happen as a result of dramatically faster stock (unaltered) machines, or a new product.Right now, the new product is what I perceive as the best chance of my earliest return to the hobby without pre-existing flaws. I think it is fair to state my feelings & why, and to know a little more about what I am waiting on in general terms.There can be as much as or more damage done by false expectation which results from silence, as failure to deliver certain minor things that were previously talked about. Some people forget that.Bob - Las Cruces, NM

A much more rational post then that other one!! :(

Unlike most others, I got tired of the very flawed but well-intentioned product of FSX. I did not get tired of Flight Simulation and frankly miss it. So as I so stated, I am willing to wait until I can fly without those flaws.

With all due respect to Bob, I have been using FSX for 3 years this month and am still wondering what all these flaws are? Even considering the amount of addons I am using with FSX I still have yet to experience a problem that wasn't induced by me doing something wrong on my end, like having a duplicate AFCAD installed or something like that. Granted I guess if there is some mesh somewhere that causes a whole in the ground, or an airport that is the wrong elevation, that could be considered a flaw, but as far as the sim running well and not crashing, it seems to be working as it should.

There are a lot of good things about the sim, and I understand that. Frankly, I am pretty tolerant about flaws. And I acknowledge that some people just love it. At times I do too.Actually it is a marvel. I think everyone knows that.But I did say, unlike most everyone else, it was not for me. What I ultimately like, and what others may ultimately like, are two different things. I don't give two hoots about flying perfection, aircraft related systems, or technically correct operations. I'm and eye-candy man. My idea of the ideal is a small airplane, with a navigator program so that I know where I am, good roads, mesh, etc. and flying in high density areas such as New York City. I like frying the JFK, Newark, and LaGuardia triangle doing touch and go's with everything maxed out. And on my machine it was both blurry and choppy.Now I could have gone through 25 tweaks and a couple of paid consultants, but instead I just said "screw it".Did I have a chip on my shoulder? Yes I did. For several revisions with several long years between them, I looked forward to video card support, and/or a 64 bit version every time. Then after another long wait and FSX finally came out and again had neither of these, and then had limited to no multi-core support besides at the beginning, I started to say, "After another three long years of waiting, what are these guys doing ?" So I had a bad attitude. I admit that. In fact, a very bad attitude.So I finally just said, there are other things on a computer to spend my time on, and I'll just wait for the technology to catch up with this program if that's the way it is going to be. Actually I became quite the expert on Photoshop which in itself is an equally complicated program with far fewer flaws and unlimited time wasting possiblilies. And it too is a very challenging program with lots of rewards for enduring the pain of learning.I understand your love of the sim. It just was not for me, the roots of which were found in my frustration of what I perceived as a development team that was not going to keep up with the changing technology in order to bring it into the real world of better frame rates.I hope that is why MS finally took over control. I felt like it was long overdue.Bob - Las Cruces, NM

Good post Bob.It's understandable why you feel the way you do. I would imagine if I had the same experience I would be pretty bummed as well, just like anyone else who has tried it and wasn't able to have a good experience.On the otherhand, i'm not sure that I would call it flawed just because you had some issues getting it to run well on your rig, alhough I guess in the grand scheme of things, you could say that its a design flaw if it takes more than an average amount of tweaking or super expensive hardware to get it to run well.Anyway, here's to hoping that Flight will be a better design overall that will allow more people to enjoy it without umpteen hours of tweeking or the next the the next generation of hardware. Hopefully on many fronts they dont disappoint.Regards

I am just wondering if I bought a different version than some people here.One of the biggest flaws of the product was the awful landclass that made everything look like the sahara desert. Screenshots followed with airports surrounded by sand and TBH was absolutely shocking.A couple of weeks later some guy did some redone texture files to improve the situation. This is something that MS did come out and say they made an error with and this is something they SHOULD have addresed with a patch. I had to purchase GEX in the end to make it bearable.Apart from that I can run it OK now as I upgraded my PC to an AMD 6core but I still don't trust it as stable platform when doing long hauls hence why I have stuck with FS9, not sure why its just me I suppose. Sales may have been good but I doubt that the numbers that run it solidly are somewhat different.

I am just wondering if I bought a different version than some people here.One of the biggest flaws of the product was the awful landclass that made everything look like the sahara desert. Screenshots followed with airports surrounded by sand and TBH was absolutely shocking.A couple of weeks later some guy did some redone texture files to improve the situation. This is something that MS did come out and say they made an error with and this is something they SHOULD have addresed with a patch. I had to purchase GEX in the end to make it bearable.Apart from that I can run it OK now as I upgraded my PC to an AMD 6core but I still don't trust it as stable platform when doing long hauls hence why I have stuck with FS9, not sure why its just me I suppose. Sales may have been good but I doubt that the numbers that run it solidly are somewhat different.

Speaking only for myself (well for my computer system actually), I have found FSX to be a far more stable platform. My CTD's happened far more often in FS9. I could never get FS9 to run smoothly on my system. I could get the frames rates moderately high but the stutters were always there.So the best simulator is the one your computer is happiest with. When Orbx came out with their Pacific Northwest, it really made FS9 impossible to go back to, and I only have FSX on my computer now. I can only hope that Flight will be happy with whatever computer I have at the time!As to the original post, Microsoft may be talking to the industry (in a very limited way), but are they listening?Regards, Mike Mann

My idea of the ideal is a small airplane, with a navigator program so that I know where I am, good roads, mesh, etc. and flying in high density areas such as New York City. I like frying the JFK, Newark, and LaGuardia triangle doing touch and go's with everything maxed out. And on my machine it was both blurry and choppy.

As a software developer, I cringe when I read comments like this. I am sure the Flight developers do the same.The scenery complexity sliders are there to allow users of different systems to have a customized view of the world, based on the abilities of their current hardware. Also, the sliders future-proof the game to some extent.As a developer, when I read that someone is unsatisfied, because they cannot get a smooth and high quality experience over the most complex scenery in the game, with the sliders maxed out, I have to question why I would bother to include such a slider, or allow it to be set so high as to elicit such comments.I commend the FS developers for including the sliders and the hundreds of configuration settings so that we can all tune the game to best fit our hardware. I sincerely hope that Flight will not follow precedents (and failures) set by some other games in dumbing down the features in the name of a "more streamlined interface" and "better accessibility for new users".For as much as there were problems with FSX, most of us have found something in it to keep us entertained and learning for hundreds of hours, which is far more than can be said about much of the games released nowadays.

Nigelporter, newby...I agree with you 100 percent. The existence of past practices is undisputed. But the product also went to a total and complete demise !!! That calls for change. Did MS keep quiet about Windows 7 when Vista was a total dog. No they didn't. I have not used FSX for over two years now. Why ? Simply because everything beyond about 2 miles was blurry, and the frame rates stunk at places where I liked to fly, while running on a fairly decent computer. I decided that it was not up to me to constantly try to make it work with tweaks. It was up to the software provider who sold the product to me. They didn't, so I quite. I really did not think MS could come back in the game, so I decided to just "hang it up" until a 5+ ghz computer came out at a stock running speed.Given the disaster of FSX, I think they owe their loyal followers a little more than they are giving. That has been, and continues to be, my opinion. If MS wants to continue to have a less than stellar public perception, that is a decision that they make for themselves.One forgets that when FSX bombed, they abandoned the "keep you mouth shut" policy within their designated group. And virtually every single person on this forum, their core customers, loved it. Who can forget Phil Taylor ? Now they go back to where they were when they were stuck in the muck of silence, and I detect a lot of the dissatisfaction just as you express. I have it too.Take a lesson from Simon & Garfunkle MS.And in the naked light I sawTen thousand people, maybe morePeople talking without speakingPeople hearing without listeningPeople writing songs that voices never shareAnd no one daredDisturb the sound of silence"Fools", said I, "You do not knowSilence like a cancer growsHear my words that I might teach youTake my arms that I might reach you"But my words, like silent raindrops fellAnd echoedIn the wells of silenceBob Las Cruces, NM.

No views on Flight, but that S and G song is a beauty in deed. If you have any sort of soul its a goosebumper.Andy

Let's get real for a moment. I was running the sim "maxed out" on a high-end state-of-the-art machine (3.2 ghz) purchased fully 1 & 1/2 years after the release of FSX. And I had run the exact same triangle in New York city on the previous version (FS 9) fully some 4 & 1 /2 years before that, and with the exact same settings. And it was very enjoyable. Further it was a much older machine running a full .7 ghz slower. Add to that the fact that I was running a very slow single engine airplane where nothing changes very quickly !!!The facts are, that Aces Studios added many things to the simulation (FSX) with little to no regard for what the simulation software sorely needed. We all know what those things were/are and have complained about it right here on this blog for many years. And this continued through at least three new versions with significant time between each.You can't realistically expect to be a serious contender in the gaming business without including full support for the modern and marvelous video cards, multi-core technology, current DX support, and even 64 bit. They all existed at the time of release of FSX. But these people gave us CPU gobbling cars by the zillions with both headlights and red tail lights to be run in a world of what they surely knew were totally obsolete computers (as they defined them in the software). I think they quickly later added limited multi-core support out of pure embarrassment or desperation.And that is what made me mad enough to drop the hobby. And then a bit later, while at the helm of a money making product, they ALL got fired in one fell swoop, by a company that said at the time that FS would be back.Was I wrong ? You decide.BobPS.... There is nothing in this world that would better help third party software developers than "overhead" for the addition of their product without adverse effects. They were not going to get that with direction or lack thereof that AS's was taking.

Bob,Have you also read that the hardware mapping when FSX was under development was COMPLETELY different than the actual hardware that was available when FSX was released?It was not ACES fault that the Dx development team at MS dropped their end of the deal also.The hardware map did not include multi-core CPUs or 64 bit, the hardware map was WAY different. Then after release, they needed to SP things to match the current state.People just think that FS is programmed in a week, tested in a day, and released in a few hours.As to what the software needed again goes back to a previous post either in this thread or another here. WE are NOT the target market of FS and will never be the target market. So what is sorely needed in our opinion is not the same as what is sorely needed for the target market. We could have all disappeared the day FSX was released and sales would have been touched very little.You may not be wrong, but you certainly aren't right, so let's say misinformed.