roflWhen MS was a new company, IBM was the hated one. Now that MS is just like IBM was in the 70's, it is hated just the same. Well, this could have something to do with them stifling competition, lack of innovation and quality, etc.The world uses MS products not because they are better, but because it has no choice.See if you ever heard of these quotes:"More people eat them because they are fresher and they are fresher because more people eat them." and"Quantity has a quality all of its own."It is my firm belief that MS has set computing back a decade by its practices and we may never recover from the fact that there really is no alternative. To compete with MS would now take something like competing with Boeing took - a European consortium - and getting that together is harder with each passing year.

roflbet you typed that with a straight face ... first, most people do not hate MS.  There is a group that does and believes that all others hate MS as well, its just not true.  Second,  no way MS has set computing back 10 yrs ... no way. If anything, it pushed it forward....

HelloApple seem to be doing fine

If you consider having < 10% market share doing fine.

Call me a little fed up, but it's getting tiresome seeing posts from developers stating: "Have you talked with the ACES team personally? Well I did and your arguement is no longer valid" Then the rest of the "crew" reply with high fives to each other. It's like a game on one-ups-manship to disprove someone's opinion. And sorry I couldn't attend the last conference in Seattle, I think I was out in Yakima blowing up the countryside with large caliber weapons. Instead of posting "WELL...I got to talk to the ACES team in Seattle (snort)" How about you post those conversations right here to actually what was discussed? Are those conversations heated? Candid? Are they colorful? I don't know since all I've seen is developers and those "in the know" beating their chests but I can't remember ONE instance here at Avsim where those who are "in the know" actually posted what was said during casual chit-chats. Are you afraid of breaking an NDA, or a developer/3PD relationship turn sour?I honestly would like to know so we can drop this "I've talked with ACES and you haven't" bullpucky in future conversations when you make a statement like this and don't back it up with what was actually said.[EDIT] Although I think Mike T is a little off in his observations of the way the beta was handled (my best guess) I think there's much validity to his statement regarding the types of posters in this forum upon the release of FSX. I remember "tdragger" disappearing pretty quickly once FSX was released. [DOUBLE EDIT] Several years ago Fr. Bill made a suggestion that if one wanted to try to beta test for ACES, they could sign up for MS's play studios. For over a year, I've got nothing but requests to come up to Redmond and play "Cookin' Mama's Xbox 360 dinner extravaganza" or "Zombie Driving: Hell at the DMV" or something like that. I finally explained to them (not Microsoft but a contractor that handles beta play testing) that I was no longer interested and that I signed up for one thing and one thing only, to beta MS Flight. So yeah, I was/am interested but methinks that MS already has chosen who they want, other than regular ole "Joe Schmedlap" - Blake

Hi Blake,Write Microsoft for the transcripts of every Q and A session because at every single one they had a secretary recording what was asked and what was answered.It's OK you weren't able to go because for DevCon you needed to be a Developer, which you are not.I guess you didn't fit the needs for the FS Beta team. A wide range of users were included on the FSX Beta team and not everyone who applied was accepted. The same was true for the market research meetings that they held at major cities across the USA.No, there is not going to be a play-by-play replay of something that took place in November of 2007. I am sure Phil Taylor over at Intel would give you some of his thoughts about the way he was treated back then.

Hi Blake,Write Microsoft for the transcripts of every Q and A session because at every single one they had a secretary recording what was asked and what was answered.It's OK you weren't able to go because for DevCon you needed to be a Developer, which you are not.I guess you didn't fit the needs for the FS Beta team. A wide range of users were included on the FSX Beta team and not everyone who applied was accepted. The same was true for the market research meetings that they held at major cities across the USA.No, there is not going to be a play-by-play replay of something that took place in November of 2007. I am sure Phil Taylor over at Intel would give you some of his thoughts about the way he was treated back then.

Jim,The Q&A session, if I remember correctly was posted here, information was pretty vague and really nothing helpful. I'm sure if I look hard enough, I can find it here or elswhere through google. No I'm not a professional developer, I designed three freeware aircraft for FS9 (one was released and later ported to FSX by a couple of kind individuals) Fr. Bill was extremely helpful with getting things in my aircraft to work over at freeflightdesign. As far as being a beta tester, nothing in MS's application even asks what kind of experience with flight simulations that I have, other than one or two drop down boxes for a game title. Every name that I can remember that has come up in this forum and others, as a FSX beta tester, has been a professional 3PD. Phil Taylor was treated badly by many here and elsewhere. He was thrown to the wolves by MS's incredibly irresponsible Marketing department, handed a huge mess of archaic and worn out code after "tdragger" (Mike) left and at least tried to keep everyone's expectations somewhat low through his explanations of how DX10 worked given his team's time constraints/budget.We'll (at least not me or 99.9999999% of us out there) will never know what happens behind closed doors, what is being said and how things work with MS's Flight development team. We are just end-users, very very few of us freeware developers. When someone mentions "I've spoken with the ACES team", it either conveys that we have good faith in your conversation to add to the discussion or to try and squash someone else's opinion. I would hope the former.-Blake

If you consider having < 10% market share doing fine.

HelloI consider having > $42.905 billion revenue for 2009 along with better margins than MS as "Doing fine"What is MS market share in Smart phones and tablets ?

Blake,The DevCon Q and As were never posted here. We did have a general session with the AVSIM folks on Saturday and that is what was reported here. The real meaty parts were discussed on Wed-Fri.Opinions are great, but facts are better, for all involved.

@mad dogThere is really no point having this discussion in this thread, nor in any other thread for that matter, if you can't see the fact that MS has 90% of the computers in the world running their software and what this means for innovation and quality.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/22/where-in-the-world-are-mac-sales-growing-everywhere/

Hi,Well, I can't imagine that people who actually read the posts here in response to the MS blogger's forum posts could think that the MS folks wouldn't be turned off from further posting. They did it on their own time (with MS's permission) and generally got blasted for their efforts. Why put yourself through that? These people are professionals, who are used to a professional environment. Certainly not the case here...BTW, there is one more group you forgot - those who decided that FSX was one of those versions of the sim that could be skipped and stayed with FS9.

@mad dogThere is really no point having this discussion in this thread, nor in any other thread for that matter, if you can't see the fact that MS has 90% of the computers in the world running their software and what this means for innovation and quality.

Attila- where I live, 100% of the cars drive on the right side of the road.(At least they are supposed to! And yes, I know there are some peculiar types in obscure corners of the world who choose to be different!)Standardization seems to work well with automobiles- do you suppose that may be the reason for MS to have a big market share in computer software? AR

Wow. Here I came into this thread looking for a forum post about PC Pilot mag on Flight, and discover a PC vs Mac debate that has absolutly nothing to do with the subject. Then, in the Aerosoft thread, a Concord debate raged on.

My humble opinion regarding the performance philosophy:I'd rather have a product that runs just fine, if not maxed, on current or VERY near future technology. To me, I'd rather have a slightly obsolete-*looking* software product that I know I can run for a good while that is stable, smooth, and still looks relatively good. The five-year-down-the-road computer philosophy is just not enjoyable for me, having to frantically catch up to the curve with the most expensive, cutting edge technology to enjoy it then continuously tweak it. I know many others have the opposite opinion, they would rather have stunning visuals later with newer hardware. Guess this is one of the main reasons I still use FS9 for 90% of my flying...with current addons and general enhancements, it looks just as good as FSX in some situations on my machine and runs much better/stable.That's just me. I sincerely hope any new engine uses system resources a lot more efficiently.

Call me a little fed up, but it's getting tiresome seeing posts from developers stating: "Have you talked with the ACES team personally? Well I did and your arguement is no longer valid" Then the rest of the "crew" reply with high fives to each other. It's like a game on one-ups-manship to disprove someone's opinion. And sorry I couldn't attend the last conference in Seattle, I think I was out in Yakima blowing up the countryside with large caliber weapons.

Hi Blake!Actually, much of the reticence to post details of the DevCon 2005 Summit is simply because the five year NDA period was still in effect. Since that NDA is no longer in effect, I'll share here some notes I made about the Summit.

11/01/2005...the following is what I've compiled so far for those members of the ESDG team who were unable to make the trip to Redmond. Ron and I asked specifically for permission to share whatever we had learned with other members of the ESDG team, and were told that as long as they were under an NDA with ESDG, there would be no problem. For obvious reasons, it would have been difficult to work alongside other team members who remained "in the dark" so to speak, so we were very happy to receive this permission.So, what you will read is a sometimes randomly arranged collection of "facts," mixed among my "impressions..." ;)--------------------------------------------------------First of all, as you are likely already aware, there has been a "rethinking of strategy" by the stupid suits at Autodesk. Without taking anything away from other game studios, as well as quite literally hundreds of thousands of emails & letters of protest, it is clear to me at least that the might of MS was brought to bear. What the final result may be is anyone's guess at this juncture, but FS will be releasing a Max Script plugin so that anyone who already has (or can afford) Max will be able to export directly, and not require MakeMDL as an intermediate step. The XML code for the models will be automatically created based on the inputs to a supplied Max Script Tool that will be supplied with the SDK, making the entire process (relatively) painless.This will at least settle the matter for nearly all of the "professionals" and possibly many of the "freeware" developers as well for the immediate future. If the current situation with Autodesk cannot be resolved satisfactorily, then they will provide something for the rest of the community, eventually.Much of what has been guessed at based on the presentations at Blackpool and AVSIM's Convention (and other venues) is quite likely to be in the shipped version of FSX, and a LOT more that will - without a doubt - make this a true "blockbuster" release. Folks who like animations, volumetric shading (aka "dynamic shadowing"), animated "stuff" at airports, not just "moving dots of light" but actual moving vehicles!, and a raft of other things will have their socks knocked off...RIP - FSEdit, ABL, Tick18, and Voicepack SDKWELCOME the following new features! -Attachpoint tool will work on modelsShared Skies (improved multiplayer infrastructure)Shared Cockpit *Tower Control w live radar & commsDynamic Living WorldSeparate "flight dynamic" support for:

• 1) Planes
• 2) Boats
• 3) Cars (all ground based vehicles)
• 4) Lighter-than-air (baloons, blimps, etc.)
• 5) Baggage Carts
• 6) Pushback tugs

Connecting Objects (such as a sailplane tow!)Water ballast (for LTA models)Wingflex (the sailplane demo was fantastic!)There's a whole lot more, but that's a taste. However... (you knew that was coming, right?), there are no real changes to flight dynamics, panel systems, or gauging (except for new controllers for the animations and an WYSIWYG XML Gauge Authoring Engine).I don't know - but have very strong reason to suspect - that there are some very happy folks such as Pete Dowson and Justin Tyme who've had their contributions to the sim community recognized in a very big way, since there was no detectable "face reaction" to the news that FSUIPC will no longer be necessary, or that the entire planet will have a default 3.8m LOD for mesh... Autogen is more intelligent, and the "ecosphere" will no longer be American-centric. You will know by the scenery whether you are in Debuque, Blackpool, Paris, Bangladesh, Shanghai or Mozambique.What is most important to me personally is that I (as well as many others) now have a direct communications pipeline to specific individuals to provide suggestions and feedback as this continues to evolve prior to the initial beta testing. In that regard, I'm working directly with the head of the gauge & panel departments to give them not simply suggestions, but actual source code that will (hopefull) open up the GPS system more for both C and XML developers, and perhaps... even add that long desired GPS#2 to the sim. They will NOT be coding a "Universal FMC," but if they implement my suggestions, along with those of a few others, enough access will be provided that it will enable each of us to easily create one, without having to resort to "custom databases," and other arcane, convoluted tricks...In that regard, even though you personally don't have that level of access to the FS team members, please feel free to channel any such requests or comments through me, and I'll bring your concerns/questions/suggestions up with the appropriate individual or department.*Additional Notes:The "Shared Cockpit" demo was pretty amazing. They had a "tower controler" (a highly experienced IVAO controller), a "student pilot" and an "instructor pilot."One keystroke will transfer the "controls" to the other pilot, leaving the other full control over radios, gear, flaps, etc.Both pilots have a private, full duplex "intercom channel," in addition to a voice "com channel" that's frequency controlled, meaning if your on-line session includes six manned tower positions, then each is on a dedicated frequency, just as in real life. Controllers also have a common "intercom channel" with which they can communicate hand offs, be tutored themselves by an "instructor controller," etc.This is NOT intended by MSFS to be a "replacement" for the IVAO or VATSIM networks, but rather as a "less stressful entry point" for new pilots & controllers to learn together, BEFORE entering the IVAO or VATSIM world environment... ;)There's probably no coincidence that the author of the "still under development" FS9 version of the same concept was also an attendee at the gathering (which never happened, of course, except in my fevered, fertile and fervent imagination!) ;)Were there a couple of "Bill Gate's Moments" during the demo? Of course, after all this imagined code is still very much a WIP! <LOL!>Oh yes, finally here is the tentative schedule:Beta 1 - April, 2006Beta 2 - Summer, 2006Release to Market - 2nd half of 2006 (timed to match the release of Vista OS)Great... Oh, I forgot to mention Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound support, as well as support for multiple sound cards. If desired, ATC may then be sent to the headphones, and ambient, engine, etc. sent to the 5.1 speaker system. This will include definable "cones of sound" within the sound.cfg file.Also, they have hired a *professional technical document writer* to create the SDK's which will (a) be released when the Beta 1 is, and (:( continue to improve and evolve through periodic updates throughout the product's life cycle.Regarding hardware, it's significant to note that they were using P4 3.2 GHz machines with 1 GB memory, and video cards that will support 2.0 shader technology, which just about all cards delivered in the past 2 years feature.FSUIPC functionality is being replaced by a unified API called "Sim Connect," which, in addition to allowing for user definable "triggers" (can we say "Go Flight" support?), will also allow the gauge programmer to "loop" the data back into the gauge's internal code, providing access to plethora things never before possible.As far as Pete and Justin, neither of the showed ANY visible reaction to the "bombshell announcements," which, coupled with their invitation to attend the Summit leads me to believe the best for both of them. I've known for some months that there are several individuals who're under contract and "telecommute" to work each day, only visiting for a face-to-face on a periodic basis as necessary.Their defined "Strategic Goals" for FSX are rather clear about their vision:Provide an improved and unified ecosystem for the FS franchise to- drive sales growth for MSFS as well as third-party companies- develop a vibrant and active user community- provide a robust platform for third-part developers.One more item comes to mind as I scan through my notes. There will be an integrated "Addon Manager" in the basic UI.The "live animals" were brought into the sim from Zoo Tychoon, which of course MS already owns...The main reason for the separate "ground vehicle objects" is because they won't use an ".air file," but rather will follow predefined "tracks" laid down, with some AI being implemented via "target attach points" on user objects.Imagine a jetway that will automatically adjust itself to the a/c height and position, rotate to the a/c, and then deploy the "accordian door shroud" to fit the a/c's fuselage! ;) Fuel trucks that will scurry up and tuck themselves to the proper positions relative to the wings, and bagagge loaders that drive up and begin "unloading cargo" from the plane onto baggage carts!How about catering trucks, as well as pushback tugs? People moving about purposely, and not simply randomly or in predictable patterns?

Even six years later, this is fascinating stuff Bill. Many thanks for posting this. Interesting to note the level of computer hardware MS was using at the time. And lastly, it looks like Strategic Goal number 2 backfired big time in that it divided the user base (Well...at least many of the more hardcore folks on the various forums) in my opinion. Again, thanks :(