Really don't understand what all the Xplane v Flight fist fight is about. For the first time in many years, flight simulation, as a hobby, is returning to it former glory , with CHOICES for all. It doesn't have to be one or the other - it CAN be both people. As for the ridiculous notion that Aerosoft would give up on development or support for Flight - there's no way that would happen - there is too much money to be made.I still have my doubts about the 'ooooh and aaaah' going on about XP10 though. Screenies do look good but we'll see.....

The only thing about X-Plane 10 that would surprise me is if it actually got released.

From the progress of the two camps and what I've read from Austin Meyer, X-Plane 10 will be out some time after MS Flight. IMO X-Plane 10 could be possibly another 12 months further down the road.

Aerosoft is not involved with Flight to precisely the same degree "other developpers" (sic) are not involved... :(

Not sure I'm getting what you'e saying... so let me explain what I was saying another way, the clue ( i posted a day before Mathis answered in the thread) was that Aerosoft do not have a NDA with MS.I said it before "approved developpers", now tell me that if Aerosoft had a NDA agreement with MS Mathijs would say something like..."What MS is doing does not interest us a lot" and " Might change of course but right now we do not have any resources on projects for MS Flight."I'll say it again, if they want to sell add-ons in their store MS need to have developpers working on them as we speak and not after Flight is released to see how this new SDK work for them and what?? wait another years to get them after the dev. ironed out all the bugs and that's without counting the time it take to build add-ons.....:( If I read your post wrong I apologize.

Perhaps Aerosoft has had a preview of MS Flight's add-on sales channel plans and are not wild about the implementation?Total speculation on my part of course. And FYI there is loads to enjoy within X-Plane now as it stands regardless of when 10 gets released. Simulation fans should be happy there is a choice to be made or like me-enjoy both XP and FSX. No need for distracting "us-v-them" discussion with no sign of MS Flight or XP10 going gold anytime soon.

If Flight gets the sales that are anticipated, I am sure Aerosoft will change their mind. They are going to go where the bucks are.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. There are plenty of other talented companies. The only "Aerosoft" planes I fly anymore aren't actually made by Aerosoft, just sold through them.

Which developers are on record as saying they will support Flight?

Which developers are on record as saying they will support Flight?

I could be wrong, but I think Orbx.

Some of said as soon as Flight was announced that it would kill Aerosoft's project. Aerosoft just said:I wonder why it expects someone else to provide the engine for its simulation, and why it sounds surprised it can't find a supplier?

I am not surprised they couldn’t find any. Truth is, it’s extremely hard to build a realistic flight simulator engine. Sure, you can go the arcade route, and end-up with something like “Flightgear” or any of the combat stand alone products sold today.It has taken the might of Bill Gates pockets and more than 20 years of successive MSFS teams to bring FSX where it is.I am not holding my breath regarding “Flight”, because the moment MS dropped the word “Simulator” it said it all. I believe it will appeal to a different audience. For a long time it suited Bill Gates and MS sponsoring the FS franchise if only to showcase the power of computers and what software can achieve. With the advent of the latest generation of games and their awesome graphics, FSX lost the wow factor.I doubt MS made any money out of FSX or even FS9. No businessman in his right mind would undertake such project.MS licensed the source code (I might be wrong here, as it could only be the Object code) to Lockheed Martin. And the latter saw it as an excellent investment. They are trying to sell the solution to people who are serious about training, and they may succeed.In many ways the MSFS fate is like the one of the sublime Concorde, a great technological achievement, but a business disaster.I for one would like to thank Bill Gates for doing the odd thing at the right time. Gerald R.http://www.multicrewxp.com

I am not surprised they couldn’t find any. Truth is, it’s extremely hard to build a realistic flight simulator engine. Sure, you can go the arcade route, and end-up with something like “Flightgear” or any of the combat stand alone products sold today.It has taken the might of Bill Gates pockets and more than 20 years of successive MSFS teams to bring FSX where it is.I am not holding my breath regarding “Flight”, because the moment MS dropped the word “Simulator” it said it all. I believe it will appeal to a different audience. For a long time it suited Bill Gates and MS sponsoring the FS franchise if only to showcase the power of computers and what software can achieve. With the advent of the latest generation of games and their awesome graphics, FSX lost the wow factor.I doubt MS made any money out of FSX or even FS9. No businessman in his right mind would undertake such project.MS licensed the source code (I might be wrong here, as it could only be the Object code) to Lockheed Martin. And the latter saw it as an excellent investment. They are trying to sell the solution to people who are serious about training, and they may succeed.In many ways the MSFS fate is like the one of the sublime Concorde, a great technological achievement, but a business disaster.I for one would like to thank Bill Gates for doing the odd thing at the right time. Gerald R.http://www.multicrewxp.com

Not one fact in your whole post

Gerald,Would you be surprised to know that FSX sold the most units of any of the MS flight simulators?

I could be wrong, but I think Orbx.

Correct. JV said on the FSBreak show in 2009 that Orbx will always support the MS platform.

I could be wrong, but I think Orbx.

Correct. JV said on the FSBreak show in 2009 that Orbx will always support the MS platform.

Gerald,Would you be surprised to know that FSX sold the most units of any of the MS flight simulators?

No Jim, I wouldn’t be surprised.I was talking from an ROI perspective.For small companies like ours, selling a few thousand copies is a big achievement.If it costs you US$15 M to US$20 M a year to run a franchise like MSFS, you may not break even after selling 1000000 copies a year.Surely enough, when Steve Ballmer was put at the helm, he made a business decision.Now don’t get me wrong. I like FSX and FS9. I just wish Bill Gates stayed longer so that the dream (building the most realistic flight simulation and trying to run it on an off the shelf PC) would go on. And I believe in some way it will, at least I hope so.Geraldhttp://www.multicrewxp.com

In many ways the MSFS fate is like the one of the sublime Concorde, a great technological achievement, but a business disaster.

A bit off topic but, technically, Concorde actually ended up being a business success if you look at the bigger picture. In three ways...First it ended up being a profitable aircraft when BA and AF realised that they should market it as an exclusive luxury option with all the trimmings - at both ends before and after the flight in dedicated lounges - so that they could charge a bloody fortune for a seat on it. It was only the single accident which put the brakes on that, and that accident wasn't even the fault of the aircraft itself.Second, the technological research required to actually produce the thing put an aeronautical engineering skill set infrastructure in Europe's aircraft manufacturing workforce that was finally able to challenge US companies on an equal level when it came to producing other commercial aircraft. Third, it paved the way for the business rule changes in Europe (particularly in France) that made EADS and its dispersed production model a viable proposition. Without Concorde, it is doubtful that the Airbus consortium would be as successful as it currently is, and you can see that this is a successful way to build aircraft, because Boeing have copied it. In particular, the 'parts just in time' method of bringing all the components together for final assembly which was pioneered with Concorde's construction, is now the business model that almost all manufacturing companies use, and Europe got a head start on that way of working, which is why EADS sells more aircraft than Boeing, although to be fair, Boeing are catching back up again.Back on topic though, Aerosoft's main dude is of course well known for not being a shrinking violet when it comes to voicing his opinions, which is one of many things I actually like about him to be honest, but there can be little doubt that he often does so for reasons beyond what appear to be the meaning on the face of it. My guess is that it is probably an attempt to shepherd MS into going down more of a simulator route by playing the 'well I'm taking my ball home' game. Like them or not, Aerosoft is a big fish, and their support - and even a bogus threat to abandon it - is a big part of what will make Flight sink or swim.Al