No - let's really look at the big picture.1 - Concorde never a financial success because the airlines never had to meet its true costs. The "profits" BA and AF made were effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. Concorde's development cost was £1,134M and the production costs were £654M. The airlines paid only £278M - less than half the production costs. Not only that but in 1979 the British government (which then owned BA) wrote off the £160M which was what BA had paid for Concorde. In effect BA was given the aircraft free.2 - No other airlines except the two state-controlled airlines (who had no choice) saw any future in Concorde and wouldn't buy them. If you want a laugh, compare the initial sales estimates of 260 aircraft worldwide with the 9 actually "sold " to BA and AF - the remainder were eventually given to the airlines.2 - It destroyed the British civil aviation industry because all the available taxpayer's support was spent on it and not on more commercial airctraft. British taxpayers poured millions into developing a aircraft to carry a very few, very rich people across the Atlantic. The US industustry develioped the "big" jets that that the rest of us can afford and fly on in large numbers.3 - It was because of 2 that Britain and France had create, and subsidise, EADS to re-build the civil aircraft industries that Concorde destroyed.4 - Environmentally it was a disaster. Concorde managed about 20 passenger miles per gallon of fuel. A B747 achieves over 100. It couldn't fly supersonically over land because of its noise, and it had to granted an exemption from the noise regulations at Heathrow. It never achieved lthe low noise levels that were imposed on other aircraft.

But you are looking at purely the accounts and not at the overall impact and long term effects of how the world of aviation has changed because of the long term way things panned out. If you take simply the accounts for Concorde alone and draw a line under that, then what you say is correct, but it really isn't as simple as that.Let's look at a couple of the wider aspects and their impact: As a marketing tool for expertise and prestige, there was no better aircraft than Concorde, yes in these green times we could slam it environmentally, but how many environmentalist arguments were taken seriously back in 1969 when Concorde first flew and when global warming was unheard of by most people? I'll tell you how many, none. Most of the complaints about Concorde in the US were cooked up to prevent it succeeding, not because people cared about the ozone layer back then, or even the noise, all airliners with tubojets were noisy as hell back then.Do you imagine that the British Airways slogan 'The World's Favourite Airline' was able to be used without being laughed at because they flew B747s and BAC 1-11s? no, it was because they had the prettiest aircraft ever made as their poster girl, reflected in the fact that when BA dropped that slogan, they then immediately adopted a new livery based on the one originally designed for their Concordes. Sure it was expensive and indeed subsidised, but all advertising and corporate identity is expensive and all national flag carriers get subsidies one way or another. But in the case of Concorde, it was not merely an aeroplane, it was a big beautiful advertising hoarding with wings, one that everyone came out in the street to look at and had people hanging onto the fences at airport boundaries to get a look at, and while they were looking at it, they were seeing the words Air France and British Airways on the things. It's the one aircraft that everyone can name, and they can tell you who flew them too, even if they wouldn't know a Spitfire from a DC-10.The sales of Concorde were small because they were blocked by political pressure from the United States - a move brokered by politicians in States where there were large numbers of people employed in the aircraft industry, not because airlines did not want to buy the Concorde, many initially ordered it but were effectively prevented from using it by that pressure. But even then, Braniff did still operate the Concorde for a while, as did Singapore Airlines, and even in its Twilight, Virgin wanted to buy it.If you know anything about the aircraft industry, as I'm sure you do, you will know that this is in fact what made the Concorde expensive, since like every other aircraft, it depended on projected numbers of sales to make a profit. This is true of, for example, the B707, which did not make a profit for years for Boeing, because of the development costs, and it is not hard to imagine what would have happened to Boeing if it had been politically blocked from recouping that money by a move such as 707s not being allowed to land in France or England after Transatlantic flights. They'd have gone bust or been bought up by Douglas. That's the real reason why Concorde didn't make the projected sales figures, and it merely serves to illustrate why European single nations needed to come together to gain enough clout to challenge Boeing.Thus it is true that EADs had to be created to get the European aircraft industry to be competitive, but that was always the case, and Concorde's success or failure was nothing to do with that. Neither the Comet, Caravelle, 1-11, Mercure, HS 748, Vanguard, Viscount, Britannia or any other pretty good airliner made by a European nation more or less on its own was was able to compete with the might of American production and garner sales there in large numbers, it was EADs that broke that market, with the A300, and EADs was made possible by the cooperative groundwork laid in the collaboration between two European nations and Aerospatiale and BAC, on the Concorde, coutesy of all the aerodynamic research which was then used to good effect to make the A300's wing.The point of all this is that it is the same as MS with Flight Simulator in many respects. It might not have made a massive profit for MS, but as a prestige advertising tool for MS it was one of the best mediums they could ever have dreamed of. Lots of people hate MS, but do you know anyone who hates FS? This is one of the reasons why MS have got back into flight simulators again with Flight, because they know it is a great marketing tool, and if it makes a small profit, so much the better, but like any good business, MS know that corporate identity is critical to wider success.Al

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'll make it very simple then...I've been registered at MS Game Studios as an interested beta tester (which includes all their products, not just FS) for many years...Without exception, MSGS has notified those who are registered at least three months before the scheduled beta testing cycle is to begin.Since no such notice has been sent yet, then no date for a beta test program has been set yet.Likewise, it is about this same time that developers are invited into the beta program so they can beta test the proposed SDK.I've also said this before, but it bears repeating. While I make no pretense of being among the "elite developers," I do correspond with most devs from time to time. Thus far, everyone I've asked has said "no" when the question of an NDA has arisen.On the other hand, the involvement of Captain Sim, Virtuali, and Things-to-Come in FSX took nearly everyone by surprise... :(

Cliffs Notes plz :(

You don't have to read it, it's not compulsory, nor was it a reply to you either for that matter.Al

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Aerosoft/Mathus announce his own flight sim shortly after ACES closed? Is that still in development? I never heard much about it after the initial "wouldent it be cool if" thread where people were listing all the features they wanted, and Mathus was just rubber stamping it all as approved. If its still going on, then no wonder he wont support a potential competitor! If he dumped that project after Flight was announced, he may have an axe to grind. Overall, I wouldent read much into it. We dont even know what roll 3rd party dev's even play in Flight!

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Aerosoft/Mathus announce his own flight sim shortly after ACES closed? Is that still in development? I never heard much about it after the initial "wouldent it be cool if" thread where people were listing all the features they wanted, and Mathus was just rubber stamping it all as approved. If its still going on, then no wonder he wont support a potential competitor! If he dumped that project after Flight was announced, he may have an axe to grind.

He's said its more or less on hold as it would not be fair to pursue this while supporting X Plane 10.

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'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe Mathijs (I hope I spelled that correctly, his name is as hard to spell as it must be to pronounce) was bluffing when he announced his own companys sim after MS killed FS, if so his bluff worked, but now that MS are back with MS Flight, why would he then state Aerosoft would support X Plane 10 exclusively? It doesn't add up, it was mentioned by Al that maybe Math (<--- for short) wanted to try use his influence to steer MS to more serious simulation from what is widely perceived as a more loose approach with what we know about MS Flight? either he's flip flopping or he's deadly serious ... and from what I read about the guy he's a very shrewd business man, maybe he knows something we don't, not necessarily MS Flight wise, but X-Plane 10 wise ... only time will tell I guess.The more I think about it the more I like the idea of X Plane 10 finally coming into fruition.I also agree with what has been said about Bill Gates, he's the man everyone loves to hate and I don't know why? he was pivotal in ensuring the MS Flight Sim franchise stayed alive as long as it did, the new blood at MS ... well, lets just say Win 7 is great but their attitude to Flight Sim is yet to be properly established.

Surely this scenario is a win-win situation for the flight sim community. If X-plane were copulating (metaphorically speaking) with Aerosoft and that resulted in an ‘enhanced’ X-plane that could compete, or at least be a credible competitor to Flight, then Flight have to raise the bar further to maintain its market share. That way, we the consumer, would benefit.

why would he then state Aerosoft would support X Plane 10 exclusively?

He didn't say that. He said that right now, all resources are geared to XP10, because Aerosoft are going to be the lead publishers for it. So in the run-up to its release, clearly this would make sense. He also said, which makes sense, that no resources have been assigned to Flight - yet. Why would they be? They know as much as we do.

Surely this scenario is a win-win situation for the flight sim community. If X-plane were copulating (metaphorically speaking) with Aerosoft and that resulted in an ‘enhanced’ X-plane that could compete, or at least be a credible competitor to Flight, then Flight have to raise the bar further to maintain its market share. That way, we the consumer, would benefit.

This scenario would be ideal, but because we are treated like mushrooms, we don't know, so we speculate ... and then rumours start ... I still say lose the old prima donna beta tester attitude to MS Sims and be much more open about things in future.Most of the MS FSX and FS9 Beta testers who boasted about it were automatic *Yes* Men, if MS told them to jump off a cliff they would have considered it ... I'm joking, but you get the picture.

Most of the MS FSX and FS9 Beta testers who boasted about it were automatic *Yes* Men, if MS told them to jump off a cliff they would have considered it ... I'm joking, but you get the picture.

Quite, the opposite, quite the opposite.

But you are looking at purely the accounts and not at the overall impact and long term effects of how the world of aviation has changed because of the long term way things panned out. If you take simply the accounts for Concorde alone and draw a line under that, then what you say is correct, but it really isn't as simple as that.

But it is. All the points you make are those that have been made with hindsight by apologists for Concorde after it failed. A briefing to the UK Prime Minister in 1963 got it rght::"There were always doubts about this project, as regards both cost and utility. Now the cost is put at £275 Billion (at least) ... There are many snags to be ironed out: the engine, operating costs, the sonic bang, etc.. The return for this vast expenditure will depend on sales. Those to B.O.A.C. will give them yet another unwelcome and uneconomic aircraft....The rational course would probably be to drop the Concord.....But the French are, apparently, determined to go ahead with the Concord and it has become so much a symbol of modernisation in the United Kingdom that it would not be practical politics to throw it overboard now."Source: CP(64) 125 and 134 - classified Secret at the time - not surprisingly!Incidentally the other unwelcome and uneconomic aircrafr was the Vickers VC-10. This had been forced on BOAC by the Governent to support Vickers. BOAC wanted the B707 because its lower operating costs.. The Boeing 747 first flew in February 1969: Concorde in March 1969. Which aircraft opened up air transport for everyone and made money for its manufacturers and operators, which is still in servive and which is history? Which aircraft was a success and which a failure?

The point of all this is that it is the same as MS with Flight Simulator in many respects. It might not have made a massive profit for MS, but as a prestige advertising tool for MS it was one of the best mediums they could ever have dreamed of. Lots of people hate MS, but do you know anyone who hates FS? This is one of the reasons why MS have got back into flight simulators again with Flight, because they know it is a great marketing tool, and if it makes a small profit, so much the better, but like any good business, MS know that corporate identity is critical to wider success.Al

How many individuals and businesses chose Microsoft products because of Flight Simulator? If Flight fails commercially Microsoft will kill it, just as it did FSX/FSNext..

You'll notice that the quote you cull from 1963 states exactly the point I was making, and as you say, that was a long time before the thing flew, i.e: 'the Concord (sic - and at that time what the British were calling it) has become so much a symbol of modernisation in the United Kingdom that it would not be practical politics to throw it overboard now.'There's your answer, it was not simply about economics, but about the wider world of politics in the long term modernisation of Britain in Europe, and the politics that was being referred to, was the changing of business structures in the EEC to allow cooperative projects which would enable Eurpoean manufacturers to challenge the US aircraft industry, because they knew no single nation could do it alone from previous efforts. The prime example of this is that when Airbus Industrie was created, the business laws of France were in fact specifically changed to facilitate its creation, ensure the project was stable, and would remain committed to by the partner nations, effectively, that change in the law made the consortium a treaty instead of simply a business partnership, thus a lot harder to back out of and therefore a stable organisation.This was all geared toward creating a 'United States of Europe', to give such a collective an equal manufacturing capability that was not only equal in capability, but equal in stability to the United States of America, since that was in fact the chief doubt potential airline customers in the US had about Airbus. You can even see an early example of that European political mission in the way the aircraft was called 'Concorde' with an E as opposed to the English spelling, in order to promote entente cordiale, and if that doesn't tell you that Concorde was as much about setting up European politics for manufacture, I don't know what will.Al

But as a means of air transport Concorde was still a failure. The political reason was that the politicians would be critised for negotiating a treaty that didn't include a break clause. This meant that if the UK cancelled the UK taxpayer would still have had to pay the French to continue. So the politicians continued to protect their own interests. Anyway, politicians can be spectacularly wrong. The UK’s then Duncan Sandys as Minister of Aviation backed Concorde and said:"If we are not in the supersonic aircraft business, then it's really only a matter of time before the whole British aircraft industry packs in. It's obviously the thing of the future. It may pay. It may not pay, but we cannot afford to stay out."http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-02764.pdf Minister of Defence he was responsible for the 1957 Defence White Paper of which it has been said officially:"One of its proposals—'that fighter aircraft will in due course be replaced by a ground-to-air guided missile system' shows the danger of making premature predictions. It was an error which had some serious consequences for the UK aerospace industry. "http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmdfence/138/13804.htmAlso, had Concorde been cancelled in 1963 - 6 years before it flew - the public would soon have forgotten about the "symbol of modernisation" - in 1963 few knew much about it and it was already being attacked in the press.Are you really arguing that without Concorde the Common Market wouldn't have developed into the EU? That's again one of those justification from hindsight following Concorde's failure. Wouldn't it have been better for the UK and France to have co-operated on an aircraft that succeeded - say a competitor to the 747 - rather than a technological white elephant that no airline wanted?

Are you really arguing that without Concorde the Common Market wouldn't have developed into the EU? That's again one of those justification from hindsight following Concorde's failure. Wouldn't it have been better for the UK and France to have co-operated on an aircraft that succeeded - say a competitor to the 747 - rather than a technological white elephant that no airline wanted?

No, I'm not arguing that at all, I'm saying that it happened to be one of the catalysts, which is not the same as saying it would never have happened without it. And yes, I completely agree that it would have been better to create a competitor to the 747, although at that time it would have in fact been a competitor to the 707. The 747 was a risk and one made only possible by a promise from Juan Trippe that he would buy it.But semantics aside, it is in fact what has happened in the long term anyway, first with the A300 beating quad and tri-jets from Douglas and Boeing, and then with a series of other twin aeroplanes, culminating in what is indeed a competitor to the 747, and all this through cooperation and extensive aerodynamic research, which, as I've already said, was all kicked off by producing the Concorde but more importantly, producing the political groundwork required to make that possible, which Airbus has subsequently been able to capitalise upon.This being the point I originally made, i.e. the Concorde itself was a commercial failure in numbers sold, but it was not a commercial failure as a venture when you look at what that venture led Europe to, i.e. an A380 that has forced Boeing to stretch its aging 747 once again.Equating this to MS Flight, it's well known that Flight Simulator was the software that constantly pushed processor and OS speeds for the casual PC market, as MSFS has always been tough on FPS, thus it was used by MS to demo capabilities of what else they were doing, being a familiar Kiosk demo in PC stores. Nowadays other PC games do that too, but that does not mean Flight could not rekindle that role at MS, showcasing on youtube instead of in the high street.Al