This was the most interesting and telling part to me. Most web based development these days, and the application language being touted for Windows 8 is JavaScript/HTML 5/CSS; they are downplaying native coding in languages like C# or C++ :http://www.winsupers...loathing-136441This leads further credance to the idea they are building on the existing FSX engine rather than developing a new web-based simulator (which is what everyone thought when they fired ACEs and rolled it into the Games for Windows suite); probably intergrating it with the new AppX platform and perhaps introducing ribbon bars to replace the menu bar that has been there for years.-James

But they aren't building a web-based simulator. You can play offline too.

But they aren't building a web-based simulator. You can play offline too.

Oh, I didn't think they were, quoting myself from another thread below. But I do remember that was the direction many folks thought they would go when they fired ACES and aligned FS with the rest of their Games for Windows offerings. As I said before, watch Windows 8 and MS Office to see where they are going with Flight, this job posting implies they are not going down the web-based JavaScript/HTML 5/CSS route. It's design will be more like Office 2010 in being a native coded product, just as it always has been, and not a mostly on-the-web product like Office 365.

Obviously, anything we say or think is speculation; there are little hard facts out.I go with a revamped FSX engine because:1. Their development time is relatively, and they have obviously put a lot of work into scenery design; where would they have the time to totally rewrite a FS engine that has been ten years in the making?2. It appears to have the look and feel of FSx down to some of the flaws.3. I think a revamping will still be needed to take advantage of mult-core CPUs, and to integrate it smoothly into the new application model for Windows 8 (AppX.)I also go with moderately realistic because they started down that road with FSX (eye candy and neat stuff like catapult launches and sling loads over enhanced realism), and nothing I have read so far leads me to believe they will change direction with this new release.I also believe a revamped SDK will be in the works because:1. For all intents and purposes, the current SDK is ten years old; we have to resort to DOS based tools to do some things.2. They have indicated the future is no longer native code like C++ but Java, HTML and CSS; it would only make sense to release a new set of tools that uses the new platform.To see where they will go with Flight, keep your eyes on Windows 8 and MS Office. They just announced their new version of MS Office with more of the applications online, and the App Store will be for Windows 8. Flight will not be developed in a vaccum, expect it to fit in with the rest of the "new world" of Windows 8 and future verions of other MS products.-James

Oh, I didn't think they were, quoting myself from another thread below. But I do remember that was the direction many folks thought they would go when they fired ACES and aligned FS with the rest of their Games for Windows offerings. As I said before, watch Windows 8 and MS Office to see where they are going with Flight, this job posting implies they are not going down the web-based JavaScript/HTML 5/CSS route. It's design will be more like Office 2010 in being a native coded product, just as it always has been, and not a mostly on-the-web product like Office 365.

jhefner, I think it was safe to say based on the screenshots released, there was not even a remote chance they were programming Flight in Javascript/HTML 5/CSS :) There is just no way you can build such a complex graphics engine and physics simulator with those technologies.BTW I think what you have been reading on Microsoft switching to HTML 5 is mainly related to the tablet UI of Windows 8. Naturally the web based applications (e.g. Bing, Office 365 etc) might also move (if they haven't already) in this direction, but I think it will have little to no impact on desktop applications such as traditional Office, Games etc..

But jhefner's right, there were folks that argued it would be web based.One of the first press releases refered to a 'Flying Game' ...and GFWL.An honest mistake on the part of the PR department :) -jkAt the time it did make 'simulation' fans nervous.Like you say, the screenshots tell a lot...so that's ancient history IMO.BTW 3rd party sales analyzers have a category called 'Flying Games'That's where you'll find FS...among others.

Microsoft thinks it's a game, based on the advertisement."Are you passionate about technology, games...unique entertaining gameplay experiences...and drive great customer experiences - for our gamers...LEARN how to build and test games...EXPERIENCE in the video game industry...quality computer games...Experience with game engines..."

Microsoft thinks it's a game, based on the advertisement."Are you passionate about technology, games...unique entertaining gameplay experiences...and drive great customer experiences - for our gamers...LEARN how to build and test games...EXPERIENCE in the video game industry...quality computer games...Experience with game engines..."

Of course it is a game! If you want to buy a simulator you'd have to spend a few more bugs :(

Of course it is a game! If you want to buy a simulator you'd have to spend a few more bugs

..although some have built low-cost flight simulators around FSX, and MS offered the basic technology for use in other sims.Maybe this whole reshaping of the MSFS franchise is really a move away from trying to be a simulator back to just being a game; albiet a very realistic one. Trying to be an actual simulator does open up some legal areas that I am sure Microsoft decided they did not want to tread into.-James

..although some have built low-cost flight simulators around FSX, and MS offered the basic technology for use in other sims.Maybe this whole reshaping of the MSFS franchise is really a move away from trying to be a simulator back to just being a game; albiet a very realistic one. Trying to be an actual simulator does open up some legal areas that I am sure Microsoft decided they did not want to tread into.-James

Actually I agree with you to an extent...but I think that this never concerned the FS game franchise.The only venture ACES made into professional software was ESP (license).And that’s where management might have to ask, do we really want to be in this new (unrelated) business?If that was the case, the answer seems to have been no.And this appears to be LockheedMartin's venture now.Whether this affects FS or not is not clear. The path of least resistance (and most savings) would be to reject an FS redesign IMO. - so I don't expect one.

The path of least resistance (and most savings) would be to reject an FS redesign IMO. - so I don't expect one.

+1

..although some have built low-cost flight simulators around FSX, and MS offered the basic technology for use in other sims.Maybe this whole reshaping of the MSFS franchise is really a move away from trying to be a simulator back to just being a game; albiet a very realistic one. Trying to be an actual simulator does open up some legal areas that I am sure Microsoft decided they did not want to tread into.-James

What? Didnt want to tread into? How long do you believe that MS has been in the flight sim business?

What? Didnt want to tread into? How long do you believe that MS has been in the flight sim business?

Since they put lessons into the "game" on how to fly, included charts (stamped not for actual flight use, mind you), and had former team members write books on how to use MSFS to log simulator time. While they never actively encouraged it's use as a simulator, they never discouraged it, either. And ESP was geared towards writing simulators, not games; or why would Lockheed Martin had purchased it?-James Hefner

As soon as I read this thread I immediately thought of the oft over used phrase Engineer and applying the trade title of Engineer to just about anything these days!I have one or two mates that like to call themselfes Engineers ... glorified mechanics at the best of times and both of them never served their time! Crikey I've even heard of a title of Public cleansing Engineer ... public toilet cleansing operative to be more precise.This is one of my pet hates, and Engineer should really be the sole title of accomplished Engineers like Telford and others who built and designed great bridges and such like, the title Engineer is getting diminished day by day!Rant over ... so what is this new stunt MS are trying to pull?

Rant over ... so what is this new stunt MS are trying to pull?

What stunt -- they post a job posting, and you immediately go negative into consperacy theories.What makes your point of view any better than someone you accuse of always rooting for MS. It really gets old....-James

As soon as I read this thread I immediately thought of the oft over used phrase Engineer and applying the trade title of Engineer to just about anything these days!I have one or two mates that like to call themselfes Engineers ... glorified mechanics at the best of times and both of them never served their time! Crikey I've even heard of a title of Public cleansing Engineer ... public toilet cleansing operative to be more precise.This is one of my pet hates, and Engineer should really be the sole title of accomplished Engineers like Telford and others who built and designed great bridges and such like, the title Engineer is getting diminished day by day!Rant over ... so what is this new stunt MS are trying to pull?

I think they should ban this guy. I sure as hell wouldn't want to think he might be my next door neighbor

I think they should ban this guy. I sure as hell wouldn't want to think he might be my next door neighbor

I'd just like to add, they should not ban you or anyone else for valid conversation, you just need to learn to agree to differ.I've promised this guy I wont be back until Flight is finally out ... I'll be a first day buyer, same as with most Flight sims.Bye.