What would wor best is if MS let us do the cleaning-up: Simmers local to a RW airport will always be able to do a better job correcting blatant errors in airports like misaligned RWYs, correcting RWY markings , adding/deleting TWYs, airport buildings, trees, etc. Why not let volunteers do the work and incorporate any corrections (with vetting by MS staff) and then distribute these corrections via weekly free updates? Heck, volunteers could even do a far better version of the local out-of-the way airports and dirt strips that MS does from the FAA airport charts. After all we have twice daily malware database updates with MS Security Essentials, so why can't we have weekly updates for airport data? BTW, quarterly updates to the Flight executable and SDK to stamp out bugs would also be welcome! Cheers, - jahman.

That is a great idea. I doubt, however, that MS would have budgeted the ongoing maintenance and distribution that would be required with this process. I really wish this would be something that they would look at in the future, because you are absolutely correct that people familiar with the local area in detail would be able to better depict the visuals.

I like this idea. I really don't think freeware will be gone with Flight, so something similar to this process might be possible even if Microsoft doesn't care. As long as it's easy to update airports.

I like this idea. I really don't think freeware will be gone with Flight, so something similar to this process might be possible even if Microsoft doesn't care. As long as it's easy to update airports.

You know, if it could be done independently of MS, that might work well. Just thinking about it, doesn't Instant Scenery have a file share capability where authors of new scenery using the tool can make it available to the public? Would be really good if an independent group would provide the ability for people to update scenery and make it available to the masses. By the way, I agree that freeware will still be available for MS Flight.

That is a great idea. I doubt, however, that MS would have budgeted the ongoing maintenance and distribution that would be required with this process. I really wish this would be something that they would look at in the future, because you are absolutely correct that people familiar with the local area in detail would be able to better depict the visuals.

I like this idea. I really don't think freeware will be gone with Flight, so something similar to this process might be possible even if Microsoft doesn't care. As long as it's easy to update airports.

You know, if it could be done independently of MS, that might work well. Just thinking about it, doesn't Instant Scenery have a file share capability where authors of new scenery using the tool can make it available to the public? Would be really good if an independent group would provide the ability for people to update scenery and make it available to the masses. By the way, I agree that freeware will still be available for MS Flight.

Let's all contact the Microsoft FLight Team and let them know! Cheers, - jahman. EDIT: I just did!

Well would you look at that... this long-winded bloodbath actually produced a decent and workable idea ripe for application! I really am stunned! *so glad I stuck it out reading to the end...*

I want one thing from FLIGHT, and that is that they throw all FS versions in the bin before developing this one, but they develop it with an understanding that addons are important to the community. The old versions are heavy on resources and were developed at a time when the direction of hardware evolution wasn't really understood as well as it is now (use of SLI, multiple CPU cores and so on). I think ultimately FS in whatever form will be fairly intensive on computing hardware, but the problem with FSX has been that although it was intensive it was thought that CPUs would continue to get faster and faster at a rate that would make FSX viable in the not too distant future. However what really happened was cores expanded, things like SLI were introduced, the use of memory became higher, 64-bit systems came common place and this did not fit within FSX's 'expandability' profile if you will. FLIGHT needs to fix this, it needs to be in tune with computing hardware and where it's going. We shouldn't need to carefully consider the CAS of RAM should we, the software should be fairly immune to these sorts of details. There are few other games I have that require such detailed examination of computer hardware and such careful selection. Bring back the days where you buy a powerful CPU, stick in a chunk of decent quality ram and a good GPU and get going. We're in a position now where we virtually HAVE to overclock! So CAS comes in and a whole host of other details. I think I'd like the software for FLIGHT to be written in a way that gives addon developers opportunity to make their products much more integral to the actual simulator itself. I get tired of having to load up separate programmes all the time for different purposes. I'd like addons to be integral, weather engines to be integrated fully into the software and given the developers the chance to develop in that way. The same goes for planners, chart viewers, ATC applications and so on. These don't have to be separate applications, a bit like APs for the iphone, I'd like APs for FLIGHT, where they can be added and become integrated into the simulator itself, in much the same way that the aircraft are. This is especially true for scenery. I (like many others) have trouble sometimes getting scenery to work, why can't a methodology of installation of scenery be integral to FLIGHT? This could be common for all scenery installations, and FLIGHT could even be the installation programme. If we want to improve flight simulator in terms of where it's heading hardware use wise, we have to dispense with all previous versions and accept that for the most part addons will require a lot of redevelopment. But if this platform is thought through properly, if FLIGHT's development team carefully consider the future of computing over the next 10 years, if the developers build in upgradability and make it easy then we have a foundation that may last 15 years before the core needs to be scrapped again. I like so many others search for the holy grail of hardware that will enable me to run FSX maxed out at a high resolution. This is just not going to happen now, hardware has made a turn to the left in its evolution and FSX was counting on a turn to the right. All I really want is for FLIGHT to correct this. The rest I am willing to wait for. Just my thoughts Craig

I think peoples are asking way to much, seriously why will Flight run on an average PC getting 80 + FPS with everything maxed out, do you know a game with a today's engine that can do that? I whish I could spend only $700.00 on a PC and run Metro 2033 or Crysis 2 with 3 monitors and everything maxed out at high resolution, "ain't happening"....why will this not be possible with Flight.... because Flight is no different, we all want high resolution, 3D visual (3 monitors for some) and as much eye candy as we can add to it, do I belive Flight will run on a $700.00 PC at default with good result....absolutly, just remember what is their new simmers target, now start adding to it and it will be no different compare to other games, does MS as a magic one.....? You can't get 60 FPS on Metro 2033 with everything maxed out on a custom PC with a tri-SLI GTX 580 setup and a SB 2600 at 4.8GHz..... Add-ons for Flight will be HD, packed with a lot more compare to what we are use to see in FSX so tell me what kind of engine can make a sim using add-ons packed with HD scenery, HD airplane, AI, and all the eye candys turned on on a high resolution monitor run at 80FPS +.... By the way, I can run FSX default on a $700.00 PC....who's is doing this here?

Reason To Choose MS Flight: 1. So I can act like a real pilot.2. So I can brag to everyone that I know everything about real-life aviation online.3. So I can spend $100's of dollars on addons and then complain that MS have ripped me off because they haven't included backwards compatibility when they launch the next sequel to MS Flight.4. So I can join in with the arguments here on the AVSIM Forums.5. So that I can buy it on day one and then complain it's awful, instead of waiting and reading reviews and feedback from it first.6. Because I've got nothing better to do with my life than sit at a computer and watch the altimeter and airspeed indicator say that i'm cruising at 35,000ft at 320kts for 10-12 hours as I fly from EGLL to KLAX. (Just some little banter.. please don't rip me apart ) All I would like to see in MS Flight is it's performance being acceptable with today's current hardware. That's about it really. Virtual Reality

I want one thing from FLIGHT, and that is that they throw all FS versions in the bin before developing this one, but they develop it with an understanding that addons are important to the community. The old versions are heavy on resources and were developed at a time when the direction of hardware evolution wasn't really understood as well as it is now (use of SLI, multiple CPU cores and so on). I think ultimately FS in whatever form will be fairly intensive on computing hardware, but the problem with FSX has been that although it was intensive it was thought that CPUs would continue to get faster and faster at a rate that would make FSX viable in the not too distant future. However what really happened was cores expanded, things like SLI were introduced, the use of memory became higher, 64-bit systems came common place and this did not fit within FSX's 'expandability' profile if you will. FLIGHT needs to fix this, it needs to be in tune with computing hardware and where it's going. We shouldn't need to carefully consider the CAS of RAM should we, the software should be fairly immune to these sorts of details. There are few other games I have that require such detailed examination of computer hardware and such careful selection. Bring back the days where you buy a powerful CPU, stick in a chunk of decent quality ram and a good GPU and get going. We're in a position now where we virtually HAVE to overclock! So CAS comes in and a whole host of other details. I think I'd like the software for FLIGHT to be written in a way that gives addon developers opportunity to make their products much more integral to the actual simulator itself. I get tired of having to load up separate programmes all the time for different purposes. I'd like addons to be integral, weather engines to be integrated fully into the software and given the developers the chance to develop in that way. The same goes for planners, chart viewers, ATC applications and so on. These don't have to be separate applications, a bit like APs for the iphone, I'd like APs for FLIGHT, where they can be added and become integrated into the simulator itself, in much the same way that the aircraft are. This is especially true for scenery. I (like many others) have trouble sometimes getting scenery to work, why can't a methodology of installation of scenery be integral to FLIGHT? This could be common for all scenery installations, and FLIGHT could even be the installation programme. If we want to improve flight simulator in terms of where it's heading hardware use wise, we have to dispense with all previous versions and accept that for the most part addons will require a lot of redevelopment. But if this platform is thought through properly, if FLIGHT's development team carefully consider the future of computing over the next 10 years, if the developers build in upgradability and make it easy then we have a foundation that may last 15 years before the core needs to be scrapped again. I like so many others search for the holy grail of hardware that will enable me to run FSX maxed out at a high resolution. This is just not going to happen now, hardware has made a turn to the left in its evolution and FSX was counting on a turn to the right. All I really want is for FLIGHT to correct this. The rest I am willing to wait for. Just my thoughts Craig

Add-ons aren't important to Microsoft's target market.

Add-ons aren't important to Microsoft's target market.

I think that add ons might be more important to Flight's target market as the target market should be more aware of them through the marketplace concept. Also, with a marketplace concept, installing add ons, I would imagine, would be required to be more streamlined on average. Just my thoughts.

Let say that a good developer sell 2000 (and that's a lot) of one of their best FSX add-on at $35.00 a pop ( = $70,000.00) as it is now with the exposure they have....now let say that because of the exposure they will get from MS they can sell 25,000 ( 25,000 is a small number for that kind of exposure) add-on at $5.99 a pop (remember that the price as to be attractive to the moms and pops) now the money made rise up to $149,750.00....eeeeeeee I don't think that any major dev. with a brain would pass on a deal like that, remember that a $5.99 add-on is a lot more attractive to the target market (us included) compare to the $35.00 one. Now the other side of the coin may be that if you want to add a battleship, a new paint on your 727 or a mission you may have to spend another $1.99.....just saying.

Minus the 30% MS cut, minus the Windows certification, minus any other hoops (yes, there will be) and you are back to 70 thousand. Now, factor in the time to do all the extra stuff and explain again why this is such a great deal for developers?

OK I'll explain again, 2000 is a high number of sales as it is right now for one add-on, 25,000 is a low ball number for the kind of exposure you can get with MS Marketstore....how many FSX were sold since release.... ....will a $7.99 or a $10.99 price be better? Jim, just between you and me...... I hope nobody is listening....do you think the devs. got on board with MS to lose money....jsut the fact that they will greatly reduce piracy is a way to make more money don't you think...... Now, as soon as you figure how much money the devs. are losing with piracy you'll see that it's a good deal right off the bat.....

Ya, there are no pirated versions of Win 7, Office, Vista, etc. out there right?

Ya, there are no pirated versions of Win 7, Office, Vista, etc. out there right?

Alain is right with the numbers but perhaps still too conservative. As for piracy, there still will be but if the overall sales increase the overall revenue will increase as well, even though piracy increases too. Computer hardware and software developpers have traditionally severely underestimated their markets starting with IBM who with their first PC model fulfilled their quarter million sales forecast for the first five years in only a few months. So I think many folks gere underestimate what the Flight ecosystem could grow into in a few years if done right. Cheers, - jahman.