There is no way at all that a tool will automate the manual task of drawing polygons to recreate an aircraft exterior and VC in great detail. All a more sophisticated flight simulator allows is for more work to be done, hence a longer time for development, hecne a higher price to charge for the add-on to recoup the investment (inless offset by higher unit sales).Believeing some sort of a new tool will significantly speed add-on aircraft design is just plain fantasy.

There are already tools and new ones can be developed. MAXscript is a tool that speeds up 3DSMax design. It can be used to generate customised parametric objects. For flight simulation these could include generic wings, fuselages etc etc.

You are obviously not in the software business. The idea that throwing more people at a software project will speed development has been debunked 35 years ago in The Myhtical Man-Month, a book that would be your bible if you were in any way even remotely connected to software development and project management, two skills essential for successfuol bleeding-edge aircraft add-on construction.

Of course having more people on a team will speed up development. It's obviously quicker to give the design of, say, 10 gauges to 5 designers than to give them all to 1 designer. Your link reads "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later which is not what is being discussed here and is irelevant to planning and resourcing software development.o

You are completely wrong because you don't realize FS is an operating system for flight sim for others to populate with add-ons. Microsoft has never developped serious add-ons for FS, whether scenery or aircraft, and even the better-looking add-ons in FSX like the F-18 were developped by outside companies. All MS is interested in is providing basic scenery and aircraft so the sim engine in question is useable out-of-the-box. (As an aside, MS's aircraft design skills are so poor that for a constant speed reciprocating engine FSX reduces manifold pressure as propeller RPM is decreased when exactly the oppsote should occur.)

FS is an an application to make money for Microsoft. If Microsoft believes that it can make a worthwhile amount of money by developing add-ons then that is what it will do. It's no argument that because it hasn't been done in the past , it won't be done in the future. That view stultifies progress. Anyway one of the Microsoft job advertisements included:We are looking for a technical Program Manager to own the graphics and environment features for the game, as well as drive and define the tools and 3rd party SDK.......lead a team of industry veterans to create a high performance and great looking experience. You will work closely with a handful of select 3rd parties to evaluate our tools and documentation as well as our own internal development team to create the SDK......Work closely with 3rd party content creators to gather feedback and build production requirements... This suggests that Microsoft could be actively involved in providing add-ons.

You are obviously not in the software business. The idea that throwing more people at a software project will speed development has been debunked 35 years ago in The Myhtical Man-Month, a book that would be your bible if you were in any way even remotely connected to software development and project management, two skills essential for successfuol bleeding-edge aircraft add-on construction.

It's funny…this really hits home for me :) - I'm not familiar with the book.Adding bodies is definitely a double-edged sword...there are many pitfalls.A bigger team can ‘move’ more stuff but it’s also more diluted and harder to direct.In software things are built very sequential and most thing are mutually dependent...planning can get tricky.I think good managers can really anticipate the size of the team...get it right...and grow it early in the least disruptive way.It’s very hard to do IMO. ...and expensive if they're under or over.Adding people late is particularly risky...because it usually turns the team’s most productive members into instructors and fire-fighters......at a time when their focus is needed most.Developing the SDK must be difficult…they’ll need massive input from team members that are already entirely preoccupied with finalizing the game.But they manage somehow :)

Not a new tool, just a better one.

You're just playing with words.

I really cant be bothered to read a book to just prove a point) that justifies your point

.Not much I can do about that.

My point was only my opinion, I have reason to believe its true. You do not, which is fair considering the circumstances. But we can only wait and see, cant we!

You just have an opinion, but I backed my opinion with precedent.

There are already tools and new ones can be developed. MAXscript is a tool that speeds up 3DSMax design. It can be used to generate customised parametric objects. For flight simulation these could include generic wings, fuselages etc etc.

Sure, but the point is the more complex the sim gets the longer it will take to develop add-on aircraft for that sim because the bar gets raised higher.

Of course having more people on a team will speed up development. It's obviously quicker to give the design of, say, 10 gauges to 5 designers than to give them all to 1 designer. Your link reads "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later which is not what is being discussed here and is irelevant to planning and resourcing software development.

The link, and the book, say several other things too. You can't just pick and choose a single phrase to disparage the concept. Also read dmaher's post.

FS is an an application to make money for Microsoft. If Microsoft believes that it can make a worthwhile amount of money by developing add-ons then that is what it will do. It's no argument that because it hasn't been done in the past, it won't be done in the future. That view stultifies progress...

They won't, at least not beyond the quality of the aircraft they made available for FSX, with the exception of cases where they partner with third parties (i.e. the third party develops the add-on).BTW, corporations don't just do what makes them the most money in the short term. They do adhere to vision and mission statements so they can maintain focus. For example, it doesn't make any sense at all for MS to waste scarce development skills and management resources to develop add-ons when the most money is made from developping Flight, so they will only include a bevy of "just OK" aircraft for the casual simmer who doesn't want advanced aircraft in the first place (because he wouldn't even be able to fly those aircraft).

It's funny…this really hits home for me :) - I'm not familiar with the book.Adding bodies is definitely a double-edged sword...there are many pitfalls.A bigger team can ‘move’ more stuff but it’s also more diluted and harder to direct.In software things are built very sequential and most thing are mutually dependent...planning can get tricky.I think good managers can really anticipate the size of the team...get it right...and grow it early in the least disruptive way.It’s very hard to do IMO. ...and expensive if they're under or over. Adding people late is particularly risky...because it usually turns the team’s most productive members into instructors and fire-fighters......at a time when their focus is needed most. Developing the SDK must be difficult…they’ll need massive input from team members that are already entirely preoccupied with finalizing the game.But they manage somehow :)

Exactly, and since you're in the business you immediately caught on. Convincing folks unfamiliar with software manufacturing I see is hopeless (a truism for every industry, I suspect). BTW, for anyone "hoping" Flight is not compatible with FSX add-ons: How long did PMDG work in the 737NG for FSX? 3 years! And they're still not done (several expansion packs to come.) So if Flight is not compatible with FSX add-ons, how long do you think it will take PMDG to ready their first add-on for Flight? (With other developpers of complex aircraft add-ons in the same boat). Cheers, - jahman.

Whilst i am a little hesitant to dip my toe into this somewhat hostile discussion; is there no love for better (offline) ATC? I am a little concerned regarding the micro-transaction and on-line nature of the information. I would guess Battlefield with planes:$10 for additional fan blades in your jet*$5 to fill your aircraft with fuel***without additional blades you will only be able to taxi**without fuel you can only sit and admire the graphics******additional $10 and you get taxi graphics, otherwise they don't move My two pence worth.

Whilst i am a little hesitant to dip my toe into this somewhat hostile discussion; is there no love for better (offline) ATC? I am a little concerned regarding the micro-transaction and on-line nature of the information. I would guess Battlefield with planes:$10 for additional fan blades in your jet*$5 to fill your aircraft with fuel***without additional blades you will only be able to taxi**without fuel you can only sit and admire the graphics******additional $10 and you get taxi graphics, otherwise they don't move My two pence worth.

lol. Jamie ♥

Just read this on Simflight.fr: Selon la rumeur et nos contacts chez Microsoft,il semble que Microsoft Flight soit disponible début d’année prochaine (février) En outre, Orbx / FTX travaille avec Microsoft pour « Flight » et les add-ons supplémentaires seront vendus par Microsoft. (Market Place, tout comme l’App Store)…A suivre My French is good enough to read this newsitem suggests Orbx to be a part of the development of Flight. I doubt this is true, but it can be ofcourse. In that case it will be a definite reason to get Flight right away!

If Orbx was working with Microsoft on Flight, that would explain the Hawaii only shots. Orbx is working on North America, Australia and New Zealand for FSX, with no mention of Hawaii. Which means that on release Microsoft Flight will not have the benefit of the Orbx treatment in those three areas, which would take away sales from the Orbx FSX products. Regards, Mike Mann

Here it is translated... The rumour with our contact at Microsoft is to the fact that Microsoft Flight will be available at the beginning of next year (Febuary) Also, Orbx/FTX is working with Microsoft on Flight and add-ons will be sold by Microsoft (Market place including the App store) ....Stay tuned If this is true that was a hell of a good guess from Stephen ....start at post # 33 http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332054-i-am-most-impressed-with-ms-flight/page__hl__hawaii__st__25

All he did is watch that YouTube video we commented on about a month ago.

I don't remember any mention of Orbx in that video, did I miss something?

Don't know and don't care!!

I don't remember any mention of Orbx in that video, did I miss something?

If we are referring to a video by Ten Minute Taxi, there was a statement made by Shane, the host, on the June 30th episode that the release would be in February. The next week's video dated July 7th, Shane stated that ORBX was involved in the development of Flight. He does not state his source, however, but no good reporters do. :)

If we are referring to a video by Ten Minute Taxi, there was a statement made by Shane, the host, on the June 30th episode that the release would be in February. The next week's video dated July 7th, Shane stated that ORBX was involved in the development of Flight. He does not state his source, however, but no good reporters do. :)

Ha! that explaine everything as I was not aware of the July 17th video, anyway if this is true Stephen guessed it on April 19th way before the Ten Minute Taxi first video....

If Orbx was working with Microsoft on Flight, that would explain the Hawaii only shots. Orbx is working on North America, Australia and New Zealand for FSX, with no mention of Hawaii. Which means that on release Microsoft Flight will not have the benefit of the Orbx treatment in those three areas, which would take away sales from the Orbx FSX products. Regards, Mike Mann

Interesting thought. It could be possible that there would be compatibility of the FSX ORBX products within Flight with no tweaking or maybe just minor tweaking of the ORBX products. I could really see this being a possibility even if the engine within Flight is new or re-factored enough for MS to call it new. If this would be the case, then ORBX would win as they could sell their products in Flight, and the consumer would win as Flight would have very high quality visuals available to depict the outside world.

Maybe there will be one item in the store on the day/week/month of release then, right?!