You seem to be quite cynical about cynicism! Regards, Mike Mann

Lol, that's funny...and I'm guilty as charged - it's a character flaw ;)Maybe there's a 12 step program?

We are not MS's target audience but we ARE the developers target audience and by ricochet all the exposure the devs. will get from the store will bring them more business from MS's target audience ....

And did they ask the "target audience" what they thought?

Sir, I am unaware of any such inquiry or solicited questionnaire... nor would I be disposed to discuss such a solicited questionnaire if it did in fact exist, sir.

@byramj there is a voice recognition atc.i use radar contact with multicrew experience to my full satisfaction john

And did they ask the "target audience" what they thought?Many also throw around the notion of "target audience" to spread cynicism.

The marketing department would have done that one way or another.

First Post! Here's my list in my feedback email.... 1. More realistic flight decks. I find myself only flying add on aircraft because the default FSX models are "dumbed down". When focusing on cockpit flows, it's hard to stay disciplined when clicking on dead/ inop switches.2. Runway gradient and sloped runways.3. Realistic airframe/ engine damage and wear and tear. Crashes! (Xplane does a decent job of this)4. Realistic stall/ spin characteristics.5. Realistic landings. Emphasis on hard/ soft impact. This is the most direct feedback on grading landings.6. An online/ offline RPG system. Rankings based upon flight certs and ratings, acquired from flight hours and checkrides. Start in small aircraft and work your way up to more advanced aircraft. Career paths and aircraft ownership with a monetary system. I think this alone would create an addicting drive for all players and create a large, long living community.

The marketing department would have done that one way or another.

That's my point ;)

The marketing department would have done that one way or another.

That's my point ;)

Let me try this again. In June of 2009, Microsoft did not solicit for a select group to fill out a MS Flight survey, not that I am aware of... nor would I be disposed to discuss such a survey if it did in fact exist.

Let me try this again. In June of 2009, Microsoft did not solicit for a select group to fill out a MS Flight survey, not that I am aware of... nor would I be disposed to discuss such a survey if it did in fact exist.

Why be so obscure? There was a survey in June 2009 which anyone could read.

Wake turbulance.Rain on the Virtual CockpitMore realistic PercipitantsBetter Night Lighting'No More Brown grass in areas where this is supposed to be green grass!No more retarded kids on FSX MultiplayerVatsim CompatibilitySloped runways like at Lukla3D Grass when on approach or near the ground Thats about all right now. Just mainly graphical improvements and hopefully addon companies like PMDG will still be around to make great aircraft!

MGH - Why be so obscure? There was a survey in June 2009 which anyone could read. There may have been an invitation to take a survey. To actually get to the survey to read or respond to it one had to agree to a NDA. If one did not accept to agree to the NDA then they were free to disclose the invitation but then they would not have been able to read or respond to the contents of the survey. The gist here was only to suggest that they did ask the “target audience” what they thought.

MGH - Why be so obscure? There was a survey in June 2009 which anyone could read. There may have been an invitation to take a survey. To actually get to the survey to read or respond to it one had to agree to a NDA. If one did not accept to agree to the NDA then they were free to disclose the invitation but then they would not have been able to read or respond to the contents of the survey. The gist here was only to suggest that they did ask the “target audience” what they thought.

That's not correct. Microsoft got it wrong and the survey was accessible even if the NDA wasn't accepted. As far as I am aware most people, .like me, declined but still accessed the survey. That made that survey valueless.

That made that survey valueless.

Valueless? Not sure I follow the logic here. It would be relatively easy to cross reference anyone who declined and simply ignore their entries. There were likely many hundreds of legit entries completed and you can hardly call that valueless.

Wait what survey? I don't Recall Microsoft doing a survey

Valueless? Not sure I follow the logic here. It would be relatively easy to cross reference anyone who declined and simply ignore their entries. There were likely many hundreds of legit entries completed and you can hardly call that valueless.

It became a self-selecting survey by default because the web address became known so anyone could access it. As a result Microsoft lost control of it. Self-selecting surveys are valuless because they are not based on a repesentative sample.