Go back and look at the boards and info released by MS before the last versions. Now I implore the extreme on both sides -- ######, fulminant skeptics -- to apply your same logic to the pre-release periods back then. Come back and discuss Microsoft's release of information as 'fact' vs. a framework for a new sim. My gripes have been lack of true overcast, and unrealistic representation of phraseology of the ATC system in the US (I know it should be American Two-Six-Five, but in my 16 years of flying in real life, I more often hear American Two-Sixty-Five). If you go back to the DEMO released for FSX, listen to the ATC. At the point this came out, we did not know that this was an adventure, and it was easy to think that this was the 'new ATC' that was advertised. Before this came the 'magic screenshots.' It is easy to be mistrustful.Perspective here: Some will always think that Microsoft can do no wrong with the series, others will always think that there's more that can be squeezed into the sim when it comes from Microsoft. If there was no group on one side, you wouldn't have the other.I guess my point is, you may wish to keep trying to ignore the speculation or shut it down (on one hand), or keep berating the seeming lack of flexibility (on the other hand), but we're all in this together. The focus should be on getting the best sim out of the box. I guess we're about to find out what's true and what isn't. I hope the moon is included. I hope jets are included. If they aren't, the question is, who's fault is it? Microsoft? The skeptics that didn't push hard enough? The fans that we're just ok with what they were told and didn't dig deeper?

I guess my point is, you may wish to keep trying to ignore the speculation or shut it down (on one hand), or keep berating the seeming lack of flexibility (on the other hand), but we're all in this together. The focus should be on getting the best sim out of the box. I guess we're about to find out what's true and what isn't. I hope the moon is included. I hope jets are included. If they aren't, the question is, who's fault is it? Microsoft? The skeptics that didn't push hard enough? The fans that we're just ok with what they were told and didn't dig deeper?

Respectfully, whatever Microsoft produces is simply driven by economics, and not because people spoke up or did not speak up in a forum. If they have decided to include or not include the globe, jets, awesome ATC, missions, etc., it is based on return on investment. In either case, I am very much looking forward to the upcoming product.

Respectfully, whatever Microsoft produces is simply driven by economics, and not because people spoke up or did not speak up in a forum. If they have decided to include or not include the globe, jets, awesome ATC, missions, etc., it is based on return on investment. In either case, I am very much looking forward to the upcoming product.

Respectfully, ROI is based on amount of sales .. so giving the buying public what they need is key. I do believe that MS listens, none of the franchise improvements were made without the buying public in mind... often the changes were made from direct input.

Respectfully, ROI is based on amount of sales .. so giving the buying public what they need is key. I do believe that MS listens, none of the franchise improvements were made without the buying public in mind... often the changes were made from direct input.

No disagreement. Just my opinion that the majority buying public is not the skeptics or the die hard fans. It is the casual user. I am sure that they do monitor the forums a bit, but still don't think they make the main project's strategies based on this forum. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.

No disagreement. Just my opinion that the majority buying public is not the skeptics or the die hard fans. It is the casual user.

You are right, I agree.When a single man walks along the supermarket corridors carelessly listening to music, watching young women backs and filling the trolley with sugar, detergent, and eventually MS Flight.

If they reduced the install size by 5GB it's because they either removed content and/or reduced the quality and not because they optimized the code.

I've never made the claim that optimization of "code" could account for a smaller footprint. What I have suggested is that the optimization of the art assets, such as bitmaps, scenery mesh, autogen objects, fixed scenery objects, and more critically the insanely complicated scheme that has historically been used to assemble the databases could be a contributing factor...Instead of a single, unified database, the data is scattered amongst thousands of files, all of which must be searched, parsed and then reassembled every time a few bytes of data is required. People wonder why the GPS system is so frame-rate hungry. If they used a file monitor program when using the GPS to look up a VOR for example, they'd see just how many GBs of data have to be sifted through just to generate a list of the "8 nearest VORs..."

Respectfully, ROI is based on amount of sales .. so giving the buying public what they need is key. I do believe that MS listens, none of the franchise improvements were made without the buying public in mind... often the changes were made from direct input.

"amount of sales" is not really correct- you can have gazillions of units sold of a popular product and never turn a profit. ROI is then negative.ROI is revenue versus the cost of achieving that revenue.If the cost of creating and marketing a product is not less than potential sales return, then the product gets scrubbed. Tough on the employees but the world of economics is harsh.("cost" calculations also includes "lost opportunity" - the amount of profit NOT achieved if the money had been invested in a different venture. If your company could have achieved a 40 % return on project B and your project A only returns 20% - it is a loser and you need to start looking for a new job. This probably was the reason MS killed Flight Simulator- it simply did not make as much profit per dollar of investment as other products could achieve.)AR

"amount of sales" is not really correct- you can have gazillions of units sold of a popular product and never turn a profit. ROI is then negative.ROI is revenue versus the cost of achieving that revenue.If the cost of creating and marketing a product is not less than potential sales return, then the product gets scrubbed. Tough on the employees but the world of economics is harsh.("cost" calculations also includes "lost opportunity" - the amount of profit NOT achieved if the money had been invested in a different venture. If your company could have achieved a 40 % return on project B and your project A only returns 20% - it is a loser and you need to start looking for a new job. This probably was the reason MS killed Flight Simulator- it simply did not make as much profit per dollar of investment as other products could achieve.)AR

yep i think the majority understand the concept .. Since sales generate revenue, I didnt want to have an economics lesson, was just trying to communicate that a business has to pay attention to its customers to continue to generate sales/revenue/profits... you get an "A"

OK, so do you think there are any jets in there?

I can bet 25$ jets won't be in, wanna accept ?

I've never made the claim that optimization of "code" could account for a smaller footprint. What I have suggested is that the optimization of the art assets, such as bitmaps, scenery mesh, autogen objects, fixed scenery objects, and more critically the insanely complicated scheme that has historically been used to assemble the databases could be a contributing factor...

There's a practical limit to how much data can be compressed, and I have trouble believing that Microsoft came up with a revolutionary optimization/compression algorithm that allowed them to shrink the install size by a third while increasing the quality. I think others are right, that if Flight is a world-wide sim then anything outside of Hawaii is going to be bland and generic, and you'll be expected to pay extra if you want to populate it with pretty pictures.

This probably was the reason MS killed Flight Simulator- it simply did not make as much profit per dollar of investment as other products could achieve.)

AR I think you make a clear point, and I do agree.One minor correction, MS killed train simulator - and that would illustrate your point well.But they didn't kill flight simulator, we presumed they did. In fact they didn't.

AR I think you make a clear point, and I do agree.One minor correction, MS killed train simulator - and that would illustrate your point well.But they didn't kill flight simulator, me presumed they did. In fact they didn't.

Stopping any further development and firing all the staff sounds like killing a product to me!I'm not aware of any further Flight Simulator development since that time, other than selling rights to that product to Lockheed Martin and allowing them to further develop- all under a new product name..MS seems to have made clear that Flight is a different product - despite having rehired many of the FS personnel & undoubtedly using much of the FS code etc.I would assume Flight has a totally new budget for its development- one that will be under close scrutiny by the MS Finance people.AR

I can bet 25$ jets won't be in, wanna accept ?

Make it $50 and you have yourself a bet.

Make it $50 and you have yourself a bet.

Ok, we can exchange our Paypal accounts in private messages, deal done.Cheers

Jim .. you can put the $50 towards your purchase of XPX