Paul Allen was a big MSFS supporter as well in his days there... he's a pilot in RL.

Not only that, but he was also the sole investor in Scaled Composites' SpaceShip One project, as well as the Flying Heritage Collection Museum in Everett, WA.I think MSFS thrived while Bill Gates and Paul Allen were in charge because of their interest in Aviation (especially Allen's).I totally agree with the OP... in this day and age most 'gamers' want action, carnage, loud hip hop music and weapons choices; MSFS is way too cerebral for most out there.

I agree with all the preceding (esp. BollG being a simviation fan), and add:

1. I think we're all being short-sighted as to what Flight "is" and "isn't" because we're looking at Flight today.
2. Flight is multi-purpose scenery and flight simualtion engine (an operating system of sorts) for aviation simulation.
3. Today it downloads with the bare essentials for kiddie arcade simming.
4. It is about as entertaining as plain vanilla Windows plus MS Paint and Mine Sweeper.
5. Tomorrow can be a different story, depending as to how MS develops the business plan for Flight.
6. Anyone who thinks MS paid for development of Flight to entertain kids with spearing golden donuts in the sky with an Icon A5 is not seeing the forest for the trees. So...
7. Have some faith!
8. Either way, with a new sim it takes a year to get the first quality aircraft and scenery, so
9. In the meantime keep busy with FSX, enjoy upgrading to Ivy Bridge and PCIe3 and keep posting on Avsim.

Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by jahman

I like FSX because there's a whole world to explore. Not just some tiny dot in the middle of the ocean.As for Bill Gates being a fan of flight simulators, does that mean that Steve Ballmer is more about what we're seeing with Flight? You know, console games and achievements?

MSFS is way too cerebral for most out there.

I've been thinking about that lately. People today are absolutely mindless. They want everything done for them, and they want it now. For example, with FSX, there's quite a bit of thinking going on. Flight seems to be simplified so that even your grandmother can play it. I guess for Microsoft, that means more money.

Okay, I went back and did some homework regarding the layoffs in general and the ACES studio specifically. Yes, the Microsoft layoffs were connected to the global economic crisis (sharp loss in revenue from corporate customers). However, it was also related to the beginning of the migration from PCs to more mobile computing products (netbooks were the threat of the day). It also may have had to do with the company becoming overstaffed in more prosperous times (see Mini Microsoft's credible blog entries).But, back to my initial opinion: the closure of the ACES Studio was more symbolic than it was financial.Did it result in cost savings for Microsoft? Surely. Phil Taylor had reported that ACES employed over 100 when the studio was in full swing (he also blogged about an FS11 release one week before the layoffs, irony not lost). However, this wasn't some reduction-in-force or development hiatus; it was the wholesale closure (save six members tasked with closing up the loose ends) of the group. Did it send a message to analysts and investors? Sure. It meant that Microsoft was serious about cutting costs. How could analysts not notice the company was even willing to sacrifice the sacred cow itself, Flight Simulator?Or, maybe Microsoft had no choice but to close ACES. I mean how could the company justify to pink-slip recipients that they were being let go, but not the folks who got to play with their planes and trains all day?Or, how about internal political motivations for closing ACES as suggested by ahuimanu's sharp analysis that started this thread?Or, how about the fact that consoles are taking over the delivery of entertainment for young people? Perhaps we can all agree on this - Microsoft killed off the ACES studio for a number of reasons: financial, symbolic, political, technological. And, if you read the MS press statements from the time, it had already mapped out its Windows Live strategy when it committed the crime, which makes management look even more disingenuous than usual (getting a little dark here, sorry).So, here's the source of my incredible frustration: killing ACES was a crime of convenience for Microsoft. It saved the company a little money, satisfied their analysts, and appeased other laid off employees.It also killed the stand-alone PC game concept, paved the way for increased sales of XBOX consoles, and added another reason to use Windows Live.And, finally, it got rid of those spoiled, whiney, pain-in-the-butt flight simulation enthusiasts like you and me (maybe a bigger reason than we thought). So, back at you guys. I've done my homework. And, yes, financial upset was a driving force in the layoffs, but I hope you'll consider that the closure of ACES was multi-dimensional. Thoughts?

As for Bill Gates being a fan of flight simulators, does that mean that Steve Ballmer is more about what we're seeing with Flight?

BillG had passion, Ballmer has pa$$ion

Okay, I went back and did some homework regarding the layoffs in general and the ACES studio specifically. Yes, the Microsoft layoffs were connected to the global economic crisis (sharp loss in revenue from corporate customers). However, it was also related to the beginning of the migration from PCs to more mobile computing products (netbooks were the threat of the day). It also may have had to do with the company becoming overstaffed in more prosperous times (see Mini Microsoft's credible blog entries).But, back to my initial opinion: the closure of the ACES Studio was more symbolic than it was financial.Did it result in cost savings for Microsoft? Surely. Phil Taylor had reported that ACES employed over 100 when the studio was in full swing (he also blogged about an FS11 release one week before the layoffs, irony not lost). However, this wasn't some reduction-in-force or development hiatus; it was the wholesale closure (save six members tasked with closing up the loose ends) of the group.Did it send a message to analysts and investors? Sure. It meant that Microsoft was serious about cutting costs. How could analysts not notice the company was even willing to sacrifice the sacred cow itself, Flight Simulator?Or, maybe Microsoft had no choice but to close ACES. I mean how could the company justify to pink-slip recipients that they were being let go, but not the folks who got to play with their planes and trains all day?Or, how about internal political motivations for closing ACES as suggested by ahuimanu's sharp analysis that started this thread?Or, how about the fact that consoles are taking over the delivery of entertainment for young people?Perhaps we can all agree on this - Microsoft killed off the ACES studio for a number of reasons: financial, symbolic, political, technological.And, if you read the MS press statements from the time, it had already mapped out its Windows Live strategy when it committed the crime, which makes management look even more disingenuous than usual (getting a little dark here, sorry).So, here's the source of my incredible frustration: killing ACES was a crime of convenience for Microsoft. It saved the company a little money, satisfied their analysts, and appeased other laid off employees.It also killed the stand-alone PC game concept, paved the way for increased sales of XBOX consoles, and added another reason to use Windows Live.And, finally, it got rid of those spoiled, whiney, pain-in-the-butt flight simulation enthusiasts like you and me (maybe a bigger reason than we thought).So, back at you guys. I've done my homework. And, yes, financial upset was a driving force in the layoffs, but I hope you'll consider that the closure of ACES was multi-dimensional. Thoughts?

They didn't need to close ACES to weather the financial storm and/or show financial analysts they were serious about cost-cutting: They very well could have trimmed staff to keep ACES in tick-over mode for a year or so until conditions improved. When you fire everyone you also orphan the code and that's costly.Companies like Boeing upsize and downsize routinely but rarely fire whole teams because rebuilding expertise from scratch takes longer and is costlier than up-sizing a small core team.

Flight simulator might have made sense back in the day as a 'look what computers can do' showcase.It doesn't make much sense in terms of MS's other projects in the current day. I also agree with the suggestion that Allen and Gates contributed to its longevity.It possibly still made sense as a product in the modern era if it gathered positive press for MS. I wasn't active in FS forums around the time of release, but I understand the attitude to ACES here was pretty hostile, and you still see a lot of 'M$'/'microshaft' etc comments. Perhaps short-sighted if we wished that they would keep building sims for us.

@ jahman. Agreed. In my post, I suggest that MS didn't consider a reduction in force or project hold. But, I'm not sure they orphaned the code. It's my understanding from other posts on the thread that the FSX code is the basis for Flight, just all tarted up for Windows Live. In the end, the layoffs may have just been a convenient time to shut down ACES considering the direction management decided to take (Windows Live) with the franchise.@ Oz. I'm agreeing here, too. Microsoft has tried to translate the franchise to a console model. I'm not sure I can argue with their decision. I just wished they hadn't (seemingly) turned their back on the third-party developers and flight simulation enthusiasts.Rewind. Here's the press release headline that could have been: January 26, 2009, Redmond, WA - Microsoft trims ACES Studio as part of wider layoffs and merges it with Games Studio. Development to continue on new version of Microsoft's popular Flight Simulator for PC. New will be a gameplay edition called Flight! to be released holiday season 2009 for Xbox...

I love those words.That pretty much describes Flight Simulation

Thanks, Matias. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Happy Simming.

@n738Yep, that would be fine with me. People hate the missions/pilot profiles etc but i actually think they're fine (they increase the market share) IF here's a serious sim underneath.Flight could still suprise us, but the design and marketing decisions certainly seem to have moved away from community mod/external connectivity type concepts.

@n738Yep, that would be fine with me. People hate the missions/pilot profiles etc but i actually think they're fine (they increase the market share) IF here's a serious sim underneath.Flight could still suprise us, but the design and marketing decisions certainly seem to have moved away from community mod/external connectivity type concepts.

@ Oz - I'm with you. Unfortunately, I can't see the Microsoft marketing juggernaut reversing course on this one. BTW, do remember their terrible ads when they released FSX (featuring some housewife trying to control aircraft and cook supper)? Rubbish.And, no responses from my other friends regarding their world economic meltdown theories? Oh, well, it's all talk anyhow. I think everyone's busy poring over Randazzo's response from PMDG. Okay, folks, enjoy FSX while it lasts.

Guys, y'all do realize that in September of 2008 the global economy only narrowly averted a complete collapse, right?In the span of 2 hours over half a TRILLION dollars was drained from the US Banking System in an electronic run on the banks and the USA was roughly 3 hours from complete financial collapse... which in turn would have taken down the global economy in 24 hours...http://www.economicp...ember-2008.html

While we'll never know, I'm sure the world-wide financial disaster provided a convenient catalyst to go ahead and shoot ACES and any last vestiges of creating "simulation" software in the head. My original point was, with Bill G finally out of the way, the gaming area could be coalesced around new thinking. And, from a bottom line perspective, the new thinking was/is lucrative: Microsoft has really dominated the market with the XBox360. Think about it, while Sony, having been dethroned, was willing to give you multi-player access for free, XBox charges a princely sum and everyone falls over themselves to pay it.As many have pointed out over the course of the week, it is being revealed now that Microsoft is now accustomed to getting "their cut" in their gaming endeavors, making the old model a non-starter for them.I think my biggest personal hangup is NOT the gaminess, because I know I can turn that off. No, my biggest loss is the fact, for the foreseeable future, there will be NO SDK, NO FREEWARE, and NO INDEPENDENT 3RD PARTY DEVELOPMENT. As was pointed out elsewhere, this is a divorce of the type of guy/gal that finds AVSIM a home. My motivation for being here, both (in the past) as a volunteer and a simmer, was that AVSIM was a place where we could revel in our ability to approximate REAL flight. It is sadly telling that the buy-line for the franchise - AS REAL AS IT GETS - is now well buried.We are promised that there will be things for use hard-core realism folks, but without an SDK, I just don't see it. If anything, I think FLIGHT will divide the user base. It'll be "those old fogeys who played around with controllers and built cockpits" and the 15-minute wonders who use their mouse to fly through gold rings.It is clear that Microsoft largely rejected all of the old expertise and just retooled the wonderful engine to satisfy the adrenaline junkie crowd. I completely agree with the others who further characterized the distinction as being related to that which is "cerebral." It IS a cerebral act to be able to plan a trans-oceanic flight for a jet airliner and use all of the technology to get from A to B. It is ESPECIALLY this category of fan who seem to have been show the door.Not only are we not the target audience, it is clear that Microsoft has no intention of EVER doing the cerebral (called by the popular gaming press as "boring") category of game again.As a lover of simulating real-life procedures in the heavy iron, I definitely feel like I've been told the following by Microsoft with FLIGHT: "Move over Dinosaur, you extinction is upon you."

@ jahman. Agreed. In my post, I suggest that MS didn't consider a reduction in force or project hold. But, I'm not sure they orphaned the code. It's my understanding from other posts on the thread that the FSX code is the basis for Flight, just all tarted up for Windows Live.

"Orhpaned code" means the programmers that wrote the code (or at least are very familiar with it) are no longer around. As MS fired the entire ACES team, it follows the code was orphaned.

it is clear that Microsoft has no intention of EVER doing the cerebral (called by the popular gaming press as "boring") category of game again.

Without realizing it, you're making the same mistake Microsoft (and most everyone unfamiliar with flight simming) is: FSX is not a game, it's a simulation.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by jahman

@ ahuimanu - On the mark. 100%. @ jahman - Okay, "orphaned code." Got it. ACES thing still makes my stomach turn. And, I have to agree with your statement about Flight Simulator not being understood as such (it's called "simulator" for a reason). I think the confusion lies in how it has been marketed. The marketing wunderkinds at Microsoft have marketed it as a game (do remember the television ads?), and it just ain't that (per our posts regarding it being more cerebral than reflexive). But, how could you blame them? It's the difference between selling a million copies and selling several thousand (please help me estimate). And, I don't think the marketing types cared if FSX (or any other version) got used a few times then uninstalled (the other 990,000 copies) compared to the people who bought the software for the simulation aspect. As long as they made the sale, which, when successful, used to look like big retailers buying cases of the boxed (do you remember the fancy embossed tin?) game, er, I mean sim. Of course, the paradigm has changed in terms of delivery -- who doesn't love the immediate gratification of downloading a new add-on and installing straight away? But, back to your point... You guys have nailed it. Here's the current conundrum: Is it a game (it is now), or is it a sim (at least it used to be)?Okay, good posts. Keep it coming? Or is this all talk since there's not a d*mned thing we can do about this now?p.s. I appreciate the chance to "talk" about this. It's not that I've been active on the forums much (at all) until now, it's just that I'm flabergasted at how this has all shaken out. Or maybe I shouldn't be because this day (look, it's a game!) has been coming for such a long, long time (well at least since the ACES announcement). Cheers.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by N738NM

Whatever we may care to call it, in reality it's a computer game and will be marketed as a game.Let me quote from a post by Orbx who have much more knowledge of the market than most of us:

The actual (read: active, purchasing third party add ons) real FS enthusiast community is tiny. We estimate less than 40,000 active FS enthusiasts worldwide, across both the tube liner and VFR disciplines. We know this purely from tracking our sales data and also being aware of other developer's sales data which they share with us...it is somewhat arrogant to assume that we as the hardcore FS enthusiast community even feature in the target demographic marketing model for MS Flight at all.

http://forum.avsim.n...ch&fromsearch=1Microsoft isn't going to develop a game for us 40,000. Remember Call of Duty is estimated to have sold 8,000,000 copies globally on its first day of release!

@ mgh - Yikes. I knew the enthusiast numbers were small, but that's a speck in relative terms (the COD numbers are insane). Case closed?Does anyone have numbers on sales of FSX in particular?Edit: @ mgh I just read all of the "third party developers to be blamed for the way Flight has ended up?" thread. You should post your numbers over there. I think it would bring some perspective to the discussion. Okay, I've been ignoring my wife and kids all morning. Gotta run.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by N738NM