Which may be one of the reasons Microsoft chose to ignore it?

Not at all, Gerry! To the contrary, they have in fact chosen to develop their LIVE store, abeit without the involvement of two of the premier development house in this industry.If the two most highly regarded development houses rejected MS's demands (which included giving up their already established market and their intellectual property rights), why in heaven's name would anyone smaller than them bite the MS Apple (mixed metaphor I know)???

Not at all, Gerry! To the contrary, they have in fact chosen to develop their LIVE store, abeit without the involvement of two of the premier development house in this industry.If the two most highly regarded development houses rejected MS's demands (which included giving up their already established market and their intellectual property rights), why in heaven's name would anyone smaller than them bit the MS Apple (mixed metaphor I know)???

LOL

If the two most highly regarded development houses rejected MS's demands (which included giving up their already established market and their intellectual property rights), why in heaven's name would anyone smaller than them bit the MS Apple (mixed metaphor I know)???

Bill, if it a documented fact that Microsoft expects FLIGHT developers to give up intellectual property rights to the addons they develop for FLIGHT. -- adds a whole new meaning to "Microsoft Innovation"Talk about "Killing the Geese that lay the Golden Eggs" !!

Well, it's a revenue model that'll work (well) for many games...but not all games.I sort of doubt they're in a position to be flexible here.To say this strategy goes here, we'll use this other one over here.It’s all eggs in one basket, and there’ll be a few broken eggs.

does anyone really believe that FSX is going to be around another 10 years...?

It won't. It will be incompatible with one of the next generations of Windows. You can count on that.

Many FS developers have no right in leeching off this hobby, yet they do because they can, there are no controls to their misleading marketing and agendas. But with close integration with MS Live, those unreputables could not do business as M$ would not want them tarnishing their reputation. In addition, those available add-ons would have been much better integrated into the FS operating system as both the OEM and 3rd party would work in conjunction with each other. The potential was here to create a beautiful simulation experience, but both messed it up. In fact the more I think about it, I put more of the blame on the 3rd party developers for wasting this opportunity.This whole hobby has become disfunctional in many ways, and crooked to say the least.

This is why we have product reviews at this site and others, as well as posts by people who have tried a product. I am pretty sure that we know who are reputable and who are not.As for 3PDs having the right to benefit from FSX...MS released the SDK to them just for this purpose. Now that there are numerous sites that still keep the MS torch lit, MS wants to cash in and grab everything for themselves.Profit is good. Being short-sighted and killing off your market is not.

It won't. It will be incompatible with one of the next generations of Windows. You can count on that.

Oh, for heaven's sake, I've still got four machines here that're running Win98! That's simply because the custom hardware and software I use for my digital pipe organ isn't supported by anything newer.Vista and Win7 will continue to run until the hardware eventually dies, and even then might still be successfully revived...

Both sides are to be blamed for this whole scenario. In the end they did not come to a business solution that was able to work for both the OEM or the aftermarket supplier.Although I did have apprehensions of the MS Live marketplace, I also beleive that the marketplace could have been a very good filter to ensure only high quality add-ons were available for Flight. Let's face it, there are only very few reputable third party developers in the FS world. Most create substandard work at outrageous prices (i.e. some camera utility for $30?? really?), or create hype on soon to be released products that never do come to fruition and blatantly mislead customers and treat them like garbage, (i.e Airsimmer), or charge $30 for airport scenery?? $30 really? There are no specific controls on quality and cost in this hobby. The marketplace had the opportunity to do this, in the end the customer may have very well benefitted the most.Many FS developers have no right in leeching off this hobby, yet they do because they can, there are no controls to their misleading marketing and agendas. But with close integration with MS Live, those unreputables could not do business as M$ would not want them tarnishing their reputation. In addition, those available add-ons would have been much better integrated into the FS operating system as both the OEM and 3rd party would work in conjunction with each other. The potential was here to create a beautiful simulation experience, but both messed it up. In fact the more I think about it, I put more of the blame on the 3rd party developers for wasting this opportunity.This whole hobby has become disfunctional in many ways, and crooked to say the least.

Both sides are to be blamed for this whole scenario. In the end they did not come to a business solution that was able to work for both the OEM or the aftermarket supplier.Although I did have apprehensions of the MS Live marketplace, I also beleive that the marketplace could have been a very good filter to ensure only high quality add-ons were available for Flight. Let's face it, there are only very few reputable third party developers in the FS world. Most create substandard work at outrageous prices (i.e. some camera utility for $30?? really?), or create hype on soon to be released products that never do come to fruition and blatantly mislead customers and treat them like garbage, (i.e Airsimmer), or charge $30 for airport scenery?? $30 really? There are no specific controls on quality and cost in this hobby. The marketplace had the opportunity to do this, in the end the customer may have very well benefitted the most.Many FS developers have no right in leeching off this hobby, yet they do because they can, there are no controls to their misleading marketing and agendas. But with close integration with MS Live, those unreputables could not do business as M$ would not want them tarnishing their reputation. In addition, those available add-ons would have been much better integrated into the FS operating system as both the OEM and 3rd party would work in conjunction with each other. The potential was here to create a beautiful simulation experience, but both messed it up. In fact the more I think about it, I put more of the blame on the 3rd party developers for wasting this opportunity.This whole hobby has become disfunctional in many ways, and crooked to say the least.

Are you a communist? Why do we need a filter to ensure only high quality add-ons make it to a market and who is the judge of that high quality? You? What if medium quality software is being sold for a reasonably medium price? And what about freeware? Do you realise that killing the SDK means that won't be available either? Caught in the crossfire perhaps?What do you mean by there are no specifc controls? Are you proposing that a community involved in trading, purchasing or selling add-on software requires specific controls to thrive? Or are those specific controls your ideas? You mention many FS developers have no right leeching off this hobby......so which ones do? Let's hear your opinion. The bottom line is in every business there is good and bad. We have the right and ability to choose who we buy from based on an informed buying decision, not specific controls or the filters you propose. In this hobby, word spreads pretty fast about quality, and those who fail to deliver eventually fall into their place.Lastly, why shift blame where it doesn't belong? What do 3rd party developers have to do with MS's decisions. Are they on the MS payroll? Are developers sooooo important these days that MS couldn't throw in the mainland and a few airplanes if the developers wouldn't cooperate? Give me a break guy. The money sign blinded MS and they decided to suit themselves. Good luck to them.

It won't. It will be incompatible with one of the next generations of Windows. You can count on that.

VIRTUAL MACHINE

About the hypothetic failure of Flight model :Don't you think that MS, very quickly, could be turn "Flight" to "Tora, Tora" model ?Hawaï is there, P51 (we have seen it) is there (yes, I know P51 was not in service at Pearl Harbor), the US Navy is there...The P51 flight model can be tweaked very quickly to create Zero and so on... An add-on will modify autogen to transform cities to older aspect.And the first grade gamer will transform this innocent GA game in a brand new "Combat Flight Simulator X"In this situation, "aerocache" search and hanging medals catch can have a "skill" meaning... all these in "Windows Live Marketplace"Who knows what is hidden, no ATC yes, but fire, guns, explosions ... maybe ?And this "

The game naturally supports multiplayer "rooms," of up to 20 pilots apiece, who are free to roam about the content that the host sets up" ... just what is necessary to engage Japanese planes in dogfight ?

Brilliant future, isn't it ?

Pierre LFBE

Anyone who is blaming the 3rd party developers for Flight!'s change in direction needs their head read. If you need to blame anyone, blame Apple's Apps Store for showing MS how to control a market.Does MS have the resources to develop a high fidelity sim of, say, the 737NG? Of course they do. Would they do it? Of course not. The amount of time and effort it would take versus the sales certainly would not be worth their time.If it wasn't for the 3rd party developers, I'd bet 90% of AVSIM users wouldn't be using FS9/FSX at all. The developers might make money (although the amount they make might be surprising for some here, for most it isn't a lot), but for most of them developing addons is nothing but a labour of love. Would some guy/gal who previously worked on the UI for MS Word 2010 have the same love of aviation to them to research how failure of hydraulic pump #3 will affect the centre gear of an MD-11?I repeat : if it wasn't for the 3rd party developers, 90% of us wouldn't be here at AVSIM. MS cooked it's own goose.Cheers, SLuggy

Why the "blame game" over your disapoinment with decisions made by companies whose boards you do not sit on?Why the illusion of "the consumer right to throw a hissy fit" until said companies comply with your wishes and desires?Why the "MS owes me" attitude?Why the 3PDs owe me attitude?Solution? Get a grip and deal with the facts. MS "owes you nothing". MS will not be moved by "consumer rights buycotts and other such efforts"The die is cast folks and no amount of "blather" is going to change the facts".

Why the "blame game" over your disapoinment with decisions made by companies whose boards you do not sit on?Why the illusion of "the consumer right to throw a hissy fit" until said companies comply with your wishes and desires?Why the "MS owes me" attitude?Why the 3PDs owe me attitude?Solution? Get a grip and deal with the facts. MS "owes you nothing". MS will not be moved by "consumer rights buycotts and other such efforts"The die is cast folks and no amount of "blather" is going to change the facts".

It's not a difficult concept Ron, not sure why more don't get it.

Yes, but think of this for a moment, just how much that add on sales would INCREASE if the main welcome screen for Flight is the "gateway" to add-ons?

Yeah, but think about this for a moment. How are these people going to know about Flight? If they can't be bothered searching the internet for addons for FSX why would they bother searching the internet for Flight? FSX had an advantage in that it was a real product available at real outlets so people would be browsing for a nice game to play, come across FSX and buy it. ie the retail stores acted as a "gateway" to FSX. Flight is going to be download only so how are people going to come across Flight?Have you ever heard of Crimson Alliance? It is a Windows Live game that uses pretty much the same business model as Flight. If you haven't heard of it (I have mentioned it on these forumes only once before) then ask yourself, how on earth is the average gamer going to learn about Flight?

It's not a difficult concept Ron, not sure why more don't get it.

Maxter, perhaps they still suffer under the illusion that what they argue matters to MS when that is simply not the case.... :(