Please enlighten me on how you came to the conclusion this is what Flight WILL be or that theses option won't be avalable?

Flyawaysimulations article says that there wont be whole world, but they model instead smaller regions in high quality and do not make other areas at all. And ATC is not in beta version if we can believe all those leaks from beta testers ( I am not one), so I doubt that its in full release either. Surely if it was they would want people to test it too.

...but its also said that they are not planning to model whole Earth

Why did you completely ignore the three most significant words in that statement: "...at this time..."It's so easy to twist the entire meaning of factual statements when quoting completely out of context.

Not until somone provides a link!

Sorry, can't seem to find it on the web. Can you lend a hand?That said, with third-party non-indie games, you might have a chance at retaining the IPR provided you fund the develpment.Alas,

1. Flight is a Microsoft game through and through,
2. Tthe add-ons will be marketed by Microsoft, as per Robert Randazzo/PMDG,

so "not a chance" of retaining IPRs.

There are many ways of intrepreting the deliberately vague and ambigious lawyerisque literary style of Microsoft's writing. In the past, many a people have erred on the side of Microsoft and given them the benefit of the doubt, only to be eventually proven wrong.That is like applying for a job and being told that you are not being considered as a potential applicant "...at this time..." The statement: "...at this time..." is a loaded idiom and it should be self-evident to any reasonable mind who is capable of reading between the Microsoft lines that "...at this time..." means "it ain't never gonna happen"...Or need I remind you of the Hawaii-Only chicanery that Microsoft played on us by using clever wording?

You realize you're arguing with the Pope (of FSX development)? Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by jahman

There are many ways of intrepreting the deliberately vague and ambigious lawyerisque literary style of Microsoft's writing. In the past, many a people have erred on the side of Microsoft and given them the benefit of the doubt, only to be eventually proven wrong.

Since I myself am among those who're still wiping off virtual eggs, I cannot dismiss your observations with any degree of confidence.Nonetheless, the point remains that when exegeting text for a logical proposition, it is a fallible practice to rely on "selective quotations" to prove a point. Cite the entire statement, then proceed to build your case.Indeed, I was just somewhat guilty myself, because I failed to include the remainder of the statement, wherein the reasons for not including the whole world at this time were explicated... Mea culpa.

You realize you're arguing with the Pope (of FSX development)?

Oh, I'm most certainly not the "Pope" of anything at all. That I'm intimately familiar with most of the nuts and bolts of FS dating from FS98 through FSX is true, but beyond that I'm as ignorant as everyone else! Most of us in the development community were counting on MS following the same precedents, and had no reason to suspect that they'd be forking off in an entirely different direction. As a result, most of us were caught like deer in the headlights as well...That said, MS themselves perhaps could have been more proactive in helping to temper expectations instead of building a wall of silence and allowing the community itself to hype itself into a frenzy. On the other hand MS may well have made such a decision because they simply do not care what "we" think at all, and never have actually cared.

Sorry, can't seem to find it on the web. Can you lend a hand?

I can't find any references at all to it on the web - not even any complaints about it. That suggests, even if it is so, it's a non-problem. That's why the exact wording is important. Even by posting here - never mind uploading to the library - you are assigning some IP rights to AVSIM. But that's a non-problem too surely?

Alas,Flight is a Microsoft game through and through,Tthe add-ons will be marketed by Microsoft, as per Robert Randazzo/PMDG,so "not a chance" of retaining IPRs

That doesn't follow from the PMDG post which implies no more than exclusive distribution arrangements - which are common in other fields. It cetrainly doesn't imply Microsoft has the right to use code.

Oh, I'm most certainly not the "Pope" of anything at all.

Well, your avatar sure fooled me! :(

MS themselves perhaps could have been more proactive in helping to temper expectations instead of building a wall of silence and allowing the community itself to hype itself into a frenzy.

Especially after stating they would respect the legacy. You are also a master of the understatement!

On the other hand MS may well have made such a decision because they simply do not care what "we" think at all, and never have actually cared.

Occam's Razor applies, unfortunately.Cheers,- jahman.PS: I'm off to read T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land".

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by jahman

Well, your avatar sure fooled me! :(

Yeah, I probably should try to come up with something less flamboyant. I'm not particularly photogenic and not so narcissistic as to need lots of self-protraits in my photo folders...

Yeah, I probably should try to come up with something less flamboyant. I'm not particularly photogenic and not so narcissistic as to need lots of self-protraits in my photo folders...

Definitely a keeper. Shows character.Cheers,- jahman.