It means that you allow MS to collect data about your flying habits. They call this "telemetry". MS thinks that this will allow them to decide what to develop next. If they see many people doing one type of activity, they will likely do more of those.It has nothing to do with a publicly available SDK and users sharing what they have created.

So if they see me constantly trying to fly north-east, they'll decide to model Canada...? :(

So if they see me constantly trying to fly north-east, they'll decide to model Canada...?

Lol :)There's a chance they may lure us back with a clever trail of gold coins :( ... :( B) B) :(

It means that you allow MS to collect data about your flying habits. They call this "telemetry". MS thinks that this will allow them to decide what to develop next. If they see many people doing one type of activity, they will likely do more of those.

Many thanks, Attila, for your explanation. But that isn't the end of story. :(

If the hard core simming community wasn't powerful enough to influence MS during design of FLIGHT, what makes you think we have a voice during the roll-out? MS will develop what the mob wants them to develop and then ask in return "are you not entertained?"

If you were a manufacturer - would you prefer to cut out your best loyal customer ("the hard core simming community")?Why?"Loyal Customers: They represent no more than 20 percent of our customer base, but make up more than 50 percent of our sales." (Mark Hunter, "The Sales Hunter").

I'll go ahead and explain another reason Flight will be everything you want it to be. Many of have spent hundreds of dollars with 3rd party add-ons. Some have spent over $1,000. What did Microsoft get? $59? Maybe $100 with the expansion pack. Let's say collectively we've spent an average of $250 in add-ons just for grins.---------------Now, what was MS supposed to do with FSXI to make it even better? It already has everything one could reasonably expect for $59. They could "up the graphics", but even 5 years later you can't run FSX at full eye-candy settings. Revamp ATC? That wouldn't make me pony up considering the 3rd party ATC. Add new planes? There are already plenty of planes that go way beyond anything that could be expected to be bundled in the $59 FSXI. More airports? C'mon. In short, if you take everything that's available from 3PDs, there just ain't nothin' MS could do to make a compelling FSXI that we'd all flock to en masse'. What on earth could they possibly to do FSXI to make it something for us to buy? I suppose they could bundle all the Orbx stuff, PMDG stuff, Genesis stuff, weather add-ons, traffic add-ons, et al and charge $695. That obviously won't fly. Consider the multitudes of hard-core folks who still run FS2004 and never bothered with FSX. Given that there is virtually *nothing* that hasn't been done with their base, $59 package and the fact that generally, the "core base" actually spends $350 for the enhanced product and realizing that 3PDs have taken FSX way, way, way beyond anything MS could possibly to with FSXI (at the $59 price point) and the fact that the program has a *lot* of patching and legacy code and is generally not too stable and the fact that today's software distribution and online presence would mean even more patching into legacy code. All this combined virtually requires MS to do something different, fresh, and new. Rather than completely rewrite the code up to the point of FSX and try to sell the same product, yet again, for $59 to an even smaller group they are taking a different, more logical approach that will allow FS to flourish and grow. With MS handling marketing and distribution (and, of course, taking a cut for those services) for 3PDs it will allow FS to continue well into the future with a more stable, modern, efficient core.The reality is, in present form, they have 200,000 users more than willing to pay $200, $500, even $1000 for a nicely enhanced FSX product and, with the advent of our modern DLC model, MS can actually collect a portion of that money with Flight. So, not only are they going to get paid for their Flight platform, they are also going to get paid for the products that use their product to generate income. That's the way it is today. With that model, Flight will continue where FSX left off and when you buy that new C152, MS will get a cut.I know some of you think that's "greedy", but if you think MS can truely come up with an FSXI compelling enough for you to upgrade (considering all the add-ons you're already using) for $59 (or even $595), you're in a pipe dream. Also, if you think MS is going to ignore 200,000 people ready to pony up $300 each in a painless $10, $20, $30 at a time fashion over the course of a year or two you will soon see that you are mistaken. Even smarter, they are going to get 5,000,000 to install it. 4,000,000 people to spend $5 on it. 3,000,000 people to spend $25 on it. 2,000,000 people to spend $50 on it. 1,000,000 to spend $100 on it and 400,000 (instead of 200,000) to spend $300. Some will even spend $1K or more. With FSXI, they'd had been lucky to sell 200K copies. . .

None of this is going to happen as long as the 3PD feel Microsoft is taking too much percentage of the cut and too demanding with its request of IP rights. In fact, since many major 3PD have already walked away from the negotiating table and committed to continue with FSX, I believe FLIGHT will never even take off. The simming community is not going to make the switch in masse from FSX to FLIGHT to justify the 3PD developing on that platform.

Thats an incredibly shortsighted view. Flight will be in full swing, FSX will be in serious decline. PMDG sales will be at an all time low and then MS says, "Hey, we have 200,000 sales waiting for you. Convert your plane. Here is the SDK. We'll take 30% but you can get rid of your marketing and distribution centers and we can reach every single user in the order they load the game, starting tomorrow. We project 50,000 sales the first week based on our data. You in?" In a heartbeat.Know why the SDK is a secret? How excited would we get if MS just came out and said, "Hey guys - we gotta redo the whole FS engine, none of your add-ons are going to work with it, but you'll be able to buy them again shortly. They'll be in the app store on day one, but expect to pay around $400 to get back to what you have now." That just won't work.

Edited January 14, 201214 yr by Rush1169

I know some of you think that's "greedy", but if you think MS can truely come up with an FSXI compelling enough for you to upgrade (considering all the add-ons you're already using) for $59 (or even $595), you're in a pipe dream. Also, if you think MS is going to ignore 200,000 people ready to pony up $300 each in a painless $10, $20, $30 at a time fashion over the course of a year or two you will soon see that you are mistaken. Even smarter, they are going to get 5,000,000 to install it. 4,000,000 people to spend $5 on it. 3,000,000 people to spend $25 on it. 2,000,000 people to spend $50 on it. 1,000,000 to spend $100 on it and 400,000 (instead of 200,000) to spend $300. Some will even spend $1K or more. With FSXI, they'd had been lucky to sell 200K copies. . .

Yes, you're right Rush1169.

PMDG stated they didn't have any faith in those numbers.

"PMDG has been in this business for nearly 15 years" said Robert - but - Microsoft roughly 24, and still choose the direction."this new business model gave me pause", said Robert (PMDG).And their "pause" is understandable. But as Rush1169 said:

PMDG sales will be at an all time low and then MS says, "Hey, we have 200,000 sales waiting for you. Convert your plane. Here is the SDK. We'll take 30% but you can get rid of your marketing and distribution centers and we can reach every single user in the order they load the game, starting tomorrow. We project 50,000 sales the first week based on our data. You in?" In a heartbeat.

Trying to be optimistic here -- and objective.First, recognize that among the hard core simmers, many of us enjoy building custom aircraft and especially custom scenery to accurately model local airports - something that autogen cannot possibly do with any degree of accuracy. An SDK would be essential to continue support from hobbyists for that reason alone. Another serious consideration is that many of us fly for virtual airlines, and the ability to repaint liveries is a must. There are many out here who do not fly, they just love creating scenery and aircraft as a spinoff. Don't take that away, please.Second, interfacing with online ATC such as VATSIM is also essential to hard core flyers. No doubt FLIGHT will have multiplayer through LIVE, but will it work with VATSIM? I doubt the ability of MS tol take over that niche free market, so that connection is vital.Third, many of us fly aircraft that we own or fly in real life. It is essential that we be able to recreate, accurately, flight characteristics of those sometime obscure aircraft and be able to model them correctly.I went back to the official web site and looked over some of the full screen images. The little videos aren't as impressive because they're a bit fuzzy, but if you look at the still screenshots on a full screen 1920x1200 monitor (or better), there is a wealth of detail in the Hawaii scenery, the ships, the hills with waterfalls and foliage, nice surf on the exposed shorelines, very impressive cloud displays, a nice Maule M7 and other things that look very nice. Airports seem to have all the runway lighting to be expected, instruments seem to be working, etc. IF they built the sim on a multi-core engine with massive GPS offloading for scenery, it could be the basis of a great new start. Sadly, I doubt it's a 64-bit engine which will put a serious restriction on memory availability. But I've been as critical as anyone out here (and, no I don't have a beta copy and no, I don't know anyone at MS) and if you look for potential from what they are showing us - reading between the pixels as it were - and forget the arcade features, it looks really good. Now give us some good ATC, a selection of common aircraft from Cessna to Airbus, and the availability of world scenery modules, and I'll come back and stick my toe in the water.

But as the Orbx CEO has also remarked, since NO SDK will be shipped, the in-game app store model does not appeal to the third party developers since they believe - even if those projected sales numbers were to come true - that they would still be unable to generate income under such a business proposition. Even a belated SDK arriving now would not generate interest for the 3PD anymore.

Well, don't forget this is Orbx's view on it all. Even though he gave that impression, he isn't speaking for all 3PD (as some of them made very clear).

As I said: Their "pause" (anger?) is understandable.

Even a belated SDK arriving now would not generate interest for the 3PD anymore.

JV, Orbx said: - "I doubt that a belated SDK will arrive quickly enough for us to hold any interest now."Not now. But later. The simulator we want, will not be delivered this spring! First the "Base-pack".....--->http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6InZZVBP2IUThen..... !! :(

Since when did "demur" and "pause" translate into "anger"?

("anger" --> "Time-Out" --> "Pause")..... - Ahhhh, just forget...

This interpretation is supported and backed up by the fact that Orbx has unequivocally stated that FSX and Prepar3d will be the developing platforms moving forward.

For now - they have hardly any other choice.

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by torium

As I see it, FLIGHT will not be able to bootstrap itself into a higher plane of existence. I predict it will be a MegaFLOP.

OK. :(