Wake me up when "you" have something new to report frm MS

[mgh 89]

You mean all the folks that:

1. Develop a business plan,
2. Decide on functionality,
3. Write the code,
4. Beta test, and finally
5. Ship the product

have got it backwards? Please...Cheers,- jahman.

When Flight was first announced there could be no assurance that it would even be released - never mind what its details would be.The plug could, and would, have been pulled at any time during development if Microsoft decided it wasn't worth pursuing. In the real world projects go through several review stages. The last one - often called the red review - is final. If the project doesn't get through that it's killed. Edited January 17, 2012 by mgh

[Guest jahman]

When Flight was first announced there could be no assurance that it would even be released - never mind what its details would be.

Assuming you're right, what about the time since?

The plug could, and would, have been pulled at any time during development if Microsft decided it wasn't worth pursuing. In the real world projects go through several review stages. The last one - often called the red review - is final. If the project doesn't get through that it's killed.

Nothing about pulling a plug on a product inhibits releasing a PR statement before, at the time or after the plug is pulled.

So what hes new. His voice can still be heard!

Yes of course! I was just trying to explain that your view on MS's need to communicate might be different depending upon your level of investment in the sim game or hobby.Do you disagree?Cheers,- jahman. Edited January 17, 2012 by jahman

[mgh 89]

Microsoft is realistic enough to know that whatever it said would cause endless and pointless speculation in these forums, especially as those who naively are "expecting the franchise you are familiar with over the last years or decades will continue" wouldn't like it. It's been obvious that Flight wouldn't be FSNext from the day Microsoft stopped its development and closed ACES.

[Guest jahman]

Microsoft is realistic enough to know that whatever it said would cause endless and pointless speculation in these forums, especially as those who naively are "expecting the franchise you are familiar with over the last years or decades will continue" wouldn't like it. It's been obvious that Flight wouldn't be FSNext from the day Microsoft stopped its development and closed ACES.

OK, so MS should instead have said: "the franchise you are familiar with over the last years or decades will not continue".Cheers,- jahman.

[Rush1169 0]

You're new to the forum, perhaps even to simming.So perhaps "quarterbacking" isn't the right choice of words

My 'armchair quarterback' reference wasn't used in the context of one's simming or flight forum prowess. The term was directed to those who think they are experts in the marketing department of a multi-billion dollar company on the verge of launching a multi-million dollar international product and think they can better determine the best public revelation timeline for that product.One thing is certain, their experts are better informed and can make a better decision as to when to make the reveal than every one on this forum combined. Edited January 17, 2012 by Rush1169

[mgh 89]

OK, so MS should instead have said: "the franchise you are familiar with over the last years or decades will not continue".Cheers,- jahman.

Again be realistic - no company is going to put out a negative press release like that when developing a new product.I must stop using the word realistic in this forum!!

My 'armchair quarterback' reference wasn't used in the context of one's simming or flight forum prowess. The term was directed to those who think they are experts in the marketing department of a multi-billion dollar company on the verge of launching a multi-million dollar international product and think they can better determine the best public revelation timeline for that product.One thing is certain, their experts are better informed and can make a better decision as to when to make the reveal than every one on this forum combined.

You are completely wrong. Did you not realise that all those posters are CEOs of multi-million dollar corporations? Edited January 17, 2012 by mgh

[Guest jahman]

My 'armchair quarterback' reference wasn't used in the context of one's simming or flight forum prowess.

It's not a question of simming "prowess", it's a question of $ and time investment. As I said, for some folks simming is a game while for others its a meaningful hobby, and where you stand will dictate whether or not what MS does is important to you. It's not at all about trying to guess what MS is up to.For your benefit (and mgh's), do take note the reason some of us are upset by MS being tight-lipped about Flight is best explained by Tom Allensworth (the bold is mine, and since Tom's experience is way beyond mine, there's really no point in me continuing to explain):

It was at our FANCON in San Diego in 2004 that dramatic changes in direction were taking place within MS. An internal argument appeared to have been won, and MS team members showed up at the FANCON, willing to talk, on record, and participate with the attendees... The Golden Age of the Aces Team was upon us. The realization that users were being listened to and were getting feedback, positively changed the hobby and you can also see evidence of that today in these forums. The DEVCON and the FANCON that followed in Redmond, Washington, in the fourth quarter of 2008 was the last time that the ACES team made an appearance of any degree.Now, nearly ten years later, we seem to have come full circle. The team appears to be closed off and a spokesman (or two) have been saddled with the community as part of their job description.

Cheers,- jahman.

[drumsonly2002 3]

In my mind we are the masses. The level of experience of the members of this forum is staggering. If I was an executive in the Flight stable, my cues as to what the reality of the situation lies within these walls. This is the deep end of the pool, and those swimming in it know their stuff. They know what they want, and to listen to the voices of such will lead Flight to success. A common theme rings very clearly within the majority of posts, bring on the realism, dump the gaming aspects. You can bet your bippy they are reading the forums and gearing up product we are requesting. We are the masses and know what we want. If someone want to learn anything about flying a sim, this is the place to be. The members are highly qualified users that mirror what all sim pilots are looking for. Build what we want, that's were the money is.

Seems you think we here are the masses... I thought by know it would be clear we aren't. :(

Edited January 17, 2012 by drumsonly2002

[mgh 89]

It's not a question of simming "prowess", it's a question of $ and time investment. As I said, for some folks simming is a game while for others its a meaningful hobby, and where you stand will dictate whether or not what MS does is important to you. It's not at all about trying to guess what MS is up to.For your benefit (and mgh's), do take note the reason some of us are upset by MS being tight-lipped about Flight is best explained by Tom Allensworth (the bold is mine, and since Tom's experience is way beyond mine, there's really no point in me continuing to explain):Cheers,- jahman.

Microsoft fulfilled its responsiibilities when it sold you FSX. YYou still have it, together with your add-ons and so you are no worse off than now than if Microsoft had not developed Flight. You still have what you paid for and have enjoyed.Some of us can remember the criticism and abuse hurled at ACES by members of these forums both before and after the release of FSX. After that experience it's not surprising that Microsoft shut us out.

In my mind we are the masses. The level of experience of the members of this forum is staggering. If I was an executive in the Flight stable, my cues as to what the reality of the situation lies within these walls. This is the deep end of the pool, and those swimming in it know their stuff. They know what they want, and to listen to the voices of such will lead Flight to success. A common theme rings very clearly within the majority of posts, bring on the realism, dump the gaming aspects. You can bet your bippy they are reading the forums and gearing up product we are requesting. We are the masses and know what we want. If someone want to learn anything about flying a sim, this is the place to be. The members are highly qualified users that mirror what all sim pilots are looking for. Build what we want, that's were the money is.

We are not the masses, regardless of experience. There are too of usto make it worthwhile for Mocrosoft to develop the simulator we want. That was clear when it closed ACES and stopped the development of FSX because that's not where the money is.

[Guest jahman]

Microsoft fulfilled its responsiibilities when it sold you FSX. YYou still have it, together with your add-ons and so you are no worse off than now than if Microsoft had not developed Flight

Not quite! :(Proof: Had I known FSX would be the last of the simulators by MS, I certainly would have made a smaller investment in add-ons and hardware. Likely others feel the same way too.Perhaps you might understand it better in business terms: Suppose you develop business or industrial software specifically using MS SQL Server. You do so with the expectation (unstated by MS, of course, but nonetheless your expectation is there with MS tacitly supporting your assumption) that MS will continue developping further, improved versions of SQL Server down the line. (In business this is termed the "going concern" assumption). Now suddenly MS fires the SQL Server team, and two years later announces a new version of SQL Server, but only for the home user, so you and your business are SOL.You as an MS customer would be rather sore and you would wish you had developed your software for the ANSI version of SQL Server instead. Well, this is why software developpers do in fact develop for a neutral SQL dialect, so they can switch between any of the major SQL versions around (MS, Oracle, Infomix) based on need and not have to bear the risk of a sole supplier for the SQL engine.Alas, we simmers are dependent on a single sim engine because our aircraft and scenery add-ons are tightly bound to the flight sim engine, while our sim hardware is dependent on the availability of suitable drivers. Hopefully in the future as the flight sim industry grows, standard ("open models") will develop for aircraft and scenery add-ons as well as standard device drivers, so by the year 2050 those of us still around might be able to switch from one major flight sim engine to any of the others in almost the blink of an eye.I hope mgh by now you see there are different interpretations as to MS's relationship with the flight sim community: A narrow strictly legal interpretation (yours) where MS's relationship with each one of us simmers finishes when the post-purchase technical support period ends, and a wider interpretation (mine) where MS has been feeding the sim community ever better versions of MS Flight Simulator for some 20 years now, so we're upset when after FSX we're told "that's all, folks!" because we expected the franchise to continue.Finally, under your strictly legal interpretation, if I were your local electrical utility or gas distributor, I could just turn off my service to you after a suitable notice period because, hey, I delivered the kWhs or MBTUs you needed to consume and you paid your bills. so all's fair and square between us and I have no legal obligation to continue delivering anything to you.Hope this clears up any differences so we don't need to keep discussing this.Cheers,- jahman. Edited January 18, 2012 by jahman

[Arwen 289]

I hope mgh by now you see there are different interpretations as to MS's relationship with the flight sim community: A narrow strictly legal interpretation (yours) where MS's relationship with each one of us simmers finishes when the post-purchase technical support period ends, and a wider interpretation (mine) where MS has been feeding the sim community ever better versions of MS Flight Simulator for some 20 years now, so we're upset when after FSX we're told "that's all, folks!" because we expected the franchise to continue.

The franchise is continuing. It's called Microsoft Flight.

[FSMP 95]

You folks need to reread Tom's earlier message in his history and perspective post...We are NOT their target market, so get use to it...

As a FS "enthustiast", I can accept that MS FLIGHT "now seems" not to be targetted towards the advanced simmer.What I find upsetting and annoying, is that Microsoft lead so many of us on, by assuring us that it would be appropriate for those "also" looking for a SIMULATOR, as opposed to a Game.I feel I was mislead by the Microsoft Press Releases, and now the result is that in future I will not rely so much on anything Microsoft says -- a loose-loose situation for both Microsoft and me as a potential Microsoft customer.FIne, if MS want to produce a "FLYING GAME", call it that, and do not lead people on, only to let them down later.Still, I must say, at the end of the day, the price of FLIGHT is right !!! You get what you pay for. Edited January 18, 2012 by FSMP

[Guest jahman]

The franchise is continuing. It's called Microsoft Flight.

Sigh... That's purely your (so far, unsubstantiated) belief until serious simming finctionality indeed does make it into Flight.Cheers,- jahman. Edited January 18, 2012 by jahman

[RYR738 9]

As a FS "enthustiast", I can accept that MS FLIGHT "now seems" not to be targetted towards the advanced simmer.What I find upsetting and annoying, is that Microsoft lead so many of us on, by assuring us that it would be appropriate for those "also" looking for a SIMULATOR, as opposed to a Game.I feel I was mislead by the Microsoft Press Releases, and now the result is that in future I will not rely so much on anything Microsoft says -- a loose-loose situation for both Microsoft and me as a potential Microsoft customer.FIne, if MS want to produce a "FLYING GAME", call it that, and do not lead people on, only to let them down later.Still, I must say, at the end of the day, the price of FLIGHT is right !!! You get what you pay for.

You are in for a huge surprise so !!As are the majority of folks in this forum.I wish I could say more but NDA's are NDA's.Fred.

The franchise is continuing. It's called Microsoft Flight.

You got that right ! Edited January 18, 2012 by RYR738

[mgh 89]

Not quite!

The more you post the more you give the impression that you seek to blame others for the consequence of your own decisions.There were never any reasonable expectations that Microsoft would continue to release further versions of its flight simulator, nor that, if it did, they would be compatible developments of the previous version. It was your decision at the time how much you were prepared to spend on FSX add-ons and nothing to do with Microsoft.If I’d chosen to develop for a Microsoft SQL server it would be because it met my needs at the time. I’d have had no idea what might, or might not, be included in any future server so that would be irrelevant to my decision. If the later version wasn’t suitable for my needs, I’d continue to use the one I had, and my business wouldn’t be SOL. Further, if I wanted an ISO/ANSI compatible SQL server I’d have bought one initially and not complained later because I chose not to.You speak of Microsoft’s relationship with the community. What of the community’s relationship with Microsoft? You probably, like me, spent no more than about $50 buying FSX some years ago. Do you really believe that buys you the right to future versions to your requirements indefinitely?Gas and electric supplies are essential and and it’s foolish to compare the right to them with the right to be provided with a new version of a game. Even so, my utility suppliers have the right to terminate (not cut-off) on giving notice just as I have the equal right to terminate.