Can MS recover and appease the disillusioned?

Would they really want to? Is the effort really worth it? Given that the "hard core" simmers as they like to be known on this forum are a small percentage of the overall potential user base, what would be the return on that investment?

I was not calling anyone a whiner, I was telling people here (who are whining about this) to stop whining. If you are whining then I guess that makes you a whiner in my eyes.

Clearly a new definition of 'not calling anyone a whiner'. :)

Clearly a new definition of 'not calling anyone a whiner'. :)

:( :(

Clearly a new definition of 'not calling anyone a whiner'. :)

Sorry, I was just applying the duck test:If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Arwen

However, it could also be an imposter duck.....

Post script: I welcome anyones opinion, positives as well - it is almost as contagous as negative opinions ;). But please folks, don't twist opinions of others that you don't agree with into personal attacks.

Whatever may have happened in the past, the Rules of Engagement surely changed when Microsoft closed ACES and stopped developing FS11.My belief is that happened because Microsoft reviewed what ACES was doing (as most companies review their operations from time-to-time) and decided it didn’t like it. What Microsoft saw was ACES adding more and more detail and refinement to FSX that would appeal only to a relatively small number of enthusiasts while ignoring the wider market potential. To coin a phrase, ACES had gone native – paying too much attention to the enthusiasts and not enough to the wider needs. Forgetting technical changes at the SDK level, what were the more general real improvements, as opposed to cosmetic ones in FSX compared with FS9? Its performance disadvantage was obvious – just re-read the posts in these forums at the time!From that point on, it was obvious that the direction of development would change and any future version would not be targeted at the enthusiasts. The result is Flight. It isn’t and never was intended to be FS11 and Microsoft never said it would be. Too many people chose to believe that it would because that was what they wished. They have only themselves to blame for their disappointment now.

We don't owe MS our good will, they have to earn it and keep it.

No they don't, all they have to do is to produce a product that people (the target market) want to pay money for. The simmers on this board might not be the said target market... ergo, MS won't have to earn your good will. It's simple really.

Clearly a new definition of 'not calling anyone a whiner'. :)

:( :( :( Richard Portier

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by DrumsArt

Whatever may have happened in the past, the Rules of Engagement surely changed when Microsoft closed ACES and stopped developing FS11.My belief is that happened because Microsoft reviewed what ACES was doing (as most companies review their operations from time-to-time) and decided it didn’t like it. What Microsoft saw was ACES adding more and more detail and refinement to FSX that would appeal only to a relatively small number of enthusiasts while ignoring the wider market potential. To coin a phrase, ACES had gone native – paying too much attention to the enthusiasts and not enough to the wider needs. Forgetting technical changes at the SDK level, what were the more general real improvements, as opposed to cosmetic ones in FSX compared with FS9? Its performance disadvantage was obvious – just re-read the posts in these forums at the time!From that point on, it was obvious that the direction of development would change and any future version would not be targeted at the enthusiasts. The result is Flight. It isn’t and never was intended to be FS11 and Microsoft never said it would be. Too many people chose to believe that it would because that was what they wished. They have only themselves to blame for their disappointment now.

I'm going to print and frame this reply. Well said mate, it's been what I have been banging on about from day one.Cheers and thanks for that

Whatever may have happened in the past, the Rules of Engagement surely changed when Microsoft closed ACES and stopped developing FS11.My belief is that happened because Microsoft reviewed what ACES was doing (as most companies review their operations from time-to-time) and decided it didn’t like it. What Microsoft saw was ACES adding more and more detail and refinement to FSX that would appeal only to a relatively small number of enthusiasts while ignoring the wider market potential. To coin a phrase, ACES had gone native – paying too much attention to the enthusiasts and not enough to the wider needs. Forgetting technical changes at the SDK level, what were the more general real improvements, as opposed to cosmetic ones in FSX compared with FS9? Its performance disadvantage was obvious – just re-read the posts in these forums at the time!From that point on, it was obvious that the direction of development would change and any future version would not be targeted at the enthusiasts. The result is Flight. It isn’t and never was intended to be FS11 and Microsoft never said it would be. Too many people chose to believe that it would because that was what they wished. They have only themselves to blame for their disappointment now.

Excellent!

i wonder if there is a diference in a few things you were able to do with a cessna 172 in FSX than what you can do in flight with some extra content? there is plenty of ways to answer that without getting into any NDA trouble. The same goes for having to spend money to make it better ...

i wonder if there is a diference in a few things you were able to do with a cessna 172 in FSX than what you can do in flight with some extra content? there is plenty of ways to answer that without getting into any NDA trouble. The same goes for having to spend money to make it better ...

For one, you can get ANY NUMBER of different (add-on) Cessna's in FSX..... and you won't have ANY for now in MSF

For one, you can get ANY NUMBER of different (add-on) Cessna's in FSX..... and you won't have ANY for now in MSF

my question is "whats diferent from taxing around in FSX with a cessna 172 at hilo taking off and flying around than taxing around with some extra content aircraft in flight ???.

No they don't, all they have to do is to produce a product that people (the target market) want to pay money for.The simmers on this board might not be the said target market... ergo, MS won't have to earn your good will. It's simple really.

Correct, it is up to MS to earn our good will (e.g., sell the product to us) and they have declined to do so. I don't owe it to them. But when the OP criticizes MS, you argue the OP (and others) have an entitlement mentality. So which is it?

Let's see..... OP..... Oh ! That's me ! I never said anywhere that I feel I am entitled to anything by anyone....... did I? I wish people would just read the LINES and not between them. There's white space in between you see. :(