Yes it could but who's going to do it and how would they be paid?

A lowball 100K serious simmers x $100 each (let's show we're serious about serious simming!) and there's $10 million right there. Pays for a team of 15 programmers and in-house testers for a year and leaves $8 million for profit. Sounds like a good deal to me. Oh, and repeat next year with further fixes and improvements. And the next. Keep doing it for 5 years and profit is $40 million.Cheers,- jahman.

A lowball 100K serious simmers x $100 each (let's show we're serious about serious simming!) and there's $10 million right there.

I'd disagree with your figures. Other threads here suggestb the number of seriouis flight simmers is aboyt 40,000 and, judjing by the general complaints about the price of add-ons and DLC I don;t think many would pay $100 to have an obsolescent applicaion upgraded.Anyway, I doubt Microsoft would interested so it's academic.

So while I completely side with your point-of-view, I think a lot could and should (and still can for FSXI ) to stabilize FSX, decrease the need for reinstalling FSX and if and when FSX needs to be reinstalled, make it easier to reinstall the piles of add-ons we all have by now.

The only problem FSX has in my opinion are a few bugs that should have been fixed, like the occasional CTD when accessing the menu bar, the flickering when using DX10 mode and a fix to make it use 4GB of memory for those with 8GB systems. It would be nice if it were updated to ensure Windows 7 and Windows 8 compatibility.But as to add-ons, and simplifying the add-on process, that could be solved with an open DLC policy, where 3PDs are allowed to submit their work for approval, to be included alongside MS developed / co-developed content. This would produce a rich DLC environment, offering a variety of stable add-ons that are easy to install. At the same time the software could be left "open" ended so that we can mod it manually if we wish - at our own risk. That can only be a win win for all the users, and, in my opinion, would provide some healthy competition for MS. This is exactly how Railworks 3 works on Steam.

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by JasonD210

I don;t think many would pay $100 to have an obsolescent applicaion upgraded.

If it was upgraded, then it would no longer be obsolete.Cheers,- jahman.

If it was upgraded, then it would no longer be obsolete.

Neither would a Model T Ford. Be realistic, the chances of Microsoft upgrading FSX are so small as to be non-existent.

Gundamnitpete, on 14 February 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:And they'll see less than back, by over a factor of ten.Please provide the facts informing this assertion...

I am afraid it will take him some 30 to 45 days until you will get an answer, according to Tom's previous post

Neither would a Model T Ford. Be realistic,

In terms of arguing software obsolescence, you must admit the car analogy is rather flawed.

the chances of Microsoft upgrading FSX are so small as to be non-existent.

The idea that a chance is so small it is nonexistent every year costs billions on Wall Street. We humans continuously underestimate chances that are "so small" (Fat-tailed distribution is what it's called). So FWIW, if Flight is a success, the serious simmer functionality in FSX could very well end-up being offered as DLC in Flight. I mean, someday BillG will retire from his current activities and then on a rainy day when he can't get out to play a round of golf he will fire-up his PC, download Flight, see what's missing, send off an email to certain folks in MS key positions and bingo! next thing you know Flight gets geographically unlimited flying, 23K airports and tubeliners. Stranger things have happened. (Do you know Brazil's state oil company Petro Bras, today is headed by a woman who grew up recycling carton in a drug-infested shantytown? How likely could that be? Seems less likely than MS upgrading FSX.)Cheers,- jahman.

I know this is even more unlikely than Petro Bras being headed by a woman who grew up in recycling stuff in a drug-infested shantytown, but maybe, just maybe, Flight is fully intended to be that very FSX upgrade we all want only that it's being released very early in it's development so as to satisfy cash-flow and profitability requirements of a corporate Wall Street denizen. . .crazy as it sounds. . . :(

In terms of arguing software obsolescence, you must admit the car analogy is rather flawed.The idea that a chance is so small it is nonexistent every year costs billions on Wall Street. We humans continuously underestimate chances that are "so small" (Fat-tailed distribution is what it's called). So FWIW, if Flight is a success, the serious simmer functionality in FSX could very well end-up being offered as DLC in Flight. I mean, someday BillG will retire from his current activities and then on a rainy day when he can't get out to play a round of golf he will fire-up his PC, download Flight, see what's missing, send off an email to certain folks in MS key positions and bingo! next thing you know Flight gets geographically unlimited flying, 23K airports and tubeliners. Stranger things have happened. (Do you know Brazil's state oil company Petro Bras, today is headed by a woman who grew up recycling carton in a drug-infested shantytown? How likely could that be? Seems less likely than MS upgrading FSX.)Cheers,- jahman.

And pigs might fly.

I know this is even more unlikely than Petro Bras being headed by a woman who grew up in recycling stuff in a drug-infested shantytown, but maybe, just maybe, Flight is fully intended to be that very FSX upgrade we all want only that it's being released very early in it's development so as to satisfy cash-flow and profitability requirements of a corporate Wall Street denizen. . .crazy as it sounds. . . :(

HelloThat is what I am pinning all my hopes on for the future of my hobby.But if Flight! does not become the sim to replace FSX, something else will come along, it always has in the past.I can remember a time when I preferred Propilot and FUIII to anything MS had to offer, so who knows what the future holds.

A lowball 100K serious simmers x $100 each (let's show we're serious about serious simming!) and there's $10 million right there. Pays for a team of 15 programmers and in-house testers for a year and leaves $8 million for profit. Sounds like a good deal to me. Oh, and repeat next year with further fixes and improvements. And the next. Keep doing it for 5 years and profit is $40 million.Cheers,- jahman.

What on earth ??? :( :(

A lowball 100K serious simmers x $100 each (let's show we're serious about serious simming!) and there's $10 million right there. Pays for a team of 15 programmers and in-house testers for a year and leaves $8 million for profit. Sounds like a good deal to me. Oh, and repeat next year with further fixes and improvements. And the next. Keep doing it for 5 years and profit is $40 million.Cheers,- jahman.

Microsoft doesn't do anything for an $8 million dollar profit...

REDMOND, Wash. — Jan. 19, 2012 — Microsoft Corp. today announced quarterly revenue of $20.89 billion forthe quarter ended Dec. 31, 2011, a 5% increase from the prior year period. Operating income, net income, and diluted earnings per share for the quarter were $7.99 billion, $6.62 billion, and $0.78 per share, compared with $8.17 billion, $6.63 billion and $0.77 per share, respectively, in the prior year period.

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by RichLP

The only problem FSX has in my opinion are a few bugs that should have been fixed, like the occasional CTD when accessing the menu bar, the flickering when using DX10 mode and a fix to make it use 4GB of memory for those with 8GB systems. It would be nice if it were updated to ensure Windows 7 and Windows 8 compatibility.

The main problem with FSX is that it can not take advantage of coming hardware technologies to grow. It doesn't have head room, because it can't truly support multicore pcs and doesn't take advantage of a good GPU.

and simplifying the add-on process, that could be solved with an open DLC policy, where 3PDs are allowed to submit their work for approval, to be included alongside MS developed / co-developed content. This would produce a rich DLC environment

The real downfall in this system is that developers would be subject to considerations outside of just whether it works and installs correctly. Apple is a great example of this; they love to boast about what a safe, rich, stable environment it creates, but it also stifles and shuts down developers who might create a piece of software that competes, flat out outdoes, or might someday compete in the future with an Apple app. Hence, the software is refused, etc.Picture MGS wanting to sell its own 737, 747, or 767 DLC pack. Considering the folks developing Flight truly seem to believe that flying a handful of planes around Hawaii beats out systems modeling and world scenery it's highly unlikely they would understand that a PMDG or LevelD DLC appeals to a completely different group than a $15 MGS 737 or 767. Based on their wisdom and understanding of the target consumers it's likely they'd reject such an add-on. Same goes for super-detailed sceneries that would outdo the MGS packs that might come down the line.One can hope differently, but precedent has been set in their dealings with some of the advance add-on devs already. Those who didn't praise the emperor's clothes were effectively told their input was not wanted.I do hope I'm wrong.

Edited February 16, 201214 yr by sddjd

I mean, someday BillG will retire from his current activities and then on a rainy day when he can't get out to play a round of golf he will fire-up his PC, download Flight, see what's missing, send off an email to certain folks in MS key positions and bingo! next thing you know Flight gets geographically unlimited flying, 23K airports and tubeliners.

That would be so awesome :-)