Supporting Windows XP SP3 required using DX9.

And a big thanks to Microsoft for that decision!Win XP 32, [email protected], GTX460 1GB

I don't know anyone from the MS Flight team, but I would guess many are as big fans of aviation as we are. I also have no reason to doubt their competence. I think they will always have two target audiences: people buying dlc and themselves. They want to make the coolest flight simulator for themselves, but they also need to sell enough to exists in MS business world.Looking from that angle the future looks actually pretty good. Many of the things we want are already on their to do list for themselves. They just need the money to stay alive (some number crunching: let's say their yearly costs were $10M. They would have to sell 1M x $10 or 0.5M x $20 worth of dlc to break even. Looks possible, but any investor would like to see some sales as soon as possible to believe in the concept).One worrying thing are some posts by rsrandazzo about PMDG/Flight (http://forum.avsim.n...ghts-on-flight/). Then again, Apple has shown how to do app sales, so MS might change their thinking about 3rd party content. Maybe they just want to see the massive sales figures of the first dlc to gain better position in negotiations :-)So, what to do? Enjoy the show. Relax. Welcome new pilots. Educate them. Make them ask from MS what we want (*). Hope for the best.(*) How to make the new pilots do the work for us? Here is an example: Whenever they talk about virtual cockpits in Flight mention that it's quite okey, but that there is a more natural way to do things, TrackIR, that hopefully soon gets supported if people ask for it. Point them to some videos etc. Some of them might actually agree and ask for it... Same for ATC, RW weather etc. Tell a good story about how things are good in Flight, but better in FSX and if it's interesting and plausible enough they will check it out. I am not expecting that much from this kind of education/persuasion, but who knows, it might work sometimes :-)threedee

None of this really matters because we are not the target market for Flight. So wait for MS to decide what they are going to do and enjoy what you have.

Jim, you are not helping at all. Please. Stop.

Bill,Stop with the lecturing right now because my one opinion holds just as much value as yours or anyone else's. This is not a love fest of the 60's where only sweet, syrupy suggestions can be made. I did not attack the OP or the OPs ideas. You know we are not the target market, never have been the target market, and never will be the target market of Flight. So I still hold true that you all need to wait for MS to decide what they are going to do and HAVE FUN with what you have.

I agree with Jim; the name of the product is Microsoft Flight... not Avsim Flight, or 'The Flight Sim Community's' Flight. Microsoft will proceed with developing the product as they see fit. All we can do is wait and see what THEY decide to do, no matter how much wishful thinking, cajoling, begging, complaining or whatever comments we choose to make.

Trust me when I say there are eyes watching these forums. They are looking for an idea of what the CUSTOMER wants, and will pay attention.

Stop with the lecturing right now because my one opinion holds just as much value as yours or anyone else's.

Sorry Jim, I must have conflated this one cogent reply with another one which was more in the line of a non sequitur.No lecturing was intended at all, it was more in the way of a plea. All of us, particularly AVSIM staff, really need to measure our words carefully so as not to inadvertently be tossing 100LL onto the sparks.

None of this really matters because we are not the target market for Flight.

Jim, you are not helping at all. Please. Stop.

Jim, I have to agree with Bill on this one.When anyone makes a statement like "we are not the target market for Flight," I have to wonder who the "we" are suppose to be.Are the "we" you and the person you are quoting? If so, then you should have written "you and I," not we.Or is the "we" being used collectively to include all "serious" flightsimmers?

Trust me when I say there are eyes watching these forums. They are looking for an idea of what the CUSTOMER wants, and will pay attention.

They aren't just "watching" Kevin. :Whistle:

... Or is the "we" being used collectively to include all "serious" flightsimmers?

Arwen,Of course, I cannot (and would not) try and speculate on what our esteemed colleague Mr. Skorna would say. That being said, if the question were posed to me I would have to answer thus:I would say that "we" are the segment of the FS community that has interest in operating medium and large Commercial aircraft, recreating RW commercial medium and long distance flights, and simulating both RW Airline and Airport Operations/ Procedures.In this context, this would constitute what could arguably be called the 'majority' of current FS enthusiasts prior to the initial announcement of MS Flight. I base this statement using the extensive inventory of aftermarket aircraft, components (sound packages, panels), repaint textures and Scenery recreations that are available from both 3rd party vendors and in the File Libraries at every major Flight Simulation site on the Internet, as well as the content of the Forums at these same sites.At this point, I should clarify that I do not consider myself in this category; quite the contrary. In the grand scheme of the FS Continuum, my footprint is insignificant and honestly, irrelevant (but unique).I just offer this as an answer under the hypothesis that you had adressed the question to me.Alan

For me "we" are people who feel there is something missing in Flight and who are afraid those things might not be included in the near future or at all.I agree that mostly we just wait and see. Being friendly to new people should be automatic. Dropping links to cool FSX stuff is something that can make people aware of things Flight is missing: "...if you like that then you'll love <insert feature/add-on> when it's available in Flight. Check out that gallery: <link>!"Long term success of Flight can't IMHO depend on what MS alone releases. Even the new blood will have diverse interests once they get through the basic stuff (I think they either develop their own vision of what they want to do or they stop playing, especially because there are options that give them the freedom to choose). "MS made plane A, but my coworkers friends neighbour has plane B. I want that! They also have scenery for ..., but I live in ...!".Threedee

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by threedee

I agree with Jim; the name of the product is Microsoft Flight... not Avsim Flight, or 'The Flight Sim Community's' Flight. Microsoft will proceed with developing the product as they see fit. All we can do is wait and see what THEY decide to do, no matter how much wishful thinking, cajoling, begging, complaining or whatever comments we choose to make.

I respectfully disagree with the "wait and see" - I feel comments consumers make (in this forum, on the Facebook page, etc) DO matter to Microsoft. They are selling a product, and customer feedback is hugely valued. So I feel that voicing positive, constructive thoughts as to where we (as consumers) would like to see Flight go - what DLC we're interested in - what is positive about Flight, and suggestions for improvement - WILL be heard. It may or may not be acted upon, but at least it's out there for consideration.

Well, here's my 2c:I followed the development of Flight as closely as you all did. And the more I learned about it, the more I got disappointed. Then I downloaded the free version, tried it, and was even more disappointed. It felt so, well, small and simplified.However, I decided to get the rest of the islands to give Flight a second chance. With the addon and the new plane, things changed for me. Not much, but enough to see some light at the end of the tunnel. Basically, I think that Flight could(!) turn out to become a decent GA simulator. The engine is there, the graphics are there, the flight models are there, BUT:1. They have to fill the world with life. AI Traffic and ATC are a MUST, ground operations would be nice.2. Autopilot and some kind of route planning are essentials for flight simulation. They should add that asap, and as a free update.3. $20 for the Maule is ridiculous. And planes without cockpits are even more laughable. Half price and NO RC planes, please!4. More control over the weather and an option for real weather would upgrade this game.What would I like to see next? Basic global coverage the way FSX brought to us, then filling it with detailed regions step by step. At the same time, AI and ATC. Then a twin engine plane. The job board system should be refined and extended (btw, don't offer me jobs I don't have the plane for, that's sooooo cheap). And then, some time in the future, give us some jetliners.

Thanks for some of the support, as I have read your comments. I will not be responding to the others, as it is not worth my time!

Bill,Stop with the lecturing right now because my one opinion holds just as much value as yours or anyone else's. This is not a love fest of the 60's where only sweet, syrupy suggestions can be made. I did not attack the OP or the OPs ideas. You know we are not the target market, never have been the target market, and never will be the target market of Flight. So I still hold true that you all need to wait for MS to decide what they are going to do and HAVE FUN with what you have.

Content removed as it is a personal attack. Please do not carry on this kind of statements in these forums. Thank you.