Absolutely not, there are many other teams capable to do that, but MS is not one of them. Lets be honest, hard core airliner simers is not MS's audience, so there will be no realistic jet in flight! for year or two (MS said that they will be only DLC developers for that time).

That is exactly why I think they need to let the 3rd developers in. Make some kind of "Apple Store" (Flight Store) , by all means profit from it, but let them in! Centralize the market over the engine. And why not allow free apps just like apple store, charge yearly just like apple. Ok the number of freeware developers will be less if compared to FSX, but in my opinion it would be a middle ground.What a dream to see something like the NGX or a new J41 in FLIGHT. What a dream to see my city. I don´t mind pay them(MS) or third-party for a quality product.

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by neodigital

I am sure MS could do a complex systems simulation, but they won't: they can make a GA plane or simplified jet much cheaper and it will sell better. Pure economics. Same for scenery. They might not do highly detailed scenery for regions of the world that don't have high population/traffic density because there's likely not enough interest. Still the planes and places they won't do (because of economics) are important to many.That's why I think it's imperative that they let the hobbyist and commercial 3rd party developers in. Many planes and places are not interesting to any commercial developer, but there are hobbyist that can and often will help. I personally won't buy any dlc until SDK for 3rd party developers is announced.

Something from Boeing is already in Flight, that big yellow biplane that was in the very first promo shots for Flight is the Boeing Stearman. Which means they needed a licence for it to be in there.Al

Exactly. For the moment and for the upcoming months this is the only fact.The future ? Who knows.....

Technically yes. However, this is not a Boeing aircraft. The PT-17 was designed and built by the Stearman company. The company was bought by boeing sometime in the 30's. Boeing thoroughly frustrates me with what they insist are Boeing aircraft. The North American P-51 is now apparently supposed to be a Boeing P-51 (North American was sold to Rockwell which then was sold to Boeing). However, Boeing did nothing for this airplane. They didn't design it, they didn't test it and they didn't build it. It wasn't until years later that they "acquired" it through mergers. Sure, legally for licensing they can get their dues and that's all fine (or at least what it is legally). However, I believe the credit should not be taken away from some of these companies who pioneered these older aircraft. Anyway, sorry for my rant.

Kinda like the "Boeing" F/A-18, and MD-11 and the "Lockheed-Martin" F-16 (well to be fair the latest F/A-18s and F-16s have indeed been built by the respective company).However I'm not sure whether MS would really need a license to include a plane. I don't recall seeing an Airbus license statement on the FSX box. I also know that a couple of plane makers tried to sue some plastic model kit companies, demanding royalties for making models of their planes. AFAIK the outcome of that lawsuit was that plastic model kit builders did not need to have a license. I'm guessing that would carry over to flight sims. Of course if you want to stick an actual Boeing logo on the box (or DLC splash screen) that would be a different matter.For completeness sake: I'm not a lawyer and I could be completely wrong about the above.

I'm not interested in any airliner less complex than NGX, and I really doubt they can/know how to make such simulation.

Microsoft developed FSX, the mothership! You could say NGX is just content. Without all the parameterisations allowed for the simulation to operate in NGX products from PMDG wouldn't exist in the first place. I think PDMG would be the first to congratulate Microsoft in particular the Ex ACES team for creating an environment which has spawned such enthralling simulations and scenary over the last 6 years or so and continues to do so from tallented 3PDs like PMDG and Orbx

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by dtrjones

Microsoft developed FSX, the mothership! You could say NGX is just content. Without all the parameterisations allowed for the simulation to operate in NGX products from PMDG wouldn't exist in the first place. I think PDMG would be the first to congratulate Microsoft in particular the Ex ACES team for creating an environment which has spawned such enthralling simulations and scenary over the last 6 years or so and continues to do so from tallented 3PDs like PMDG and Orbx

Microsoft was just a publisher, ACES team developed FSX.As I saw on 3pds forums, FSX have more limitations than features and they have had to invest hell of a time and skill to push boundary beyond.

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by g_precentralis

Kinda like the "Boeing" F/A-18, and MD-11 and the "Lockheed-Martin" F-16 (well to be fair the latest F/A-18s and F-16s have indeed been built by the respective company)...

Yes, there are many examples of this.

...However I'm not sure whether MS would really need a license to include a plane...

I actually build model airplanes as well and remember at least one of these arguments. Interestingly enough, the specific case was Boeing trying to collect royalties on some truly Boeing airplanes as well as the famous not-so-truly Boeing birds like the P-51D. I am not a lawyer either, but as I recall it came down to who paid for the airplane. Boeing developed aircraft like the 737, 747, etc on their own money and did so in a commerical manner. As such, they owned rights and could demand royalties. However, aircraft like the B-17 while developed by Boeing were paid for by the tax payers and as such could not be subjected to royalties.

If a licence issue is involved MS can buy them, after all MS is not a small company at all.....or MS could produce a perfect Dreamliner and call it Froing 957 and change the tail wing a bit and the trick is done but I do not want to think about this second option as a valid one.-

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by Mark II

Honestly, looking at it over the long term, there really is and probably never will be a consumer level realistic jet. Even with the PMDG efforts, people are ecstatic at first, then somebody goes "well in the actual jet you have only 3 rivets at the leading edge of that part of the wing and your model has 2"And off we go! (into minutia land)Its always a wonder to me that with the limited market and a fan base always pushing for more and more and more (Preferably at the same price) that these companies stay in business. I can only assume it is a labor of love.And no, I cant for even a moment Imagine MS going after that market with a product with that level of detail.Good thing FSX is still available!

Technically yes. However, this is not a Boeing aircraft. The PT-17 was designed and built by the Stearman company. The company was bought by boeing sometime in the 30's. Boeing thoroughly frustrates me with what they insist are Boeing aircraft. The North American P-51 is now apparently supposed to be a Boeing P-51 (North American was sold to Rockwell which then was sold to Boeing). However, Boeing did nothing for this airplane. They didn't design it, they didn't test it and they didn't build it. It wasn't until years later that they "acquired" it through mergers. Sure, legally for licensing they can get their dues and that's all fine (or at least what it is legally). However, I believe the credit should not be taken away from some of these companies who pioneered these older aircraft. Anyway, sorry for my rant.

Whilst it is true that biplane aircraft such as Lloyd Stearman's C3 (built 1927) and the 4D (built 1930) were not Boeing products in the marketing sense, the Stearman company was sold to William Boeing's United Aircraft and Transport Corporation in 1929, and whilst the 'Stearman' part of the business was not separated into the actual Boeing aircraft company as a subsidiary until 1934, it nevertheless means that the Boeing Model 75 'Kaydet' (popularly known as the Stearman), is in fact completely a Boeing aircraft, since it dates from 1934 when the former Stearman bit of the business was wholly part of Boeing. So the aircraft depicted in Flight is, and always was, a Boeing product.Purists can however note at this point that both Stearman and Boeing's designs, such as the Model B-40 and the C3 all owe something to Anthony Fokker's DVII LOL, he being the real driving force behind that welded construction method, since Boeing was first a lumber-based company and neither Stearman nor Boeing started making aircraft like the Kaydet, B-40 or C3 until they'd got a good look at captured Fokker DVIIs brought over to the US after WW1.Al

for year or two (MS said that they will be only DLC developers for that time).

Anyone know the origin of that info?

Anyone know the origin of that info?

From here:http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-joshua-howard-microsoft-flight/091961

Whilst it is true that biplane aircraft such as Lloyd Stearman's C3 (built 1927) and the 4D (built 1930) were not Boeing products in the marketing sense, the Stearman company was sold to William Boeing's United Aircraft and Transport Corporation in 1929, and whilst the 'Stearman' part of the business was not separated into the actual Boeing aircraft company as a subsidiary until 1934, it nevertheless means that the Boeing Model 75 'Kaydet' (popularly known as the Stearman), is in fact completely a Boeing aircraft, since it dates from 1934 when the former Stearman bit of the business was wholly part of Boeing. So the aircraft depicted in Flight is, and always was, a Boeing product.Purists can however note at this point that both Stearman and Boeing's designs, such as the Model B-40 and the C3 all owe something to Anthony Fokker's DVII LOL, he being the real driving force behind that welded construction method, since Boeing was first a lumber-based company and neither Stearman nor Boeing started making aircraft like the Kaydet, B-40 or C3 until they'd got a good look at captured Fokker DVIIs brought over to the US after WW1.Al

Didn't know that, thanks for posting. I thought the major innovation of the DVII was the thick airfoil combined with a self-carrying structure inside the wing.Ironically in the 20ies and 30ies the high price of aluminium in Europe forced Fokker to stay with wood as the major structural material and later to use bonded aluminium structures rather than milling down blocks of aluminium like Boeing (and the other North American companies) did.

Thanks g_precentralis! Have to say I am disappointed as I am pretty sure some of the things interesting for me won't be there. Well, I have FSX and who knows what has happened by the time MS would be ready to welcome other developers...I hope they manage to deliver goodies fast enough to keep the new simmers interested. I think the new simmers will pretty soon start asking for stuff they have seen in real life: big iron, military stuff, local airport & planes there, their home town, planes/places from movies, ... MS will of course hide all the complicated stuff, so the Flight missions can produce feeling of success without requiring any digging into manuals (and that's how they should do it, given their goals). I think (hope) they are wise enough to have a layer of complexity that can be accessed if so desired, so people get a feeling of depth in their simulations (like the checklist run automatically in the Stearman tutorial). Otherwise many tasks are going to look obviously way too simplified and that would take away the feeling of accomplishment.

Hi Folks

I have a friend from licensing offices from Boeing who said Microsoft came to them for licenses...Do I know which plane/product? No. But something with Boeing jets will be in.

Recommend a quick visit to Wikipedia's Airlines Based in HawaiiFollow the links to the individual airline's pages.Should give some pointers why MS chose Hawaii -- Scope of aircraft used for inter-island flying.- Number of daily inter-island flights.plus a possible answer to your question.Its a surprisingly busy area.EDIT - PS -I'd expect and hope that all access to more complex aircraftwill be locked until you've proven your abilities through career progression.Flight - Earn your wings !HTHATBPaul

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by basys