Hope I'm not the only one wondering who Joshua is and what is 3PD and his remark was ?

Hope I'm not the only one wondering who Joshua is and what is 3PD and his remark was ?

Sorry about that: Joshua Howard is the leader of MS Flight development and he said that MS will take care all by itself of the MS Flight content for at least two years but after that they might think agai about letting 3rd party developers (3PD's like PMDG, Orbx, etc.) develop for MS Flight too.A lot of people reacted to that statement by saying they are excited that there may be a chance that 3PD's will develop for Flight, but I am more delighted with the fact that MS is going to continue working on MS Flight for at least a few years!

.............So, my interpretation is MSFT knows they have about 2 more years worth of 'stuff' before Flight reaches a state mature enough to be able to support a 3rd Party product..........

"invest to bring more people in" does not sound at all like an SDK or 3rd party to me. sounds more like they will bring more people into the MS team.

Thanks for clarifying, sounds great, I'm happy with the way MS is handling Flight, hardly used to fire up the desktop anymore until flight came around.

removed cause I posted this in the wrong thread! LOL!

I told myself that I would not respond to "comparison" posts... and that's how I see this thread... but here goes anyway...Why do some of you keep doing this... comparing FSX to Flight? I understand that you love Flight... and that's cool... I like it too. But, Flight and FSX are TWO different products. There is no comparison to be made.

Er.... I think you accidently posted this in the wrong topic...? I know some Flight vs FSX topics but this isn't one of them. In fact, I started a post on tuesday saying more or less what you are saying now. :wink:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/365059-ms-flight-vs-fsx-its-simple-really/

I'm having a "senior" moment! LOL!

If they have released MS Flight early and free with little DLC, wont they have to be commited for some years to break even? Its hardly a surprise they say that. Also when DLC cover the cost of making the sim I can see why they cant allow 3pd.-

Sorry, I still think they have it wrong. Sure, well-established developers are probably going to be able to saddle up to the bar early, but if they want an "app store" DLC experience, they're going to have to open this up with an SDK. The android, ios, apple, and windows stores are only successful (or will be successful) because many software vendors can participate. Sure, all these app stores will take a cut, but the store also affords a wide variety of software to be offered to the public beyond what Microsoft/Apple, etc can provide.Waiting around for Joshua Howard's team to produce a wide enough variety of high quality is going to wear off for many of you once your crush on Flight wears off. A SIGNIFICANT proportion of the appeal of these software stores is the variety of "apps" available for them. I am fairly certain that MS Flight got on the DLC bandwagon too late and the backlash against "nickel and diming" for DLC, such that incomplete games are now shipped, is going to near a high-water mark soon. I don't think people will mind paying for extras, but these need to be sourced from a wider talent pool rather than just the original software vendor/developer.I think Joshua Howard's team might want to start thinking more along the lines of Apple/Windows store (which open fairly near the time of Flight's launch), rather than EA's model of "nickel and dime" DLC. Heck, some have compared Flight's path to DLC as being akin to Rail Simulator. I would offer that this is a not the best comparison as even RailSim has offered authoring tools to customers such that new content can be created. Sure, I can buy DLC from RailSim and others through steam, but I can also buy it from Aerosoft or Simmarket. Or, I can even make my own.Again, I fail to see why both worlds couldn't have coexisted (and made so many more happy).Anyhoo, the closed environment stands a good chance to serve as a friction on Flight. Lastly, to the OP, please do not rewrite flightsim history too much: ACES was very forthcoming about the patches for FSX and, at one point, made it clear that FSNext (11) was on the drawing board right up until the plug was pulled. While I do hope that Joshua Howard's team can use this new model to fluidly provide an evolving product, let's not tarnish the previous team too much. Flight owes a HUGE debt to what the predecessor team did for the legacy. THAT is the point that many of we chagrined "troublemakers" sometimes want to convey.In any case, we shall see what time unfolds - I certainly hope that Joshua Howard will evolve the title into "something for everyone." That would be nice.

Lastly, to the OP, please do not rewrite flightsim history too much: ACES was very forthcoming about the patches for FSX and, at one point, made it clear that FSNext (11) was on the drawing board right up until the plug was pulled. While I do hope that Joshua Howard's team can use this new model to fluidly provide an evolving product, let's not tarnish the previous team too much. Flight owes a HUGE debt to what the predecessor team did for the legacy. THAT is the point that many of we chagrined "troublemakers" sometimes want to convey.

I stand corrected. In my memory those SP's appeared out of the blue and not much was done about FSX. But I am getting older and I certainly do not want to rewrite flightsim history NOR tarnish the previous team, not at all, really. So sorry for spreading an apparrently false view on that part of flightsim history!

Howard (Microsoft) also said: - "Instead of opening Flight up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, we get to tell a story, we get to help it grow and get up on its feet. I completely believe that this ecosystem will come to be even larger than the existing product’s ecosystem. And that will be a point where I can’t possibly meet the appetite of a customer base, and I will invest to bring more people in. That’s the future, that’s what success looks like."http://www.mcvuk.com...t-flight/091961 :drinks:

Recent rumors indicate that its possible REX could get a DLC into Flight

That would be fantastic, so I hope its more than a rumor. For me its what Flight needs more than anything at this point; as long as MS alters the way weather can be set up in the UI, allowing the user full control.

Haven't quite got the hang of this posting lark yet..lol. You would think after 2000+ posts that it should be child's play by now Tried to post with quote from my iPad and got myself in a muddle.Anyway, regarding Howard's (Microsoft) statement (my previous post 2 back from this), I would have thought that they could implement something equivalent to their WHQL certification for drivers where future 3rd party offerings are concerned. Any interested party would submit their product for rigorous scrutiny and testing by Microsoft's Flight Team quality control before being formally included in the DLC library. This would ensure compatibility and stability and should negate any current objections to opening their doors for future 3rd party development. I presume this would imply the release of an SDK to any interested 3rd party developer. Still, Microsoft would retain overall control over what could/should be included.I share the feelings expressed by a previous poster regarding the clouds in Flight - my disappointment centres around the fair weather clouds which just don't look right. Also, from certain viewpoints you can see these rows of clouds extending in palisade formation into the distance. It's a glaring issue and I have to express surprise that something as obvious as this passed the watchful eyes of the beta testers. Perhaps, and again as someone else suggested, Microsoft should be approaching one of the well known 3rd party developers for help in this area. On the plus side, inclement weather clouds are so much better.Mike