And therein lies the rub... How much of that money will MS actually get? I'm guessing zero...

And your point is?What's wrong with someone who's not pleased or satisfied with Flight spending their money on an add on for FSX? Why should Microsoft get a cut of those profits... did MS create the add on?Perhaps if Microsoft would have added the features in question with the initial base package, that would not drive people to go back to FSX, FS 9 or XP to regain those features.Look... I don't condemn Microsoft for choosing the direction they went with Flight; it's their software, and they can do what they wish with it. At the same time, it's not right to chastise someone because they went back to an MSFS product that had the features Flight doesn't have.If MS adds those features to Flight, then so much the better. Until they do, if someone decides they want to spend their hard earned money on an FSX/ FS 9 add on then who are we to pass judgement?It's not your money anyway... why should you care what he does with it?

They need to get their pricing sorted out. I'm not going to pay the equivalent of USD $32 (at current exchange rates) for a USD $20 product, just becuase I live in Australia.It's not like it costs Microsoft anymore for me to download it from Australia than it does to download it from the US.Before this happens, Flight has no future for me.

I'm not going to pay the equivalent of USD $32 (at current exchange rates) for a USD $20 product, just becuase I live in Australia.

I am not sure what the answer might be with currency exchange rates and all being involved, but I would certainly say you have a legitimate beef there.

No. Its NOT a reality. Things take time to program in. FS1 didnt have all that your asking. It took YEARS to develop that stuff. Also, MS is not one to give away its future plans to the public, especially not with compatition like AFS and XP nipping at there heels. Now be a good little boy and wait like everyone else. Daddy cant wave a magic wand for you and poof, have everything you want ready.

I guess that someones Daddy must have waved a magic wand at FS9 and FSX because those both came with real weather and ATC?

generally agree, I also called and still call for something like a roadmap. but that is tough to accomplish for ms, possibly they do not themselves where the journey goes, except for alaska and maybe 1 or 2 DLC beyond. but then the question is what is worse, keeping all secret for the public or tell what's coming and have those against them who expect something else or earlier? difficult.

Good point, a road map is probably not a reasonable thing for me to wish for. As far as the cost of the DLC, I don't have a problem with that..

................At the same time, it's not right to chastise someone because they went back to an MSFS product that had the features Flight doesn't have........

I didn't really feel chastised, (was I?) but wanted to explain why I wasn't spending for now..

Flight is a restart. They cant reuse most of the old code. It needs to be re-written.

I didn't really feel chastised, (was I?) but wanted to explain why I wasn't spending for now..

'Chastise' might have not been the right word to use, but more appropriate ones wouldn't be allowed in this Forum.I just get angry whenever the 'MS gets no money whenever a MSFS add on is sold; that's not fair' card is dealt.I think Microsoft has enough of the world's economy in their coffers from their products to where the insignificantamount of money made from add ons for a product they effectively no longer support shouldn't concern them.Apparently though, that seems to be the case for the folks in Redmond, hence the lack of an SDK or current3PD participation. (Yes, I know JH said that 3PD could happen in two to three years...)It all goes back to the same statement, repeated hundreds of times (literally) in this and many other Forums...Use whatever product works the best, for what you want out of the hobby.Easy to say, but hard for some to put into practice...

And your point is?What's wrong with someone who's not pleased or satisfied with Flight spending their money on an add on for FSX? Why should Microsoft get a cut of those profits... did MS create the add on?Perhaps if Microsoft would have added the features in question with the initial base package, that would not drive people to go back to FSX, FS 9 or XP to regain those features.Look... I don't condemn Microsoft for choosing the direction they went with Flight; it's their software, and they can do what they wish with it. At the same time, it's not right to chastise someone because they went back to an MSFS product that had the features Flight doesn't have.If MS adds those features to Flight, then so much the better. Until they do, if someone decides they want to spend their hard earned money on an FSX/ FS 9 add on then who are we to pass judgement?It's not your money anyway... why should you care what he does with it?

Clearly you've missed my point.The point I was making was that MICROSOFT has learned a lesson from FSX and 3PD's. Essentially, when one purchases a copy of FSX (or any previous version), that ended Microsoft's earnings from the title. As you point out, 3PD's stepped in, created wonderful add-ons, and created a revenue stream for themselves that Microsoft had no share in. Under the existing reality, it was perfectly fine, legal, and beneficial to the 3PDs and the end user.That reality has changed. Microsoft has clearly learned, that in the current environment, the original source code (FLIGHT) is to be the beginning of what they hope to be an ONGOING revenue stream, of which they will, at this time, be the sole beneficiary. Also, at some future date, at their discretion and with the agreement and cooperation of some 3PD's, they may choose to enter into some sort of licensing wherein both the 3PDs and Microsoft share future revenues.I don't for one second presume to tell someone where, or care how, they spend their own money. At the same time, I don't get to decide when I think Microsoft has earned enough money, and has no right to earn additional money from further developments to their wholly owned intellectual property.I have fun with Flight. I have had fun with FS for many years. I continue to use both, and encourage everyone to enjoy either, or both, as well.

Flight is a restart. They cant reuse most of the old code. It needs to be re-written.

To me it looks that Flight has lots of old code in. At least it looks like updated FSX from 2006 very much, just scenery has been made new way.

For me it feels so much different from FSX, fm-wise, weather-wise, even on having corrected many bugs with instruments, including the plagued turn&slip where the physics of the ball were messed up long ago, that I do think there is a great deal of fresh code in FLIGHT....The mission part, and some aspects of scenery have most certainly been inherited, but I don't even think FLIGHT is based on ESP that much. If it was it would feel as lausy as FSX, and now Prepar3D, in many aspects...

To me it looks that Flight has lots of old code in. At least it looks like updated FSX from 2006 very much, just scenery has been made new way.

I'm not going to pay the equivalent of USD $32 (at current exchange rates) for a USD $20 product, just becuase I live in Australia

valid point. +1though we are used to that in europe, apple also sells their istuff by just changing the currency symbol, 399 usd = 399 eur.

if you live in EU .. the exchange rate to the dollar works in your favor.

exchange rate to the dollar works in your favor

you are right but it just changed recently. but I usually pay in USD so I would have yet a reason to complain :Talking Ear Off:

They need to get their pricing sorted out. I'm not going to pay the equivalent of USD $32 (at current exchange rates) for a USD $20 product, just becuase I live in Australia.

You'll need to address this concern to the international financial community. MS doesn't control currency exchange rates.

I hope the future is bright for this title as I really like it. I personally think it will be good and grow at a steady pace give it a couple of years maybe, the foundation is there certainly I would say.

I'm really enjoying Flight so far and have been happy to pay for the first couple of add ons. I like the new gaming direction that it MS has taken with it and it seems to run much smoother and bug free than FSX does. I can understand why the hardcore sim fans prefer FSX but for me the 'Pilot wings' style missions are very enjoyable.There may be quite a few elements missing (weather and AI planes etc) but the game is only 1 month old and hopefully these will be addressed eventually and I'll be happy to pay for more add ons if the quality is good enough. For me it looks like Flight will probably be a successful replacement for FSX.

give it a couple of years, the foundation is there I would say.

+1