I guess if things go as planned, we'll see some kind of plane this week.I wonder what it might be?Maybe even Alaska too?

I wonder what it might be?

I'm hoping for a helicopter, myself...but - the big question is - what will sell the most?as much as I would like a helicopter, I think that is a "niche inside a niche" so maybe not the best marketing tactici'm guessing a high wing, single engine, (maybe) retractable gear?

One would hope if that timetable is correct, that they have a crapload of ready-made aeroplanes sat on a HD somewhere which they've spent the last six years making, and which are ready to be dished out at appropriate intervals.Because if not, given that most high end FSX developers take years to make one aeroplane (SimCheck A300 - 4 years to develop, PMDG NGX - 4 years to develop), they will either have to be goddam genuises that make the likes of PMDG look tardy, or we are only going to get simple aeroplanes.On a lighter and more positive note, I think a helicopter would be something the target audience for Flight would go for in a big way.Al

It won't matter what they release... half the crowd is going to love it, and half the crowd is going to claim it's the worst ever... ; )

I would like to see more, and get some veriety. With just 1 a month, that means if you dont like this months aircraft, youll be waiting a long time for the next.

I would like to see more, and get some veriety. With just 1 a month, that means if you dont like this months aircraft, youll be waiting a long time for the next.

No kidding! One per week would be more appropriate, as would new area maps at least one per month.

It all depends on demand. It takes close to 9 months of man hours to make a simple aircraft, so its not something a small team can do quickly and still keep quality high. Trust me, I know this for a fact. Sure, they can pump out P-51 quality crap aircraft one a week, but if we want functional cockpits, I would not be pushing for 1 a week. The thing is, Flight's team is small. They cant do a lot in a short time frame and keep quality high. This is were 3rd party's come in handy! Henry Ford said "I would rather have 1% of 100 mens work, then 100% of my own" and that is true to this day. MS is trying it alone, so they are limited to a slow pace. Get 3rd party's in this, and you could see 3-5 quality aircraft a month easy. Also 3rd party's think "outside the box" and dont need to follow advice from marketing suits who think "a cheep P-51 without a cockpit will sell like hotcakes to the kiddies".

Well, if you want quality over quantity, that's what you have to expect. Imagine creating Alaska to the most realistic part of flight simulation. e.g. (Adding, roads, road signs, bridges, highways, houses, driveways, etc.). That would take about half a year or so. And if the free plane is a PMDG standard one, add on another month or so. Three months per scenery (depending how big) and a month per plane (depending how complex) is not that bad. It depends what kind of quality you want.Think about it. Adding 3rd party's right now would not be the right choice. There's not enough places to fly to and from.

It depends what kind of quality you want.

not that the quality we got so far is bad but I would be willing to pay some more bucks for a really operating cockpit, i.e. especially an autopilot and other working buttons and gauges, gps, radio altimeter etc. and as long as they stick with taildraggers they should be able to fork out airplanes rather often because they wouldn't need to do some deep system simulation like for a PMDG NGX. but I have to say that I have already enough taildraggers now in my hangar, rather want to see something with 2 engines now and retractable gear like a cessna 310 or a king air 350. icon is boring (except that it floats) and the mustang has no cockpit.