Well if that is what I am doing, you can rest assured I intend to continue to do so...

Well in that case, I will simply give up. You want someone to blame. That's understandable, but I still respectfully suggest that you've picked the wrong target.

Flight is to FSX what Windows ME was to Windows 95...and then MS got back to what was right and we got Windows Xp and 7this is Windows ME in the worst wayIf you decide you still want to lock in all developement $$ then at least take a hard look at Rise of Flight....

thanks Joshua...same quote as from your interview..but the numbers don't lie - we are still in early release and the comments on sites like this as well as Flights own board have gone alarmingly negative...combine the comments about the DLC aircraft shells with the "lack of realism" (ie: real weather, ATC, AI traffic, et al) comments etc and compare to positive posts and see the numbers in black and white.Flight is not for simmers - and Flight is not for gamers - and Flight is not attracting some new Hybrid of the two....its just not the right ideaMake a Game about Flying for Gamers that has Points and leader boards and Hoops and pitless planes of Fame and excludes (happily) any 3PD involvementthen Make a Flight Simulator the likes of which has never been seen before as only MS can do - and OPEN it up for the pure enjoyment of Flight Simmers and Modelers and ProgrammersAND SELL THEM BOTH - THEN you will make money

The only thing I was referring to in the post you quoted was the reaction to having a Zero in Hawaii. I think to the vast majority of people it's not that big of deal. Heck, I'm a WWII buff and a big fan of WWII sims and I didn't even make the connection until people pointed it out. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.My comment about a "vocal few" was not about any of the other issues you listed (many of which I think are legitimate), so please don't try to make it look like it was.

I have seen lots of the A6M2 Zero in Multiplayer today. Seems to be fairly popular.Fred.

Well in that case, I will simply give up. You want someone to blame. That's understandable, but I still respectfully suggest that you've picked the wrong target.

Bill. In my humble opinion he did pick the right target. It does not count that in the past MS did not provide native TrackIR support because back then they released an SDK. So the manufacturer had to provide the integration Now however if they hold everything back and inhouse they have also to expect that the trackIR request is directed to them and not it's manufacturer. MS chose another path now. The burden of proof shifted. If MS does not like it or does not feel up to it then they should consider to release an SDK and let as in the past others do the work

I have seen lots of the A6M2 Zero in Multiplayer today. Seems to be fairly popular.Fred.

Hello FredOf course it is popular, the market for Flight! has been brought up on playing from the 3rd person perspective.Microsoft are no fools they know their markets, they are providing the content that their sales figures tell them will sell best.Nothing wrong with that, they stated from the very beginning that the users (majority) would get to decide the direction the game would take. And they are.Joshua howard was brave enough to clear up any confusion in the interview with Tom, It is crystal clear what MS intentions are.I got over my disappointment a couple of weeks ago, with the help of the fine Moderators here.

I'm not sure I understand all of the complaining about MS Flight. Microsoft owes you nothing. They produced a product called FSX and have ended production. They're now developing a new line and time will tell if it is a success or not.Flight isn't for me. But I'm not bothered by that. There are many programs out there that are not for me. I just stay away from them.For flight simmers, there are many options still out there:1. FSX - even though it is not in development, it is still heavily supported by third-party programmers. I expect that will stay that way for a long time. It's not dead. Heck, even FS9 still has new content being produced.2. X-Plane - probably the most underrated on these forums - but Xplane is really and truly a simulator first, second and last. This is for the hard core sim fan who wants to fly planes from GA to heavy metal to jet fighters to space shuttles. It only suffers from lack of third-party add-ons, but it is an open platform. Plus this is optimised for as many cores and processors you can throw at it. This is the future of flight simming.3. Prepard3D - I admit I know nothing of it - but it seems to be FSX code under a new license. Probably quite easy to import FSX models. Good deal if you are a student; expensive if not. Might be worth going back to school just to get the student license and try it. Right now, price point, too high for me.4. Aerofly - another I know nothing about, but seems to have great reviews and decent price point. Seems limited in area, but probably fun for low and slow flying.5. Flight Gear - open source free flight sim with many of the features found in hard core flight sim programs like FSX and Xplane. More like Xplane than the others in its focus on flight and less on eye candy and game play.6. YS Flight - free flight simulator - flying or dog flighting - limited but realistic if you don't want to pay anything. It has a large fan base and lots of add-on planes.7. There's even an open source version of the older Fly! - I just can't find a link for it. But it's there, somewhere.There's probably more. But my point is, why all the crying over MS Flight? If MS is not doing what you want, move on to one of the above - surely you can find a simulator for your needs out of that list. Why does MS have to get into that crowded and rather nich market with another simulator, when the one they have is doing well already thank you very much?Me. I haven't even downloaded Flight. Just. Not. Interested.

Well in that case, I will simply give up. You want someone to blame. That's understandable, but I still respectfully suggest that you've picked the wrong target.

Hey Bill,I am really not necessarily looking to blame here. I am just passionate about having Track IR support. There are a lot of us Track IR users out there, that are dissappointed and many that for that reason have not even tried Flight. And I hope that they all are as passionate and respectfully vocal, in the hopes that MS does something in getting this implemented at some point in the future. Because I am enjoying Flight very much, but it is so lacking for me as a TIR user, to not have this. The first place I went upon seeing this, was Track IR. The answer I got, was that MS has been in touch with them expressing interest in implementing, and they now have all the info necessary from Natural Point, but so far no time frame has been expressed to NP on when/if they might get this done.While I certainly can not quote any real numbers, the number of users can not be all that small, or the implementation all that big a deal. If it were, all the flight sims that have been released the last few years would not all have support included in the initial release, it would only be an elite few that took the trouble to do so. Heck I have one flight sim that actually has the Track IR hotkeys programmed into their controllers menu.Obviously you know a lot more about things such as programming than I, and I respect that - because I truly know abolutely nothing about that. Understand though we - meaning the Track IR community - rather than get too caught up in those aspects and what has to happen and who should make it happen, just want to see it in our flight sims, simply because that is the way things have evolved and truly has become the standard for flight sims over the last few years.Oh and by the way, apparently MS must be putting some stock into the value of head tracking, looks like it is coming for Kinect for Windows...http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kinectforwindows/archive/2012/03/26/what-s-ahead-a-sneak-peek.aspxWhile I may not can relate on the same level as you, I do appreciate your feedback!

Well that might partially explain it. Why support a competing product earlier than your own efforts in that general direction.......Maybe they just aint going there until their Kinect plans reach fruition.

Why support a competing product earlier than your own efforts in that general direction.......Maybe they just aint going there until their Kinect plans reach fruition

I they support Kinect, why EVER support a competing product?Doesn't make commercial sense, unless they picked up thousands of new customers, which is unlikely...

Prepard3D

I'd suggest this is the future for FSX stalwarts. I've tried it, it is better than FSX, supports most FSX content and is being actively developed.Anyone can buy the $50 'student' edition, it means anyone who wants to study flying as opposed to make money out of the program.I believe the EULA prohibits use for 'entertainment' because Microsoft put that requirement into the contract Lockheed Martin signed to buy the rights to the base code. LM don't care what you do, it's Microsoft wanting to limit competition (again, and in commercial terms, quite fairly).CheersKeith

I they support Kinect, why EVER support a competing product?Doesn't make commercial sense, unless they picked up thousands of new customers, which is unlikely...

Well, TrackIR is just a 3rd party peripheral controller. MS sells peripheral controllers, including joysticks and gamepads. Yet, 3rd party joysticks and gamepads are supported. It is beginning to look like they may be sitting on TrackIR support (at least) until their own head-tracking tech works. That doesn't mean they won't support it ever, but it's not exactly an encouraging sign, either.

I believe the [Prepar3d] EULA prohibits use for 'entertainment' because Microsoft put that requirement into the contract Lockheed Martin signed to buy the rights to the base code.

And interestingly, MS's own successor to FSX is marketed purely as a game. Entertainment-use only, more or less. I bet that's also in the agreement... LM markets their code as "a simulator but not a game" while MS markets theirs as "a game but not a simulator."

Modern business often has a large "wink wink nudge nudge" factor, where you do things while pretending that's the furthest thing from your mind.... when all party's involved know that's exactly what you are doing.....Gives me a stomach ache.

7. There's even an open source version of the older Fly! - I just can't find a link for it. But it's there, somewhere.

Right, I casually found it just some days ago. It's at:http://fly.simvol.org/indexus.php

There's probably more. But my point is, why all the crying over MS Flight? If MS is not doing what you want, move on to one of the above - surely you can find a simulator for your needs out of that list. Why does MS have to get into that crowded and rather nich market with another simulator, when the one they have is doing well already thank you very much?

I agree with your list and comments in it, but not with this last sentence. When you are by far the leader of a specific sector, it is not particularly intelligent to completely dismiss it. MS could have easily continued to be the leader of flight simulator for many years, and the centre of a large ecosystem, but they first decided to disband the Aces team, then made a strange and weird return with Flight.Simmers know very well that an eventual FSXI could have bring the sector to new levels, in particular if they would have solved some performance problems of FSX.Many of us still dream of a true photorealistic and complex flight simulator, and probably only MS has the resources to develop it.At present, as you said, probably XP-10 is the most promising candidate, and Flight seems a mistake.A.

I'd suggest this is the future for FSX stalwarts

Unfortunately PMDG will not be available for Prepar3d for legal reasons. And I guess that will be the case for many other 3dP developers as well.

Unfortunately PMDG will not be available for Prepar3d for legal reasons. And I guess that will be the case for many other 3dP developers as well.

Don't know the details...are they true and permanent legal reasons, or based on misunderstandings/interpretation of EULA etc?ORBX have adopted Prepar3D happily, as have some others and I'm sure more will as the new $50 price takes effect.I don't do the jetliner thing myself, but can understand its a big blocker to those with big investments in software, hardware and learning...

Many of us still dream of a true photorealistic and complex flight simulator, and probably only MS has the resources to develop it.

But they don't want to do it, and wont, no matter what.How much money have MS ever made from FS? They only sell the base product, not all the add-ons. The 'eco-system' earns them nothing.I've bought maybe 4 versions over 15 years, that's peanuts to MS.They want to be selling all the add-ons, as for Flight. If that doesn't work either then they will be out of the game completely, not coming back to FS11.CheersKeith