"Well it once again, I have to laugh at people"not exactly a start that makes us want to listen to what you have to say.....billg

Hi, "When I was in Redding this past fall, I asked the MS folks that were there, how much MS pays to Flight Simulator, they laughed and asked do you think MS employs hundreds of folks in the MS Game Studio for nothing? MSFS is a "flagship" MS product, nothing more needs to be said, I got the hint."It's normal on one sens, there tons of users will probably never meet ms team, chat or communicate with them via email and don't have a single hint on how it's works on the sim creation engine and everything else and all the business related. I have been beta testing fs2004 and had private disscussion, there is many thing is totally and completly opposite that's users can think from anything related to Msfs product.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Chris, I respect what you say. But, I've been in high tech "business" and it's about profit, hehe. What profit does FS9 really add to MS's bottom line? It's about core business practices. If it makes money, that's not enough. It just means they'll get more cash for it when they sell it. That being said, I was there when MS bought FS. Well, not there, but I had the earlier non MS version. They've done well by it, but what's going to tell the tale is how it fits in with their strategic direction. Ton's of users and ton's of cash means nothing when you're that big, it's all about strategy.EDIT: and the guys that set the strategy are not the same guys that have their job on the line when they wax all over at trade shows...billg

I personally think we (simmers) delude ourselves as to the mass market appeal of FS.We all belong to a tightknit community which makes it hard to invision what the mass market appeal of FS really is.Its a perfectly reasonably question, its not a question some of you should dismiss so lightly, their (MS's) Xbox has been shown to be a big success for MS, this coupled with the limited mass market appeal of both FS and TS "could" lead to MS selling, dumbing down etc etc of their simulator franchise just simply because they no longer fit into MS "marketing" image.CheersDan.

Did you bother to read the Microsoft's statement before coming to this conclusion?As you know, every business segment within Microsoft is responsible for continually evaluating its strategy and investments in all areas of the business to achieve operational efficiencies. At Microsoft Game Studios (MGS), we must continually evaluate our portfolio strategy and investments to ensure we are achieving our most important objectives of creating successful, platform driving titles for Windows gamers. In addition, Microsoft Games Studio must streamline game development operations to be more efficient and critically examine all projects in development to position the business for long-term success and profitability.Microsoft Game Studios has cancelled the Windows-based game "Train Simulator 2.0." The decision to cancel "Train Simulator 2.0" was made some time ago and was based on a long, hard and difficult look at our business objectives and product offerings. We remain focused on the simulations category with successful, platform-driving franchises such as "Microsoft Flight Simulator."To answer your question, no this will not effect the next flight sim, if it does, it will effect it in a positive way.

There won't be another version of MSTS ... ever!MS want to focus on "in-house" products, rather than MSTS, which was developed by a third-party (Kuju). Microsoft could have hinted on future plans for MSTS, in order to keep the community alive, and to maximize the sales of the next version. They didn't, so one can safely assume that MS has withdrawn from the genre (train sim).Microsoft took some convincing before they "bought" the Train Sim idea from Kuju ....... I don't think they'll be keen about starting all over again!It'll take more than the words of the MSTS third-party commercial groups to keep MSTS alive .....Game over, dude!

Sigh, why is everyone so vitriolic these days?.It was a topic for discussion, nothing more nothing less.wished I'd never bothered now.Dan.

>I got bored ot TS because I found it a little too difficult>to create addons for it.>>The route creation tool was a pain in the neck.>>The routes I really wanted to make were a few lines of the NYC>Subway System, which is impossible because TS doesn't support>subterranean routes and stations.Have you considered trying the freeware BVE train simulator ?Its a strictly an out the window (or cab view) Train simulator, but its a lot of fun to use, and creating routes for it is a lot easier than for MSTS.Also there is a pretty big fan base that focuses on creating LUL, and NYC subway routes for BVE.Regards.Ernie.

It seems that folks here have forgotten Flight Sim's origins. The original game was NOT a MS product. It, like MSTS, was developed by outsiders and was taken over by Msoft's in-house team. For the effort, they developed a VERY improved game and it certainly has "done in" the competition. Now, MSTS was developed by Kujo in (I think) England and marketed by MS under their aegis. Kujo subsequently ran into cash flow problems and deferred upgrading MSTS; thus the MS decision to buy out Kujo and bring MSTS in-house as per FS. However, as has been stated, two things happened in the meantime. The market for train sims is not as large as the market for flight sims and MS has ENORMOUS competition in the train sim business. Never mind that Auran is a little company. They DO do other things besides Trainz but in many respects it is worlds above MSTS. And their stated objective is to create a full-fledged sim for use by actual RR corporations as training tools. A lot of the base is there and just needs kicking into shape. That makes them the people in the drivers seat, so to speak.Flight sim, OTOH, is now firmly established in-house and MS has committed to keeping it a "flagship" product. I don't see them dropping the ball on that one as it is a proven success.

Dan, there is a reason for the vitriolic (love that word) response.Certainly everyone is different, some folks are more willing than others to entertain random fears and worry about them. Personally I find it quite annoying, and I suspect the vitriolic responders found it even more so.To some degree, its natural to feel fear. Once we are afraid, its natural to have trouble thinking. Your fear of action MS may take that would bother you got in the way of your ability to see that one action doesn't link to the other. There could be another reason you made your initial post, perhaps you like to see others get emotional, so you attempted to seed a disturbance? I can't know which your real motive was.Perhaps this helps you understand why some folks didn't appreciate the illogical premise you proposed? Its either mindless fear or intentional rabble rousing. Yuck, either way its can be felt as annoyance.With best intent,Bob Bernstein

Hi Bob,"There could be another reason you made your initial post, perhaps you like to see others get emotional, so you attempted to seed a disturbance?"I asked 3 questions, they can be persived in any way the reader wants to persive them."I can't know which your real motive was."I asked 3 questions, I never gave my opinion, because it was purely a question, nothing more nothing less.I did not have a "motive", it was an innocent question, why people should get so defensive about it is beyond me"Perhaps this helps you understand why some folks didn't appreciate the illogical premise you proposed?"The illogical premise I proposed?, I asked 3 questions, I never proposed a premise at all.Whats with all the insecurity?CheersDan.

<:-))good question. (doctor heal thyself)cheers,BPS...do you realize that in the above post you kept repeating that you just asked 3 questions. You are focused on WHAT you wrote, I am focused on WHY you wrote what you wrote....its different. Once you shift your mind over to intention, rather than action...you'll see that my points remain unchallenged.My smiley above was not intended to insult you, it just struck me funny that you see insecurity in the thread responses, when the entire thread is built on your own insecurity about the future of a compter program. Hope you can see the irony.

Somewhere there was a posting regarding someone with "inside information" that MS Game Studios and MS maybe other divisions were developing an X-Box engine and Windows engine that would use a common API. Now MS has done that for some business and developers products, why not FS as well if that can be done.One where most of the source code is portable to both MS platforms.So it sounds sensible, whether or not if it is in development I do not know. Whether this may limit future FS quality, I don't know but it is possible for one platform to simply ignore API calls it does not support or provide a kluge to emulate the feature.

Hi Dan,I don't think we need worry. Call me an old romantic if you like, but I think what most folk may be forgetting is the distinguished place Flight Simulator has earned for itself in the history of computing. When the average man-(or woman)-in-the-street thinks of Microsoft, it is likely many will think of the Microsoft Office suite and also Flight Simulator. Microsoft Office and Flight Simulator are now synonymous with Microsoft Corp. and will remain so for evermore.There are many reasons why Flight Simulator will continue to receive support fom Microsoft. Most will transcend mere commercialism, important though that may be. The most significant of these is that sense of great pride in the ownership and ongoing development of a product admired, respected and supported by serious and casual enthusiasts all around the globe. A product, moreover, that currently has no equal and will forever stand alone as an example of extraordinary achievement in the competitive field of computer simulations. Put quite simply, I believe Microsoft want to keep it alive.Mike

Well that sure was taken out of context. That statment was a reference only to this MS leaving FS question, that has benn raised so many times in the past.The statment was not made to offend anyone, if it did, than I am sorry.Bob