It benefits Microsoft to keep it closed, as it remains an "asset" on their books. The code developed for Flight may be useful to them in the future, either in the development of another project or as something to be sold off.

 

Even if they know they will never do anything with it, it would not benefit them (except in their public image, which MS has no concerns over) to open the code. It's rarely helpful to show your current or potential competitors how you do things.

 

Given the speed of change in tech I'm not convinced at all that thata a valid reason. The code would be obsolete before it was valuable. Tbh I have no idea about accounting for intangibles in tech but would be surprised if it's given any real value as an asset while dormant.

 

Microsoft as a company seems to actively be down on the simulation genre. Even flight seemed extremely (extremely!) poorly supported, and in many ways even when it was still under development, they seemed to be trying to kill their own product by neglect of even basic marketing 101

 

As much as I would like it not to be the case, I suspect that rather than giving somebody else the chance to do it right, they will simply hide the code in a cave (just out of habit) and by the time any interest is generated again, that code will be completely out of date and worthless.

 

In other words, a total loss. For everyone.

 

Sad though it is to say, simple petulance seems a more likely reason. It seems to drive quite a lot of MS strategy since Balmer took over.

I have no idea about accounting for intangibles in tech but would be surprised if it's given any real value as an asset while dormant.

 

Releasing the code has a non-zero cost. And due to the way Live is so deeply integrated into it (at least, according to people who know more about the Flight code than I do), the cost of making it releasable would be substantial.

 

Even if the "locked up" code is valued at $0, it's still more cost effective to let it sit in the vault rather than expend the effort required in releasing it.

 

Especially since releasing it offers MS nothing in return but good-will. Which MS also values at $0.

 

So, however much we might wish it to be otherwise, it's not going to happen.

 

Especially since releasing it offers MS nothing in return but good-will. Which MS also values at $0.

 

So, however much we might wish it to be otherwise, it's not going to happen.

 

I appreciate it costs to make an SDK but nothing in return but goodwill? How about the revenue from Live sales of 3rd party content? Could be huge if skilled developers like Orbx get to show what they can do with the engine. Surely worth a punt.

 

After setup costs and some small expansion of the current support team MS can just sit back and watch the game, community, revenues etc. expand. Everyone agrees it has huge potential.

Releasing the code has a non-zero cost. And due to the way Live is so deeply integrated into it (at least, according to people who know more about the Flight code than I do), the cost of making it releasable would be substantial.

 

Even if the "locked up" code is valued at $0, it's still more cost effective to let it sit in the vault rather than expend the effort required in releasing it.

 

Especially since releasing it offers MS nothing in return but good-will. Which MS also values at $0.

 

So, however much we might wish it to be otherwise, it's not going to happen.

 

I see what you are saying and mostly agree. I also know that Microsoft could give two figs about what hypothetical tangents we fly off to here. I still submit though, that after spending a probably substantial amount of money to get flight up and running and then not allowing it to continue long enough to recoup that investment, it might be smart to salvage something from the disaster by polishing it off a bit and selling it, rather than letting it languish in purgatory as a complete waste of time and effort.

It's sad watching the fall of an empire!

It's sad watching the fall of an empire!

Yes it is.

 

I looked at the web site last night and they are still inticing people to join the "ever expanding world of MS Flight".

Well it's certainly not an expanding world, but probably it's an expanding number of people trying it. The word free is very powerful.

I find it highly unlikely that someone would be actually able to create proper sceneries and aircraft for Flight without SDK. Sure it's possible to somehow make some small edits, but creating actual new content is another thing. Really pretty much all scenery editors for FS out there use tools from FSX SDK, so I can't see how it would be possible to create similar tools for Flight when there is no SDK.

I find it highly unlikely that someone would be actually able to create proper sceneries and aircraft for Flight without SDK. Sure it's possible to somehow make some small edits, but creating actual new content is another thing. Really pretty much all scenery editors for FS out there use tools from FSX SDK, so I can't see how it would be possible to create similar tools for Flight when there is no SDK.

 

I am not sure of the appropriateness of the analogy, but I clearly remember several "closed" systems that were nonetheless reverse engineered to the point of compatibility through different means. The Original Activision broke into the Atari market that way, and Cyrix and AMD broke into the Intel/Pc market-space etc.

 

All by means deemed so unique (but that worked) that no successful claim of infringement was possible.

 

There are a lot more examples, even in the software arena.

 

I also keep in mind that recently some tablet app makers have found enough similarities with what they are familiar with that they were able to hook into Flight rather quickly, and I suspect (only suspect) there may be more such similarities that when compared against current code might (might) be educational in figuring out how to talk to and even manipulate flight.

 

Rosetta stones.

 

I know that's all a very long shot, but I have also learned to never underestimate the web.

Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) is another good example.. After being descontinued, many projects were born... :-)