even after some 15 years of development by its community. That puts in perspective the idea that that FSX "community could do much better

 

Wether is a commercial platform or Open-source platform the next generation FSX simulator platform won't work for our community if it is not open to users and developers, which is what made FSX as popular as it has despite of its shortcomings. And also, ironically, this is probably also why MSFT pulled the plug on it; they saw the flow of money going to others and not to MSFT. On a per user basis, MSFT sold a 1 time license $40-$60 whilst the user spent 3-4 times more (and repetitively) from others: Navigraph subscriptions, sceneries, weather engine, aircraft models, etc, etc. The VATSIM and IVAO communities would not be what they have been with a closed platform, and his website would not be what it is either.

 

 

Wether is a commercial platform or Open-source platform the next generation FSX simulator platform won't work for our community if it is not open to users and developers,

 

That may be so, but it's not  the point I was making which is that it's most unlikely that the FSX community would do much with open-source code..

We should start a petition for Microsoft to release the FSX core engine code so that someone smart as PMDG improves this to take advantage of the new computers in today's day and age.

 

It is just not acceptable to continue this way...

 

 

We all sim community should ask for the code to be released so that in good faith it is improved.

 

 

Microsoft can only gain in doing this...

 

 

Thanks,

Regis (A ###### pilot)

 

Why do you 'need' an upgrade?

 

FSX is great!

 

If you really needed an upgrade I'm sure you would be writing letters to Microsoft about it.

 

Are you?

Do you have any hard evidence that it was actually losing money? In a company the size of Microsoft, especially one that appears to be driven more by accountants and lawyers than anything, a project doesn't have to be losing money to get canned. It could simply have not met whatever rate of return Microsoft wanted. I have seen this happen before myself. A smaller outfit dedicated solely to the flight sim, and backed by someone enthusiastic about aviation, may work better. And I don't expect anyone to subsidize the hobby, just to help get it started. X-Plane, DCS and aerofly FS seem to be doing okay. I think you also have to include the part where Microsoft has been trying to integrate everything into their online services and FSX itself didn't really lend itself to this (and then they royally botched Flight).

 

An example of someone dedicated to a genre of game and doing things differently is Chris Roberts and his Star Citizen project. He has raised $20 million of the current $21 million goal to develop the game independently.

Good successful businessman always do the sums. Don't only blame accountants. It's common sense, that is if you are wanting to be successful and not a socialist which is emotional and tends to spend a lot of money (too much!) unnecessarily. Wastage. It's a fact of life.

 

If there was a huge demand for a new FS then we would see multiple crowd funding campaigns going if some clever businessmen had not the sense to capitalise. Fact is console among is big and it's entertainment. FS is not really entertainment though we may think so.