Wasn't that FSX? Flight had the coin-collecting and the hoop racing.

 

True. Sadly, I go all the way back to SubLogic's FS1 for the Apple II released in 1980. Even that very first version had a "game element", an aerial battle called "British Ace".

 

The point is: you can use a serious flight sim for gaming (if that is what you want), but you cannot use a game for serious flight simming. And MS Flight did have the potential to be a serious flight sim.

True. Sadly, I go all the way back to SubLogic's FS1 for the Apple II released in 1980. Even that very first version had a "game element", an aerial battle called "British Ace".

 

The point is: you can use a serious flight sim for gaming (if that is what you want), but you cannot use a game for serious flight simming. And MS Flight did have the potential to be a serious flight sim.

 

Nobody wanted to hear that the time, and many still don't.

True. Sadly, I go all the way back to SubLogic's FS1 for the Apple II released in 1980. Even that very first version had a "game element", an aerial battle called "British Ace".

 

The point is: you can use a serious flight sim for gaming (if that is what you want), but you cannot use a game for serious flight simming. And MS Flight did have the potential to be a serious flight sim.

 

Microsoft Flight can be a serious flight simulator, it depends on how you look at it. Doesn't it perfectly simulate aircraft like the Icon A5, the Stearman and the RV-6A? Amazing flight dynamics, extremely lifelike sound reproduction, and just the feeling of being in a real cockpit. When you take into consideration the fact that Microsoft Flight feels more like flying a real airplane compared to FSX, it is a more serious simulator, especially when fly from strip to strip instead of busy airports.

E3 is almost over so I think its about time for an announcement so we can finally start to crash the Avsim-Servers! :lol:

Its a new day, so Tom please give us another hint!

Has anybody tried calling some potentially involved parties and like, asked them? Even a flat denial might be informative.

 

If I was a journalist with a rumor like that, that would be thought one.

I am not sure that anyone would be allowed to shut down the activation servers without providing an alternative method to use the software. Doesn't that EULA work both ways?

 

The EULA only states that you are granted "some" rights to use the software. There is nothing in the EULA that specifically states that they would be required to keep activation servers open for an indefinite period of time.  Indeed, since they specifically state that your rights are limited, and that they hold all other rights, they could claim that it is well within their right to cease activation servers after X number of years, citing a lack of profitability / usage. 

 

Even if they wanted to keep an appearance of good customer relations, they could choose to simply refund the amount paid for the software, which of course is the maximum amount they are ever liable for.

 

I'm sure these types of things were very hotly debated during the whole FS9/FSX squabble which, thankfully, I was never around for. ^_^

 

Regardless, I seriously doubt that any new possible licensee could force the issue, so it's largely a moot point.  We should probably be lucky to have had MS as the developer of our platform in that regard... I most definitely do have other older software from developers that no longer exist, some of which with now unusable activation schemes.

Wasn't that FSX? Flight had the coin-collecting and the hoop racing.

 

Yes.  Just pointing out that Flight was not the first flight sim with "arcade game" elements...  FSX did, too.

Seeing as FLEX1978 seems to be the source of this mess, he should perhaps try and clarify it.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/444026-microsoft-sells-license-to-fs-franchise/#entry3005192

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

I was under the impression that the Avsim front-page story citing multiple sources was the source of "this mess"... if it is a mess.

 

Maybe best for us not to start shredding each other as though we were characters in some Rod Serling drama...

I was under the impression that the Avsim front-page story citing multiple sources was the source of "this mess"... if it is a mess.

 

Maybe best for us not to start shredding each other as though we were characters in some Rod Serling drama...

 

Well read the other thread that I linked to, and Mr. Prest has a lot to say on the subject.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Are we 100% sure that the reporter is 100% certain about exactly who won? Or does he just know that someone won the bid, and who did not win it? That may explain some of the reluctance to be 100% clear! 

 

I know Tom disagrees withe me on this, and I'm happy to be proved wrong, but anyone who's been around deals knows that they can change, get delayed or even blow up at the last minute.  There might well be a finished deal that hasn't yet been announced for whatever reason.  There might also be a deal where agreement has been reached on broad terms, but there are still details to work out.  Or maybe the parties are at each other's throats, sort of like participants in a flight simulation forum...  B)

Well read the other thread that I linked to, and Mr. Prest has a lot to say on the subject.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

Yeah, I read that thread, even participated in it.  And I don't think Rob Prest is the "source" of the "mess."  The thread was opened to discuss the Avsim front-page story.  So what do we mean by "source" here?  And what do we mean by "mess"?

Tom be like:  "You heard it here on Avsim that a licensee purchased the rights..."

Avsim guy be like:  "So Tom is saying that a guy who owns a Russian oil company bought the game himself..."

 

Tom be like:  "You heard it here on Avsim that a licensee purchased the rights..."

Avsim guy be like:  "So Tom is saying that a guy who owns a Russian oil company bought the game himself..."

 

 

Tom be like: "You heard it here on Avsim that a licensee purchased the rights..."

 

Avsim guy be like: "You heard it here on Avsim that a manatee put out the lights..."

Yeah, I read that thread, even participated in it.  And I don't think Rob Prest is the "source" of the "mess."  The thread was opened to discuss the Avsim front-page story.  So what do we mean by "source" here?  And what do we mean by "mess"?

 

The way he posts there makes it look like he was the source of the AVSIM story.

 

To quote FLEX1978

 

 

"I think I know the person/people who have bought the license.  I didn't want to mention it since I was quite shocked when I was told a little while back."

 

His was the second post in that thread, right after Tom's OP. Didn't, is past tense, meaning he already mentioned something before. Given his was the second post in that thread, he could only be addressing Tom at that point, ergo, maybe he was the source of the AVSIM news piece?

 

That's enough playing detective today. Right now, it is looking like someone said something they didn't have all the facts for...

 

Best regards,

Robin.

What we clearly need to do is escalate... 

 

Tom, you've been warned....  B)

   This what you call 'free advertising'. We have a captive audience in us hungry, anxious, simmers. What better way to drum up interest, and sales, than to put a drop of blood in the water. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my existing flight sims.

again just my 2c.

  Jazz