Sorry, but I really don't buy this MS bashing stuff. There is a reason MS is a billion dollar corporation and by and large it's because they make good products. Without Windows, DirectX, etc there is no Flight Simulator, there is no X-Plane, there is no Falcon 4.0 etc. I think FAR more often, (as you're doing here) the inclination is to bash large companies simply because they're large and make a lot of money, rather than the other way around. Sure, you've got your share of bad apples that truly are bad, but MS is not one of these if you ask me - they manage to produce a broad range of products from mice and keyboards to OS'es and server backends, all of which are industry standards. Bill Gates as a person gives more to charity than any human on the planet...I think the bottom line is that the vast majority of the people who buy MSFS would actually be put off by say a PMDG 747 or an LDS 767 being the default aircraft - it would simply be far too steep a learning curve for most. I didn't start off with such planes, I learned with the default 172 and 737 just like everyone else and then progressed up from there. The aircraft are always gonna turn out better when left to dedicated third party teams anyway.

Ryan,Since I met you, I've been impressed with your intelligence, witt and candor -- and the biggest issue, your willingness to help others. I'll stand on your statement. True, I would love to see a 'simmers' dream program with as few flaws as FS9 has and all the great addons' we have now -- although I'm not sure we would like the price. However, if someone can put it together, then I'd sure be willing to look at it for myself and also would be willing to offer my experience as a pilot for beta testing. And although beta testing is a thankless job at times, I know one project I was lucky enough to be involved with , (DF727), and I'm proud that I had something to add to its creation -- that was enough for me. (Paul, although my step son still asks why my name isn't on the beta testers list LOL).I find alot of individuals who were not around for FS2 or 3 or 4 bashing MS for the sim and for being successful . . . well, I for one think Bill Gates and company have done a pretty great service for us computer nerds . . . just where would we be without XP, and FS, and the list is far and long.Presently, with the way FS is, I'll say this: "I get excited everytime someone brings out a new program for FS." It keeps me interested in the complete program, and although I wish things were better . . . IF IT NEVER GOT ANY BETTER IN MY LIFETIME, I'D STILL FLY FS9.Got your back and thanks again for all your help earlier on the 'Queen'.Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

>Having said this, you must also consider that Microsoft is>both a NASDAQ company, AND, an American company, and labour>law forbids recruiting someone without first issuing a job>description in a public manner. Thereafter anyone is free to>answer the job offer!Don't know what labor laws you're referring to, but they're definitely not American. Headhunters recruit talent every day in the U.S. without publishing public job offers.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Flight Simulator 2006: Open SourceWhat do you think???

>Sorry, but I really don't buy this MS bashing stuff. There>is a reason MS is a billion dollar corporation and by and>large it's because they make good products. Without Windows,>DirectX, etc there is no Flight Simulator, there is no>X-Plane, there is no Falcon 4.0 etc. I think FAR more often,>(as you're doing here) the inclination is to bash large>companies simply because they're large and make a lot of>money, rather than the other way around. Sure, you've got>your share of bad apples that truly are bad, but MS is not one>of these if you ask me - they manage to produce a broad range>of products from mice and keyboards to OS'es and server>backends, all of which are industry standards. Bill Gates as>a person gives more to charity than any human on the>planet...>The reason M$ is so successful is because they have run out/bought out the competition in the first placeAnd I sure hope that the richest person in the world gives the most to charity.The business practices of his company have been nothing short of a monpoly>I think the bottom line is that the vast majority of the>people who buy MSFS would actually be put off by say a PMDG>747 or an LDS 767 being the default aircraft - it would simply>be far too steep a learning curve for most. I didn't start>off with such planes, I learned with the default 172 and 737>just like everyone else and then progressed up from there. >The aircraft are always gonna turn out better when left to>dedicated third party teams anyway.I have flown the 737 and 172 maybe a few times, nothing more. I have always wanted to learn on more complicated airplanes than the defaults. I understand the majority of casual users like the default planes but I am not one of them

And, to you Peter:If you build it, they will buy! And so will I! Sounds like a great idea -- full of promise, but I'm afraid the funding will be huge for a project like that. Although, keep in mind, I am NOT a programer and have no real idea of the cost -- just thinking outloud.I know where you are coming from and I applaud your intentions, and yes, it would be nice to see it come to fruition. Paid or not, you can ask me to beta your program any day, all you will get from me is an honest answer, a sincere effort and straight talk -- which we need more of in this world.Hope your project soars!Best to you and yours, Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

>well; I don't want to argue here but i know many testers who>worked on fS9 and I know they were not listened too. I won't>mention names but these are big well known developers who got>really fed up not being listend to.>To start with, Microsoft's Flight Simulator, is a Microsoft owned product, and not owned by third party developers. I'm very aware that all third party developers don't always get their way. MS also has the right to make last minute changes, if they see fit. It's been this way for years with MSFS and other flight simulators as well.All in all, there is much more positive feedback with 3rd party developers, than negative; and I know that as fact.L.Adamson

You should have gone to the AVSIM conference, MS talked about their building a 'global product.' This leaves opportunities for 3rd party developers. http://www.kthxdone.com/images/kw_ft.jpgKen Weik [link:maam.org|MAAM-SIM][link:library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=kenneth+weik&Sort=Added&ScanMode=0&Go=Change+View]My AFCADs

>If you build it, they will buy! And so will I! Sounds like a>great idea -- full of promise, but I'm afraid the funding will>be huge for a project like that. Although, keep in mind, I am>NOT a programer and have no real idea of the cost -- just>thinking outloud.>If, out of the box, it contains the latest Jeppeson navigation & airport runway/taxiway updates, and the most recent shuttle provided satellite topography mesh, I'll buy it too! These two items are what "I" care about most, in a basic out of the box sim. I can add the specific aircraft, that I'm most interested in, later. At least I will, if some of the third party talent is available. And of course, that all depends on projected volumn of sales. L.Adamson

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Did you know X-plane has a Linux version? I am sure FS9 looks awesome with a bunch of third party stuff and a multi thousand dollar computer. Think they'll ever fix the real weather "fog" issue, or the grounlooping of the J3 and Extra 300? Just because great planes are available for thirty bucks a pop, the shell is great? If there was more default support for systems, and if the rumored 30% forced flight model inacuracy addon devs have to work around wasn't there, who knows? Freeware and payware devs wouldn't have it quite so tough, and it would most likely be reflected in the price of addons. Name one thing MSFS has implemented in Flite Sim that wasn't in response to what their competiton did. They weren't the first with good ATC, GPS, good looking default scenery or clouds... the list goes on. Even the core of Windows, the ability to open an app by clicking an icon, think it was invented by Microsoft?Yes, they do come out with great products, and take a stand on some issues that show more than a fiscal concern. Like, they were on the right side of the V-chip debacle.Getting the best and the brightest is tough for any large corporation. The best don't really want to work for Bill Gates, they want to BE the next Bill Gates. MS is petitioning to relax the immigration laws because they claim they are having trouble finding qualified people across the board, not just the flight sim department. Meanwhile most of their competition says it's not an issue.I believe a small group, maybe 20 to 50 dedicated individuals could serve us much better. Us being the 25,000 or more who would probably fork over more than MS is asking if the shell was worth it. But they will have a difficult time getting capital to go up against a 90% market share. It's a basic law of capitalism that says less competition equals less innovation.X-plane isn't attractive to devs because of the short life most products have before becoming incompatible.The only hope other than a small-group high quality comercial shell is the development of freeware shells to the point that the base users don't want to pay what MS wants cuz they can get something half or more as good for free. At which point MS will either give up or get better. Now many stores sell 100% console games. The writing is on the wall, and Microsoft has good bean counters...Best Regards, Donny:-wave

>I was meaning for example; Microsoft don't seem to actively>contact these talented developers and ask them to do work for>them or even work for them.>>I've talked to many developers to this end and nobody I know>has been asked to work for MS FS team.Apparently you are not aware that MS requires a signed NDA from anyone who is "invited to the table" for any reason. In fact, the NDA specifically prohibits the signer from even publicly admitting that they signed an NDA! ;)So, I'm hardly surprised that no one you know is owning up to anything... :-hah

>>Name one thing MSFS has implemented in Flite Sim that wasn't>in response to what their competiton did. They weren't the>first with good ATC, GPS, good looking default scenery or>clouds... the list goes on.Just off the top of my head......Best flight dynamics, by far, (at least then) with CFS2First "clear" windows, and ease of animation for landing gear, etc. MS also provided these tools for anyone.MSFS also took mesh scenery far beyond the bounds of prior products, as well as multiple cloud layers. Of course Pro-Pilot was first, but just got worse with time.The most accurate navigation data-base, and still is.And IMO, MS is still best for exterior aircraft textures, and always has been. FLY & X-Plane still have crisper panels.L.Adamson

Run with it Pete. I for one would pay 3 or 4 hundred bucks if it was good. I bought Aerowinx 747. That was amazing but no scenery.Don't forget RC.JimCYWG

You are wise to think people tell the truth heheMaybe, but then maybe I know some things I should not know. LOL

Potenially, I have huge funding available for this project and I mean huge.I can build it to be an awesome product or spend the money on something else. But if people are as pleased as they seem to be with the Billion dolllar company running a Monopoly then great. Let's leave it that way.If on the other hand I read in between the lines and go with my own passion for this sim to lead me forward then;I'll build the most awesome sim we have ever seen.What do you guys want. Help me or hurt me. Your choice. You decide now our fate.I can encourage you. Can you encourage me.Truth is I'm building it anyway.