>I hate to beat a dead horse, but didn't the press consider>Bush a reliable source when it came to WMD's? I would trust>even less someone spilling the beans on a product for a>publicly traded company--anyone with a modicum of knowledge of>how public companies are handled would know the consequences>of "forward looking" statements that aren't handled completely>by the book. Just kidding, and just trying to make a point>here that there's more going on here. It sounds like a bit of>back 'n forth is now going on between a web site and print>magazine either by accident or design.Actually they didn't. There was much debate in the press notwithstanding Bush's position. But your analogy breaks down. Bush would then be Microsoft FS team. Was (is) MS giving the press (PC Gamer) the scoop which (using your analogy) is misinformation or false information. I don't think so. Someone leaked the info and now MS is in plausible deniability.

(deep breath.......ahhhhh). OK..I'm relaxed now. :)The fellow who said "we're speculating about speculation" is correct.We don't know what to expect here. I'm sure some of the bloggers are keeping a very close eye on what

Actually I just read SimFlight's web note. Nothing from MS indicates that PC Gamer got it wrong. This comment made by Francois is completely gratuitous and would indicate that SimFlight is whining because they were scooped by a Gaming magazine. it reads:"Microsoft just sent out a press release telling us that they will be announcing news on the next version of Flight Simulator (internally known as FSX). As we already suspected, the article in PCGamer was premature and incorrect, reason why we did not mention it in the news. Expect more news to surface after New Years Day..... we'll keep you posted of course."So there appears to be no issue of deniability by MS, etc. just a specious comment made by Francois.

>The whole discussion on the worth of beta testers seems to>have sparked a response from on one of the developers>blogs....>>http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/>>pretty in-depth analyis of the FS beta team.Yes, I read that awhile ago. Someday folks will begin to realize that no one can get away with trying to "buffalo with bs" anymore... ;)

I believe the information in the PC GAMER article is correct, except perhaps for the release date, why?1. They provide a PICTURE of the Extra 300S. Load up FS9 and compare that version to the one in the picture. This one looks a thousand times better.2. They give SPECIFIC INFORMATION about new planes that will be included.3. Everything else in the article MAKES SENSE (except perhaps the release date).If you disagree with me, then lets have a bet ok? What I am curious about is, if the article was not authorised, how the #### do they get such information ??Also, as someone already mentioned, MS blogger Mike Gilbert is going to the Consumer electronics show in Vegas. Also Bill Gates is going there to make a keynote speech:http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/conferences/keynotes.aspExpect that to include information about FSX.-John.

>"Microsoft just sent out a press release telling us that they>will be announcing news on the next version of Flight>Simulator (internally known as FSX). As we already suspected,>the article in PCGamer was premature and incorrect, reason why>we did not mention it in the news. Expect more news to surface>after New Years Day..... we'll keep you posted of course.">>>>let me repeat myselfWHERE in the press release does it say the PC Gamer article was premature. Those are the words of that website, NOT microsoft. That website, like yourself, are bitter because you aren't part of the new development cycle. Give it a rest and stop making judgements like "NO WAY WILL IT BE DONE!"

>>The whole discussion on the worth of beta testers seems to>>have sparked a response from on one of the developers>>blogs....>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/>>>>pretty in-depth analyis of the FS beta team.>>Yes, I read that awhile ago. Someday folks will begin to>realize that no one can get away with trying to "buffalo with>bs" anymore... ;)i feel honored to be quoted!Except the fact that the guy never answered my comment. Yes there are compatability issues regarding 3rd party developers and all sorts of hardware. BUT that is not part of the main testing process which is obviously in full swing right now. external testers are just the last eyes on the product and thus, not as important as inhouse testers. Period.

"That website, like yourself, are bitter because you aren't part of the new development cycle."I think everyone should take a time out. It's a bit early to say there's a "new development cycle". And a bit rude to claim someone "bitter" because they run a point counter to your own. Nobody is calling you anything for your point of view, unless I've missed something.-John

>"That website, like yourself, are bitter because you aren't>part of the new development cycle.">>I think everyone should take a time out. It's a bit early to>say there's a "new development cycle". And a bit rude to>claim someone "bitter" because they run a point counter to>your own. Nobody is calling you anything for your point of>view, unless I've missed something.>>-JohnJust stating the obvious, John. Some people think they are so important, including that website, by saying because "they" never heard anything about the new flight sim, it must not be ready by feb.

"Just stating the obvious, John. Some people think they are so important, including that website, by saying because "they" never heard anything about the new flight sim, it must not be ready by feb."That's obvious. If a sim were released in Feb I am sure many would feel cheated. Me, relieved--since I would feel foolish if asked to test by Microsoft by telling them I was still plugging along on my 'ol P3/800. But I've yet to see sites taking preorders or any other signs of a pending product release. All that started months before FS2004. I like John's post towards the current "bottom" of this thread that suggest the print story may have the facts right, but the dates wrong.As part of a broader point, I suggest perhaps we all let the thread rest and see "what is revealed" by that website. I would find it really unusual that Microsoft offer a "press release" only for the site to sit on it until "after the New Year". It sure keeps the hits up on the site.If I were a betting man, I wouldn't lay a dime on the outcome of this one. I like to know the odds up front on both sides. Powerball seems a safer bet :)-John

my first comment in the first topic about this was that the release date probably was coming from their marketing department who knows how to talk but probably never spent time actually looking to see how far the dev cycle was. That is the problem I ran up into as well. They had a whole ad budget ready to go by X and if you didnt meet that, all your spending for ad sales would be down the drain.So I don't doubt it could be pushed back, we all know how programs are not always 100% perfect. But that isn't the way people went about denying the info. First they claimed it was totally false and PC gamer was making up lies, then they claimed because they never were asked to be a tester that means the development cycle must still be very early and a feb release is impossible, then they quoted a website who threw in their own words regarding jumping the gun and used that to deceive themselves and everyone to back them up.I hope it gets released in feb, I have a fast computer that constantly is brought to its knees in heavy traffic and addon scenery in the VC of a great addon airplane. I want the best of all words, and hopefully a new graphics engine will do just that.I do feel sorry for developers though who have to start over from scratch.

>Actually they didn't. There was much debate in the press>notwithstanding Bush's position. But your analogy breaks down.>Bush would then be Microsoft FS team. Was (is) MS giving the>press (PC Gamer) the scoop which (using your analogy) is>misinformation or false information. I don't think so. Someone>leaked the info and now MS is in plausible deniability.>>In Bush's case would it not have been a case of implausible deniability :-)Cheers,Chris Porter:-outta

Guys,I've know Francois for quite some time, and I highly doubt that he would do such a thing. I'm sure he printed exactly what was requested of him. Let's not start throwing mud around. Ok?

>>>The whole discussion on the worth of beta testers seems to>>>have sparked a response from on one of the developers>>>blogs....>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/>>>>>>pretty in-depth analyis of the FS beta team.>>>>Yes, I read that awhile ago. Someday folks will begin to>>realize that no one can get away with trying to "buffalo>with>>bs" anymore... ;)>>i feel honored to be quoted!>>Except the fact that the guy never answered my comment. Yes>there are compatability issues regarding 3rd party developers>and all sorts of hardware. BUT that is not part of the main>testing process which is obviously in full swing right now.>external testers are just the last eyes on the product and>thus, not as important as inhouse testers. Period.You'd be surprised how long the beta period lasts for external testers. If we were last eyes, we were looking a fair while!

Well thats good to hear regarding microsofts willingless to listen to external testers. I can tell you that is extremely unique. Were builds in the hands of external testers from before beta? thats the only way to get a solid round of bugs and feature requests.after alpha where I worked, it was next to impossible to request anything as they feature locked it. And even crashes they tried to not fix sometimes... maybe the culture is more user friendly because they know how big the fs community is... which is good for usLooking forward to feb 06, when my expensive computer can finally get a handle on an updated graphics system (I sure hope so)