I'll pleasantly disagree. If most users were hardcore and desiring FS to be something not originally intended you most likely would have everyone agreeing with each other. I just have not seen that type of hand holding utopia here at Avsim. :)I'll also disagree with the last paragraph as well, based utterly on my own perception (which, as I get older, becomes more and more what I want it to be :) ). That statement may of held true years ago, but with the internet boom I believe people are much more aware today of any enhancements to the sim, not to mention FS9 displays this info directly in the sim itself. It would be an interesting survey though to see who uses FS and in what capacity, and how many visit Avsim or other FS sites.Ian.

According to a presentation of an internal study by Microsoft earlier this year, the majority of FS users (I believe it was 60%) fly the default Cessna and never go beyond of what's in the box. And I guess just 5%-6% are considered advanced or hardcore users.Clearly, MS has to focus on where the money is to continue the series and make (as tdragger said earlier) incremental improvements. And we have seen those improvements with every new version so far. FSX will be no different.Pat

Well, one thing I will say is this:If the new FS is only slightly improved over FS9, then it will be a worthy purchase from ME. Why?Well...1) The way the ground graphics look tremendously better with AI ground traffic and all those trees, not to mention the vastly improved water textures2) Wet runways have always been a dream and appear to be in sight now3) The new multiplayer aspect of being able to connect as Captain/FO is very appealing simply because some 3rd party will come along and improve it beyond belief (better than the current Gates.to)Plus many others.The wonderful thing about FS is that it provides an outstanding value in terms of being flexible for 3rd part development, and that's why I dont care too much about the ATC, complex aircraft, and super detailed default airports. The 3rd parties always will outdo the default and let's just allow MS the elbow room to make a good base package for the community to enhance (and yes, I realize everyone cant afford PMDG, Radar Contact, ASV6, and the like) but those companies are what REALLY make FS come alive to me.

in other words, it won't be "only slightly improved" :)

I do agree about the 3rd party part. And I forgot about the multiplayer enhancments, that will be very cool. Honestly, if it weren't for 3rd party developers I wouldn't still be using FS9 nearly 3 years later.

I agree. The 3rd party developers are what keeps the FS franchise alive, both freeware and payware. While ACES may not be addressing all the issues that people seem to want fixed/included, they have been very accomodating to the 3rd party devs, at least in terms of allowing those devs to freely distribute their wares. Some companies, such as Lead Pursuit, developers of Falcon 4: Allied Force, require all add-ons for their sim to pass their own QA process before allowing them to be distributed.

Brilliant first post mate, well done... Welcome to my respected poster list.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

What I don't understand is why the MSFS team is not using the "must-have" 3rd party add-ons that are already available - buy them out, refine the code and incorporate into FS. Isn't that what MS does?For example: Active Camera, Active Sky, Ground Environment, Flight Environment, Flight1 GA, etc.Wouldn't be that ahuge improvement by itself? Why reinvent the wheel, if there is so much already out there?Just a thought.

Because what would those people do then? This way they improve and rake in a little more money for their hard work, that's better than MS lining their pockets surely? I don't mean that in a bad way btw, I'd just rather leave the Status Quo as is, MS give us the platform and the guys like Flight1 et.al. make the improvements. I really think by the time we hit FSXI we will have our cake and eat it too in that regard. Right now I'm happy with FS9, but dreaming about moving traffic and animals, a living world below me as I fly. Who knows what they will improve on by the next version after that, I for 1 would love to see Speech Recognition implemented down the line somewhere, and heck why not be able to play as pilot/co-pilot/ATC in single as well as multiplayer....?Long live FS, long live our add-ons, and long live our community.

Of your must have list - I only use one.And you don't have any of my "must have" list.But your list doubles the minimum system requirements for Flight Sim.The decision to go after a technology, purchase the company if possible, reverse engineer or invent a different solution if necessary and to refine and incorporate the code are made at a level MUCH HIGHER than ACES.I very seriously doubt any FS addon sells anywhere near the tens of millions of dollars necessary to cost justify such a decision.I sincerely hope FS never becomes a closed MS environment - that developers continue to be free to think up and invent new addons and new ways to make the game fresh.

I am not sure how it would pan out from a financial perspective, but I am sure it would help ME ;)I am almost going insane firing up all the add-ons that pretty much cover all the shortcomings of this release before even starting FS9: Flight planner, weather generator, textures, ATC, traffic.I am not saying 3rd party developers should all hand their code to MS or even encourage this, but it should point MS to shortcomings of the previous release. For example, wouldn't you love to have the functionality of Active Camera built-in by default? It doesn't need to be Active Camera, just more freedom with the views. Or take ATC. Or finally a good flightplanner that is good out-of-the box.Pat

?

>What I don't understand is why the MSFS team is not using the>"must-have" 3rd party add-ons that are already available - buy>them out, refine the code and incorporate into FS. Isn't that>what MS does?>I kind of feel like MS should build the skeleton of FS.And leave it to the 3rd party to put on the muscle, etc.I think overall it has worked best that way, because you don't have MS spending lots of devtime worrying about mundane things like cloud formations. Instead they can spend time on more pressing FS concerns, like smoothness, etc.And of your listed "must have" addons, I only have one of them. :)So to me that kind of signals either 1) I am not as "hard core" as you :)or, 2) I don't like to spend the $$, or 3) My Flight Sim is not the same as your Flight Sim, and that's a good thing. Let the software be whatever each person wants it to be. If everything was in the box already, some people might not be happy with it...others might love it. But this way, each person can make it whatever they want. I kind of think that's the best way to roll.Rhett

None of those are on my "must have" list. And only one makes it onto my "nice to have" list.In fact I have no "must have" list. This is a game for crying out loud, I can live without it quite well.The things I "must have" are water, food, and breathable air.A house that can be heated in winter, some clothes, and a job are pretty high up there too but not fundamental to the survival of the individual (let alone the species).