I'm sorry, Steve, I don't believe a word you say. The evidence just doesn't fit your story. If MSFS weren't progressing from one formidable innovation to another, how would they be in a position to dominate in the first place?Mike.

That must've taken you a lot of time to write all of that. Too bad I don't believe much of it is true.

My opinion is that FSX will do just fine. You don't have to buy it, so don't.Randy Jura, KPDX

Well I think we can safely assume that "SK" is a Mac Addict or a Linux Guy. Fair enough.But it's always been openly stated by MS that the Demo is not 100 percent representative of the final product.I know there is little point in preaching to the converted because I'm sure 99.9 percent of everyone who reads Avsim will get FSX sooner or later regardless, but I think judgement should be reserved until you have the final product.I have FSX Beta 3, and I'm pretty impressed with the new features and what I've seen so far (and I'm not easily impressed either).FSX is hardly a radical departure from the FS series, but it's a very nice step forward.-Bryan

Two words, sir: "First Place". That's what it boils down to. When you innovate in the "first place" to become the biggest and the most powerful, you then have the luxury of continuing to innovate at your own pace.Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect business sense. Companies in all different industries do it all the time. Appliance manufacturers, for example: Why do you need to buy a new can opener or a new toaster every several years? Consumer electronics manufacturers: Why do you need to buy a new cablemodem and/or router every 3 years or so? Because they make products to break. If manufacturers made products to last, they'd never get repeat business. It's common knowledge this is the way of industry.My only problem with Microsoft doing it is that, unlike the appliance or electronics industry, the software innovation comes from talent, and lots of it. There are countless talented programmers in this world whom have an interest in creating software with the foremost emphesis being on QUALITY, FUNCTIONALITY and SECURITY. But in the world of software, Bill Gates is "The Man", and The Man keeps all those programmers under his thumb by stealing their ideas, out-marketing them or just plain buying them out to keep them out of the game.It makes perfect business sense if all you're interested in is making money. I just happen to feel that in the world of software programming, profits shouldn't come at the expense of artistry and talent. That's all. I realize people that aren't programmers have a hard time seeing it that way, but that's the way most coders feel about it. And yes, I am speaking for "most coders" because I know it to be fact as opposed to my own humble 0pini0nSK

Thanks... I feel a lot better now that I know I'm not being forced. So I won't. :-)I'm sure FSX will do fine as well, btw. Microsoft Windows did fine, and continues to... and will keep continuing to. But that will never change the fact that it's the most non-secure OS ever made, with more bugs, problems and holes than any application in history. Like I said, when you're God you can dowhatchalike.SK

Hi,I do not know yet what to think of FSX.My computer runs on W98SE and it is a lower end one nowadays (Athlon xp 1500+, 512Mb RAM, Geforce T 7700Ti) meaning I cannot even install the demo. AND I am still on FS8. I decided not to purchase FS9 because I was pleased with FS8 and because the FS7 was not so very different from FS6, I thought the same might be true for FS8 vs FS9.So my hopes were/are on FSX.However, from the screenshots I see all over the place and the comments made on several aspects like the ATC, the fps, some textures and the apparent lack of something really innovative, I wonder whether it is going to be worthwhile to buy FSX together with a substantial investment in a new top end computer.If you do not mind, I include a screenshot of st Maarten from my FS8 with all sliders to the max on my old computer and kindly ask you whether you think the difference with FSX is that big?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155676.jpgOf course, FS is not only scenery, but what I hear from the comments on various forums, besides the better graphics engine, nothing is really new that was not already available through the numerous add- ons for earlier versions.I do hope you will correct me if I am wrong, and I sure hope you will find me wrong.Roby

You're not safe Bryan, sorry. You've ASS_U_MEd wrong. REAL coders don't use MACs. lolI am a Linux guy, but only as far as is practical. That impracticality of Linux, by the way, is simply a by-product of yet another fine example of Microsoft's stifling of innovation.SK

I've only had FS as such since FS98, and in all honesty, I don't think any one version has gone leaps and bounds ahead of the game since, but just fire up an old copy of FS2k and compare it to FSX and you'll see just how far we've come since then. FS02 was a leap yes, only because it had downloadable 'real' weather and ATC, with traffic. Mostly though the improvements with each version have seemed pretty minor at the time over the previous version, and we hear the same old things from pretty much the same naysayers each time, "it won't be worth it...." "Why didn't they include this mega-reality concept this time, we've asked for it for ages..."I like the look the look of FSX, will I play it from the start? I better, I've got in on pre-order with JustFlight. Will I still fly FS9? Yes, some of my planes won't work in FSX yet, nor will some scenery, some of which has already been stated never will either. :( But that said of course we don't know what places like Orcas Island will look like, it may not matter after all they don't update it. Right now we're all either moaning or praising something most of us have yet to see in it's final glory. Seeing some of the beta testers saying that it's performance is at least on a par with our current FS9 certainly pleases me no end, it means I may not have to buy a new rig yet just to run it looking better than my current FS9 setup.

Look at this screenshot from FS2002! This is 6 years and two major releases worth of innovation to Microsoft.My point has been made inadvertently. Thank you, Roby.SK

This is ridiculous - Pro Pilot didn't continue because Sierra is a crappy company that didn't know how to effectively market and run it's business. They even had Half-Life, one of the best selling and beloved titles of all time as one of their games and couldn't even hold on to that for cryin' out loud... Last I heard they were near bankruptcy and reduced to carrying games endorsed by gangsta rapper 50 Cent - not Microsoft's fault, sorry.Just because a product is dominant and more people like it than others doesn't mean it's a monopoly - FS is far easier to use and much more comprehensive in terms of what it gives you across the whole in-game world than any of the other sims that have come before it. (And yes I had Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited, Fly I/II etc). I always kept coming back to MSFS.I own both a Mac and a Windows PC - they're different and have their strengths and weaknesses. I still find myself using the PC for 90% of my things though, I find it more customizable and flexible. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to keep Macs down or that I've been tricked and just don't know it.Have you been paying attention to any of the posts and blogs from the ACES team in the runup to FSX's release? Do these really sound like coniving monopolists who don't want to work or innovate to you? That's not the impression I get at all... I see a group doing the best they can with the limited resources and time they have (yes, as shocking as it sounds, Microsoft has limits and is not all-powerful)There is nothing stopping you sir from competing. If you truly did build a better sim and were able to convince the flight sim market of that fact, we'd all switch, guaranteed. Take a look at Firefox or Google if you want to see examples of companies that were able to beat the MS "monopoly" by innovating.

it's easy to critize and whine; instead, focus that energy and do something about it.I think Microsoft is doing a great job with FSX. Modeling the world is not an easy task, especially when they have to sell the end product for $50. Flightsims are a very small part of the gaming market. This niche is barely hanging on. Microsoft pumps much more cash-flow into Halo3 than FSX - it's part of doing business. No matter how good they make FSX, its sales #s will never be huge. This makes "innovations" difficult to pull off in a big company.If you want a better flight-sim experience, look into purchasing a multi-million dollar simulator from the military or airline industry, or, take the risk and produce one yourself.Start a small game studio and hire some talents. If your ideas are indeed much better than what Microsoft can pull off, then you shouldn't worry. Make your own flight sim - one that is much better than FSX, and the community will be behind you.-feng

ROFL!Your BS only serves to illustrate how little you actually know about FSX.

These facts are hard to argue with: [em]According to market researcher OneStat.com, Windows now controls 97.46 percent of the global desktop operating system market, compared to just 1.43 percent for Apple Macintosh and 0.26 percent for Linux.[/em]-ALSO-[em][strong]OS Platform Statistics[/strong]Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The windows family counts for nearly 90%:[/em][pre]2006 WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT W2003 Linux MacAugust 75.20% 10.10% 1.40% 0.30% 2.10% 3.50% 3.60%July 74.30% 10.10% 1.50% 0.30% 2.00% 3.40% 3.60%June 74.10% 10.60% 1.60% 0.30% 2.00% 3.40% 3.60%May 74.20% 10.70% 1.60% 0.20% 2.00% 3.40% 3.60%April 74.00% 11.20% 1.80% 0.30% 1.90% 3.30% 3.60%March 72.90% 11.90% 2.00% 0.30% 1.80% 3.40% 3.50%Feb 73.30% 12.30% 2.10% 0.30% 1.80% 3.40% 3.60%January 72.30% 13.10% 2.40% 0.30% 1.70% 3.30% 3.50%[/pre]source: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspnearly 90% of those using their computers to surf the web, meaning those needing a desktop OS, are using Microsoft. With an installed base like that, the OS is under incredible scrutiny. Every wart, wrinkle and blemish is going to be amplified tenfold. In spite of this, WinXP has been pretty darned stable. Sure, there have been fantastic compromises, etc., but with 90% of the web populace on Windows, the bad elements are sure to strike. Of the 90% of the people in your town/state/country, are all of them contented without fear of threat, distaster and harm? Many eyes squash bugs and I believe MS does about as good as any company would, I certain don't think they are negligent.Further, MSFS is a reasonably open and modifiable platform upon which many, many, many users have found realism and enjoyment. Sure, ProPilot was neat, but Microsoft Flight Simulator gives us much breadth and depth of the entire world such that any virtual pilot can re-create just about any aviation experience he or she wishes. ProPilot gave us Seattle and the Bay Area (if memory serves...). Most of us know that the better add-ons to MSFS are those that similarly create excellence through a narrow focus. Despite this, MSFS does a pretty bang-up job of delivering us THE WORLD. Sure, it's not perfect, but I can fly to 24,000 + airports in the world. Perhaps MS is approaching a monopoly in some aspects; MS has certainly been heavily scrutinized by the US government and the EU. However, microsoft has played a huge role in the growth the of the Internet. Before you start cracking Al Gore jokes at my expense, let me clarify - Windows has allowed millions upon millions of people to join the Internet and WWW over the last 10 years. This rising tide can be largely attributed to Microsoft and Windows - the statistics prove this. It is through rapid growth in end-user demand which has so vividly and positively expanded the MSFS franchise. The expansion of the franchise has allowed a nearly-dedicated team of developers to keep the title moving forward - this is good, not bad.MSFS is pervasive and synonymous with "flight simulator." To illustrate:There was a recent video showing the mistakes of Comair Flight 5191 on CNN. The "expert" who explained what went wrong with the flight was using "special software," which can "acurately depict what might have happened" to Comair Flight 5191. That "special software" was FS2004. The software is mainstream now. Further, it was very effective at illustrating the point of the news story. I think this speaks adequately about the mindshare that the program has. People continue to use MSFS because it is good, useful and ubiquitous.Sure, perhaps bleeding edge innovation would be better served by competition, but there IS competition and people choose microsoft, by and large.X-plane is competition, Linux and Max OSX are competition, Open Office is comeptition, and yet, people choose Microsoft.The "Big Bad Bill" conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Microsoft continues to provide meaningful products that people enjoy and depend on. I don't know how many computer users there are, but 90% of them are on windows.Sure, we can say no other OS has been as (buggy|vulnerable|yadda-yadda), but no other OS has been so widely exposed and widely used; EVER. The entire computer/IT industry pays attention to how Microsoft handles and reacts to compromises, weaknesses and threats; Microsoft hasn't withered on the vine yet.Lastly, Microsoft clearly has a wait-and-see or buy-out-other-innovaters approach that has worked well for them (exhibit A: Flight Simulator). As is the case with many companies the size of Microsoft, [a href=http://fortboise.org/Top100/]which has the largest market cap of any other publicly traded software/IT/Technology company [/a], talent and innovation is purchased as much as it is cultivated in-house.Hey, tilt at windmills if you want, but you are really pissing in the wind and howling at the moon with such rants. I have purchased the compting packages over the years too, but time and time again, it is the MSFS series that sustains me. I suspect I am not a minority in this position either.But hey, if you just needed to get things off your chest (I certainly have availed myself of the opportunity in my reply here), the rage against then machine brother, were here for ya! :-)note: (a)No, I am not an MS employee. (b)Yes, I am a very, very smalltime stockholder. ©This may sound fanboi-ish, but I am just trying to talk at sense. (d)Opinions and rants are fun; cheap, but fun.

No comment on FSX, innovation and Microsoft's marketing model, but the said marketing model is certainly used by NVidia and ATI. Case in point, the refusal of NVidia to use universal shaders in its first DX10 card.