>Consoles have one major issue and that is that games, or>whatever runs on it, is hard to update/patch. If one needs to>update/patch stuff like we do now on the PC, does the console>not becomes sort of a PC again?Latest-gen console are as easy to update as a standard PC, since they all have internet connection and hard-drives. Even easier, because usually all updates are entirely automatic, without the user having to figure out what to download. The original Xbox, the Xbox360, the PS3 and the Wii, all have their updates for the system and for games, and downloadable content, both free or payware.The fact you see more patches on the PC it's not because console are inherently "harder" to patch, but simply because console games have MUCH strict quality requirements comparing to PC games, and of course having all users running on the same hardware makes those (stricter) requirements easier to meet.

The days of consoles are numbered, claim PC bossesThere is one more generation of gaming consoles and that is it, claim industry leaders at Hewlett-Packard launchhttp://www.computerandvideogames.com/artic...161496&skip=yes

Well a PC maker would say that. It's utter claptrap.I'd love to see an Xbox 360 version of Flight Sim, and I bet plenty of third-party developers would too, downloadable premium content is a bit thing for the next-gen consoles now.When my proper flight stick broke I plugged in a wired 360 controller to the PC as a stopgap, and I haven't actually replaced the broken joystick yet. For those of us used to years of both console and PC gaming - thumbsticks can be remarkably sensitive controllers. Realistic? No. But neither is flying a 747 on a computer, it's just a game.I've been playing Flight Sim since version II on the Atari ST, but I'm not chauvinistic enough to think there shouldn't ever be a console version. Seeing what could be done with a set hardware platform would be fascinating and the online play possibilities would be very interesting too.

>I agree with most of your points. However, it really depends>on what MS's think the number of console owners in the FS>community. In other words, are the FS customers going to buy a>console just to run FS? If the answer is yes, MS is not going>to make FS for the console. This is because these people are>not console gamers to begin with and the chances of them buy>more games are low. As we all know, every console sold is a>money losing business (except the wii).First, I bet that a lot of folks in the "FS community" also own a console or two.Second, the size of the market beyond the "fs community" is vastly larger.I believe that a FS on the console will happen and the financials will be there to support it.Regards,Vern

So how many buttons do you need to fly the ultra light in the default startup scenario?Small GA plane's can be controlled with just the standard X-Box controller. Its easy to use and it can be a pleasant controller for a cross county looking around kind of trip.X-Box 360 has USB so specialist contollers (yokes and even go flight stuff) can be made if there is a market for it.Famous examples for dedicated controllers are the Mech controller set for the original X-box. http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/prev...l_battalion.htmThat thing has 40 buttons and was made just for that single game.And the Hotas for the Playstation 2http://www.hori.jp/products/ps2/memorycard/mc_ac5/index.htmlPS2 has a game called Energy Airforce http://www.ea-web.com/ea/en/frame.html which is a non arcady combat sim (rougly equal to Janes USAF).A limited FS-X 360 in a smaller geographic area that with more details (Living World +) and its own missions would be a perfect console game. Nintendo had Pilot Wings in the past (basicly the same gameformat as I described) and there is already talk about a new Pilot Wings on the Wii console. There is a good chance that the next flightsim revolution will come from the consoles. Development on the PC feels like its at a dead-end now.

There's an Energy Airforce game available for Xbox 360 too, though it was called Over-G here in the west. It's pretty good too.

Since the comments have been largely positive and the enthusiasm high, we should now ask ourselves and them rhetorically (since they can't make promises), is anyone from ACES taking this into consideration?

I can't see anything wrong with the next FS release coming to XBOX as well as PC. Increased revenue, better market saturation and exposure, none of this is bad for the hobby.The down side is the fact that consoles are very specific to program for. A lot of things are handled very differently, so I'm not sure it would feasible until some kind of across the board reboot of the internal code happened. Then they could cross develop the new engine for both sets.As for add-ons, with a joint release, it would be like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. The guys on the 360 know that they will get stunning performance and the ability to buy some premium add-ons hassle free, even getting some exclusives maybe, but the mass of user-created add-ons are unavailable to them. In this case, those who like clean installs and don't muck around with adding things to the sim would probably find this an ideal scenario. Take FS out of the box and go. When looking at things like missions and the Adrenaline expansion, they are putting more and more "content" into the out of the box experience, making it even better for the majority of casual users.And realistically speaking, the console is becoming the ideal scenario for casual gamers, outside of costs.

I would think MS will point the franchise in any direction that makes the most economic sense,as any business would. One thing's for certain, FS has always been and still is primarily a GA sim for the everyman starring the Cessna 172. If that can work on an Xbox, who knows.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy