>Didn't anyone else (besides me) try flight unlimited? I>thought that one was ahead of its time. But you are right, >it is all about dollars and apparantly not enough hard core>simmers to warrant it.Had 'em all, but actually preferred FS2000 when it was released; even though it had it's "morphing" problems.And I preferred Pro-Pilot to FS98, due to real life data-bases & improved sense of "feel". At the moment, I rate FSX as best in the feel department; at least when it comes to simulated aircraft such as the SF260 mentioned earlier.L.Adamson

Steve to Tom at Flight1: "Okay, I want a new version of flight simulator that's better than FSX on my desk by tomorrow morning, 8 AM sharp".Seriously, Flight1 has a great team of programmers, but a stand-alone flight sim just isn't gonna happen.Cheers,Bryan

Ha ha, a standalone Flight Simulator from any developer we know of is a bit unrealistic. The discussion is fun though:-)Like most of the folks in this thread we've tried a number of them over the years and MSFS seems to have the resources and personel to do the job.Imagine the headaches for a small developer in the light of what Aces has endured over FSX:-):=_

>Considering the excellent and "at the top" products coming>from the Flight1 team and their associates, I bet they would>make the best flight sim ever>>2 years?>>Get to work guys.... :-blaMaking add-ons for an existing product is one thing. Making an entire flight simulator from scratch is something else entirely.>Would it not make sense to pay as much for a very high quality>non-buggy flight sim as a medium priced videocard? say 225 $So you really think a developer could compete with Microsoft Flight Simulator by pricing themselves right out of the casual market? Let's be realistic here.

>When Flight1>can sell GEX textures that look better and give better>performance than MSFS and the same with FEX why couldn't MSFS>do the same thing.You need to have some perspective here. A development team putting together, say, new cloud textures for MSFS (and FEX has some of the best) only has to worry about one thing: making the best darn cloud textures they can. They can put all their resources into a very narrow focus. The MSFS development team, on the other hand, has a heck of lot more to worry about than just cloud textures, so you really can't make this comparison.

Interesting thread - here's some of my thoughts on the subject having been an avid supporter of flight simulation software for many years. Personal computer flight simulation development over the years owe's much of it's downfall in my opinion, to hard-core customers who expect developers to provide cutting edge products to a multi-core consumer base while dealing with countless platform, consumer experience, and compatibility limitations with a product that is expected to provide everything one would experience in the real world for a price under $40 bucks. (how's that for a long sentence :-) )First of all I would guess that the so called 'hard-core' consumer base for a product like FSX is only a fraction of what the "I want a cool airplane game that I don't have to go through hours of flight training to enjoy or understand" crowd. Money and market drive development and most who attempt to do anything in this business, in the end I would imagine, always have to deal with that reality. When you look at all of the great flight simulation products over the years they've all suffered (and most died) from the same exact thing - It's the reason X-box type platforms and the games they support do so much better. There are no multi- hardware compatibility issues and because they only cater to the 'gaming' crowd rather than the 'hard-core' simulation crowd, there are fewer complaints on internet chat boards about what the "game" doesn't provide which drives business away. You only have to look at the dozens of threads that appear here on AVSIM during any month to realize what I'm talking about. You see everything from people bashing the product that don't have problems directly related to the software itself or they don't even own the product at all - they are just here for the entertainment of bashing because they are empowered to express their opinion from the aninimity of sitting behind their keyboard, yet they can have a direct affect on the success or failure of the product. I fly for a living, own my own airplane, have beta tested flight simulation software in years past (not Flight Simulator) and I was a main contributer to the writing of the Official "Inside Moves" strategy guide for FS 2000 Professional edition. When you look at how far computer flight simulation has come over the last several years It is incredible to me what FSX offers for the price. I don't think most of you realize just how "realistic" this software can be and yet it is still supported and meets the needs of the "I just want an airplane game crowd" which has kept it from going the way of other great simulations. I believe the future of FSX lies in it's ability to continue to provide a good base structure for developers like PMDG, EagleSoft, Aerosoft, RealAir, Carenado, GEX, FEX, UTA, HIFi, IRIS and the many many other 3rd party providers that I apologize to for not mentioning here by name, to take advantage of and exploit the market for those of us that want FSX to be more than just a game. Sorry I got so long-winded with my thoughts. These products live and die by our support or lack thereof and I for one want to see FSX and those that support it with their products continue. Thanks for listening.Ron

Ah, a man with experience who understands that which he speaks.:-)From our perspective, a successful base Flight Simulator is out of the question for third party developers. A brief view of the challenges to personel and bank accounts is enough for any third party developer to say the costs outweigh the benefits.We agree that the MSFS9 and MSFSX Flight Simulators offer much more than the average flight simmer knows or appreciates.:-)

Great post Ron-I'll listen any time!

Ron,Very well said. Those who want a game can get a game at a good price. Those who want more can buy additional add ons to get more. All in all, a good deal for everyone.

We should also keep in mind that if the market was ripe for multiple consumer-level flight simulators then you can be sure there'd be somebody there to fill that demand.

Didn't some of the Pro-Pilot guys end up at MS?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

I think Adam did-not sure about the others. There is a product that seems to be derived from it:http://www.flyprotrainer.com/http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Interesting thread indeed.Personally, I agree with most others here: the reasons for not building a new flight simulator from scratch are the same no new operating system is programmed from scratch: costs and time to re-invent the wheel.The more complex a program is, the higher the probability it was re-worked, tuned and adapted in endless iteration steps and versions and in the end is based on some work done sometime long ago.In my opinion, people's interest in complex things degrades continually, what they're for is eating, drinking, talking and the quick adrenaline kick. Reading, studying and "thinking" is definitely not on their lists.MS FS is mainly built for those folks, but thank God it's possible to stretch and expand it far beyond of what it's primary target is and to allow us to have all the great add-ons.For me, the question is more this: if I suppose products like the LDS-767 will never be purchased by one of the "normal" FS users and they write their add-on for a niche market only, why not make a general transition for the "hardcore" FS users and move over to alternative simulators which seem to be better suited, like X-Plane.As FS, X-plane bases on "old code" as well, but misses broader support to get on par with FS. Provided more money is put in X-Planes development and more people are interested, it could be a better basis for all the "non gamers" among us.The developers wouldn't loose anything 'cause the customer base stays the same, and I bet these customers will make the transition in spite of the additional benefits they'd get.On the other hand, such a scenario would allow for alternative simulators to mature and surpass FS in every aspect when add-on developers and those of the core simulator work together.I think many of the "hardcore" part of FS users are even willing to spend a reasonable amount of money if they'd knew there could be a better alternative.The question is what "hardcore" people expect from such a "new" sim solution: eye candy or functionality. If the latter is prioritized by most, why not thinking about a different way?I for my part would even be happy to have a complex airliner like PMDG's 737 on X-Plane's current version 8. Other things like mesh, ground textures, airports etc. I think would come over time. Maybe it's even easier to develop something on X-Plane than on FS... And things can only get better in time...Another alternative? I can't see any. Look at Elite's MD-80, much is there, but still no FMC after all those years for instance... As time passes, it gets more and more unlikely that a price-wise viable solution for "hardcore" simmers will ever emerge...Andreas

>Let's have a screenshot comparison of the current X-plane and>FSX.Here you can find some:http://www.xplanefreeware.net/forums/index...?showtopic=5031Marco

>I think Adam did-not sure about the others. There is a>product that seems to be derived from it:>http://www.flyprotrainer.com/>Sorry to say that product never really made it to light.The main person responsible for the product was Mark Pechnick. The same person that was responsible for Pro Pilot.Mark and I were friends for many years and he worked for me the last year and a half before he passed away last April.Jim Rhoads