I think that the developers are between a rock and a hard place. FSX has been a disaster for developers of sophisticated add-ons. See Lou's posts and Steve Halpern's from Flight 1 around the SP 2 release, and look at how long PMDG took to release their Queen of the Skies. Just talking to the great folks at the conference revealed how trying the intro of the new has been to the add on industry.Now that the product is final, developers have to decide if a major product is worth it. Many hard core simmers still use FS9. Development times are long because system fidelity demands are reaching sometimes ridiclous levels possibly putting them into the window of time before the release of the next gen of FS when folks don't tend to buy things. Kind of puts a damper on all the dreams and aspirations. I don't think anyone is trying to put out false information - I think that the tasks have evolved into something far different than origingally intended. And it is disapointing. I miss my Reality XP GPS units more than any other add-on in FSX. I am hoping that the release of DF's first FSX offerring, which features RXP gns gauges, will signal that the stand alones are coming as well. The wait may be worth it - if RXP's new approach go gauge programming which is far less sim depdendent, running a lot more code outside the sim works, then they may have taken good steps towards future proofing their products. We will see. So, load up the maule, relearn how to use VORs and NDBs and go flying. And if you need a big iron fix, the LDS 767 (I always think about the Mormon Church when I see that name) works great in FSX.That's what I'm doing. Colin

FSX is not the disaster than some think it is. I also participated in the same threads with Steve.The difference is that we took the bull by the horns with regard to FSX and found it to be the path forward simply because Phil stated that current FSX/SP2/DX10 compliance will be the only back compat from FS11?In short, that means that current FSX products which are SP2/DX10 compliant should have little to no difficulty in FS11 or FSvnext:-)Developers who have banked on their FS9 product line will not have an easy task going forward. User blowback over these issues is certainly not enjoyable.It is a bit of a dilema but remember folks we all wanted bigger, more, better,etc. and now we have what we've asked for:-lol

Thanks Colin for what I think (personal opinion) is a wise analysis. Rest assured, we are indeed working also on the standalone products and the first investment we needed to do for this, which in fact is one good cause of the delay of the release of standalone products, was our Gauge XTreme development framework to be not only future proof as much as possible, but also to offer a set of features not possible with the SDK (like 32 bits graphics, alpha blendind, dynamic colour/alpha mouse cursors etc...)At this time, the GNS32 is progressing alright (yes you read right "32"). However, the next DF Aircraft for FSX will include the Gauge XTreme port of the GNS v5 (which offers many user interface improvments nonetheless!) since the GNS32 won't be ready for the Dakota FSX launch.

Yes you are perfectly right! an idea which is delivered is hardly protected if not covered by some sort of patent (and even so). Actually, I consider this as flatery, like one recent vendor support banner that uses a modified Airliner XP banner! we can't be less flattered that vendors are lacking so much creative ideas, that they have to resort to modify another vendor banner message to try selling their own products... (I'm not talking about our good friends of Airsimmer here, but about another vendor).Nonetheless, as soon as a product is released, of course other vendors look how its done, and if there are good ideas that can be implemented. This is how it works and I'm fine with it: it helps better the products for your enjoyement over time from all vendors alike.But, if you have a unique/never thought before idea that you consider worth a differenciator in your offering, and that this idea is advertised in another product while yours is not yet released, and this only because you publicly mentionned this unique feature in advance (no espionage dramatisation), then you might consider as a vendor keeping under tight wraps a number of the things you implement in your product until the product released. It is as simple as that.

Jean Luc, the intent must have been misread if my comment about industrial espionage seems a "dramatization". A quick reread of the comment shows it surrounded my LOLs to show the comment was less than serious and simply a poor analogy. :-lol :-lolI do agree that developers are wise to keep a certain number of features/ideas under wraps though :-lolWe simply consider those who have misused us by false and/or misleading advertising with regard to features and ideas in the past as just another group that we cannot trust or work with any longer.To us it's not a matter of fairness but a matter of those folks integrity:-)

>I think that the developers are between a rock and a hard>place. >>FSX has been a disaster for developers of sophisticated>add-ons.As developer I can say this is a very weak excuse. At least at panel side.P.S. Wasn't here for more than year. Even have got "new" PM dated by 2006 year :-lol

>>Well.. Lou, you insinuated that Bill stole something. Now,>I>>am curious to know what.>>>>:)>>>>Manny>>>No he didn't. Bill asked me what 'idea' was stolen. Lou simply>replied that he would not make it public. There was no>accusation levelled at Bill or Eaglesoft.Actually, he did.The phrase was "one you will never learn about, Bill" (emphasis mine). Not "one none of you will ever learn about," but "one you (meaning Bill) will never learn about." My reading of that was that it was a clear accusation that Bill stole the last idea, and therefore will be prevented from stealing anything new. In other words, unless Lou has any proof, I think he owes Bill an apology for slandering him.

For the record I can say that no Eaglesoft Team Member has ever stolen anyones ideas and never will. We are quite smart enough to come with our own innovations and also aware of those who has copied them.:-)It should be understood that unsubstantiated inferences or even accusations should be taken with a "grain of salt" with a close eye on the one who issues such statements.

In that case I think you need to take English comprehension 101 then!

Perhaps you could benefit from such a class yourself.:-) Nevertheless, the point is simple enough. We don't need to steal other folks ideas and are quite capable of introducing our own innovations.We are quite aware of those who have copied our inovations and marketed them as their own. Finally, false inferences, or even false accusations do not change the facts in the matter:-)

Ron, I don't think that comment was directed at you, but at JDWalley's post!!

Tom, my apology. :-doh That's what I get for posting while weary :-doh

>It is a bit of a dilema but remember folks we all wanted>bigger, more, better,etc. and now we have what we've asked>for:-lol Ron, I have to disagree with you there - all most people want is a user freindly flightsim. One that will give hours of enjoyment without jerks, stutters or poor frame rate.A sim that is not going to cost an unforseeable price to run fluidly, built to run on almost everyone's system and not just the gifted and wealthy few.FSX will be the last flightsim I own.

very very sad to see so much mistrust and dislike between people on here.coming from people who really should know better.i'm amazed at this really it's like a school playground..ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with orignal post.and from two very good companies:( very sad day steve

Dave, we've been around long enough to know that MS sometimes takes two or three cycles to meet everyones expectations.Most remember not being able to run FS2000 on that days equipment.We are thinking, based on many of Phil Taylors comments, that FSNext should shine brighter than FSX but of course time will tell:-)