My point must not be clear enough. I think we are getting too caught-up in the terminology. Let us try to be more specific - 'online' and 'offline' are too generalized.
What is 'offline' play? What specific elements define it? The ONLY one I'm talking about doing away with is the reliance on AI. And even then, I'm not talking about eliminating AI, but just delegating it to a supporting role. You use human players where they are available, and you use AI to fill in where human players are not. You could also use AI to add more less-skilled players if you find that the environment isn't friendly to newbies. I would do that both with 'online' AND 'offline' play.
The reason I would do this goes to the heart of Lexx Luther's argument regarding better programming for AI. Just what would it take Lexx? When you consider that chess is exponentially simpler for AI to handle and then consider that to simulate a single 'grand master' level chess player you need the single most powerful computer in the world using every single processor cycle on that one task - without any graphics or sound or anything else - what do you think modern computers can do for flight sim AI? If the most powerful computer in the world can't simulate a single AI plane that can compete with a really good pilot, how exactly do you expect to fill the skies with them on $400 computers?
The problem with Artificial Intelligence is that the 'Intelligence' part is artificial. Computer's can't think. Without the ability to think they can't easily recognize even basic maneuvers. If you program a computer to recognize a basic half-loop for example, it will look for the specific things you program it to recognize as a half-loop. If I vary my half-loop just a tiny bit such that it doesn't fall into your parameters, it will not recognize my maneuver. Plus a good human pilot thinks several moves ahead. How are you going to program a computer to recognize complex maneuvers like 'Walking the Dog?'
'Better Programming' is a cop-out answer. No matter how good the programming is or how strong the AI is, you can always say that if it was 'better' then things would be 'better.' That's a circular logic that just can't stand on its own. Current technology doesn't support 'better' as you envision it, Lexx.
'Online' simply means that your computer is plugged-in to the Internet. That's it. I've got cable. I'm always 'online' even when I'm doing 'offline' things. Some programs have been using that to their advantage for years. Real Player for example will give me album and artist information whenever I play a song. It does that by looking the information up on the Internet. Does that detract from my 'offline' listening experience?
What if I had a really strong campaign engine that ran on a server across the Internet, but when you actually flew a mission it was AI only and tailored completely to your 'offline' campaign? Would the fact that your computer had to connect across the Internet to get the mission make it an 'online' experience? Would you boycott the game because it used your Internet connection to enhance your 'offline' experience?
The idea that programs must define themselves as either being 'online' or 'offline' is outdated. Programs shouldn't think in such disparate terms. Programs - including flight simulatons - need to think in more specific terms. What elements are going to be 'offline' and what elements are going to utilize the Internet? If we think more grainularly about when to use the Internet we can make a more involving environment both 'online' and 'offline.'
If the ONLY thing that my computer used the Internet for was to use human pilots rather than AI in an otherwise fully offline campaign, I'd call that 'offline.' In fact, based on what everyone except Lexx Luther is saying as long as I could match the people you are playing against to the skill level you were looking for you would have to agree with me.
One of the things that makes great games special is 'vision.' A game developer who takes modern technology and re-hashes the same old concept is never going to 'get it right.' All of the really great games had 'vision.' When you tie the hands of developers by saying that they can't try to use technology to blur traditional lines and try to enhance experiences, what you do is tell them they can't use 'vision' to make new games, and thus you prevent them from making anything new or unique.
We need to encourage flight sim developers to innovate. If that means blurring the lines between 'online' and 'offline' play such that the differences are toggle-able switches where it is really hard to determine where the exact line is, that's great. But the answer CAN NOT be to keep doing what has already been done over and over again without anything new but the graphics.
Why simulate things when you can use the real thing? Why simulate a dynamic environment when you can create an environment that really is dynamic? Why simulate intelligence when you can use something that really is intelligent?
The time has come to take the Internet and see what we can really do with it. Traditional lines defining 'online' and 'offline' need to be discarded and replaced with more specific phrasing that defines the actual experiences players want. As long as a sim gives the experiences that the players want, who cares how it does it?
