It would be a crying shame to lose that FSGenesis terrain !! Since I am pretty sure MS will not be putting that sort of resolution into the package (or how many CD's would it come on ??).Is this from an online source ???

TrevI didnt say Microsoft wouldnt make "groundbreaking changes and advancements" without competitition only that historically the developemnt has been slow up till 2002.At the end of the day most people love their work and want to extend what is achievable for their own satisfaction and im sure that is the case with the MS developers but a good dollop of competition doesnt half liven up the waters a bit :-)I will be very dissapointed if the whole Sky?weather invironment doesnt have a major rethink as well as the panel/cockpit display and functionality and the flight engine capabilityPeter

I had a small meeting with MS developers at Oshkosh. The plan, I was told, is to improve Clouds, weather and ATC. Also to be implemented is moving pilots that actually talk. Interactive secenery with moving people and sounds etc..I have no doubt that flight dynamics yet again will be dissapointing. Cannot scare of the market with aircraft that are hard to fly can we?If you have seen CFS3 you'll know what I mean. I saw an early Alpha of it at Oshkosh, the clouds are spectacular.CFS for the last few releases has always been a prelude to the next version of FS. Shall I say also, that CFS3 is very gamey looking?For me?? ... I just want a MS default DC-3 and I'll be happy. :-)Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.comhttp://www.douglasdc3.com/1/dc3.jpg

>I have no doubt that flight dynamics yet again will be >dissapointing. Cannot scare of the market with aircraft >that are hard to fly can we? You are totally correct Trev. I do believe that the flight dynamics wil be dissapointing. I thought that that was the whole reason they had the standard and the proffessional. The standard would be for those who just wanted to fly for fun and the pro would be for the serious simmers who really wanted -true flight-. To me microsoft needs to watch there back because if all of these third party developers come together they could essentaily make and outstanding product. It does not make any sense that us simmers have to go out and spend a lot of money on all of these add-ons. Although the add ons are good they do get pricy at times. Microsoft needs to make a SIMULATOR not a game! I think if they can create a true simulator type game that is true to the flight dynamics it would sell. But as Trev said earlier you don't want to scare of the market with aircraft to hard to fly. And that is the whole point of STANDARD EDITION, and PRO EDITION.Did I make my point, or am I just another simmer out there?Pilot 737First Officer America West Virtual AirlinesB737( Dreamfleet ofcourse!)

THis comment about compatible with XBOX worries me, especially after looking at the movie preview of CFS3. I hope this doesn't become a "BUBBLE GUM SIM". Its not that I dont like to have fun, let's just use the great technology for more realism rather than attracting more arcade type gamers. If the future release does turn out to be more like aconsole game I would seriously consider not purchasing.

this might sound a little foolish,but I hope MS doesn't change alot to the flight dynamics and default aircraft.They'd better put their efforts in weather and ATC,because wel already have so excellent payware aircraft like PSS and PIC.Even if they put many efoorts into that,they'll never be able to beat those products,because they're specialised for thatbtw,ucanfly,I agree with you 100%:let's hope microsoft doesn't want to attract a bigger of people than the serious simmers (like we :) )

this is what really needs to happen. Nobody can beat nobody. All of these flight sim companies: WILCO, DREAMFLEET, PSS etc need to team up with Microsoft. I would love to just have to purchase one flightsim package and not have to worry about all of the addons.Teamwork is the key. Sooner or later Boeing and Airbus are going to have to communicate and think of something new. Competition is good but teamwork is great! To me FS2k2 was nothing more than a scenery package, the airplanes looked good but flyed unrealistic. I know for a fact that you can not just put a B747 on a runway with 100% thrust take of with no flaps and get off the runway and do a 60 degree turn.I really don't know what is to come next. But somebody needs to talk to the Microsoft developers.Pilot 737First OfficerAmerica West Virtual AirlinesBoeing 737 ( of course Dreamfleet!)

>this is what really needs to happen. Nobody can beat nobody. > All of these flight sim companies: WILCO, DREAMFLEET, PSS >etc need to team up with Microsoft. I would love to just >have to purchase one flightsim package and not have to worry >about all of the addons. >>Teamwork is the key. Sooner or later Boeing and Airbus are >going to have to communicate and think of something new. >Competition is good but teamwork is great! To me FS2k2 was >nothing more than a scenery package, the airplanes looked >good but flyed unrealistic. I know for a fact that you can >not just put a B747 on a runway with 100% thrust take of >with no flaps and get off the runway and do a 60 degree >turn. >>I really don't know what is to come next. But somebody needs >to talk to the Microsoft developers. >>Pilot 737 >First Officer >America West Virtual Airlines >Boeing 737 ( of course Dreamfleet!) The only problem with the above is that either the sim will cost us all 200 dollars or Microsoft will have to profit share with those other companies (for what incentive?). I dont see it happening in either case.

If you are the market leader in sales, you have much more at risk if you flub up then the new guy on the block. It happens in every market you look. The more to loose, the slower to take additional risk on new untested-by-time features. If you want cutting edge technology in your product, look for the little guy just getting into the market with no market share at risk.The Microsoft flight sim business unit releases product when the projected margin ($)is what the enterprise requires. The big question for them is, how many new features do we have to add (cost and risk)to get repeat buyers as well as first time buyers. I am going to make a wild guess and bet the first time buyers are more important in the equation then repeat buyers.BobThe CURRENT WEATHER at my home. (12.9 Miles ESE of KPIA)http://www.crh.noaa.gov/radar/images/DS.p3...klot/latest.gif

>Is it true.. that microsoft won't come out with another >version of flight simulator in the futureOn their FS Insider Web site, in the Q&A "talkback" section, MS has spelled out their plans to continue making new versions of FS indefinitely.On the subject of competition, in my opinion the Russians are providing the best challenge at the moment--but it's in the combat flight simulation genre. MS's CFS3 manager, Tucker Hatfield, stated in an interview not long ago that the success of IL-2 provided a challenge to the CFS3 team. And from the films and many of the screenshots I've seen from the LOMAC developers, a whole new level of realism for desktop flight should be established when that one makes its debut next January.Since the CFS series shares technology with the FS series, FS will benefit from the competitively-inspired advances in the combat flight sims. And let's face it, if the Russians can't motivate MS to design a superior program, who can?

We old simmers can vouch for the dramatic increase in new simmers with every new release. Especialy with FS 2002.MS must be pleased as we become a very dedicated bunch and will always be antisipating the next, I know I will. :-)Steve CYYZ

You know, if Microshaft never made another FS, that would allow us to finally perfect one of them because it seems to get close and then they release another one and then you have to buy new hardware for two years and the cycle continues...

Hi, Thanks Trev to clarify things here to user! Should be exciting to see the new terrain engine, latest feature/card thats is not available now and they will use in 2004 as well the new COMPLETE weather system. I expect the weather/sky in fs2004 will blow everything out available to date as well as the scenery engine, full of photo sat and easier engine to build scenery photo sat, since they remove the *.BLG.This Msfs franchise is here to stay, this is the most important, new sim and improvement.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Hi Steve, New stuff and feature. We should take our Hat to them, they release every two years a new sim. I don't care to paid 100$ for a sim, at least they give us the stability franchise.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

This is comming from soneone who has never ever touched the controls of a real airplane.I find the default Baron harder to fly than the one with the updated FD by Steve Small. The default one is just too touchy, while the improved version feels much smoother. Same with the RealAir vs Default Cessna 182. In fact, I generally find all default FS aircraft too "stiff".From what I understand about the flight dynamics in FS, it's all stored in the .air file and some of it in the .cfg file. I don't like this separation of the plane and the flight physics. You can link the .air file to a box and make it fly.To me, it makes much more sense to only use the .air file for things like type of engine, engine power, aircraft systems etc. The sim should then look at the actual 3D-model of the plane, and calculate how the wind would flow over the model, creating lift, drag etc. etc. etc., to figure out how it would fly (if at all).I'd say make the planes as realistic as possible! There's always the option of turning down some realism settings in the Options to make the planes easier to fly.