>About the flight dynamics, I would also add that I >personally do not find the models easy but hard (not talking >about the Concord here). Probably because of bizarre >behaviors (like on the rwy) and because of almost total lack >of inertia. It's not heavy it's sluggish and unpredictable >(OK it's better than on a Spectrum 48K). >>The above is probably not true for Adamson, who apparently >has an exceptional computer and exceptional fingers, trained >by countless hours of r/c. >he,he---------------- Don't you know................ MS has some of the best "runway" flight dynamics going! CFS2 & IL-2 are better, but FS2002 isn't bad! The requirement here is "rudder pedals"!! Keyboards, twist grips, and rocker switches don't cut it! No "feel"!!With rudder pedals it's like riding the edge of a "gutter", or the edge of a wake on a water ski. Just enough pressure to keep it there, without a tendency to start wandering which some "other" sims do!And my runway experience certainly isn't from R/C, but from real rudder pedals on real runways. Geeze (again)L.Adamson

They have already said this will be true for CFS3, and it's assumed that a similar engine will be used for FS2004.-- Tom GibsonCalifornia Classic Propliners: http://www.calclassic.com/Cal Classic Alco Page: http://www.calclassic.com/alco/Freeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.com/ San Diego Model RR Museum: http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/Drop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

According to me the answer is simple: FS2004 is not a true innovation.I am sorry, according to me microsoft could have to wait a little and to throw a better innovation.Today you find add-ons which improve FS2002 of a great deal of.Maybe FS2002 with a good add-on is better then FS2004.What improve FS2004 Only thinks for babys!For instance, consider an add-ons as Real1, available from a couple of days.Adds a lot of more innovations to FS2002 than how many FS2004 adds.Microsoft had to await a little.Patience ...I think FS2006 will be beautifull... )

3 1/2 days. That is pretty funny. Sorry, just had to say that.Ron

Oh, No !!!This falls into the category of "AFC wins the Super Bowl = down stock market year; NFC wins = up stock market year."I wish all of life were as predictable as you suggest the FS Development team is in constructing "duds".So, what are you doing, dude, rationalising a bad financial position you're in, or just making stuff up to get some attention?

Exactly...Peter hit the nail right on its head. Panels, flight dynamics, dynamic weather. THESE are the things that make a flight simulator truly a FLIGHT simulator. It amuses me how people find faults in the smallest and most trivial things in the simulator while overlooking the most important facets. Too often, we see people's wishlists for FS2004 with desperate pleas such as, "Please Microsoft, make heat shimmering effects behind engines" or "Please microsoft, can we see animated cars on the roads?" I don't deny that these things are nice to have, but how about going back a step and addressing the more fundamental aspects???FS2006 should do away with the panel interface we've been using since FS5 and develop an ingenius new panel system. As Peter Sidoli puts it "They need to relook at panel presentation, get rid of this ridiculous situation of 2D and virtual cockpits. They need to actually examine what a pilot sees and work on peripheral views."I'd like to see the panel system completely overhauled in the next version of MSFS. The same goes for the flight dynamics system, ditch it and create a new and better one. Stick to the slogan, "As real as it gets."Why spend countless hours developing 20 mediocre default planes, when 3 excellent planes will suffice? Including only a Cessna 172, a Bell 206 and a 747 by default that flies realistically, has realistic panels and systems is far more appealing then having 20 unrealistic planes with the same bland default panels and limited functionality. Development time is the same, but the key is quality, not quantity.The MSFS development team has shown that they DO listen to us. We wanted ATC, we got it. We wanted more detailed airports, we got it. We wanted better weather, we got it. Now, they need to address a fundamental weakness of Microsoft Flight Simulator that has made MSFS vulnerable to incessant criticism from flight simmers and real-world aviation professionals alike: the fact that it doesn't simulate FLIGHT realistically. FS2006 is the perfect opportunity for Microsoft to create a simulator that is truly revolutionary enough to blow away even its harshest critics.Thomas

I don't know that it achieves much to resurrect a ten-month old thread. The goal posts have moved a lot since this thread was started and we all know a lot more about the sim than we did in August 2002.

Trave,Since you have blurry textures, FS2004 appears to not have a major improvement in this area.bummer!Tim

> Now, they need to>address a fundamental weakness of Microsoft Flight Simulator>that has made MSFS vulnerable to incessant criticism from>flight simmers and real-world aviation professionals alike:>the fact that it doesn't simulate FLIGHT realistically. Good post, but questioning the "doesn't simulate Flight realistically". With respect to the "many" limitations of home P/C's, I think it does as well or better than any other "home" sim I can think of. In my mind, I'm also including bush type flying, aerobatics with add-ons, and the bonus of VC's which actually do add much to the sense of flight under various conditions. Of course it can always be farther improved, but why the use of the word "doesn't"? That sounds like "not at all" to me..L.Adamson

Not to Worry Tom..... FSDS stuff seems to work fine in the betas and I bet even most of the old AF99 planes will work too. the engine isn't new.. it's just an expanded version of the current one. Don Moser has stated on another forum that some of his scenery's have been run through the Beta so it still uses BGL's Lou Betti has checked and the Dreamfleet 737 (other than a few minor panel annoyances) works well. I know a beta tester who I will not mention by name so not to blow his NDA has stated that with the same settings, 2004 runs a bit faster than 2002, as long as there are not alot of the new clouds around. Alot of folks are shooting in the dark with no idea what is actualy going to happen without actualy having the program or having an "in" like the folks who are either testing or have the press beta.Brian

>Why spend countless hours developing 20 mediocre default>planes, when 3 excellent planes will suffice? Including only a>Cessna 172, a Bell 206 and a 747 by default that flies>realistically, has realistic panels and systems is far more>appealing then having 20 unrealistic planes with the same>bland default panels and limited functionality. Development>time is the same, but the key is quality, not quantity.The problem is that folks like us, the hardcore simmers who love realistic panels, systems, flight dynamics, etc and post about them all day on simming forums ;), are NOT Microsoft's main market for FS. In fact I'd venture to guess that most casual purchases of FS would not be made if it only included 3 aircraft - no matter how good they are. I'd bet that 999 out of 1000 sales of FS are made to someone just looking for a fun "game" where they can fly around their hometown and not some full blown IFR pilot training simulation. If MS were to create a truly "Pro" version of FS for us hardcore folks that was like that, then believe me, I'd be first in line to buy it, but the fact is that it does not make a single shred of business sense for them to do it. The costs incurred in development wouldn't be returned to them because there aren't very many of us that are that into it to even consider buying such a product. Frankly, we're a rare breed of people who can figure out how to fly a realistic jet airliner simulation like 767PIC or something to that effect without any training whatsoever. Most people I've shown my FS stuff to think I'm 100% crazy for knowing how to do all this when I'm not even considering becoming a professional pilot. (I am considering ATC tho ;)) Talking about manifold pressure, FMCs, and DME arcs to a casual FS player is like talking about quantum physics to someone who only wants an explaination for why the apple falls from the tree you know?With that said, I'm buying FS2004 at midnight on the day of release if I can find a store that's open. I think people are VASTLY underestimating this sim - the dynamic weather alone is more than worth it to me. No one seems to be talking about the clickable VCs either - how can it get any more realistic with respect to the pilots viewpoint in the cockpit than being *IN* a 3D cockpit where all the buttons and switches work with the mouse? What else could they posibly do that would be more realistic and wouldn't require some crazy hardware like a wrap around monitor, 3D goggles etc? I don't give a hoot what planes they put into it because I never use the MS planes (except the 172 with the Real Air FDE) - all I care about is that there's good support for my payware planes and that does seem to be the case with FS2004.Ryan

I wondered what all that racket was in the basement just then

Since I had a bad experience with CFS3, I have decided to wait until I see what the general impression is of the new Flight Simulator. I'm kind of loosing interest in Flight Simulator though because it seriously isn't that realistic. I get bored very shortly when the plane's on autopilot and there's nothing to keep checking for besides distance from destination. I know there are add-ons out there that make it more realistic, but they tax FS's performance. So for me, if FS2004 totally blows it, then I'm calling it quits for good from flight simulation.Regards,Canadian HawkC-GTGK

> I'm kind of loosing interest in Flight>Simulator though because it seriously isn't that realistic. I>get bored very shortly when the plane's on autopilot and>there's nothing to keep checking for besides distance from>destination. Auto-pilot and counting distance-------------no way!I use flight simulator with mesh scenery to plug in coordinates from NTSB reports. Just want to see what the pilots last saw, without getting too realistic myself..L.Adamson

I dont know how you could think fs2000 was bad it was the biggest jump they ever made.. fs2002 was sorda based on the same engine, just upgrades..