Like all of you, I spent maybe 3 months reading manuals, learned PIC and used it for about a year, I started with DF737 and it seemed perfect at the time, but it was just the jump start for me to be able to understand a complex package like PIC is. All other panel add ons were just toys, after learning a magnificent package like PIC you don't want to fly anything else. So, Question is: in the FS2004 era will or is there a panel up to the PIC standards? or is there any panel CLOSE to the PIC standards? please.. I can not stand not been able to play PIC in fs2004, I still have fs2002 but fs2004 is simply too good... having storms to one side rain on the left and clear skies in front is simply amazing, so I'm moving on.... but don't know what's next, the ONLY thing that looks worth the time and effort is the 727 Captain Sim package. The 747 Ready for Pushback looks realistic but I really care about pilot's perspective and quality bitmaps and the RFP747 just doesn't look profesional.Any comments on quality panels while we all wait for the next PIC team project?Thanks,*******.

PIC is not gone - if it's running on FS2K2, which is superior to FS2K4 IMHO.PIC767 rocks. FS2K4 sucks. Therefore, run PIC on FS2K4.Yes, I have broken down and purchased FS9 - and wow - what a dissappointment.DS CVA3339 / UKD149System: Attlon 900 McW Hamster/Gerbilized Quantum Accessible 55Gig Iodized-Encrusted Four-poster with Mega-brill Farzenhuuven http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

The 747 Ready for Pushback looks realistic but I really care about pilot's perspective and quality bitmaps and the RFP747 just doesn't look profesional.Intersting that you judge a product you do not know? Regarding system simulation RFP is even more advanced than PIC.If you like to fly "nice pictures" with beauty items they just give you a click sound you have to buy Dreamfleet products. Maybe that's more professional.______________________Bodo M

I MEANT to say run PIC767 on FS2K2...DS CVA3339 / UKD149System: Attlon 900 McW Hamster/Gerbilized Quantum Accessible 55Gig Iodized-Encrusted Four-poster with Mega-brill Farzenhuuven http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

Nothing so far would come close to 767PIC, but I would recommend A320 PIC and SSW A310 both of these producst are great and have a great potential and close enough to be compared to 767 PIC. I'm having a blast flying these two birds.. abour RFP 747 forget it:).Cheers,Fido

Hi,I guess the real issue here is: what is more important for you? the time and efforts spent to learn how to fly PIC which has not yet been surpassed in quality and sophistication, or a nice environment with some improved external views and weather rendition.From the first statement made about the time invested in "reading" manuals I have to assume that you do not want to loose your time investment and improved knowledge. Therefore FS2004's weather rendition should not be a serious consideration.Most flight simmers interested in flying a sophisticated aircraft are looking at simulating real life situations be it flight plans, procedures, advanced technology. PIC has given us all possible sophistication to reproduce on a PC close to real life flying. I don't want to be rude but my personal stand on the issue of FS2002 versus FS2004 for the time being is: let the folks who enjoy good external views, aircrafts repaints and a visit to the toilets of the plane when flying, use FS2004 and those who are interested in a more technical approach of flying with all its sophistication continue with FS2002 until new products of comparable quality to PIC appear on the market.Michael

@ Fido :Did you ever really tried to understand what RFP is all about? Reading your post I suggest you tried RFP once or twice and never tried to dive deep into the materia, did you?Why can one forget RFP? Because it doesn

Both PIC and RFP are detailed packages capable of realistic procedure simulation. DF737 also has this capablity along with a higher grapic quality and "eye candy". RFP is of lower graphic quality, some of the font on the panels are very hard to read, but once you learn the switch functions it doesn't matter as much. This comment is only for the main panel. The visual model is excellent.All 3 of these a/c have superb dynamics, for MSFS, I am not a real pilot.All 3 packages are excellent and set the standard that others are struggling to attain. I think squabbling about which is best is a waste of resources as each is a different a/c from a different time in aircraft technology. Your best solution is to have all 3, PIC and DF for 2002, and RFP will be upgraded to FS9 capable. Plus all 3 have good support forums.JMHORobert

<>The whole package or just parts of it? Quite frankly that sort of comment leaves me completely bemused. I can understand that you might not like some aspects of FS2004 but what specifically do you dislike so much you need to use that overused, and quite frankly, ridiculous expression?I'll be keeping FS2002 purely for the 767PIC but from now on FS2004 is by far the better sim. And what makes it better for me? Realistic clouds vs flat textureless blobs when viewed from above and scenery that really makes England look like England.

Are you bemused Ray? Well, bully for you.I was being fatuous, if you must know.As for what parts of FS2K4 I think "suck", well, here are 5 reasons:1. ULTRA HIGH setting. Hmmm - sounds like a line from Spinal Tap: "This ones goes to 11".2. Those ballyhooed clouds are ONLY available when you select ULTRA HIGH. Otherwise they look suspiciously like flat textureless blobs. I guess I'll have to upgrade my computer yet again: this time to run some clouds.3. England may look like England if you're flying at 3000 feet, but England looks like Anywhere from FL310 where I fly. Do you do a lot of VFR flying in the 767, Ray? I flew above Vancouver BC with FS9 just last night in the Cessna, and while Canada may not be England, the scenery for Vancouver contains several flaws that even a novice scenery painter wouldn't make: ever seen a tunnel represented as a bridge? Or an invisible bridge? Wonder if PEI is still under water, or if Toronto's new runways (3 years plus in the planning) are there? Guess we can just wait for scenery upgrades from talented designers who don't work for MS to fix that, cause I bet you a bob MS won't be upgrading, or patching, or fixing any of those mistakes (just like they didn't for FS2002).4. Those "historical" aircraft are a joke - MS has got to be kidding. Wait, they aren't a joke - they suck.5. New MP won't allow connection with SB - wonder why MS did that? Could the Zone benefit? Could MS make a few bob from a netwtork they create?I'm not an MS basher - but I am a consumer, and this version smells like rotten fish to me. I bought it, and I will inevitably drop FS2002 to fly FS9. Until FS10 comes along that is. The next version will ship with a key chain and 5 CD's, and will only run on a Pentium 7, with 1.2 GIG ram.;)DS CVA3339 / UKD149System: Attlon 900 McW Hamster/Gerbilized Quantum Accessible 55Gig Iodized-Encrusted Four-poster with Mega-brill Farzenhuuven http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

>1. ULTRA HIGH setting. Hmmm - sounds like a line from Spinal>Tap: "This ones goes to 11".LOL - you got a point there!>2. Those ballyhooed clouds are ONLY available when you select>ULTRA HIGH. Otherwise they look suspiciously like flat>textureless blobs. I guess I'll have to upgrade my computer>yet again: this time to run some clouds.Ok what are you talking about here? Under Display/Weather, check detailed clouds, set the slider below that to whatever looks best to you (I have it on "high"), and set 3D cloud percentage to 100%. I don't see having to set anything to ultra high anywhere. I have a 2 year old system and it runs pretty well with these settings. You're not just "running clouds" by the way - the whole weather system is dynamic. This is gonna get crazy when Active Sky 2.0 comes out and lets you see a thunderstorm out in the distance while the weather is completely different in the local area where you are - this is so much better than FS2002, not even up for debate in my book.>3. England may look like England if you're flying at 3000>feet, but England looks like Anywhere from FL310 where I fly.>Do you do a lot of VFR flying in the 767, Ray? I flew above>Vancouver BC with FS9 just last night in the Cessna, and while>Canada may not be England, the scenery for Vancouver contains>several flaws that even a novice scenery painter wouldn't>make: ever seen a tunnel represented as a bridge? Or an>invisible bridge? Wonder if PEI is still under water, or if>Toronto's new runways (3 years plus in the planning) are>there? Guess we can just wait for scenery upgrades from>talented designers who don't work for MS to fix that, cause I>bet you a bob MS won't be upgrading, or patching, or fixing>any of those mistakes (just like they didn't for FS2002).They're doing the whole world remind you, I wouldn't expect them to get every last real bridge/tunnel etc right for $54.99.>4. Those "historical" aircraft are a joke - MS has got to be>kidding. Wait, they aren't a joke - they suck.I won't use them at all because it's not what interests me, but I've actually heard they're not all that bad if you're into old planes. The panels and VC's certainly look better than most MS default aircraft.>5. New MP won't allow connection with SB - wonder why MS did>that? Could the Zone benefit? Could MS make a few bob from a>netwtork they create?Yes it does work with the IVAO app - I connected to VATSIM with it a couple nights ago. And please - MS can't possibly think that the Zone is a viable competetor to VATSIM, they changed some parameters in the multiplayer code (probably done for optimizations, things like sending data about the gear, lights, props etc) to make it better. The fact that an old beta version of SB, which has been continually added onto since FS98 doesn't work perfectly with no patching isn't surprising.Ryan

>5. New MP won't allow connection with SB - wonder why MS did>that? Could the Zone benefit? Could MS make a few bob from a>netwtork they create?This change is actually related to security of MP sessions. It doesn't make a difference on VATSIM and similar network since you don't normally have others join your MP session directly but it does make a difference to those who use FS's MP capabilities to fly with others.I'm not trying to be an apologist here. I don't like the change any better than the next guy but this rationale for the change does make some sense to me.cz

DShutt,<< I was being fatuous, if you must know.>>fatuous: adjective complacently or inanely foolishI looked up fatuous just so I'd know exactly what you meant. Couldn't disagree with you there. How was I suppose to know that then?<<1. ULTRA HIGH setting. Hmmm - sounds like a line from Spinal Tap: "This ones goes to 11".>>It's just a description. Why get so bothered by it?<>It's hard to work out what computer you have since you seem to have a bizarre sense of humour. If it is an Athlon 900 then yes, you are going to need a new computer. It's not very realistic to expect FS2004 to run reasonably on such a low spec machine.<>How droll. Just because this is the 767 forum doesn't mean we use that aircraft exclusively.You can't realistically expect Microsoft to depict the world 100% correctly in a home simulation product. Go and spend a few thousand on a professional one and you would have grounds to complain.I won't be flying the historical aircraft either but they certainly don't "suck" to use your eloquent expression. What would you suggest they put into a centenary product? Another Boeing perhaps?<>So you don't like it but will carry on using it anyway despite the fact that you won't be able to fly the 767PIC? Hmmm, I'm bemused again. Time to go.

Does dissent bother you Ray?Does humour have to be followed by a smily face?Is your hovercraft full of eels?DS CVA3339 / UKD149System: Attlon 900 McW Hamster/Gerbilized Quantum Accessible 55Gig Iodized-Encrusted Four-poster with Mega-brill Farzenhuuven http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

Guyz guyz, a little less of the arguing and i little more of the decent conversations here please... let's not trash this forum's rep!!imho i'm sticking with FS2K2 aswell untill all my fav addons are 100% compatible with FS2K4 and so on...(at this time : NOPE)Cheers