Par. 1 - That should read "entire FS genre" (but I know you all knew)Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

This article got my attention because of the title. And got me thinking. And trying new things. This I would say is a positive result. I have read through this forum. And I find it a little disappointing that there are so many negative comments about what people have said. A discussion in a forum should be a positive experience and have a positive result. Sure one may express an oppinion that may differ from someone elses. But the discussion should be about the theme and not directed at tearing down the way people express themselves. And at that, if it were mentioned it only has to be mentioned once!(Even now as I write, what am I writing about? The way people express themselves. Which unfortunately stood out, as I was reading.) The way people write should be acceptable to all who read. (That does not mean we have to agree with what is being said!) And it should center around and encourage the thinking on the theme of the discussion. Discussions are not meant to tear others down but to help all of us to develop our thinking and come up with better ideas and better solutions to a problem. A lot of discussion with out results is useless!I greatly appriciate those of you who have made positive remarks to Ralph and others. And, Ralph I am glad you wrote your letter because I was one of those who had never flown an adventure and am glad you challenged us to do so! Getting back to the theme. Is it possible that a third party could develope an api that could link to the simulator using Peter Dowsens utilities? That way one could still create the type of adventures we're talking about and not be reliant on what FS-COF will do. Or doesn't a utility like that give you enough control over the simulator? There must be someone out there that has knowladge of creating a third-party add-on which would allow for this, or would the way Microsoft developes the program prohibit this?Sincerely,Jonathan Lueb

Ralph I really don't understand why do u need APLC adventures. They were the best way to add realistic ATC to any adventure in earlyer years, but even if simulated, the most realistic adventure u may have is just flyin online. A pre programmed adventure hasn't the unexpected of an online flight where the controller can be really fair or really good, makin mistakes or just speakin too fast or slowly etc. Hope u tryed flyin online!!HAPPY LANDINGS!!XAMIR (flyin with SNBA VA)

In the end to all people here at the forum i make a simple question:Weren't u all happy with FS98 when we were able to fly all over the world? Didn't we try to catch charts and so on to make our flights more realistic? I got a huge collection of charts tryin to get most free charts (SID, STAR etc). How many of u tryed to taxy just with a diagram of the airport without usin the guidance feature of FS2002? Why do u need so much these adventures? A flight simulator as long as it isn't a full motion sim with someone simulatin ATC can't simulate everythin can happen when on board. I would prefere that microsoft would set a feature to simulate the failures of the plane connected to the way u fly the bird. I really don't think that to lose pre programmed adventures is such a big lose when u can climb the default 737 like a jet fighter or makin loops without that any structural breakdown occurs. So why are u comin with such a marginal topic? Give me a plane that flyes and reacts like a real one and leave me all the adventures and virtua cockpit and AI traffic, I would be happier.Flight simulator still lacks of many many important features cause FS2004 as its "older brothers" is a commercial product that must be sold out. Do u all remember when just after some months FS2002 shipped that many guys already prepared enhanched air files to make a bit more realistic the flight dynamics. I think we should ask, all of us, somethin made for simmers and not for plane spotter. So i still don't understand why to talk about that small feature when many important, and very important, features r missin.Happy LandsXamir

I could not agree more with R.Zimmermann on his quote :>so long as the flight dynamics and fuel>consumption are correct and you have full use of properly>functioning controls, gauges, radios and the like. Erratic taxiing out of control with the CH pedals, erratic and overly sensitive pitching , it just does not ressemble proper flying.The Cessnas have it and the big birds have the same , its all the same basic MS programming which produces unrealistic flight behaviour ... as he says the flight dynamics!!!!!!!!!For me this is the most important aspect of all. Who wants to buy a car where the steering wheel does not behave properly or the RPM gauge is there but does not work......Lets face it real pilots scoff at FS and smile amusedly at us!!!!!If I wasn't hooked on it, I wud quit this hobby, may be I willArt