I agree, but with the time it takes to make up a panel, I think we'll see FS2004 released before a panel the likes of PIC emerges. Not to say anything bad about PSS, I love their products (and the fact that you can download them, that's huge in my book)and will get the Dash 8 as soon as it comes out, but your right in saying it's just not as involved as PIC. I don't have DF737, my needs are met by the A320 in that category, but with Wilco's Airport 2002 including a 737 that should satisfy that (but I'm sure it won't be a very detailed plane). So, other than the PIC 767, and actually, Oleksiy's Dash 8 panel, which once I get all the bugs worked out of it, it's going to be awesome, PSS will have a hard act to follow that one, there doesn't seem to be any other panels out there that model systems as in-depth as the PIC 767. Lobaeux

I ahve to agree with you 100%, Thomas. PSS doesn't quite measure up to PIC's standard. And I HATE not being able to enter airways, and having to manually add all of the waypoints, speed and altitudes in the FMC. I don't see why PSS couldn't remedy that shortcoming..

I think one must keep in mind that there are numerous limitations that prevent panels such as these from achieving the maximum level of realism attained by such panels as PS1. Panel authors are limited by the performance and technical constraints of the simulator in addition to the programmatic interfaces FS provides. FSUIPC cracks alot of that open. Certainly, PIC and the PSS A320 achieve an astounding level of realism never thought possible in a civilian flight sim.But alas, until MS opens their architecture up fully (in much the way that TRI did in Fly! II - pity that flight sim went toes up to the daises :(, there will always be limitations as to what can be achieved from building on top of a simulator. Anyone looking for PS1-level realism will be waiting a very long time I'm afraid ;-)We're getting closer though.J

>But alas, until MS opens their architecture up fully (in >much the way that TRI did in Fly! II - pity that flight sim >went toes up to the daises :(, there will always be >limitations as to what can be achieved from building on top >of a simulator. J,I do not know if you follow the news but if you read (and see some pics) what Flight1/Reality-XP announced regarding their combined effort on the upcoming Meridian project then you will realize that some are really deciphering the FS secret 'codes' and are about to blow wide open seals of the common myths of FS 'limitations'. To the degree not even possible in FLY ...Michael J.

That's what I mean :-rotorThere is no point in creating new heavies for FS2002 now as the market is saturated with the Big 3.As those will most likely not be upgraded for FS2004 (a complete rebuild would almost certainly be needed and that's not commercially viable) there will be a clean sheet for companies to make new ones for FS2004.PSS will indeed likely be in the forefront of that. They have a reputation to loose after all for creating the best heavies out there.

If it were a really great product they'd have included a visual model good enough that there is no need to replace it with something else.Everyone says "PIC is great IF you replace the visual with POSKY".Guess what, to me that sounds like an incomplete product.Had they marketted it as a panel only, things might be different. But the package as a whole is lacking because the visuals are poorly done.You can say the panel is more important, and I'd have to agree to a degree, but if people have to replace the visuals with others to gain performance on highend machines in order to make it run (and in the process to have something decent to look at) that's not what I call a well-ballanced product.