I gotta agree, the RealAir SF260 is gotta be the best so far. As far as setting the bar, it does.

Improve your day...throw the CFS3 disk in the CD drive and install only the Directx 8.2 from it. It will improve your frame rates nicely in FS2002 based on my experience. You can decide later on the sim itself.The Seneca is a nice plane. You'll like it over time.Eric

Howdy Larry,I thought the VC was looking pretty good. I use the VC most of the time, as I fly in Stero. On my 19" monitor I had to redo the eyelevel, as I was sitting a bit high for me. I have to keep in mind though that this is a pretty big panel, reduced it to a zoom level of 75 percent, changed the eyelevel to suit me, (1.65), and it works pretty well. With IR tracker it is very realistic in my opinion. All in all I am fairly well satisfied with it. The VC looks better than the Commander did. Doesn't it?

Because I replied to your post above, I will have to say that on the subject of this post I will agree with you 103%

Thank You. I too was disappointed in the VC. I did get a response but they all had FSD logos so I didnt take it too seriously.BobG

>Thank You. I too was disappointed in the VC. I did get a >response but they all had FSD logos so I didnt take it too >seriously. >I had to run for cover at Flightsim.com after making such a suggestion! :)L.Adamson

Totally agree, but watch out, the FSD Folk don't take kindly to criticism.Can't wait for the Meridian. Hopefully you will be able to turn it on the ground with out using left/right break as you have to do in the Seneca ;-)

DON'T install CFS3. Your day will only get worse.Todd

Hi David, I spent $75.00 in Canadian money for a sim that I consider inferior to CFS2. Don't open the box and get a refund...

Well, instead of installing CFS3, I made an impulse buy and purchased Strike Fighter Project 1. It's actually a lot of fun but it's only half-baked. Many features simply don't work but rumor has it the author is still hard at work. I think it will be a winner...someday.So, then I broke down and installed CFS3 (despite many warning here against it!). I agree completely that CFS2 was a better product right off the shelf. It doesn't work well with my Ti4600, yet it sounds like lesser cards don't run it very well either. No mouse-view support, so forget TrackIR support anytime soon (for those of us who have evolved beyond the joystick hat ;-)). Even little things like toe brake support - none! They couldn't even use an interface that most of their longtime users could waltz right into. It's as though they started over completely from scratch. It's FlyII with guns, IMO.So, I paid over $100 this week to be a beta tester for these 4 products. Will they get better over time? Probably, if they actually listen to their "beta testers" instead of abusing them in the forums. But that's a whole 'nother story (and really only pertains to 1 or 2 companies). Actually, I do want to point out that the folks at fsavionics are working their tails off to get their Garmins working.David

Dennis,You correctly point out that sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get less than you pay for (CFS3) and sometimes you get more (Marchetti). I'm not particularly price sensitive so I would much rather pay $50 for a job really well done than $18.50 for something that with just a tad more effort could have been worth twice that. I'm not saying any of these are bad, just not completely functional upon their release or quite up to the hype. I question whether some of these products even have betatesters or if they do, if they listen to them.IMO, the products that I would consider good values at any price, at the time of their release this year would be:Dreamfleet ArcherFlight1 Cessna 421SF260RealityXP - but even that needed some tweaking later on.David