Sure looks that way, John.My opinion: FS2002 wasn't "broke", and so MS "haven't fixed it". :)What they have done is attacked the elements which were lacking, and improved them. I'd much sooner the folks at MS spend time improving the elements of FS2002 which have been negatively commented on, than overworking what I feel to be a very good terrain and core engine.--M

Hehe, I just remembered that I bought FS2002 one year ago because the screenshots on the box looked great. The last FS I had seen running on a computer had been FS5, and I had never been an fan of the series. But that one looked like a big improvement.Since then I've become addicted, have come to enjoy great flight dynamics (from people like Rob Young), real-time weather (ActiveSky wxRE), realistic avionics (FSAvionics), and the ability to use a lot of real world ressources with the sim. But I wouldn't have started without good graphics, and I still say without a doubt they add a lot to the immersion.I'm quite sure that you have to pay close attention to the screenshots to realize the improvements. Most of them will only become clear once you have seen the actual running sim. Somebody else mentioned the mist in the valleys on one shot, it looks fantastic! FS2002 does not handle this well. We will only be able to judge the clouds once we will see them in flight. I really hope that there will be no more sudden cloud changes, but real developments as we travel through the atmosphere.We have not seen any screenies from the pilot's perspective yet. I'm confident that the virtual cockpits have seen quite some improvements, but we'll have to wait for screenshots and the finished version to judge that. I really hope that the clickable VCs work as well as the 2D ones.And if 55$ seems too much for some people ... that's about the money a lot of us spend on two, maximum three payware planes, or some good scenery. This is no patch, it's the next version. And I'm really looking forward to it :)Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

Oh, I know I will be pleased! Although the screenshots are from the Alpha build, they look good indeed. Also, the list of features looks promising (but... AI planes flying to/from uncontrolled airports, will that be possible?)There's really no need to develop a new engine for FS2k4 (heh heh, and then still want to pay no more than $70 for a totally revamped version? Get real!). After all, FS2k2 is an amazing piece of software, IMHO all it needs is improving the existing features, and judging by the features-list, this is exactly going to happen (well, not everything, but even FS2k4 will have the need to be improved :-) ).FS2k4 is not a patch. I think it will be great, and I know I will buy it when it is released.

>>>And if 55$ seems too much for some people ... that's about the money a lot of us spend on two, maximum three payware planes, or some good scenery<<

>It's FS2004 so get used to it.Uhhh ... no it ain't! :(>I just wondering if my 2.4 GHZ Pentium with 1 GB RAM will be able to >handle FS9 FS 2004, and GE4 Ti 4200?uhh... it runs on my PC, which has a quarter of your PC specs ... I recon it will! ;)

RUN yes, but how well is the question!Barry

>>It's FS2004 so get used to it.>>Uhhh ... no it ain't! :( >Yes it is :-)At least in the meaning that it is what everyone except Microsoft (who never gave out a name until now) has been calling the next installment in the series :-lol>>I just wondering if my 2.4 GHZ Pentium with 1 GB RAM will be able to >handle FS9 FS 2004, and GE4 Ti 4200?>>uhh... it runs on my PC, which has a quarter of your PC >specs ... I recon it will! ;) Given that the specs are not much higher than for FS2002 (I know they're minimal but the difference between minimal and realistic minimal are about constant) it should run on most machines that happily run FS2002 today.With the improvements, you should also need less resource intensive addons which might actually mean an overall improvement in performance.

Well the need for add-ons has existed with all releases of Flight Simulator. I don't see a change with FS9 FS 2004. Aircraft, ATC, Weather, Airport Scenery, just to name a few. Microsoft can't provide it all (thank goodness).Barry

What do u mean it runs on ur pc? and don't tell me ur a beta tester or something?Are you?hehe

Well.....I showed the screens to a bunch of people who don't even have Flight Sim yet and they are all drooling over the graphics and want this one badly (and nobody can say that THIS isn't an improvement already and we are talking BETA stage max!: http://zone.msn.com/images/FS02/FS9Schweiz...ailplane_10.jpg . Or how about this: http://zone.msn.com/images/FS02/FS9Jenny5a.jpg ).Then I, who has Flight Sim for some time and know how it works, see the features list and also drool (weather, ATC improvements, to name the most important changes).And I see that all the fantastic add-ons that I have for FS2002 can be used without problems in this new version, so I don't exactly dig a bunch of new airliners when we are buried in those already, freeware and payware. Those old planes are an interesting, almost refreshing idea. You want big modern airliners? Just use those which we have for FS2002 already and which I doubt would be beaten by any MS standard planes.Yeah sorry, MS apparently didn't try to re-invent the wheel with this so some of you claim this to be a "patch", but why fix something if it ain't broke? And CFS3 should have shown us that trying to revolutionise everything doesn't automatically get you good results.I for one, am sold. MS could claim 20$ more for this then they are intending now and I would still order it the day it comes out.Regards,Robert

Just halfway down the thread and already I have a clear vision in my head that I want to say. Just one main point:Complain to M$ all you want but:*** Behind that tube you're looking at will NEVER be a completely realistic "life-simulator", with better physics than life itself, TOTALLY comprehensive, flawless ATC system with real life pilots and a fully photo/satellite/3D realistic EARTH where you can find your own house and land on top of it with a helicopter. Period. Things like that exist only in the movies, like Matrix. ***But this is what some think they will be getting, every time. Fully tailored for their own SPECIFIC needs, and what a whine when they don't get it. If it's that bad, I really recommend joining a real life aviation club or something, because a computer "game" will never be able to match real life.Even in the Flight Simulator 2482 you will still find bugs, flaws and deficiencies in realism. Only real life hasn't got any.Concerning all this, I think MS is doing a good job. They are not obliged to make simulators and nobody is obliged to buy them.Now, after I got all that out, my sincere opinion is, that MS should concentrate on the game, physics and weather engines themselves and leave the useless visual gimmickry. Like being able to zoom out to see the earth, who needs that anyway? A waste of pricy resources, I say. The fact is that you can't please everyone with a single product. So what they should do is create as much room as possible for addon developers to create enchancements. Open Source doesn't sound realistic, but decent SDK's would be welcome. For example, a good AI SDK so that better AI ATC environments could be developed for those who need them. My respect to the creators of Radar Contact here. :-beerchug No comments on the pricing but I'm one of those who really look forward to this release.Don't know if all that was a penny's worth but said anyway. ;)

How about flight dynamics.... ??? MS is waay behind when compared to the cutting flight models of sims like IL-2 and Flanker... I'd like to "feel" like I'm flying like I do when I fly these sims that have much more powerful flight/physics models... Hope they improve this on 9, although there's not a word said about revamping the flight models.

Very good point Caveman! And your right not a word was mentioned about better flight models...Tom said in a post yesterday that one of his AVSIM staff was at the press function at Microsoft HQ and that he would be providing us with more info and more screen shots tonight! Hopefully it will shed more light on the subject?

>How about flight dynamics.... ??? MS is waay behind when >compared to the cutting flight models of sims like IL-2 and >Flanker... I'd like to "feel" like I'm flying like I do >when I fly these sims that have much more powerful >flight/physics models... I can think of a particular 3rd party model for FS2002, that has a better flight dynamic envelope than IL-2. The "feel" is the best I've run into! Hint---- RealAir SF260L.Adamson

True, but they're consistently improving the defaults so that more users will be happy without addons.For FS2000 and FS2002 many people use weather addons to provide realtime updates of weather instead of having to manually download.If the new version has that function built in, as well as improving the rendition of that weather, less people will see a need for a 3rd-party weather generator thus potentially freeing up some system resources.The same will be true of scenery. If the defaults get better less people will install framerate killing addons (only to blame Microsoft for creating a poorly performing product afterwards).There will of course always be room for improvement (or at least differing tastes, some of the "improvements" provided by some addons aren't that at all to my taste and you probably have the same idea about some other addons).