Sounds like more of a reason to take a printed airport diagram with you to write on.

In FSX, I mostly enjoy flying the default Cessna at a few thousand feet. I want things to look nice and fit together as much as possible. I dont use realistic settings because to me they arent as pretty. Im not a real world pilot and its been quite a while since Ive flown as a passenger. I have to rely on photographs (which can lie), video from news helicopters, and my memory in order to have a basic idea of what things look like from the air.Ive never been a very strict 'procedures' type person. Im more laid back and just want to enjoy the sim. It can look really good.Mountainous areas in the morning or before sunset are quite nice. FTX looks great. I cant wait to see what they do with the Chesapeake Bay area.(if the get there). Im happy with what theyve done so far. I like being able to pause the sim. I like being able to save the flight and continue some other time. I like being able to go where Ive never been before 9and most likely never will go in real life). Im one of those who loves maps and satellite imagery. I love the 'birds eye view'. flight sim is a great way to pretend you are somewhere flying near those mountains over that lake (that actually is there in real life). thats why I njoy the Chesapeake Bay area so much. I grew up near there but rarely saw it from the air. Now I get my chance.

Dave,Your comments really struck a chord with me. I feel pretty much the same way...though I'm still with FS9. (FSX coming soon.)John

Staying on topic I would say at a mimimum >A Scenery Texture package that completly addresses the dreadfuly bad default desert type textures all over the place. Also replacing the fake grey haze with a more realistic filtered Blue haze,(notice how in real life distant objects such as dark shadows or distant mountains look more and more Blue the further they are away). That right there would be a great start. FSX scenery looks like it was an abortion.Textures look like they tried to base them on the USGS Globe Texture Model all most to the tee, great for a globe in the class room butt ugly in the sim, looks half way done.

I find it intriguing to monitor via this forum, the huge differences in "preferences" for the use of FSX. By that I am talking about the types of add-ons that we individually want to enhance our personal requirements for FSX. The catagories range from scenery, textures, highly detailed aircraft, weather engines, ATC, AI, animation/effects and sounds. We all purchase add-ons to enhance our perception of reality to our use of FSX. Personally, I fly the Cessna 172 default, 3-8000ft over the highest detailed photoscenery I can get, REX/FEX for clouds/sky/water etc, GEX for US/Can where I don't have photscenery, ASA for weather, TrafficX & UT2 for AI (TrafficX only for military). You can tell that I appear to use FSX for it's visual effects while "flying" a simple plane. I guess I like creating scenic flights and then adding more challenges to each flight via weather/nighttime flights/totally manual flights etc.Question: do we all hone in on a particular aspect of FSX and then enhance that/those aspects to try and create as much "reality" as possible. Example, many simmers appear to want high spec, highly technical airliners,live weather, live ATC and fly at 36000ft across the Atlantic....personally I would be bored sick once the autopilot was on ! There are too numerous other preferences to mention. I would be really interested to know....What's your "Reality" preference?

My "reality" has changed with every version of fs since the beginning.From 1981 to 1989 when I was a simmer only-I bumbled along flying whatever in whatever fashion-when fs4 and its' scenery designer came out the first thing I did is place my house in the scenery so I could buzz it. I had no idea what I was doing but loved it.In 1989 when I started flying lessons-I used fs4 for very serious practice. Every rw lesson I took would be replayed at home with the pause button so I could see my track and see how I had done. A repeated series of xwind takeoffs in the sim with my still faithful ch pedals cured me of using the yoke as a "steering wheel" and saved much time. I did all all ppl maneuvers-s turns etc. with different xwinds on fs and would go back afterwords and see how I had done.When I got my instrument rating is was practicing instrument flying... Adf approaches on the sim with pauses to see how I was doing was most helpful, along with partial panel,power settings etc.In the mid 1990's when Pro Pilot and Fly came out and I was exploring much of the US in my rw plane-these sims became more useful as they allowed me to visualize terrain and situational awareness before going, and had more real working avionics to practice on and weather effects.When real weather/terrain came out with fs2000 I was back-it was for real weather flying. Flights I might have "weanied" out on were flown at home on the computer to see what I would have really experienced and how I would have done. Atc and the ability to fly approaches with atc in the next incarnation of fs was very useful.When working on my commercial-it was Chandelles, Lazy eights etc. Even though the sim was lacking flight model wise in these areas it was a great way to reinforce the mindwork.When getting the Commercial ifr multi rating it was about failing engines and doing single engine approaches, securing engines while maintaining heading/altitude etc.Now...mostly keeping ifr proficiency , flying in real weather, failing engines, situational awareness of new places flying to, and practicing on real working instruments (Reality xp Garmin 430 for instance) .Now despite all that history-I like realistic scenery as much as anyone, and better looking clouds, and more faithful aircraft/instrumentation/sounds as all these add to the immersion factor. Once I saw FSx's sharp ground textures my reality went way up-and I still feel draping autogen over them can destroy this new clarity and make it look like the past sim (as the autogen pretty much covers it up). As reported here- the latest 3d drivers from nvidia with a pair of glasses adds quite a lot to the immersion factor (and tends to make the sharper textures look almost 3d without the autogen). I do find I don't use atc at all (just don't really need the practice anymore), and I have turned ai air traffic now completely off-although fun just not really needed to keep the skills up-but the fps on my 2 year old system go in the buttery 40's -60's all the time with it off even with car traffic and that is valuable. I don't fly long routes as I get bored-but I do fly approaches, and holds/missed approaches to airports I may visit with real weather downloads-or setting weather to its' most miserable. I even have a goal to take a given book of approach plates and fly every approach to every airport in it-it takes a while but is useful.I still don't have much interest in complex airlines but perhaps that will come at some point.One of my future goals is to learn more about the g1000 by using the Flight One Mustang.So in short-I think we all use it differently-and in my case what I want to do changes quite a bit. One of the strengths of the Fs series is it always (except in the 1990's for me) seems to be able to be made into what you want.One of my flying partners is also a commercial glider pilot. He hasn't got past the gliding in Fsx since it has come out-he loves it.Me-I haven't even tried the gliding yet-may never even though I've been up with him a couple times. Just not my interest.Just shows what an amazing program we have here.

I like the challenge of big, complicated airplanes and watching my map in FS Flight Keeper get more flights to different places. So mostly that's what I do. It isn't so much a relaxing time I'm looking for, but a mental challenge, because I like learning new things. It spreads beyond the sim itself into reading about aviation, writing reviews, doing simple graphics (even so little as a sig banner) and socializing on forums. It keeps a lot of different parts of my brain active.I like trying to be disciplined and following SIDs and STARs and using airport diagrams instead of progressive taxi. Radar Contact is a big help here.I like things to look good, especially the sky, since I spend most of my time there, and REX has really paid off as one of my best add-ons because otherwise you're not going to be able to maintain a sky full of beautiful big clouds.The missions are fun, too. I like some reason to fly. Just picking two cities and flying between them isn't the same as being in a VA somehow, or using Air Hauler. The game aspects of it, I suppose. One thing I would like to see would be real airline missions of high quality. There are hints here and there, but I think missions are the most underdeveloped (or least advertised / appreciated) elements of this hobby.I really have to stop buying new airplanes. I have more than enough right now. Doing the review of the 757 forced me to really get to know that one airplane in a way not typical for me, and it was nice to have a real confidence. But the pull of novelty is very strong. Again, it comes back to the stimulation of new things. I wouldn't call sticking with one airplane boring; I just find it hard to resist something new and cool. I'm a marketer's dream.I don't really have anything to complain about with FSX. It is a stable, beautiful platform that supports an increasing number of excellent add-ons. If five years from now I'm still using FSX on much better hardware, then I'll be happy.

.What's your "Reality" preference?

Dunno.. I like all areas to look as good as possible, but when it comes down to it I like the most accurate looking and functioningcockpit as possible. I'm more into flying the plane, vs looking outthe window all the time.I haven't added any third party scenery to mine yet. But I have shuffled some of the textures around to look more appropriate for the area flown over. There is plenty of room for improvement as far as the stocktextures. In some areas, they look great as is. Other areas, often rural, pretty lame and often shows little resemblance tothe area. Another weak area to me is the night lighting. I could probably fix a lot of that myself, but I've been real FS lazy and haven't tried anything. I had released night light programs for older versions of FS..I think I named them "lightbulbs" if I remember right. That was FS98 I think.. Time flies.. :/But I'd like to try something like that for FSX. The only deal..The shear number of textures involved makes for a big job.. :(Not something I can just whack out in a weekend or two..Or at least if I wanted to do every night texture file, and editto make sure all match the day textures.The problems I have with the stock night lighting is it looks tooorange to me, and it's way too scarce for many rural areas. It's like flying over a glowing bar-b-q- pit.. :/If I fly from Houston to Dallas at night, it's pretty much non stoplighting all the way in the real world. Even in the country.All the house lights, car lights show up.. But often with FSX,you would think the world is uninhabited below.Just the occasional bar-b-q pit below..But I've never done any testing to see if FSX coded certain"white" colors to light at night like the old versions did.Might not even work using that older method.. Dunno..I would think it should though being as the buildingwindows light up. Anyway, my idea of the ulto sim is a VC that is so real lookingand real functioning that you feel like you are in the real thing.I want to have to fly it like the real thing. IE: accurate autopilot functions, etc. I don't even fly 2d panels any more unless I have no choicefor a certain aircraft. I find 2d panels lame vs the VC..The scenery now is good nuff for gov work as far as I'm concerned. It can easily be upgraded. Heck, I bet most of the best full motion sims don't have anybetter scenery than FSX. They spend 85% of their effort onthe "front office". And I feel pretty much the same way withthe puter sims. I value a super accurate cockpit #1.Course, the flight model may tie for #1... Look of the aircraft, #2.Look of the wx and scenery #3.ATC is pretty important, but I'm not sure where I would rate it.. :/

I love maps and history and terrain and I want accurate geography more than anything. If the road and river and mountain should be right there, then I want it right there. If it's a bit cartoony, that fine, as long as it's accurate.I have the basic Silver Bullet (FSX+GEX+UTX+FEX+FSGenesis). More is better, but I'm happy with what I've got. I want as close to real geography as I can get. I'll never see 99% of the places I fly, so I want my FSX experience to be as close to a virtual vacation and leaning experience as possible.FSX is a unique and wonderful learning tool to experience our planet. It's an amazing treat to read history books and then fly over the area you're learning about and get a bird's eye view. For example, while was reading Antony Beevor's excellent book Crete, about the WWII invasion of the island, I was able to fly over the island and get an idea of distances and shapes and sizes of places. Really, a wonderful treat.

For example, while was reading Antony Beevor's excellent book Crete, about the WWII invasion of the island, I was able to fly over the island and get an idea of distances and shapes and sizes of places. Really, a wonderful treat.

What a great idea! Too often I think of the airplane I want to fly, then scan schedules until I find one, without a lot of care about the actual place I'm visiting. Maybe I'll "rent a plane" after my VA flights and do some sightseeing.

Well what I do with FSX is just commercial flights of different airlines (American, Alaska, Continental, Delta, Southwest) and I use add ons:-fspassengers-fscopilot-fsdreamteam: Chicago, New Yourkso thats what I doTim

I really enjoy flying vfr with the beautiful sceneries available, particularly Orbx. I can't wait till they complete PNW.The one thing that is missing for me is a realistic ATC with a variety of real voices. I think ProPilot had some great voices, but Flight Unlimited I & II were my favorites. I really miss it!There are great sceneries, aircraft, and weather (FEX) Can someone please develop a realistic ATC?Thanks.

From watching the hobby for a few years now, it seems like us 'simmers break down into a few broad groups. You've got your procedural pilots, who mainly live in the pointy end of a jet and can recite SIDs and STARs from memory. They love nothing more than to spend 30 minutes firing up a big jet by the book. From having done it myself, it seems like the main challenge is solving the puzzle of how all the interoperating systems work and mastering using them in the right sequence. As near as I can tell, these guys don't care too much about scenery except for maybe the largest of airports, coincidentally the only ones that can accommodate their 747's. Anything that eats frame rates drives these fellas nuts.Then you've got your GA pilots who fly lower and slower, and who tend to navigate by pilotage and dead reckoning -- maybe falling back on radio nav if it's been a tough day at work. Because they hug it more, they tend to care more about the ground beneath them, and getting the best look they can from their digital world. Like the jet jocks, flight dynamics are also important to them. It's gotta fly like the real thing, or they dump it in a heartbeat.Another crowd just likes to get away from it all, tune out the kids, and go for a flight somewhere. They love adventures, will try just about any plane at least once, and are pretty forgiving of both looks and flight dynamics so long as the subject is interesting and they can have a little fun noodling around with it. I'd bet good money that this type of flier has the largest collection of planes of all of 'em, having downloaded almost anything that looked even mildly interesting. And of course, there's the hardcore military set. They want speed and they want it now. Their biggest lament about FSX is not the frame rates or the never-ending globe-spanning desert, it's that there aren't more things to blow up. They're a small group that fancies themselves in the majority, and a more rabid group of rivet-counters you will never find. If a developer dares stray by a silly millimeter from the factory drawings, they string him up by his toes, but a more loyal group of customers you'll never find once they approve of the work.Of course, these guys tend to mix and match. I'm a GA flier at heart, but mainly because I don't have the time to put into learning full-scale heavy iron simulations. That doesn't mean I don't still give it a shot occasionally. Right now, in fact, in the middle of modeling several GA fields, I'm trying to teach myself to fly the MD-80 Pro. Mostly though, I'm an artist and I'm enthralled by the 3D depiction of the planet. I can spend hours looking at screenies of nice scenery, especially if there's a sexy plane in the shot somewhere.

From watching the hobby for a few years now, it seems like us 'simmers break down into a few broad groups. You've got your procedural pilots, who mainly live in the pointy end of a jet and can recite SIDs and STARs from memory. They love nothing more than to spend 30 minutes firing up a big jet by the book. From having done it myself, it seems like the main challenge is solving the puzzle of how all the interoperating systems work and mastering using them in the right sequence. As near as I can tell, these guys don't care too much about scenery except for maybe the largest of airports, coincidentally the only ones that can accommodate their 747's. Anything that eats frame rates drives these fellas nuts.Then you've got your GA pilots who fly lower and slower, and who tend to navigate by pilotage and dead reckoning -- maybe falling back on radio nav if it's been a tough day at work. Because they hug it more, they tend to care more about the ground beneath them, and getting the best look they can from their digital world. Like the jet jocks, flight dynamics are also important to them. It's gotta fly like the real thing, or they dump it in a heartbeat.Another crowd just likes to get away from it all, tune out the kids, and go for a flight somewhere. They love adventures, will try just about any plane at least once, and are pretty forgiving of both looks and flight dynamics so long as the subject is interesting and they can have a little fun noodling around with it. I'd bet good money that this type of flier has the largest collection of planes of all of 'em, having downloaded almost anything that looked even mildly interesting. And of course, athere's the hardcore military set. They want speed and they want it now. Their biggest lament about FSX is not the frame rates or the never-ending globe-spanning desert, it's that there aren't more things to blow up. They're a small group that fancies themselves in the majority, and a more rabid group of rivet-counters you will never find. If a developer dares stray by a silly millimeter from the factory drawings, they string him up by his toes, but a more loyal group of customers you'll never find once they approve of the work.Of course, these guys tend to mix and match. I'm a GA flier at heart, but mainly because I don't have the time to put into learning full-scale heavy iron simulations. That doesn't mean I don't still give it a shot occasionally. Right now, in fact, in the middle of modeling several GA fields, I'm trying to teach myself to fly the MD-80 Pro. Mostly though, I'm an artist and I'm enthralled by the 3D depiction of the planet. I can spend hours looking at screenies of nice scenery, especially if there's a sexy plane in the shot somewhere.

A very good summary Bill and exactly what I was waiting to see in a response. I think it shows that this great sim has the abilty to suit almost anyone by offering the kind of options/preferences you listed above. We have the extremes of being able to choose if we want to insert ourselves in the cockpit and be surrounded by technology and processes, or we can get in a Trike and fly over beautiful scenery and not really give a damn about the plane ! Respect to all & their particular preferences.Regardsjjaycee