>FS2004 needs a patch!!:)Cheers,Gosta,http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

This a trend that has been increasing lately in some of the Avsim forums. I fail to see that if someone is friendly, polite and articulate about the subject matter, even if it contains criticism's of a yet to be released product, that he should be labled a "whiner". I thought these were open to free discussion's. I'm sure it was made in good fun, but even one of the moderater's made a comment about a "whine filter" ( though I could have used one of those raising my kid's!). Critisism can be good and productive. Putting labels on people is not. Just a few FRIENDLY thought's. Fitz retired nonconformist

Heh, I'll start that right now... FS2004 is shaping up to be one of the biggest disappointments ever... Those clouds, to me, are hardly worthy of a new release. You can get nearly the same effect with other freeware products available now for FS2002. The only thing that might turn me into a convert will be if they actually get frontal systems done right, with winds shifting as they should as you pass through the front, clouds actually building up instead of just materializing in front of you as you fly, etc.But I'm not hopeful... None of the screenshots I've seen so far suggest anything more than mere eye candy.

>2 weeks after the release at the latest, the whining for a>patch will start. :-lol>>WolfgangI thought this was the patch!Tim

Hi, "Those clouds, to me, are hardly worthy of a new release. You can get nearly the same effect with other freeware products available now for FS2002."Complelty wrong, the visual and weather engine is not available annywhere from 3rd party in fs2002. Fs2002 weather engine remain non fixable bugs and limited. In fs2004 you have a completly new weather engine, with weather maps, dynamics weather, clouds that's do not disappears a la fs2002 when you get higher or lower in distant, non line in the horizon, tons of clouds type selection available built in by default,Far clouds, clouds front, clouds can reach high altitude, clouds that's form and dissipate according to the condition, new rain/snow, new lightning bold etc. Also add, 3d clouds, environment sky color and accurate lights on clouds non available in fs2002. These information was already available in the past from previous preview and screenshots on many web site.If you tell me it is like fs2002, there is serious problem here..RegardsChris

Hi, "I thought this was the patch!"It's depend if you know what's is a patch..Go see what's is a patch from Medal of Honor and BatteFeild from a High Company Standard Line product's.Product's that's require tons of patch = A bad product from the start with tons of error and trying to save the franchiseThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

"Product's that's require tons of patch = A bad product from the start with tons of error and trying to save the franchise"Here I have to step in and disagree. Ole Lange, author of No Limits, arguably the best Coaster sim out there, has released several patches in the year and a half since No Limits release. No Limits had fewer problems out of the gate than FS2002 did (although Microsoft didn't patch FS2002, there were/are some things broken in the sim--copter gear that wouldn't retract unless you hit pause, multiplayer, PEI (or the lack thereof), and an odd missing object error in two major scenery areas of the sim--near London and JFK).All the things I mentioned, with the exception of multiplayer and the copter issue, were addressed in one way or another by the community--not by Microsoft. And except for multiplayer, I think all were very minor. Ole had fewer issues with his sim, which is also complex. Not only did he patch them--he didn't stop there. He added to the sim features which he felt needed to be there--features he felt his customers didn't have to pay for. He's a small player against giants like Microsoft, which is exactly why he fixed issues that I don't think Microsoft would have patched, had they owned No Limits. It just comes down to what wins business and maintains it. Microsoft can maintain business in part because a large community exists to support their product. With a smaller user base, Ole HAS to maintain business himself to succeed, and is using a smart strategy, IMHO. I'll be a customer as long as he's in business.-John

Like, what's with all the people who complained about PEI being underwater?I mean, come on, how many people actually fly there?Whiners.;)>2 weeks after the release at the latest, the whining for a>patch will start. :-lol>>Wolfgang

2 weeks?The fs.com forums locked a post whining about an FS2004 patch LAST MONTH, a full 3 months BEFORE release of the sim...

You obviously feel personally insulted by people calling your whining whining?Take FS2002 as an example. There was nothing major wrong with it, certainly nothing warranting a patch (which is after all meant to be an emergency fix for an immediate and serious problem affecting either a very important customer or the majority of customers).Patches are specifically NOT meant to improve eyecandy and fix minor flaws that don't seriously affect product usability.

What you call patches are specifically NOT patches. They're feature upgrades.They may be released as downloadable updates to the original product or a completely new product shipped (either free or for a price) to existing customers but they're NOT patches.Patches are ONLY meant to be fixes for critical problems with a product, not to change or add functionality or fix minor flaws like the colour of a texture (a missing texture might be included in a patch for something else, but would not warrant one of its own).

Which was a rumour based on lies started by someone wanting to harm Microsoft.From testers I've had confirmation the island will be there in the release version of FS2004.And I agree it's a non-critical issue as noone ever goes there anyway (otherwise the testers for FS2002 would have found it :)).>Like, what's with all the people who complained about PEI>being underwater?>>I mean, come on, how many people actually fly there?>>Whiners.>>;)>>>>2 weeks after the release at the latest, the whining for a>>patch will start. :-lol>>>>Wolfgang>

I don't mind some criticism, but it seems obvious, that some of the stuff mentioned is so minor, as to be ridiculous.Does anyone forget that FS2002 and soon to be FS2004 represent one of the most complex flight simulation products available for ANY platform?In addition to being a flight simulator, I have heard criticisms that range from the fact that you can't see inside a terminal window, to the rant that they removed the moving traffic on the roads that was in FS2000?Come ON!!! Is this a flight simulator, or a world simulator? Are there going to be people who are upset becase the snow doesn't blow across the runway in a realistic pattern>Now, we are even debating how real the weather subsystem will be. Anyone who has worked in the field of weather knows how daunting that alone is. If we had computer models that could really accurately recreate this Earths "weather" system, then weather prediction would be much better than it is now.Yet, somehow, it's not good enough to have Real weather conditions simulated, we need actual weather fronts, and if they don't act right, then this simulator will suck.Oh, and god forbid should it cost more than $75.00Perhaps us older FS addicts get a little hopped up, when we see this stuff because we know where FS was. We were on 8 bit PC's and marvelling at wireframe airports and 16 color (not 16 bit, 16 color) renditions of Downtown Chicago, or Downtown Seattle. Mount Rainier was a single flat white Triangle. The airports were simply runway outlines in white against a see of green. Cities were Grey, Woods were green, Mountains were brown and white, and water was blue.I remember when FS first started using Bitmapped runways. Wow! and cities started having "dots" on them representing lights. A LOT has changed since thenThere is a difference between constructive criticism and being malcontent. And in some cases some of these posts ring of not being appreciative for what we have. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll think I'll take the Cessna up for a spin. I thought I saw a place on Mount Rainier, where the FS team misplaced a Glacier....What a bunch of slackers!!!!Grins, and lets keep this stuff in perspective.

One of my favorite images to use for the chronic whiners in the PAI forums.Cut and paste in your browser (image is way to big for the Avsim forums)http://fsgateway.com/frank/whining.jpg)---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize FSGateway/ProjectAI sig banner here

A patch is not by definition for only bug fixes. The term "patch" refers to a set of changes that are applied to an existing software package, such that users are not required to replace the whole thing.Modular plugins or add-ons don't count, but a change to a program executable or library to add, change, or remove functionality does.Many games and some applications uses patches to add features or fix minor flaws. Microsoft just happens to not do that with many games. Your analysis of patches being meant for only fixes to critical problems does not apply to much of the gaming industry.What can be said is that we should not [strong]expect[/strong] Microsoft to address minor flaws in or add features to FS 2004 through patches.

http://brianc.vip.warped.com/kpwk_sig.gif