Is it true? Did Microsoft leave out bridges in various and random parts of the world? I'm from the Tampa Bay area and I can't believe that they left out the Skyway bridge. Is there any way that I could import files from my fs2002 into fs2004 to make the scenery more real? I still can't believe it?! Bob

I reported this problem on June 28 a month before COF was released. All I got for my effots was some namecalling from some idiots calling me a troll for reporting it. They said I had a beta version but it actually was a full release. Sending observations/bugs to this forum because of these jerks is risky business.Perhaps there is some feeware/payware group working hard on a release called "Bridges for COF." They will clean up $$$$$ because of this Microsoft glitch.

It has been posted many times but I will repeat the information.The bridges being left out is not a mistake but a choice in programming MS made for the future of the sim.Instead of hand drawing every bridge in the world which would take an eternity to do (and was the past way of doing bridges)-the old hand drawn bridges were replaced by a new "autogen" type system.In the past-only the more famous bridges were done -each individually-a very small percentage of the world wide bridges out there (but of course the more famous ones). Now a database/autogen logic is used-meaning a more worldwide representation of bridges-all types and sizes, at the expense of the fewer famous past hand drawn ones.This was a programming choice to enable growth for the future that MS made. The famous bridges that are missing will be hand drawn by individuals (already being done)-but in the meatime the world is populated with more bridges in places they would have never occured.Obviously, this is not everyones favorite decision-but I think it allows for more growth of the sim now-and into the future.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

I think FS9 is full of bugs as well! I noticed that my street was left out intentionally as well and the street lights at the corner and the 7-11 around the block, what was MS thinking???!!!!(all in fun) ;-)C'mon guys, I am sure it will be made by a 3rd party scenery designer soon enough, if not learn to design and add it yourself............I already got the street and the street lights in! LOLRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

>Instead of hand drawing every bridge in the world which would take >an eternity to do (and was the past way of doing bridges)-the old >hand drawn bridges were replaced by a new "autogen" type system.I do agree there is some sort of autogen system. But when comparing FS2004 to FS2002 there seems to be 'less' bridges in FS2004. If so it kinda defeats the purpose of the autogen system.Even with the autogen system you can still see one of a kind bridges there, like the Brooklyn bridge.But the bridge details are better in FS2004. But the on-ramps to most of the bridges in FS2004 bend far too sharply.I think they'll do a better job in FS2006 WRT to bridges. And maybe we'll see a patch address some of the really bad instances of bridges.Regards.Ernie.

I talked to them in Oshkosh about this issue.I am still not quite sure why the old bridges had to be removed, but there was only time to redo some, not all could be replaced in the given cycle time (I read on another board that it takes about a week to get one done-at least by freeware designers)-hence why the Brooklyn bridge is there but not the Coronado in San Diego for example.As far as "less" bridges in 2004-I don't think that is the case. Go to remote areas such as Glacier park or just about anywhere in the world that isn't a major city and you will find a bridges populating the landscape (and yes even some with errors).As a side issue-it is interesting while there has been all the screaming and hollaring about bridges that I have seen none about buildings missing in fs2004 that were there in fs2002.In Detroit -the center tower of the Renn center (80 stories) is now gone....Why? Well it used to be that you had some hand drawn buildings like the Renn center, and then with fs2004-a few autogened buildings giving a somewhat "feeling" of a city.Now with autogen maxed out-flying over Detroit feels very real as buildings of different types populate the entire area all over(rural included also). For some reason though-it appears some of the original "hand drawn" got lost or had to be removed in the process.I think despite loosing a few specific buildings the look of cities is much more real-New York looks incredible with the autogen turned to the max. Should I be angry that the center tower is gone?-I think someone will probably replace it and if I am that worked up I will download it and be happy. However, I am actually more impressed with the look of the city than that one missing building at this point.I think the bridge issue is much the same and is at this stage in an evolution-much as when fs98 abandened the hand drawn topography and went to the real world based on data.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

>I reported this problem on June 28 a month before COF was>released. All I got for my effots was some namecalling from>some idiots calling me a troll for reporting it. They said I>had a beta version but it actually was a full release. Sending>observations/bugs to this forum because of these jerks is>risky business.>>Perhaps there is some feeware/payware group working hard on a>release called "Bridges for COF." They will clean up $$$$$>because of this Microsoft glitch.Pocomadre, were you a beta tester or member of the press?

Oh. It was a CHOICE. Before, I thought they'd just been unattentive, now I know they were simply lazy. I feel better now.

Lazy??

Heh heh.I have to say I'm more worried about things like leaving half the ADF frequencies out of my beloved DC-3's panel (you can't tune between 421 through 489 MHz) than whether a bridge is there or not. This is a flying sim. Seems like too many of the beta testers must have been too busy going "oooh, there's my house" rather than actually flying the new aircraft! It's a pretty sim, but it's very glitchy for me, to date. Glad, personally, that I haven't got one of those self-important "I was a beta tester for FS9" banners but I wouldn't mind a crack next time.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Well I don't know what special powers it seems many expect beta testers to have. A beta tester tests and reports.....I never tried to find my house-but neither did I bother to fly the Dc3 in my case (I have never flown one in real life and wouldn't know the first thing about it). I was much more interested in flying the way I do in real life-and testing that reality. I tested that aspect considerably....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Whoa sorry, Geof; no slight on you whatsoever as your input has always been most informative (and you don't have a silly banner, LOL!). I'm just curious a) how are beta testers appointed and :( are they then given a brief to test particular aspects, or is the whole thing a bit wooly i.e. pin the tail on the donkey ... it's somewhere here in 23,000 airports, bridges, aircraft ....?Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

The Nda doesn't allow me to comment on your particular questions. It would be nice to -but that is what we agreed to...No slight taken. :-)I am tiring though of seeing some of the more insulting comments-for instance-on another board stating "what I hate are lawyers, beta testers...." etc.I think anyone who appreciates the huge, enormous, world wide/flight/weather/performance complexity of this program can figure where up and down and around is for everyone involved in this program.There are no conspiracies, just a lot of hard working individuals on all ends. As such-I continue to bite my lip at the more insulting or downright incorrect comments (sometimes barely able to control my emotion), and try to help out or explain where I can.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

>>Instead of hand drawing every bridge in the world which>would take >an eternity to do (and was the past way of doing>bridges)-the old >hand drawn bridges were replaced by a new>"autogen" type system.>>I do agree there is some sort of autogen system. But when>comparing FS2004 to FS2002 there seems to be 'less' bridges in>FS2004. If so it kinda defeats the purpose of the autogen>system.>Actually, I see a lot more bridges.Major highway bridges outside the US for example that were never there before (while small backroad ones in the US were) are now visible.>I think they'll do a better job in FS2006 WRT to bridges. And>maybe we'll see a patch address some of the really bad>instances of bridges.Maybe a service pack, certainly no patch.As to people thinking Microsoft should have handchecked every bridge in the world, please calculate the time that would take.Say an average travel time of 2 hours to get to a bridge for some Microsoft employee (and that's optimistic). Say 1 minute to get a GPS fix. 2 hours back to the office. 5 minutes for putting it into an email to the FS team. 10 minutes to check if the location has a bridge and if not to add it.That's 4 hours and 16 minutes per bridge. Round down to 4 hours 15 minutes for convenience.Given a worldwide number of around 100000 bridges that's 425.000 man hours of work. That would take 205 people working fulltime (40 hour weeks) almost a year to complete.

Did you check the specs for a real DC-3 cockpit (1930s equipment level)?Quite likely you'll find those same frequencies not to be present.