You may well be right, Jeroen, but it seems you may not have checked yourself; or have you? I'd be interested in your 30s spec (40s might be more appropriate, as navigational equipment was usually kept up to date, particularly for the many 42 to 44 built aircraft) so if you have one - or find one - do let me know! I have a long list of things on the default DC-3 which I shan't raise here. First, solutions ... just raising problems helps few.Mark "Dark Moment" BeaumontP.S. A small, pedantic, afterthought: since MS insist on making the cockpits look as though they have been to hell and back - the DC-3's cockpit, although beautifully done, looks about fifty years old - I wonder what time frame they expect us to believe their Gooney Bird should fly in, LOL? Every original picture of a DC-3 of that era I have seen shows a pretty smart cockpit; most restored or operational DC-3s today also have a smart deck. It's only the ones that have fallen apart that look as scruffy. http://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Lazy. I was being kind; it wasn't the first word that came to mind.(for the record, I would have been happiest if they had left the "earth" alone. Adding "extras" such as refined airports,landclass and etc. And planes, weather etc.)

Hi Geof,I agree with your perspective. When you step back and look at the big picture, FS2004 is a nice step forward. When I fly it, I get the feeling the MS employees really care about their product. It seems that there was a lot of effort and love put into it. I also want to thank you Geoff for all the effort you put into testing as well as sharing feedback with us on the forums. I really appreciate it. I guess anyone can look for things to complain about, but I am having to much fun flying to see them :)Tony

Thanks Tony-made my day! :-jumpyhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Thanks Geoff for the scoop.Living here in the Tennesse Valley, I have noticed MANY more bridges. For example, VFR down highway 72, evertime it crosses a creek, it generates a bridge, not necessarily the exact TYPE, but close enough for govt work.I have also noticed it did the same for Wheeler Dam. A little funny as Wheeler Dam also serves as a bridge, so it makes sense. It is much better to have "something" man-made across the river at the right location.The question I have is that it seems for most of the "roads" The Sim actually autogens the bridges.Is the missing bridges (St.Louis, San Diego, and Tampa, for example) due to there not being two "road" classes going to the waters edge for the autogen to "hook"?Just Curious.BTW. I have found that FS2004 better represents everyone due to the generic nature of Autogen, at the sacrifice of specifics in some major metro areas. So while I feel the pain of the San Diego or St.Louis flyer, I am happy they changed it becase it gives MY flying area a lot more fidelity. In the past, if you didn't live within a "metropolitan" area, you were lucky if you got a town texture. So I don't mind a few missing bridges for better worldwide feel.

I'm flying to knoxville tomorrow-look up in the sky for me! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

>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).You may be right, that may be where the autogen was used, and maybe not in major cities which tend to have larger bridges, etc.>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.I have heard some screaming about missing sports stadiums and such (Pac Bell park in SFO for example), but that's all. I agree with you the default scenery especially in the metro areas looks much more realistic in FS2004. Also the bitmapped satelitte images shows roads and highways and parks much better. Those combined with the buildings make the cities look more realistic.Regards.Ernie.

>Maybe a service pack, certainly no patch.What's the difference ? to me the terms seem pretty synonymous.>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.I don't think they would need to go to each bridge to get the coordinates. Most of this information is available electronicallyfrom digital maps etc.And realy most modern bridges fall into a few distinct types and those of the same type look similar. Example: from a distance most suspension bridges especially the ones built after 1950 look very much the same. So I'd think they'd have some bridge templates to work from and it wouldn't take very long to create a new bridge from a template.Regards.Ernie.