FS2004 has been out for about 3 weeks now and it

Hi,I just want to give a couple observations on some of your ratings. Some of them I'm at a little loss on as your praised the area quite a bit but only give it a C+. But then again you did point out a few things you still thought needed improvement. But don't you find the evolution of the product here with the improvements they did make is pretty nice? I really do think they should have done something about the 'go-around' problem though.I liked your critique of the ATC.Quote:SoundOverall rating: FNo apparent effort went into sound improvement. Default aircraft sound the same. Is it that hard for them to sample the sound from the flight deck and outside during an engine run?Hmmm, don't think I have this problem. AI Aircraft sound quite good from outside. I agree there didn't really seem to be any improvement to the sound, but the sound is just fine by me. One thing that I have done to improve sound is follow the advice of FFX/SGA and alter my [sOUND] section in FS9.cfg according to their instructions. The best thing about the alteration is that it gives me sound out of 4 speakers instead of the default 2.[sOUND]SOUND=1SOUND_FADER1=0.480000SOUND_FADER2=0.460000SOUND_FADER3=0.620000SOUND_FADER4=0.800000SOUND_FADER5=0.810000SOUND_FADER6=1.000000SOUND_QUALITY=2Channels=4SamplesPerSec=44100BitsPerSample=16Quote:Add dynamic sound for AI aircraft. Hear the rumble of engines when jets takeoff or when thrust reversers deploy.That would be a cool improvement as well as different voices for ATC.Quote:PanelsOverall rating: FAbsolute garbage. No improvement to default aircraft from 2002. MS really needs to get their act together in this area. There still isn

Hmmm, your review seems pretty harsh. I have just one question, Zdark:Are you a real-life tripple 7 pilot? If so, what airline do you fly for?

That's a negative, I'm not a real life 777 pilot. Yes, some of my comments are harsh but I still give it a passing grade.

Just out of curiosity, what are you using as a grading scale? Is it A = your idea of the perfect sim, or A = your idea of a reasonable "upgrade"? Your critique seems pretty harsh with respect to the later criteria, but perhaps it makes some sense if you were thinking of how a flight sim should function and appear.Aside from a few bugs and odd visuals (reflections, mountain fog, etc) I would give it a loose B+ overall, from the point of view of reasonable upgrade. I think I paid $46 for it, and I feel I definitely got $46 worth and a whole lot more. I do love the Lear now :().Noel

>That's a negative, I'm not a real life 777 pilot. Yes, some>of my comments are harsh but I still give it a passing grade.So your critique of the 777 flight model is based on what?

i definently must agree that kphx is in the top 5 most improved airports in fs2004, i havent gone to many others, btu i would say its at least second most improved, kphx(my home airport) was awful in 2002, now its at least somewhat accurate in 2004, including our new baseball stadium that should have been there in fs2000.

I'm basing my critique of the 777 from the following references:Performance numbers from Boeing's 777 Operations Manual, Boeing's 777 Quick Reference Handbook, Boeing's 777 Flight Crew Training Manual, and http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircom...an_manuals.html 777 sections 2 & 3The steering comment is my own opinion that I formulated after reading the Taxi Speed and Braking section from the FCTM and http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircom...an_manuals.html 777 section 4.Do you have any experience with the 777? If so how would you rate it?