... But I miss the days when the release of each new aircraft raised the SIMULATION bar just a bit higher. I miss the days when the competition forced each developer to bring something new to the table and show off their talents with each release. Today, the race is to see who can lower the bar and not offend the flight sim consumer with the annoyances of reality and I, for one, think that is sad. If the portrayal of reality is annoying (Aerosoft says that their Airbus eliminates the annoyance of having to wait 10 minutes for the INS to align) then whats the point of flying around from point A to point B? Is this now a Sightseeing Simulator?

I for one do not want to have to goto flight school, just to learn how to fly on my computer. I cant spend the time everyday, every week to learn and stay proficent. But I want the illusion, I want to fly A/C that I will never probably never even have a chance to ride in. If waiting 10 mins for the INS to align, means 10 mins Im not flying, or 10 mins the wife (x now cause of Red Baron2/iL2) asks if your not doing anything why dont you take out the &*^%& trash? If you do all the ATC, navigate by VOR, cold start A/C, taxi etc... the illusion gets better which is what I want from FSX. I am a gamer and a simmer, the complexity of MS FSX is difficult and you dont even get to bomb or strafe or shoot down anything other that some mods here or there. Gamers really dont play this game cause there isnt much to do if you dont make it a hobby. They get bored after 6 months or so and go away. The eye candy pulls those folks in, and thats what MS wants. What you or the community of hard-core computer pilots need to do is make sure, if possiable, that Modders can use MS FS to achieve that level of realism. Alot of the rest of just want the illusion not the job. My 2 cents, which in this economy is less that worthless :)Thai I voted I want medium systems modeled and an accurate visual model (firma terra esp)

Oh you BF2 guys, should try the Project Reality mod, if you want realsim, you can tell ist good because the few stick with it because you get killed if you dont play properly. As fo fsx, i guess in to days world with money becoming scarce, and the " I want it now" , crowd shouting so loud, the developers, must give in a little to keep food on the table. For that I cannot blame them, can you imagine the airlines paying $100 for a boeing 747.I sfor one dont like simple aircraft when it comes to airlines, but in ga i prefer steam guages, flying usng navaids, verey rarely use the gps, but then maybe im just getting old.

I for one do not want to have to goto flight school, just to learn how to fly on my computer. I cant spend the time everyday, every week to learn and stay proficent. But I want the illusion, I want to fly A/C that I will never probably never even have a chance to ride in. If waiting 10 mins for the INS to align, means 10 mins Im not flying, or 10 mins the wife (x now cause of Red Baron2/iL2) asks if your not doing anything why dont you take out the &*^%& trash? If you do all the ATC, navigate by VOR, cold start A/C, taxi etc... the illusion gets better. I am a gamer and the complexity of MS FSX is difficult and you dont even get to bomb or strafe or shoot down anything other that some mods here or there. Gamers really dont play this game cause there isnt much to do if you dont make it a hobby. They get bored after 6 months or so and go away. The eye candy pulls those folks in, and thats what MS wants. What you or the community of hard-core computer pilots need to do is make sure, if possiable, that Modders can use MS FS to achieve that level of realism. Alot of the rest of just want the illusion not the job. My 2 cents, which in this economy is less that worthless :)Thai

That's a very fair comment... one of the joys of FS is that it really can be all things (except for combat simulation) to all people - . There's room for all of us in this hobby. I certainly don't see an effort afoot to dumb down FS - I see an effort by devs to produce products that can be sold at a reasonable price and that don't take years (Level D 757, etc.) to produce. I don't know about FS, but most entertainment software is priced to amortize it's development costs in the first 25% or so of sales - that makes for a steep price point in multiyear development efforts. The new precision sim 747 systems simulator is a case in point - it's been years in development and is going to cost an arm and leg because it will probably sell fewer than a thousand copies. I think you represent the bulk of the market that doesn't usually hang out on these forums and probably better represent most buyers than the heavy systems folks do. I have planes that represent a broad range of complexity and enjoy them all at various times for various reasons.DJ

I for one do not want to have to goto flight school, just to learn how to fly on my computer. I cant spend the time everyday, every week to learn and stay proficent. But I want the illusion, I want to fly A/C that I will never probably never even have a chance to ride in. If waiting 10 mins for the INS to align, means 10 mins Im not flying, or 10 mins the wife (x now cause of Red Baron2/iL2) asks if your not doing anything why dont you take out the &*^%& trash? If you do all the ATC, navigate by VOR, cold start A/C, taxi etc... the illusion gets better which is what I want from FSX. I am a gamer and a simmer, the complexity of MS FSX is difficult and you dont even get to bomb or strafe or shoot down anything other that some mods here or there. Gamers really dont play this game cause there isnt much to do if you dont make it a hobby. They get bored after 6 months or so and go away. The eye candy pulls those folks in, and thats what MS wants. What you or the community of hard-core computer pilots need to do is make sure, if possiable, that Modders can use MS FS to achieve that level of realism. Alot of the rest of just want the illusion not the job. My 2 cents, which in this economy is less that worthless :)Thai I voted I want medium systems modeled and an accurate visual model (firma terra esp)

I can relate well to many of your points Thai. I get a lot out of FSPassengersX and the wonderful eye candy from Orbx. I like PMDG products and I am looking forward to the 737NGX to add to my wonderful fleet. It's okay if it isn't impossibly intimidating to learn because I don't really have the time to dedicate to that level of depth. I will most likely never become a real world pilot, but I get a lot of pleasure just doing my own thing with FSX. I use the FMC's, understand some basics, enough to make it thru my flight plans and keep the passengers happy, and that is truly, good enough. That is the wonder of FSX--it has such a range in terms of meeting users' needs. For the die hard enthusiasts, a few come along that fill the bill in terms of complexity, but hey it's pretty darn good already. I'm guessing the market for maximum complexity is most likely quite limited. I think that is the real reason you don't see the bar continuing to be raised significantly--the demand isn't there for the work involved.Noel

I for one do not want to have to goto flight school, just to learn how to fly on my computer. I cant spend the time everyday, every week to learn and stay proficent. But I want the illusion, I want to fly A/C that I will never probably never even have a chance to ride in. If waiting 10 mins for the INS to align, means 10 mins Im not flying, or 10 mins the wife (x now cause of Red Baron2/iL2) asks if your not doing anything why dont you take out the &*^%& trash? If you do all the ATC, navigate by VOR, cold start A/C, taxi etc... the illusion gets better which is what I want from FSX. I am a gamer and a simmer, the complexity of MS FSX is difficult and you dont even get to bomb or strafe or shoot down anything other that some mods here or there. Gamers really dont play this game cause there isnt much to do if you dont make it a hobby. They get bored after 6 months or so and go away. The eye candy pulls those folks in, and thats what MS wants. What you or the community of hard-core computer pilots need to do is make sure, if possiable, that Modders can use MS FS to achieve that level of realism. Alot of the rest of just want the illusion not the job. My 2 cents, which in this economy is less that worthless :)Thai I voted I want medium systems modeled and an accurate visual model (firma terra esp)

Voted the same thing medium systems modeled and an accurate visual model. dont mind if it goes higher. but I prefer the stuff thats on medium, at least for now I do. :(

The Aerosoft bus certainly has struck a nerve in some. Mathijs has always been very clear about the product, and his target audience. Yes, these people who looks more for eye candy and doesn´t give a damn about systems. I guess their "holiday destinations" and "LTU" packages for FS2004 (some airports and a basic airbus like this one) have sold like hot cakes and they want to repeat the same in FSX. If you want an advanced Airbus then wait for FSLabs, simple as that.I see a lot of times these "basic plane" people are seen with suspicion, derision...well, some few lucky ones came to this world with a derated takeoff from their mother´s womb but the rest started just like the standard "basic plane" guy. Some will leave after some crashes, and some will persevere and evolve. But basic planes are a necessity for the simmers pool not to get stagnant, and if that fantastic Airbus model and VC attracts more fresh water then it´s all good for me.By the way, i read constantly about people sleeping, shopping, walking the dog...while their ultraadvanced and complex plane flies on it´s own to the destination. Realistic to the max i tell you (then what´s the point of flying around from point A to point B?). Yeah, real life is a b**** i know, but then don´t be too quick judging others because the joke is on you too. And i see enough planes to keep happy both camps to be honest.My two cents from someone who has voted option B but hasn´t forgotten how he got into simulators. And has no problem at all calling them "games".

Hi,Flight simulator is not a game, it is above all a fantastic learning tool for computer and config file tweaking. :( I am joking of course.I try to use it as seriously as possible. I want to replicate what is done in real world. I've even used it professionally. But if you spend your time flying outside the cockpit, well it is closer to a game. It all depends on you...

Actually, that's not totally off.There is a segment of flight simmers out there who don't fly very much, but who instead derive much more pleasure from the endless possibilities for tweaking, fiddling that goes hand in hand with Flightsim.The ultimate expression of this is the home cockpit crowd.I can relate to this. Going from A to B is boring as heck... but trying to take flight sim apart or modify it in some way, reshape it... now that's entertainment.

Austin does indeed have a huge ego (over compensation for something?)  But if he's smart he'll fill the huge gap.  He positions his simulator as "realistic" so if he focuses on getting his cockpits up to par and then adds better scenery and AI traffic I'd probably jump over to XP myself.  I haven't reached that level of desperation yet, but I can see as the years pass by XP is fast becoming the only flight simulator for hobbyists while FS becomes the realm of the gamer.  When that happens I'll simply move to a MAC and install XP.

To me .. XP feels more like a game than FSX.  Plus, when XP adds all the features/improvements you are talking about .. it would only be equivalent to FSX.  So why would you switch to XP when it gets to that same point FSX is at today?   :(

I will start off by saying this. When I buy aircraft I mainly buy birds that have full systems simulations which really limits me overall to what I can buy. I look to try to replicate real life piloting as much as possible (reading NOTAMS, flying with weather, following restrictions, etc.). Which draws me to PMDG, and A2A aircraft more than anything. That being said I do not think there is a dumbing down of products. There was never a lot of hardcore products produced to begin with. Full systems aircraft have, and always will be a niche market. I think that market is best served how A2A does their aircraft. Anyone who wants their outstanding birds can purchase the model with basic systems. Those like me who prefer advanced systems can buy Accu-sim, and even then on the days you just want to fly it can be turned off from within FSX. Makes the aircraft accessible to all, and their tutorials help explain to people who may not know a lot about aviation how things work together to make the bird fly.Being a beta-tester for the Airbus X for the last few months I can understand why people are upset about it, but they were very straight forward about what the aircraft was to be from the begining. I think they did a great job of going for what they started out to do. The aircraft is one of the best models that I have ever seen, and it does have some "lite" systems simulation. I think this aircraft will do a lot to bring casual users to the market, and maybe bring more people around wanting the FS Labs/Airsimmer A320's. Everyone needs to start somewhere as did I (although I started in FS2000). So we will just have to see where it all takes us. I agree though not everyone probably enjoys sitting at their PC going through checklists for an hour just to get started flying. Let alone fly trans contintal/ocean for hours on end after that. So I can see the appeal both ways.

I will start off by saying this. When I buy aircraft I mainly buy birds that have full systems simulations which really limits me overall to what I can buy. I look to try to replicate real life piloting as much as possible (reading NOTAMS, flying with weather, following restrictions, etc.). Which draws me to PMDG, and A2A aircraft more than anything. That being said I do not think there is a dumbing down of products. There was never a lot of hardcore products produced to begin with. Full systems aircraft have, and always will be a niche market. I think that market is best served how A2A does their aircraft. Anyone who wants their outstanding birds can purchase the model with basic systems. Those like me who prefer advanced systems can buy Accu-sim, and even then on the days you just want to fly it can be turned off from within FSX. Makes the aircraft accessible to all, and their tutorials help explain to people who may not know a lot about aviation how things work together to make the bird fly.Being a beta-tester for the Airbus X for the last few months I can understand why people are upset about it, but they were very straight forward about what the aircraft was to be from the begining. I think they did a great job of going for what they started out to do. The aircraft is one of the best models that I have ever seen, and it does have some "lite" systems simulation. I think this aircraft will do a lot to bring casual users to the market, and maybe bring more people around wanting the FS Labs/Airsimmer A320's. Everyone needs to start somewhere as did I (although I started in FS2000). So we will just have to see where it all takes us. I agree though not everyone probably enjoys sitting at their PC going through checklists for an hour just to get started flying. Let alone fly trans contintal/ocean for hours on end after that. So I can see the appeal both ways.

Excellent post! I find myself coming home from work and finding relaxation in FSX, and at those times I just want to fly something that looks nice and flies somewhat well, and all the time I have is about an hour before finishing work I bring home and going to sleep to start it all over again. But I also have an instrument rating so appreciate the importance of checklists and preflight research and procedures, which on the odd weekend day I might have time to do. So I like it both ways, and FSX is more than one thing to me depending on the time that I have. In several yearscwhen retirement happens that could all change with more time, who knows. Bruce.

It always has been no more than a game - an amusement or pastime. My FSX box even says "Games for Windows" on it.

I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone has time to do full systems. I've passed up many products since I would be paying for more than I needed.

I'm not so big on systems that aren't involved with flight automation.. I love the LDS/PMDG as true sims... but the rest are coded to a standard where they really can't be taken seriously as they don't truly model the actual system, but a simplified version of it. Doesn't take much.. but it's complicated enough to be out of reach of your average developer...

Mike...during the years in the past you reference the bar was raised on systems realism so often because there was so much room for enhanced realism in systems replication. That gap is now closed for all practical purposes to the point that some simmers now fly in FSX with more complex procedures than their real-world counterparts. This was clear from a recent post complaining about FMS entry procedures from a developer. In my opinion the primary remaining gap is related to visual accuracy and enhancements, not systems. You talk about the "elation and satisfaction" of a first flight from "cold and dark" to "shutdown" making you wonder if you did not just fly the real thing. I concur! The movement to medium system aircraft is a completely understandable reaction to raising the systems bar to near real-world complexity. Some people, after experiencing the satisfaction of "knowing every knob or EICAS system" want to move back toward the joy and dream which first inspired flight when no such complexities existed. Why are you surprised now that the bar on visual realism is being raised higher with scenery like PNW that some people want to look out the window more and fiddle with knobs less? For me, this is a more compelling and enjoyable reason to feel like I have just flown the "real thing." You ask, "Is this now a sight-seeing" simulator?" Having jump-seated in more than a few FedEx cockpits in years gone by, I can with confidence say that "sight-seeing" has always been not only an enjoyable, but integral, part of flight from a professional pilot's perspective. This is after all, a "flight" simulator, not a cockpit or systems simulator. The fact that others prefer to enjoy enhanced realism and raising the bar on all aspects of flight "simulation" should not deter you from the enjoying how high the bar has been raised in the area of systems and knobs, and I think you have unfairly minimized the complexity of systems simulation available from good developers, but that of course is just my opinion, and I see no need to list your many options here as others have done so. Our world continues to raise the bar in general on the complexities and challenges which confront us everyday. So yes, there are days I do not wish to wait 10 minutes for the INS to align, or pause to read another 10 pages in the manual about how to do it, I just want to hit a few switches and fly from A to B. You asked, "What's the point then...?" Well, perhaps today, to see what is between A and B in greater simulation than ever before, and to wonder if "for all intents and purposes" I was not really there. Other days I may get just as much kick out of learning a new system; that's the full spectrum of "flight simulation." If you wish to move on after the systems complexity you so love has reached levels of realism unthinkable only a few years ago, and you cannot expand your joy of flight to include some of the other areas where the bar is now also being raised, then that is your limitation and loss. I spend more time flying now and less reading these forums because of the wonderful advances in systems and other equally valid areas of the whole flight simulation experience. It is awfully tiring to keep reading why anyone who does not share your exact preferences and tastes is somehow less intelligent or enlightened than you, why a developer, whose virtual pilot from the outside cockpit view has hair 1 inch longer than the real world airline P&P manual, is producing "junk," and why all developers should base their strategic financial decisions on your personal whims and are idiots if they do not. How dare they develop a plane just because they love that model and have some expertise in it, or worse yet, because they rely on actual market research and performance numbers rather than your intuitive assumptions based on the market of you, a couple of your pals, and the ingenious extrapolations of entire market dynamics you derived from reading a few posts on a couple of forums; (speaking generally Mike, certainly not of "you" personally). These poor souls are so enamored with themselves and their perspectives that you would think that it's their world; the rest of us just happen to be lucky enough to live in it. Seriously why don't you lighten up, stick around, and at least try to expand your horizons in flight simulation. You might one day actually fly from point A to B and for all intents and purposes so think you were really there that for a few minutes you forget about the INS. Would that be such a horrible thing?Cheers,Roy

Im not as concerned with it either. It's the add-on developers who make FS what it is for me. If it weren't for the add-ons I doubt I would even bother buying FS. The default airplanes are pretty lame compared to what the real developers can do.