Hi John,Thanks for the glowing praise, even as its so wholly undeserved... I'm just as reviled - by some -, as is everyone - by some -, I can assure you :-).Indeed, I share your feeling exactly: its not that FS9 absolutely *needs* to be patched, its the desire for MS Game Studios to show their support for their game just like every other mainstream game publisher does these days. There *are* many areas in FS that could use complete-the-feature improvements with post release patches without rewriting the code base.Beyond that, there is the one area where more support is *absolutely required*. Thats, as you know, for end-user developers. Being one yourself, I'm sure you've seen the head bashing that takes place in the development forums here... Its so absolutely un-needed if MS Game Studios would simply follow industry practice and interact with their user base.Its like night and day being a part of other successful games developer communities compared to Flight Simulator. The support from MS is next to non-existent here. It truly is a wonder that end-user developers stick with FlightSim in that regard because the game developer support for other design communities is simply outstanding and fully hands-on these days - in both interaction and providing of tools and inside information.Good to talk with you John and take care,Elrond

I've read this thread carefully and my sentiments are to agree with the general trend of thought. However, and without intending this as a bash or a rant, long experience with MS business products, I'm thinking here of their compilers and going back some years, confirms that the "new" release should be purchased because there's a good chance it may be the working version of the previous release.BTW, I love FS6 and quickly deleted FS2002 Pro and all it's painstakenly acquired add-ons.Another thought arising out of this thread, given that FS9 is such a big seller, and as mentioned in another post, the majority will probably try it once or twice then move on. It seems to me this is a perfect reaason for MS to continue with their policy. These things sell because of marketing. By the time the next release comes out there will be a whole new range of consumers to sell to.All that remains constant is our "small" community who consider FS to be more than a game.bf

Hey fm,Ah, Janes WWII Fighters. I loved that sim :-).I fully agree: thats a great starter list of exactly the type of "non-critical" patching that should be a target for post-release fixes by MS Game Studios. Releasing such fixes greatly reinforces the value one feels for the purchase one has made - and more importantly makes one feel like a part of a true community with the developers of the game, that their voices indeed have meaning and have been heard.Community building by game developers is a huge aspect of successful games these days, except by Microsoft.Take care,Elrond

Hey eko,Maybe it is the corporate structure of MS, but I'd think that it can't remain the same going forward. MS Game Studios has its own identity and culture within Microsoft and absolutely must request and fight for the freedom to interact with its user base - from within. I'm sure they don't want the hassle and cost of it either, but its a required form of game support these days.As you so rightly point out, this isn't some far out idea we're talking about - its the standard with todays successful game developers. Truly, building and supporting a community post release is as important as the game engine they base their work upon. Simply visiting other game communities and viewing the support they receive from the internal developers is all it takes to see that.While Microsoft Game Studios enjoys a wonderfully mature community in such sites as AVSIM and the like, the lack of any post-release support to these communities will absolutely have to change in the future, I believe. The disparity between other game communities and this one when it comes to developer support and interaction is just becoming an extremely visible sore thumb if you ask me.Take care,Elrond

It seems to me that MS has more at stake with their Xbox business than with PC games. I can't see that FS/CFS/TS (throw Links in there) can be much more than a minor side line. But obviously there is some infrastrucure there to support these titles, and you would think MS would try to maximize the value of this investment.scott s..

Greetings Elrond. You

I agree, but FS2004 is driven by market conditions like any other product. Remember at the time of FS2000, they still had competition from Sierra's ProPilot series, Terminal Reality's Fly series, Looking Glass Studio's Flight Unlimited series, and Laminar Research's X-Plane series. With 5 GA titles on the market and lots of competition, I remember that FS2000 actually released a patch to fix performance issues!Now that the dust has settled, there only remains X-Plane as a competitor to FS2004. Even at that, X-Plane caters to a different population than FS, so really FS does not have any competition left. With no competition, you really have a captive audience. MS knows that we, the GA sim community, will continue to by FS as long as things don't totally break with the product. We will continue to buy the product even with the performance issues that have already been identified.The best way to force a patch would be for another company to offer a competing product. But unfortunately I doubt if another company could compete with FS, especially with the huge number of FS addons. So I think, unfortunately, we are just stuck with what we get. I know that I will continue to buy FS and appreciate all of the wonderful features, and utter a few choice words under my breath for the things that I thought should have been fixed.PapaTango

Hi Paul,While I didn't track FS2002's sales when it came out, I have been keeping a loose eye on 2004. I missed one weeks worth (Aug. 17-23), but here are Top Ten Best Sellers that I have tracked:FS2004 at Number 1 (Aug. 3-9):http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...ry=8212003-9639FS2004 at Number 2 (Aug. 10-16):http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...=8272003-124648FS2004 at Number 1 (Aug. 24-30:http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...y=9112003-11918FS2004 at Number 3 (Sept. 7-13:http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...ry=9252003-9427FS2004 at Number 5 (Sept. 14-20:http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...=1022003-104843I think its pretty clear that FlightSim is a huge sales success so far.As far as the Fly developers, they indeed were a very small team. And yes, in this MS forum, the few times they posted they weren't received very well. But believe me, they participated on almost a daily basis for over four years in the Fly! forums here at AVSIM. Richard Harvey (may he rest in peace) and company set a standard that I've yet seen matched when it comes to customer support and interaction - for any game genre. Every developer from the top end of the company to the bottom participated in these forums and provided answers - almost on call. It truly was a glorious thing to see, and I believe they influenced other game developers in other genre's to open up the lines of communication with their end users because after that it became almost standard practice across the game industry. In no small part I hope, to Richard Harvey.Indeed, if you wander around the net to visit other game community sites for the best of games, you'll see developer interaction right and left. It can have its downside with nasty people and the like, but that is usually taken care of by the very people who appreciate their participation... A community can be a stern lot to those who intrude for nothing better than making trouble.In the end, the result is clear: game developer interaction is well worth the time, money and trouble to do so... Or it wouldn't be so successful with such a wide variety of gaming houses today.Take care,Elrond

I absolutely agree. There are a few bugs in the game that really should be fixed; it's not like a new release is necessary to adress simple problems.An example: when you're not having the 3d-clouds slider at >80% (which really wouldn't be necessary if it worked correctly), there are nasty seams in some of them clouds, apart from some of the ridiculously ugly imposters. (I'm using the widely available ATI 9000 graphics card with the latest drivers). Why do they even implement such an option - when it gives such ugly results? Other than that, having the slider set at 30% woudl look absolutely fine and gives a performance boost for the smaller systems. So - they really could release a small patch for this. Not everyone can afford a new PC every year.The flight dynamics - which are ok under normal circumstances - fail miserably when you're doing aerobatics, or when flying a fast jet aircraft. You can actually stall in any direction, even with the default Extra. You can rotate the velocity vector by 90 degrees almost instantly with a few military jet aircraft, just fly fast and give full rudder input.FS' dynamics just defy some basic laws of physics!There are several sims that offered superiour flight dynamics - The Flight Unlimited series for example, or X-Plane. Or take, for example, the demo of lomac - beautiful stalls and spins, very credible from a simmer's point of view. I guess this is also the curse of backward-compatibility, and I really hope the changes in FS2004 flight dynamics are a move in the right direction. I mainly see cosmetic changes though, that aim at a broader consumer base - which is alright for a new version. But please, adress the issues, that are NOT just cosmetic, in patches.

Daniel, Those very `faults` are what gives MS its broad-based appeal. It is not - and never was - a specialist simulation product for a niche market. It's a `game` for the many. The numbers prove that.Yes, it can be made into more than a `game`, but that is asking of it that which it was not intended to give, and that is a little presumptuous of us `few`, the niche-within-a-niche. For us, the ability to receate flight dynamics, add correctly modelled airports and have more realistic interraction with the environment is high on the list of things we'd like to see patched. But Elrond himself provides ample evidence why MS don't - the numbers don't add up. If just 20% of the customer-base agreed with Elronds comments MS would undoubtedly repsond the way he'd like to see. But coming here is simply `preaching to the converted` and is unlikely to persuade MS to do anything other than visit other boards until the fuss dies down, again.No, the place to have this discussion woudl obviously be on the shop floor, at the time of purchase with the `average` user. If THEY wanted it patched as well, then MS would be well advised to listen. But I'd be willing to bet that most wouldn't even know what we're talking about, much less care that the flight dynamics are `off`Allcott

>You can actually stall in any direction, even with the default>Extra. I suppose thats good to hear, because real planes can stall in any direction also. Just exceed the maximum angle of attack to the realitive wind, and the air will seperate across the wing. Doesn't matter if you're in a dive or what airspeed. I'm not saying the FS2002/2004 flight dynamics are top notch, as they're usually well exceeded by add-ons. But across the board, the FUII series & X-Plane certainly are not superior either. That's just a false notion that's been proven many times.I havn't tried Lomac, but maybe it's something like the RealAir Marchetti SF260 when it comes to those beautiful stalls & spins? The SF260 is also very graceful & believable in aerobatic manuvers.L.Adamson

Well that

Right after posting the above I took a look next door at the locked FSD Pilatus Porter thread just out of curiosity; I wasn

>>I suppose thats good to hear, because real planes can stall in>any direction also. Just exceed the maximum angle of attack to>the realitive wind, and the air will seperate across the wing.>Doesn't matter if you're in a dive or what airspeed. >Right, but that's not what I meant. I'll try to explain it more clearly: With certain aircraft, when you are in a stall, the aircraft is pushed downwards - meaning, downwards from the pilot's perspective. When you turn the aircraft around though, the speed vector stays the same relative to the aircraft - so you actually "fall" upwards! So basically, the flight dynamics seem to tell the sim: "the wings don't create enough lift, so accellerate into a certain direction, relative to the aircraft", and not "...accelerate towards the earth".At least there is one force at play here that has an utterly exaggerated effect on the aircraft.One other time, my Bell Ranger became uncontrollable, because I flicked it around to quickly or something. What happend was an unstoppable upward force that propelled me to 100000 feet! I admit that the flight model was modified (door patch, which shouldn't have changed anything but the number of doors that can be opened), but still, there are certain laws of physics that can be surpassed. And these type of things bug me, because years ago, other developers have already offered much better stuff.

My Thanks fm :)Mike :-wave