>Why even make comparisons, since NO ONE ELSE has done a>simulation of this scope!>>L.AdamsonUmm and this means they can't actually fix *some* of the errors? You said it:>tell me what game developer has programmed a flight>simulator that encompasses the entire world including scenery,>navigation & topography, airports, auto-gen, animation, flight>dynamics, and much more....................and has worked all>the "bugs" out? Totally right, and I thank the FS team for doing such a good job. But other software developers also do their best every day, some even for their company to just stay alive, and still support their customers in a "better" fascion than MS do.The MS team is surely one of the financially secured ones, and they should have a little more money for customer care than many other software teams have (if they even get paid for working on stuff like patches).No complex piece of software is bug free, that's why there is such a thing as patches and updates. I'm not blaming the hard working FS programmers, but MS in general. Whatever.

Paul:Because FS2000's issues were things that could be appreciated by the common user. For example, the addition of shadows (if my memory doesn't fail me) is something even the most unexperienced user can appreciate. An improvement on the realism of the dynamics is not one of them, as I am sure many others aren't. DP

>Paul:>>Because FS2000's issues were things that could be appreciated>by the common user. For example, the addition of shadows (if>my memory doesn't fail me) is something even the most>unexperienced user can appreciate. An improvement on the>realism of the dynamics is not one of them, as I am sure many>others aren't. >>DPYou better take a look:http://www.avsim.com/pages/1299/ms/fs2000_patch_details.htmYou may also recall that most if not all items on that rather large list were all very hotly debated here on the Avsim forums among others, the many aye sayers vs. nay sayers from dusk to dawn and all night long...:-rollThe aye sayers won and got a patch that was enjoyed by all, happy ending. :)But wait, still no shadows We all cried!And then there was even the second patch (update#2b @ 7mb) containing the much debated shadows. :)It might be a good idea to start puting a list of things you the user might want to see "fixed" "corrected" and "improved" in FS2004, if that is what you want, now is the time. :)

Elrond, I don't believe MS really cares one iota. They are in it for the money, they are doing fine with it, end of game, or sim, or whatever it is :() I wish they were more accessible and cared to dialogue with the common user, but alas they are ALWAYS AWOL. Take Links golf series for example. They bought out Access Software in like 1997, and really didn't change hardly anything of consequence except for add a realtime swing. The rest were cosmetic, using a 3D cover, but doing nothing in the way of realtime 3D rendering (like TW03-04 does well). MS is hidden somewhere, behind an iron fortress. Believe me, they run the numbers, and if they are in the black, they don't want your input. Oh sure, they advertised there quest for feedback in the original design, but after release, they are truly nowhere to be found.I for one would be exquistely happy if they could tweak three graphical things:1. Water reflections--yuck! Sometimes ok, often very odd looking.2. Aircraft exteriors have way too much brightness/reflectivity (relative to the rest of the game) 3. The visibility layers, when seen from above around mountainous areas, look downright unnatural. Outside of these things, I love it!Noel

FS2004 may not be a niche product, but the issues in FS2004 only affects few people;There's the autogen bug, most people will never notice it, those who do will just reduce autogen unless they find out about the default.xml file.There are some limiations with regards to flight dynamics of add-on aircraft, as well as the 3D virtual cockpits (no rain effect, no "true" clickable 3d gagues in 3rd party ac). Those will probably be resolved by third party developers once the SDK is out.ATC is still a bit buggy. 99% of the people don't care. FS2004 still has the best ATC of any flightsim (there ARE more sims than just FS).There are some problems with scenery - library objects not dissapearing when you fly away from them even if the visibility is reduced, landclass problems, memory leaks, some other minor things. Again, 99% of those who buy FS2004 won't notice.Flightsims tend to be slower/more buggy than other games. I think that is because they are so complex compared to UT or Quake, but they are still selling for basically the same price, and development time is the same.Developers need to view flightsims more as computer software that needs to be optimized, tested etc., ratehr than viewing them as simulations of flight. Of course, that would mean worse scenery, flight dynamics etc., worse ATC and fewer planes, but the sims would run faster and crash less often. It's a balancing act.FU3 - Took three years before computers were powerful enough to run at full detailFly2 - After countless patches the thing is finally feeling like a finished productX-Plane - poor scenery, no LODing of mesh or textures, poor mesh quality, uses up to 1.3 gigabytes of RAM over third party sceneryFS2000 - Ran too slow on even the fastest computersFS2002 was an exception, it worked great out of the box and didn't need a patch.

Anyone ever considered that the reason MS bods don't patch the FS franchise is because most of the work rounds and fixes are spotted and implemented by the fanatical few on behalf of the dedicated diehards? Perhaps, if all the experts stopped supporting FS, then MS would have to.Dangerous thought, that, eh?Allcott

"99% of those who buy FS2004 won't notice"Ah yes, I agree (although I suspect your somewhat arbitrary percentage is much too high), but I submit that it is the vocal minority that this sim is really aimed at.No developer worth its salt is likely to continue expending much effort on a product if sales are weak. Sales of FS continue to be strong on the back of the enthusiastic reception given it by the Flight Sim community. This enthusiasm rubs off and the masses are persuaded to buy. Unfortunately, the complexity of the sim and the lack of sheer raw excitement is likely to bore many into abandoning the "game" sooner rather than later.I wonder whether any surveys have been conducted to determine how much repeat purchasing in fact occurs. WE keep buying the product because for us the sim provides experiences we love to enjoy and cherish. The average man or woman in the street does not and will likely never share our enthusiasm. Could it be that every two years the '99%' are composed of a new generation of individuals who have become 'infected' vicariously by our enthusiasm and buy more out of curiosity rather than from a genuine desire to spend time trying to appreciate what this sim really has to offer. Obviously many of these souls will hopefully become infected and will replace those of us who have either lost interest or, sadly, dropped off this mortal coil. Overall however, the numbers probably remain about the same, I suspect.As I have stated before here, and also in the other thread, the development team are clearly proud of their magnificent work and rightly so. Flight Simulator is unique amongst simulations and, I believe, receives the ongoing level of attention it does simply because WE are here to spur it on. Without that support the prospects for future worthwhile development could be under threat. Can Microsoft really care so little? I sincerely hope not.Mike