Well-all this bickering seems to justify my position-(which is not that I don't think it would be great if it could happen) -but that I understand why it probably won't happen.This thread is a good example of why... :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Mike, I appreciate your thoughts. I suppose its natural to view threads like this as a chance to join one of two opposing teams. Perhaps it feels normal to view anybody who is countering the natural flow as "on the other team". It appears Paul, and Dillon, concluded that I'm agin you'all....on the opposing team.I just don't think that way. This is a logical discussion and I tend to approach it logically.My points have been proven over and over again. If you want to get action from another, you must move that person to a state of concern. You must convince that person or company that they have a problem.It appears to me that your response contains a fair amount of thought on exactly that subject, how can we convince them they have a problem. Well done...and a nice switch from the original "demands". The initial statement had us "declare" what MS top priority "should". Pretty nieve to declare what the top priority is with absolutely no insight what the other priorities may be. Is it logical to expect MS to be more or less open to recognizing the need after we decide to dictate to them their top priority?Parity with other games won't cut it...not a MS need...they view themselves as leaders, not followers (and also consider that MS is not primarily a gaming company). Declaring some threat to their sales won't cut it unless you dig into the demographics...do research. Make a valid business case. Otherwise, you'll be likely dismissed by the Marketing folks at MS who are constantly coming up with new market segments to address. These new segments have likely never even heard of add-ons.Good luck! Bob Bernstein

I agree, in this portion of the thread we have pretty darned nasty name calling and emotional back and forth.bizarreYou guys who think its right to bash someone else...think about what you are really doing...who you are really mad at...what action or outcome you really hope for...I bet you don't really see each other as so bad, your actually acting out your own angst, whether real or imagined.lighten up...take a break...stop simming for a while. gosh, its only fun and then we die! And we will all die...so put today in perspective...no point wasting your life trying to embarrass another on this forum.Bob B

>>You were one of the beta testers that felt flickering menus>among other things was OK, and we all thank you.>I don't believe those "less than working properly" ATI cards were in use at the time.I'll stick with my trusty G-Force3Ti500 that still seems to do amazing wonders with FS2004; and certainly NO flickering menus. BTW--- I always thought it was claimed that new MSFS releases required "next years" computer. Then why does FS2004 run even better than FS2002 on this old machine of mine (Athlon 1900XP)?MS can't win can they? Program a simulator that works well with older CPU's, and get called on the carpet because ATI can't get their act together...L.Adamson

O.K. Bob...(smile)... Thanks

"If you want to get action from another, you must move that person to a state of concern. You must convince that person or company that they have a problem."I can't agree with this in the case of MSFS. If a corporation is polluting or marketing an unsafe product, then this tactic might be most useful. Such is not the case with this FS. We make up a very small part of Microsoft's target market. Instead of driving them to a state of concern, their marketing people would simply label us the overzealous minority. They wisely (from a business perspective) market this product to the casual user.Our only hope of achieving a voice with Microsoft is to convince them that they have something to gain by doing so. We must convince them that we are worthy partners to their efforts. And the first step in doing that is establishing a working dialogue. Making demands at this point in time will only lead to failure.This poll is a good idea, but I still believe that it's wrong tying a patch to it. Or tying anyhting to it. Those who receive such a poll would say, "Well, the harcore folks want to be a part of development, and that's nice. But their poll also mentions a patch. So if we accept their involvement, does that mean they'll be expecting a patch." This poll can't demand anything. It can only express our desire to be involved in future development as well as having some form of dialogue with the developers.

....in future development as well as having some form of dialogue with the developers."I think we are drawing closer to the nub of what this poll, if it takes place, should be about.Any further comments? Mike

Mike

Basically, I agree with Greg "SoarPics". No point expecting MS people to maintain a constant flow of patches to the community for everything and anything. Beyond all else, this could prove inherently dangerous, because, in the knowledge that everything is fixable, a programmer is lead into a sense of false security, which in our case could lead to substandard new versions of FS,unlike the current version (Granted it has omissions and faults, but it is not substandard, IMHO).I would like to see, on the other hand, an active participation of FS developpers in the forums. It would benefit all of us to hear the whys and hows of various things that we wonder about oh so often.With kindest regards,