We don't know and we don't care!

Guys what is the point of having SLI if you are saying that FLIGHT will be DX10 and not DX11? Besides FSX has DX10 for those who don't know

you can run dx10 and SLI

FSX has a DX10 Preview for those who didn't know.

The link, and the book, say several other things too. You can't just pick and choose a single phrase to disparage the concept. Also read dmaher's post.- jahman.

I didn't disparage the concept of the book - I disparaged your understanding of it and of its application. This may be no more profound than your understanding of RNAV - see http://forum.avsim.n...ons-about-rnav/

I would like: - a better 3rd party atc tool integration so that standard atc from FSX or FS9 could be replaced by 3rd party developers.- lighting systems should be improved- finally, give it a better performance than the one we got in late 2006 with FSX.

What features and/or attributes would MS Flight have to have in order for you to switch from your current sim (FSX, FS9, or other) to MS Flight?

I'll make it easy: if they can do better than Eagle Dynamics for accuracy, realism, depth of systems, and fluidity, I'll buy. Best regards,Robin.

I didn't disparage the concept of the book - I disparaged your understanding of it and of its application. This may be no more profound than your understanding of RNAV - see http://forum.avsim.n...ons-about-rnav/

Seems like you understood the book you didn't read like you understood Mach Tuckand and the documentary you never saw. Cheers, - jahman.

I won't bore readers but that thread was not about whether I understand Mach Tuck (which I do), but about your claim that the accident to Aéreas Flight 2553 was a high-speed stall when in reality it was caused by tye slats being ripped off after being extended at too high a speed with a resultant loss of control of the aircraft.

...Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 high-speed stall accident

Your link actually reads;..."the pilots increased power to the engines and then deployed the slats. Far from flying at the low speed reported by the instruments, the aircraft was actually exceeding its safe cruising speed, and far above a safe speed for deploying slats. During the deployment of the slats, one was torn off by the force of the high speed airflow traveling over the wing, which caused the aircraft to become unflyable and enter a steep descent." Surely another example of your misunderstanding/misrepesenting Wikipedia?

I won't bore readers but that thread was not about whether I understand Mach Tuck (which I do), but about your claim that the accident to Aéreas Flight 2553 was a high-speed stall when in reality it was caused by tye slats being ripped off after being extended at too high a speed with a resultant loss of control of the aircraft. Your link actually reads;..."the pilots increased power to the engines and then deployed the slats. Far from flying at the low speed reported by the instruments, the aircraft was actually exceeding its safe cruising speed, and far above a safe speed for deploying slats. During the deployment of the slats, one was torn off by the force of the high speed airflow traveling over the wing, which caused the aircraft to become unflyable and enter a steep descent." Surely another example of your misunderstanding/misrepesenting Wikipedia?

I'm glad you managed to wrap our head around the concept of Mach Tuck (which you din't know then). Also I'm no longer replying to your posts, so post what you wish. Cheers, - jahman.

I'm glad you managed to wrap our head around the concept of Mach Tuck (which you din't know then). Also I'm no longer replying to your posts, so post what you wish. Cheers, - jahman.

May be you'll spend the time you save by not replying to be by checking your facts before posting - on RNAV maybe?

That's a great example you got there. I can guarantee Meigs Field will not be offered by MS as a part of Flight simply because Meigs Field was closed in 2003 and no longer exists.

+1 a thousand percent. They removed CGX, and they removed the twin towers immediately after they collapsed. Not did they not include them in the back-then newest FS cycle, there was even a "fix" that would patch the scenery in the back-then current version. And these were most likely only the most obvious examples. Sure was CGX the place to go when simming a numbers of years ago and I sure liked it a lot (as did many others) but since we're talking about representing the real 'world' here (and in this regard MS always seemed to be of this opinion), it's 1000% not gonna happen.Just FYI.

I just wish that Microsoft was as conscientious about being up to date in other parts of the world. On Vancouver Island, British Columbia they still place an airfield in FSX that Microsoft refers to as Port Alberni/MacMillan Bloedel (CYPB). This airfield shouldn't even have been included with FS2004, let alone FSX! For that matter; Orbx FTX PNW also includes this airfield (enhanced yet) as well as the unlisted one at Butler Field in Central Saanich which has been closed since 2007. Regards, Mike Mann

Well true, but don't forget the navdata, which has been out of date pretty much worldwide since a long time ago.

I just wish that Microsoft was as conscientious about being up to date in other parts of the world. On Vancouver Island, British Columbia they still place an airfield in FSX that Microsoft refers to as Port Alberni/MacMillan Bloedel (CYPB). This airfield shouldn't even have been included with FS2004, let alone FSX! For that matter; Orbx FTX PNW also includes this airfield (enhanced yet) as well as the unlisted one at Butler Field in Central Saanich which has been closed since 2007. Regards, Mike Mann

I agree with you and really think that they will clean up a lot of areas that have not been as accurate as they should. At least that is my hope. :}

I agree with you and really think that they will clean up a lot of areas that have not been as accurate as they should. At least that is my hope. :}

What would wor best is if MS let us do the cleaning-up: Simmers local to a RW airport will always be able to do a better job correcting blatant errors in airports like misaligned RWYs, correcting RWY markings , adding/deleting TWYs, airport buildings, trees, etc. Why not let volunteers do the work and incorporate any corrections (with vetting by MS staff) and then distribute these corrections via weekly free updates? Heck, volunteers could even do a far better version of the local out-of-the way airports and dirt strips that MS does from the FAA airport charts. After all we have twice daily malware database updates with MS Security Essentials, so why can't we have weekly updates for airport data? BTW, quarterly updates to the Flight executable and SDK to stamp out bugs would also be welcome! Cheers, - jahman.