In order to counter the emergence of yet another thread condemning Microsoft I would like to say that I am entirely happy with FS2004. I paid UK

I've always supported MicroSoft (even when I didn't agree with some of their plans/practices), but now I can't even fly my sim. Problems started just as the calender went from fall to winter.Like you I had a ton of fun with the product during the first five months... thought it was their best effort yet. But the sad truth is that FS2000 (without patches) ran better for me that FS9 at this time.

I'll join you! This is the best simming experience I have had in a long while. FS2000 ran terrible, FS2002 had a million CTDs, while not perfect, FS9 is working very well for me. (knock on wood! LOL) All the aircraft I use have been ported over or new ones have come out to replace them. I don't need lots of non optimized scenery with the level of autogen it has and with my new vid card soon, I'll be able to cut thru the clouds better! LOLCheers!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VACougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviation[link:www.cgrmthelos.com]Cougar Mountain Helicopters

It works great for me!FS2002 is a distant memory...

The only problem is time...lol I spend most of my time downloading and tweaking all the wonderful aircraft and scenery available.Half the complaints are due to computer problems and not the sim, not that the sim is perfect. the other half? Well, some people would complain about having to pay taxes if they won the lottery.When's the next one due????????? :)

Everything working well. You must have a strong computer.I don't need many compromises. Can't wait for new PSS 747-400.P4 3.06 512 ram Geforce4 Ti4200 52.16 drivers AA card controlledWell done MS.Peter Sydney Australia

I love FS9, would never go back to FS2002. I left the old sim installed for a while after I got FS9, but I never started it again, not even once! I fly VFR most of the time, the improved textures, sky and autogen objects really make a big difference. The weather is fantastic as well, don't see any need to use an addon for that.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

I am also happy with FS2004. Its like the only Microsoft software that I do like :-lol. FS2004 is the only thing that keeps me using Windows, now when is Microsoft making the Linux version of FS2004 ;-). Even with my lower spec hardware, FS2004 runs great for me, except not being to see some stuff due to my DX7 videocard. I'm not worried by that though, I don't need the best of the best computer to have fun in FS :).

I love it. It amazes me continually when I look at how far it has come--and where it is going. I need a substantial amount of horsepower increase to be able to run FS9 with all the add-ons at full tilt, and still maintain 25 FPS NO MATTER WHAT CONDITIONS! Even so, FS9 is excellent squared.Noel

Best sim so far and love it. My big question is what is MS going to do to for there next release to make me want to buy it? Way I see it using ActiveCamera and UT this sim rocks. Now having taxi signs, all runways active, and better auto-gen, atc and ai well the only way I will even think of trading this sim in for the next is...An ATC overhaul using seperation via speed and spacing, use of STARS and DP's and holds, more options and controllers like Flight watch, FSS and able to open a flight plan or order fuel on those freqs, allow to request airspace transition when so many miles near it and not when you actually enter it, when inbound to land allow the user to hear atis for a few mins/miles before the controller informs you on where and how you will land (currently if you are monitoring atis on comm2 as soon as the atis starts reporting once close enough to the destination airport the controller starts giving heading changes and what rwy and approach to expect) and improve traffic calls on reporting traffic thats only a factor.Better a/c with the airfiles, bouncing/spinning vor/adf needles on a week signal or none, more switches, more failures to enable, better night lighting with the gauges and overhead and a TCAS and FMS.Detail stuff would be to bring back the static we had in FS2000 when on the frengies of a signal, pilot controlled lighting, wake turbulance, marshaller at your parking spot, more international stuff like voices, buildings, and procedures and ablilty to choose a certain terminal or parking area at your destination airfield when filing a VFR or IFR flight now since they have allowed for parking spots to be assigned to airlines or types.Theses are the things i am really wanting. Just polish up this version and let it run good out of the box. The visuals and weather are good for another version and the ATC and details need to be addressed and the overall sim needs to be polished up so that it runs smooth.NP

Well for my part, FS9 is the first in the FS series since 98 to really impress me. Runs great on my system, too.

Me too. I am satisfied with FS9.But using aDell Dimensin 8300 2.6 GHz1 Giga memoryRadeon 9800 Pro 128 Mg200 Giga HDRate frame limited to 26 and usually staying at that value.Using FS Genesis, ActiveSky (9.1), FSNavigator, online with of course all the Symantec products activated.Roger

Yes, and I mean to say it LOUDLY.Of course, FS2004 is not perfect - but name me anything in this world that is.It's good to see that there is some real appreciation of the fantastic simulator that Microsoft has given us. I think that we get much more enjoyment from our chosen hobby than the whiners do.David

I also am very pleased with FS9. I run with fps locked at 30 and find that this is achievable 90% of the time.On the default Seatac/C172 takeoff/landing is around the 18-20 mark.This is with most things set at max or near max.I do use some addon scenery and a lot of addon aircraft - both old ones from FS2k2 and new FS9 types.There has been a lot said about CTDs etc recently - the only CTDs(3 in total) I have suffered have been quickly traced to rogue add ons- not the fault of FS9I do have some critisism . I think that there are some scenery faults that should have been fixed pre release - EG: the floating runways in Antarctica, missing or incomplete bridges etc,but considering the effort that has gone into producing FS9 scenery ,there are bound to be some errors.I do still have FS2002 on the PC - on a separate HDD/OS - purely because I like to do Aircraft Carrier ops , and so far ,there isn't a good catapult/arrestor cable application available for FS9.Other than a few hours spent doing that,I haven't used FS2002 in 3 months but FS9 has been used about 10-12 hours weekly for online flying with no problems.System info below.DaveAMD Athlon 2000XP (@133/133)ECS K7S5A Mobo 3.1 :04/29/02 Rev BiosSiS 735 Chipset Rev 12 x 256mb DDR RAMGeforce4 Ti-4200-8x 128mb DDR AGP(not overclocked) running two monitors.AGP 1.17 WHQL . 5303 Detonator XP Drivers2 x Maxtor 40GB HDD (7200rpm)LG 8x4x32 CDRWLG 52x CDRDirect X 9.0a Windows ME(FS2002)/ Windows XP(FS9) dual bootBIOS Settings- DRAM Timing Ultra. CAS Latency 3T,RAS ACtive 6T,RAS Precharge 3TL1 Cache Enabled.L2 Cache Enabled.Sys BIOS Cache Disabled.DRAM Drive Slew Rating - Fast

Well Xmas Day has come and gone, I have a new cpu 2.6 gig AMD Athlon Thunderbird, extra Ram (now at 512) my gfx card is The Nvidia Vertox 5900 (which I got in November) and I bought myself a 5.1 surround sound system with s/card from Creative just for fun. FS9 runs and flies like a dream, the best experience to date far outstripping FS2002 which I thought was the dogs wotsits.Only problem was my old Logitech Wingman Extreme which I just couldn't calibrate to well and made me fly like a drunkerd on the rudder pedals. So last night I went to PC world and bought myself a Saitek Cyborg Platinum as reccommended in PC Gamer and guess what boys (and girls). I have a rod of joy that holds my planes perfect in level flight and my rudders work.Complete flying heaven.