Hi GusI'm sat here in my office in work wishing that it was 4:30 so I can get home when I had an epihpany.You know, when sveral things/thhoughts/happenings come together and you suddenly have an insight to something completely new.Well it's just dawned on me why Microsoft haven't released a patch for FS9.And the reason is...Microsoft Flight Simulator 10 will be the patch.Just think about it for a moment, each new release of FS is better than the last one so in their minds they are not releasing a new piece of software there just fixing the old one.Nuff said.Wycliffe

Umm yeah - Go figure...-Daniel

O.K...., Well, yeah... Every new version of FS has not been better than the last (FS2000 was so bad with FR that most stuck with FS98, FS95 kept allot of people using FS5.1). I really don't think your analogy above is a valid enough excuse for Microsoft's reluctance to release a patch. If you know anything about the history of FS, FS2k2 was the first version in FS history not to have received a patch. Now it doesn't look like FS2k4 will get one either but I'm still holding on to some speck of hope that Microsoft will reconsider and patch FS2k4. I guess we'll have to see...Dillon--

hmmmmm I like you cling to hope, I have only had FS2002 before FS2004 and my thoughts where those of a dull and tired brain coming to the end of a long week.One thing for sure is Microsofts studied and deliberate silence on this matter really doesn't hold out much hope.Dont get me wrong I think FS9 is awsome as I have written in other posts, and the improvements over 2002 are stupendous. I cant wait for the next incarnation I just hope the never bother with the lite and pro version debacle again, as ended up getting both and wishing I had gone straight to the pro version first.Wycliffe

>>One thing for sure is Microsofts studied and deliberate>silence on this matter really doesn't hold out much hope.>Seems like Microsoft is silent on most matters of FS. Other companies activly participate in formus, but that does not seem to be the case for Microsoft. Has it always been this way since the first version?

heh- aside from some bbs on line things and such, it was not quite this easy to communicate...we didn't have the beauty and luxury of AVSIM forums, or for most machines even a modem! Ahhhh the good ol days- or is that the other way around? But thanks to MICROSOFT as the guru- the ones who truely made all of what you see and use on a computer every day we can now bitc* and moan about a missing light pole off rwy 9.

Hi,I'm sorry to say, but I have pretty much given up hope that FS2004 will receive a patch. Last time MSFS (FS2000) received a patch was about 6 months after it's release and FS2004 has been out now, what, about 7 months? Microsoft's we release and forget until the next version approach is perhaps a little dismaying. Some have said, and it may be true, that this is the result of a lower amount of competition in regards to the number of Flight Simulators for the PC available nowadays compared to years gone by. I guess the only commercial one left is X-Plane. A freeware one is FlightGear. There are some combat flight sims available though if your are interested in those types of Flight Sims.I don't think FS2004 needs patching for a few missing light poles. But for a few glaring issues I think it could use one. Like how about, although they are not everywhere, missing/messy bridges in numerous areas(an autogen problem). Autogen display distance/release problem(an autogen problem). Severe/abrupt winds aloft changes when using real world weather.I also agree that FS2004 is a remarkable piece of software and a tremendous sim to own and fly in, and I love it. But, and it's perhaps a little unfortunate, the patch for it will be FS2006(FS10).Just my thoughts,Jim

Hi Jim.I'm in general agreement that we shouldn't expect any patches for FS9.The "missing/messy bridges" are not an autogen problem. They are a problem with the VTP lines in the BGLs that contain bridges ( the BR*.bgls ). This error could have been fixed with greater error checking on the part of the design team, before the release of FS9. They thought they had good BGLC code, and never really inspected it. This is the same type of inspection error that led to Prince Edward Island being underwater in FS2002. They never fixed that. We do have the 'technology' to replace these bridges for the default terrain, but it doesn't seem likely anybody would go through the tedium of fixing them:The problem with fixing these bridges, is that the road and water locations of FS9 are no better than any previous version. Until the defaults are replaced with relatively accurate roads, streams, shores and water, fixing the bridges seems a waste of time. Delete the BR*.bgls and the bad bridges go away.===================================The "Autogen display distance/release problem" may prove to actually be a problem with the default Library Objects rather than the XML code calls. We're waiting for a new MakeMDL SDK to show us the structure of these objects. If we are able to remake them with proper distance limitations, then it would be worthwhile to replace them, and perhaps someone will do just that.Dick

The failure to patch a product that needs too be patched only effects the future sales of said products.I have very few problems with FS2004, as I have upgraded my memory and video card since FS2004's inception. Initially I thought that many of my problems were software related, but most turned out to be hardware. I am not saying that FS2004 doesn't need a patch, it does! But we have creative users too thank for much of the support that we have gotten since its release.

Hi Dick,Thanks for that informative reply and information! :)I would like to mention that a very good thing about MSFS is that it is pretty open to tweaking, and many fixes for many types of problems have been supplied through this openess by the freeware and payware community. Also, much more than just fixes for problems have been made due to this somewhat open nature! Just try adding a freeware aircraft to LOMAC.. I don't think it can be done. In LOMAC you can put in a skin, but only at the expense of negating the use of a default one, if I'm not mistaken. So, on the whole, I am very appreciative of MS's continued development of MSFS.Cheers!Jim

>The problem with fixing these bridges, is that the road and>water locations of FS9 are no better than any previous>version. Until the defaults are replaced with relatively>accurate roads, streams, shores and water, fixing the bridges>seems a waste of time. Delete the BR*.bgls and the bad bridges>go away.>Don't know where you're flying, but throughout the Mountain West, the roads, & river beds..... with rivers, are much improved over those of FS2002. Luckily, we don't have a ton of long span bridges to get upset over!! :)L.Adamson

Yes.Here's some Mountain West scenery with the stream gently going over hill and dale. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/59319.jpg:-eek That's the default. And it needs better mesh, better roads, better streams, better water and shores..... But if someone likes this effect, then the default scenery is just fine.My point is, few designers would give priority to bridges until the other things were fixed.Dick

Notice, I said much improved. You're attemting to make a point by showing an area that doesn't contain enough elevation data-points to keep the river in a "bed", but yet hundreds & possibly thousands of rivers are much improved............... with actual changes in elevation along the river bed. Same for roads.Do I need to post a few hundred pics of the improvements?L.Adamson

Knock yourself out.:-lol Or better yet, start fixing the bridges of you like the default stream and road data.Dick

>Knock yourself out.>>:-lol >>Or better yet, start fixing the bridges of you like the>default stream and road data.>And as you've probably guessed,I really don't feel it's worth my time. Better yet.......... I don't even really care!!! Honest!!! :-lolL.Adamson