I have tried to submit this bug to Microsoft FSIM Dev. team, but they make it impossible to find any such contact/feedback form on their official MSFS 2004 web site so I'll mention it here.I have noticed that the default scenery airports in Antarctica are seriously flawed. In one of them the airplane (when sitting on the runway) is actually below the ground level. On all the other airports there the runway is placed in the sea (or overlays the sea as well as the airport buildings), not to mention that the sea itself has some great topology changes (i.e. cliffs with water textures, etc.)I was kind of excited that they finally added some airports in Antarctica, but having tried them all it leaves me quite disappointed.

First, can you imagine how much work would get done if the team provided addresses and participated in emails??? Right now, they're concentrating upon the next version....FS9 was finished prior to last July.Second, this effect you describe happens at the North pole too. It has to do with the manner by which terrain / mesh is applied; it is managed in blocks of pre-determined lines of latitude / logitude. Naturally, as one reaches the two extremeties of the earth, these lines converge thus you notice what appears to be 'floating' objects and airfields.

there is an email address, but you need to look for it a bit (not even that much).The airports are flawed, but most not seriously. As I understand it they are created in their correct positions, which is largely on the ice shelves.As these don't show up as ice in FS but as water the airports seem to float on water. This has always been the case (icecaps not showing).Minor oversight rather than serious flaw.I've visited them all and not noticed my aircraft underground.I've also not noticed ALL of them being over open water, at least 1 is completely on dry land.

Barney part of developing a quality product is to make it easier for its users to report any feedback (errors, etc.) to the development team. Microsoft clearly does not make this easy. I'm not saying they should real each and every e-mail with a suggestion/comment, but those with errors should in fact be given a priority. As for your explanation to these vidual anomalies I described, that's not an excuse. Microsoft should know better. You can't say this is how our system of coordinates/floating points is calculated so at north/south poles, you will experience these rather awkward topological features. This program has been in development for almost what, 2 decades? One would think this shortcoming would have been resolved by now. No excuses.

They DO make it easy to send them email, the address is clearly stated on the website.And they DO read every message and will act on them if prudent (which means tirades and shouting matches get binned immediately).I quote, from a page that's only 2 clicks from the product entry page (so well within the accepted standards for linking depth):How can I suggest a feature for a future version of FS? The best way to submit product suggestions directly to the Flight Simulator team is via the [email protected] e-mail alias. The Flight Simulator team reads every message sent to this address. Unfortunately, we can't respond to individual messages, and we can't provide technical support or customer service via this address. bold emphasis added by me.

It is claimed by some who have more intimate knowledge, that these forums are scanned by a 'representative' of the team. By making your feelings known with your original message, perhaps you will have bent an ear, although I'm sure you're not the first.As for my explanation being no excuse, please don't shoot the messenger but I was _not_ making an excuse. I'm quite certain MS can rationalize their actions quite ablely on their own; they don't need any help or cheering from me. I was merely trying to help you understand the 'why' of the anomaly. I was under the innocent, if not naive, impression that it might have been a case of your curiosity looking for a reason, but apparently I was mistaken; instead, I now determine your purpose is to criticize the product. This situation with respect to 'how' MS prescribes the system of coordinates has been in effect since FS95 that I know of from personal experience, and now, 4 editions later, it is still being used so I doubt if its a case of them 'knowing better'. And if in fact, this system stems from the early days of develoment as you intimate, it then follows that MS seemingly has no intention of altering it any time soon.But while I agree that it is quite within your right to question their practise and methodology, and to let them know of your displeasure, I wonder if you would perhaps come across as being more helpful and supportive of the sim if you were to include suggestions for an alternative system rather than lashing out at them in the first instance, and me in the second, who only responded to what I thought was a request for an explanation.