I agree at 100%Roger

Uff...I've passed the test!I haven't had anyone agreeing so quickly and abruptly on this forum for quite a while.It doesn't change the way the sim looks, but it makes my heart warmer.Thanks for your support, Roger.And happy flying to you.P.S. There's only ONE thing I demand from the next sim (yes, I DEMAND, and am willing to pay for it), and that's a new or at least a heavily revamped graphic engine. If it's possible, of course.And by the way, does anyone at MS actually use the sim and notice how surpassed it looks compared to all other similar entertainment out there? Just wondering...Yours, sarcastically,luca

Well my math was incorrect, sorry I was tired last night, there are actually 74,649,600 choices more than I stated last night. To verify the way I was doing it I searched for the proper way to figure this kind of equation out and here is what I found "A dinner menu lists 6 appetizers, 2 salads, 12 main courses and 7 desserts.How many different meals consisting of an appetizer, a salad, a main course and a dessert are possible?The counting principle makes it easy!(6)(2)(12)(7) = 1008 possible meals!"So given the choices of 2 CPU's, 2 Operating systems, 4 memory choices, 8 hard drive choices, 3 CD /DVD choices, 2 additional CD drive choices, 2 removable drive choices, 3 video card choices, 2 sound card choices, 6 monitor choices, 5 speaker choices, 3 keyboard choices, 5 productivity software choices, 6 choices for security and other software, and 3 communication hardware choices. That is (2) (2) (4) (8) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (6) (5) (3) (5) (6) (3)= 74,649,600. I agree that everything should work as set out in the agreed upon standards but this is the real world and many software and hardware manufacturers take short cuts or "force" things to work to get the product out on the market. I have worked in the industry so I have seen this first hand. Most things do work, and work very well but given the sheer number of possibilities of hardware and software configurations you can never make things work perfectly. I am not being apologetic for the industry but rather trying to point out what they face. I also agree that their code could be optimized and could be faster but to get to the root of the problem why FS runs fine on my system and does not on someone elses you have to look at the configuration of that persons computer. It is unfortunate but unavoidable that some systems just will not be able to properly run FS unless whatever hardware or software incompatability can be fixed. Yes, I agree in large part that the only "solution" to running FS at the top of it's game is to buy a new computer every couple of years but we drive that requirement, we always want everything bigger, better and faster. Microsoft listens to us and they improve the sim every couple of years to make it the way that we want it, not individually but as a whole, and thus the requirement to upgrade our computers all of the time. So in all honesty it is us that is responsible for the never ending need to upgrade our systems. I know that there are those that will not agree with me and that is fine, I try to see all issues from both sides and form my opinions based on logic and fact, even doing this sometimes I am still wrong. So consider everything said as my opinion and only worth as much as every one else's. :-lol Philip Olsonhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...porter.jpg:-lol

My feeling is that one group at Microsoft (the FS group) are severely hampered by another group in the same company (the Windows OS group).Remember the good old days of MS-DOS, when games took over the whole machine and didn't allow anything like windows a look-in? Now - if someone were to write a native machine code game for a 2GHz pentium4 - that would really kick some serious butt - but then we'd have all the 74 million hardware configuration problems outlined above. I'm sure that professional flight sims (Boeing et al) don't have code written that has to run under Windows OS. This is the sad compromise we have to make for a shrink-wrapped set of discs that anyone from Alberta to Zimbabwe can load on a PC and get enjoyment from for $50 (or your local currency equivalent).I fully appreciate the desire of many within this community who's goal is "as close to reality as possible" and I applaude that goal. At the end of the day, we are still talking about a "Game" (sorry for using that 4-letter word!!), it's just CLOSER to reality than Grand Theft Auto or Tomb Raider. Let's face it, the Flight Simulator has come a long way from the early days, and each version keeps getting better and better. Maybe FS2006 will address some of these issues. I skipped 2000 and went from 98 to 2002, so I'll wait for '06, or '08, or '10 or........

Hi TonyActually it's been a known fact for at least several years that the default 1.0X is zoomed in intentionally by MS to boost framerates. Your math seems correct to me but obviously we're missing something and making a wrong assumption somewhere. This becomes obvious if you sit in the right seat for a landing (real aircraft). The runways in FS are considerably foreshortened, and it stands out like a sore thumb because a runway is basically a rectangle (trappazoid in appearance when viewed from the end). Elsewhere in the sim it isn't noticeable. I'm not trying to be argumenative, but when the math doesn't match reality something eroneous is being used in the math.I'll see if I can find the conflict but at the moment it alludes me.(And I always was an A student in arithmatic, algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, laplace, etc so this really is frustrating!).David