Here is the whole problem:We all have different wants and needs and areas of interest in simming. Microsoft tries to please all and ends up with none completely satisfied-and it will always be that way.I am a GA flyer for real-and my scope of interest is purely in simulating the GA experience-I haven't even tried the jets at all, and don't really have any interest in doing so. I don't really care about outside views of aircraft, and opening doors and the such. The list you propose above mainly concerns flying jets-frankly not a priority at all for me. I don't care about virtual passengers, or tillers, or gates...on and on.....I actually also don't care about worldwide scenery and tend to use the sim to practice in areas that I fly for real-I would prefer more detailed scenery where I fly as opposed to worldwide generic undetailed.My wishes would be first for more real world instrumentation that matches what I use all the time, ( I need a whole radio stack of rnav, kln 94, a couple comm/audio panels, a digital vor, stormscope, and some realistic engine gauges right now for instance), and more weather phenomena such as icing and better depiction of weather that I can't fly over like the jets. Even better detail of roads, vfr landmarks, ability to call up charts and approach plates from the sim,and atc procedures that are experienced in my realm of flying.Who's list is more important? Neither...I personally don't care for virtual cockpits at all (yet) and don't use them. The lists of improvements you mention in atc primarily effects jet flying-since I don't fly that way I am not interested in those-but am interested in improvements in the way I generally experience atc as a Ga flyer. I don't care about jetways for instance-but I would care about snow and ice since I fly in it almost half the year. Seeing smoke from the ground to gauge wind direction, or whitecaps on water indicating wind speed and direction might for instance be on my list.These are the kinds of issues that MS deals with. They have to make a product that pleases everyone-yet no one. They have to make choices of improvements across the whole spectrum-as their market includes persons across the spectrum. This market covers gamers that know nothing about flying, to serious GA simulators, to serious heavy jet simulators.So the next version will have improvements-but they most probably will not match your list or mine-but the improvements will be there-across the spectrum.As for performance-I'd vote for always pushing the edge....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Unfortunately many of you missed the point that I'm trying to>makeSo what is your point ? I keep reading and it seems your point is to have some features that you find attractive and that it runs well on your computer. But like Geofa and I - we are not interested in heavy iron and for example using a tiller to taxi a 780,000lbs jet. We are GA folks. So please, not everyone wants the same thing as you do. It is Microsoft's job and discretion to push the envelope in multidue of different areas at the same time.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Virtual cockpit only makes no sense. I get great FPS in VCs but regardless of what plane I am running the gauges refresh at a horrible rate. How can one fly IFR with these? How can a heavy iron flyer follow the F/D when it's lagging behind his cockpit and scenery? VC IMO still is way behind 2D. Sure you have more FOV but at what price?[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

Everybody is right in the end only MS decides. However, a lot of people still got the wrong idea about what I really mean. There is nothing in any of my post did I mention to have MS make features that suits me only, infact it's just the opposite. Everything I mentioned is already featured in FS9 or evn FS2002. All I'm suggesting is that MS just improve upon them and make them much more realistic (forget about the VC..which really tick a lot off). In my first post I said it would be better to modify the flight plan so pilots can insert his/her own flight plans, so what is stopping you from flying your GA aircrafts with a modify ATC to suit your filed plan? Not because I mentioned SID/STAR did I mean for MS to make improvement alone for IFR pilots. I really do appreciate this healthy debate though and I thank all who has participated. Oh well I guess we will continue to fly below 10000ft @ 300kts. So when do we start seeing "As real as it gets" if MS just keep pushing the envelope and leave necessities alone with modern technology? Thanks.

To those people who say they cannot afford a new machine.- I'vetold you before! You just will not listen. Here are the steps:You cut out beer for a week.You have NO Krispy Kreme Donuts - absolutely none!You have no ice cream each day - like Moose Tracks!You don't clean your teeth. Big saving here for awhile.You rug up in furs - no heating allowed or you use minimumclothes & cool yourself with a water spray bottle.You recycle ALL your water.You stop driving your Hummer for 3 days.You cut out all double shot coffee except that which you find!You work overtime by collecting cans from the trash bins andreselling them.You cut your mobile phone text messaging from 300/day to 100/day!It is just so simple! Hope this has been helpful.Peter Sydney Australia

>>>>Hope this has been helpful.Peter Sydney Australia<<<<

Hey, hey! No fair! Dentist says I gotta brush my tooth or it's gunna falls out! :-badteethJon D.

>At least I'm getting the impression that some of you want MS>to raise the bar on every version even if the computers>available cannot run the version smoothly without making>sacrifices. Yes, I certainly want Microsoft to raise the bar as much as possible. In some respects some games are far more advanced than FS and they still manage to run smoothly. A new FS version will often demand more powerful hardware to fully utilise the new features. But that shouldn't be a problem - that's what the sliders are for! My impression is that if you reduce the sliders in FS2004 to make it roughly equivalent to FS2002 in visual quality, then FS2004 actually runs better. Providing the sliders can be used to adapt the sim to lower hardware then it's a win-win situation. And when you upgrade to a new computer you'll be able to push those sliders all the way to the right!> Keeping also in mind that the reason FS9 is>running better on our system at the moment is because many of>us has deleted the XML file from the autogen folder and modify>the CFG file to get rid of a lot of useless features. Question>if we have to do that, then why MS put that in there in the>first place? Surely a restaurant with a huge chicken is not a useless feature! Seriously, this is a well known autogen defect. But it's not caused by a design decision. It's probably caused by an honest mistake - someone may have slipped a decimal point when entering a visibility distance for some of the library objects - I'm sure they didn't intend light poles to be visible from thirty miles! Unfortunately, Microsoft being Microsoft, they're unlikely to fix this error until the next version. Best regards, Chris

> Yes, I certainly want Microsoft to raise the bar as much as>possible. In some respects some games are far more advanced>than FS and they still manage to run smoothly.Yes, I agree. One might actually argue that *IF* MSFS was more advanced and shed its old legacy code it would actually run better on today computers.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

>Yes, I agree. One might actually argue that *IF* MSFS was more>advanced and shed its old legacy code it would actually run>better on today computers.Hear hear! I think a large part of the performance problem is the pressure to satisfy the demand for backward-compatibility, while trying to add enough new stuff to warrant a new version number. If MS devised a completely new code, you better believe the entire community would be in an uproar. But I'd bet a year's salary that at least 80% of the people who lashed out would be among the first to buy and upgrade their rigs accordingly. Jon D.

>With all due respect to the first poster, I have to say that>every time I see a post saying that the new version of FS>Gaming is what pushes the envelope in computer technology, and>as much as people will scream, tear clothes, foam at the>mouth, and scream "HERESY!!", MSFS is just that-- a game. MostSome arguments for calling MSFS more than just a gameIn games you score points, and they should be designed so thatyou succeed in about 80% of the cases. This does not apply to MSFS.They try to make it as real as possible. In a addon plane I bought (The Meridian) they refer to the manualsfor the realworls avionics in order to benefit best from the simulated plane. I havn't found that in a 'game'.

Fellows,About a year ago I had this(see original post)to say about VC and 2D cockpit. I was almost laughed at about suggesting to MS to get rid of 2D. However, after seeing LDS767,and the upcoming PMDG 744, PSS Concord and upcoming annoucement of the 777/757, they are listerning. Now if only MS will do the rest of my suggesting, we will be flying "as real as it gets". So what do you think about VC now? thnx

I'd say you're just going to end up with the same points raised that were before and they'll still all be equally as valid as they were before. ;-)The simple answer is that to keep both parties happy, MS would be better keeping both the 2d and VC panels in the sim. People like both and why shouldn't they?Ian P.

>>So what do you think about VC now? thnx Rather than waking up once a year reviving the year-old thread I suggest you keep en eye what is being discussed on this forum. Just days ago there was huge thread on the subject of "VC" and I urge you to read it in its enitrety so you will have a very good idea why people feel certain way about VC and 2D cockpits. It pays to listen.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Case in point, FS2002 ran much better than FS2000. You could actually downgrade your computer between 2000 and 2002!http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]_BigO_new.jpg