I see overcast as a bug, autogen memory usage too.Overcast is 8/8, and FS2004 isn't able to reproduce a 8/8 condition. We always can see the terrain in overcast condition, this is an error. I don't care if a layer of 2D clouds must be added to create the overcast.Ulisses

Regarding other sims and patches, I seem to remember Fly! being worked on and patched right up to the time Richard died. Possibly after.I doubt you can tax your resources more seriously than that.Regarding FS2k4, I'm actually considering getting a new system, and to get it to run maxed-out and smoothly would be my goal.But MS' ongoing lack of support (I don't consider SDKs to be support) is troubling. Maybe some of the complaints are nitpicky - but let's face it, we're talking about a group of rather anal individuals. I certainly don't mean that in a negative way! I'm one of them.Heck, who else wants to sit in a room for an hour staring at tiny needles moving ever-so-slightly? (I do! I do!)I doubt that whatever issues there are with the sim would stop me from buying it. However, I can't imagine that a little fix here and there - and maybe some serious improvements - would only help the user base to spread the word, and for those serious simmers to take it a little bit more seriously.One improvement I've always wanted to see is autogen lights - pinpoint lights, or, at least, some system of realistic night ground lighting. I think USA Roads takes care of this to a large degree. What I'm suggesting is that some esoteric improvements are certainly welcome as well, at least by me ;)Does anyone know what the current user base number is?cheersAndrew

>> Does anyone know what the current user base number is?Far more then you might think. More then enough to justify a full time development team and certainly more then enough to justify a patch.The problem is that a *patch* is Mcrosoft admitting that there is a defect in the product. Once they open up that can of worms, it can never be closed again. Their work around for this is giving everyone who bought the product a nice discount on the next version when it comes around. Whether is it right or wrong, that is their policy and it is not going to change because of the implications of that change. The support costs being *none* but a small web site to maintain make for a good return on investment.At a million+ copies sold every 2 years, it is quite profitable for them, which is why they still do it. As soon as the profit margin drops, wave bye bye because Microsoft is after all only in it for the money. Don't let people fool you into thinking Microsoft has any motive other then profit. While there may be some employees who think differently, they exist only at the whim of the pencil pushers and bean counters.

"Don't let people fool you into thinking Microsoft has any motive other then profit. While there may be some employees who think differently, they exist only at the whim of the pencil pushers and bean counters."I am afraid that's true of just about any publicly traded company. One thing in favor of the Fly! franchise, and X-Plane, and numerous other titles supported with patches is their private ownership.Still I believe the MSFS team, a small part of thw whole, is made up of real people with real interest in making the sim better. If they could patch it, they probably would. But standing in the way are those dang stockholders, some of them present in this forum, who want their ten percent return every year. That's one thing I can relate to since I was laid off a dozen years ago, not because we weren't making a profit. I was laid off because our forecast profit didn't meet what was initially stated to the shareholders--and they were out for blood using the pencil pushers and bean counters to do their dirty work.I haven't worked for a public company since.-John

Hello All,Well, I guess I'll stick my .02 cents in here, and of course, this is just MY opinion.As a real world pilot, who has more hours than he cares to admit to in his old age, I find FS9 pretty darn good. Having played with MSFS since FS 4 (I believe, although I'm getting old, and the memory could be fading), and watching all the improvments . . . about the only one I couldn't stomach was FS2000 . . . I stayed with FS98 for a looooong time as 2000 was just a dud for me.However, looking back, over the years at what we had then, and Pro Pilot, X plane, Fly and such, I have to admit, FS9 is pretty darn good.Yes, it has issues . . . but heck, everything has issues. Would I like to see a patch to clear them up? Well, I'm not dying for one, mainly because you see, we as a group of hardened simmers find our own solutions to these problems, post them on our forums and guess what . . .we end up with a pretty decent product.I can live with FS9, just as it is without pullng my hair out. We've got the best darned crop of payware and freeware aircraft and scenery we've ever had ... isn't technology great!!!As for no FS10 or 2006 . . .well, I guess it would bother me, but I have FS9, and it's mine and it ain't goin no where but stayin on my HD LOL. I could live with it for the rest of my days if I had to, but yes, it would be nice to see a FS10, and never fear, we will.Microsoft makes a bundle off of MSFS, and they KNOW they are the leaders in this field, and for the price, they offer us so much for so little . . . even if we ARE their beta testers..LOL But as mentioned, we are a bright lot and always seem to find an answer to the problems at hand.I can't slam MS, they have given me back the skies where the FAA took them away due to my medical . . . Thanks MS. And I don't think profit is a dirty word . . .cause if they didn't make one, then we for sure wouldn't be seeing a FS10 or 2006.Patch it? Yeah, I guess it might be nice if they sent out a patch to cover some of the more serious issues . . . but then again, if I would have to reload all the gillion dollars of add ons I have, I might not want to fool with it . . .must be my old age creeping in. Guys, I'm thankful for what we have . . . and like everyone else, am looking forward to the next edition . . .as I am sure it will be tons better, and also have its own set of 'problems' that WE will have to fix.. And lastly, I wonder how many of our 'younger' simmers would fool with the likes today of FS4 . No offense, but we've sort of gotten just a tad spoiled . . . it's never gonna be a real aircraft . . .or 'real' flying. But from one who can't do the 'real' anymore . . .it does just fine.Again, just an old pilots .02 cents worthBest to everyone,Clayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac" ".....fighter pilots make movies . . .Bomber pilots Make HISTORY!!!!........"

>Regarding other sims and patches, I seem to remember Fly!>being worked on and patched right up to the time Richard died.>Possibly after.>FLYII didn't have a choice. It was pushed out the door before being as least semi completed and is almost un-usable straight out of the box. You have to apply quite a number of patches right off the bat. I used the term "semi completed" because I don't feel that any flight sim will be complete. But I'm not complaining about FLYII because I know all the circumstances surrounding the product.L.Adamson

True, but let's not forget that although the software needed patches, they were being written for a project which was known to be the last in a (too-short) series.Point being, perhaps things should be fixed when they can without so much being left, simply, for "the next version". Sure, the product is primarily made for the company. But it's also made for, in the case of FS, many dedicated simmers. 2 years is too long a wait for -possible- fixes.CheersAndrew>>Regarding other sims and patches, I seem to remember Fly!>>being worked on and patched right up to the time Richard>died.>>Possibly after.>>>>FLYII didn't have a choice. It was pushed out the door before>being as least semi completed and is almost un-usable straight>out of the box. You have to apply quite a number of patches>right off the bat. >>I used the term "semi completed" because I don't feel that any>flight sim will be complete. But I'm not complaining about>FLYII because I know all the circumstances surrounding the>product.>>L.Adamson>>

>Point being, perhaps things should be fixed when they can>without so much being left, simply, for "the next version".>Sure, the product is primarily made for the company. But it's>also made for, in the case of FS, many dedicated simmers. 2>years is too long a wait for -possible- fixes.>You can just put me in the group who feels the sim is quite usuable as is, and doesn't require that much work around for what I need out of it. Same for both FS2002 & 2004.Glad I'm not anxiously waiting for a patch;...................... one less thing to worry about! :D L.Adamson

I don't think the MSFS series is going away any time soon. It's one of the hottest selling titles Microsoft produces, next to Windows.In terms of the comment I read earlier of "overcast isn't a bug", perhaps not in the sense that overcast is behaving the way it's been designed to behave. However, it's incorrect to label a broken layer of clouds "overcast", so I submit that, though by definition it is not a software "bug" it IS a misrepresentation of the facts. Overcast is defined as 10/10th of the sky obscured by clouds.

That is the question of the century (so far) in the world of computer gaming (simulator for all those wishing for "political correctness")...Most people that answered your call are (& I suspect always will be) waaaaaaaaaaay too easy on Microsoft. What's in a name? In this case billions upon untold billions of dollars & the largest software empire in the world (sometimes an evil one at that).All the hoopla about wrecking this by tweaking that, all the while bringing in an army of beta tests that will "break the bank" is absolute nonsense ***with respect to the overcast condition you call out*** & nothing more.By the shear "scale of economy" factor at play here with Microsoft; you will never see a patch unless there is a competitor eating in to sales, OR there is a major & fatal reproducible bug (or a laundry list of minor bugs in place of that).The very shrued allocation of business resources, in this case & all others in the past 20 years, are what makes Microsoft the giant they have become ......& they wouldn't have it any other way.Politics: the answer to your question.

"Glad I'm not anxiously waiting for a patch"Yes... but are you anxiously waiting for 2006?AHA! ;)

>I have to say, FS2002 didn't need a patch IMO. It was a very>stable sim with very few problems. There were a few small>issues like flashing ramp/taxiway textures at some airports>and clouds that sometimes turned paper-thin but nothing that>truly needed a patch.Well...I guess it comes down to what trips your trigger in a Flight Sim. Personally the paper thin clouds were something that I could live with until the next version,because for the most part the clouds looked fine.But...flying 2,3,4 hours and landing at major airports just to have the ramp disappear or flash off and on as you taxied to the terminal was a joke and a serious bug IMO. Like I mentioned before it was patched,and very easily at that by paying MS customers and uploaded. MS could have and should have done the same.David

Hi David - There is a way to fix that? I must have missed it, and I'm still running 2k2.Could you point me in the right direction?Thanks,Andrew

Clay, that's one of the most reasonable posts I've seen in a long time. Have you ever tried to get on the beta? You sound like someone who MSFT would like to have. I think you should write to [email protected] and give them your background and see what happens.

"Most people that answered your call are (& I suspect always will be) waaaaaaaaaaay too easy on Microsoft. What's in a name? In this case billions upon untold billions of dollars & the largest software empire in the world (sometimes an evil one at that)."I knew that Microsoft bashing, evil practices, etc would make it into this thread sooner or later. Let me ask you this: Do you have a 401K? A retirement plan? A college savings fund? My point is, if you are invested in anything (or plan on it), then you are likely part of the evil software empire. Ohhh nooo...I work in a software shop--do you? I would love to see our work patched every day, if that were possible. We know there's no way to release a zero-defect product. And I'd love to see FS2004 patched.But it simply ain't going to happen. You can blame evil empires, "stick in the mud" simmers who don't want to rock the boat. You name it. But really, who is to blame? All of us are!How many had issues with FS2002, wanting Microsoft to patch it, then went out and bought FS2004 anyway? I'd bet those screaming loudest for a patch fall into that category. What does that tell Microsoft? In my opinion, it tells Microsoft you accept their business practices--and it is perfectly fair for Microsoft to read it that way. You can read in any other of a million reasons, but basically your dollar is your vote. And every "election", the MSFS team wins hands down (rightly so, IMHO--let's hope they "run" again).There's also another great myth--that of MSFS being easily patchable with all the resources and all the revenue Microsoft has coming in. Again, many making that statement have never worked in a programming shop of any size. You just can't walk over to the O/S division, and say "we need you over here to assist the MSFS team". You could pull over a hundred programmers, and they'd be dead in the water--by the time they learned the code, it'd be well past time for FS2006.Please don't mix our saying there won't be a patch with our saying we don't want one. Some don't, and they've made the decision to accept the product as it is. And maybe that's wise--stressing over an entertainment title is a waste of valuable flight time :)I'd love to see a patch, but I simply believe the product has grown so complex, and our wish for a new release every two years so demanding, that the MSFS team (not Microsoft) doesn't have nor can it obtain the resources to work these issues and whip up a new sim every 24 months. -John