While you do have a point, I don't think fixing the three or four bugs that people have discovered would make people stay with FS9 once FS10 is out, nor would it require huge amount of resources that would delay FS10.The Autogen bug was enough for me to abandon FS9 for 6 months and when I returned I had to spend lots of time tweaking and buying scenery addons to compensate for the loss of this "key feature" (the new autogen is advertised as a key feature of FS9). Now, I get 50FPS over dense cities with Autogen and all other scenery settings maxed out. A nice improvement over the 8-20 FPS I saw before working around MS's bug. If someone would decompile the FS9 scenery and system files and figure out where the flaw is and fix it, I'd actually *pay* him money :-lol

If what you say is true, that its good to leave some bugs in there to ensure that people will buy the next version (sounds rediculous, but hey.....anything's possible with Microsoft)....then how can you explain the fact that the wind shift bug was present in FS2002....and wasn't fixed for FS2004? How can you explain the fact that the timezone bug was present pre-FS2002 but didn't actually get fixed either? And that's only to name a couple that comes to mind.So while some may be contented with what they have now, waiting patiently for the next version of FS to fix whatever problems that exist in this version, as has been shown, there is no guarantee that these problems will be fixed in the next version.Well, lets hope that these present problems does indeed get fixed in the next version....I won't hold my breadth, but I will keep my fingers crossed.

"then how can you explain the fact that the wind shift bug was present in FS2002....and wasn't fixed for FS2004? How can you explain the fact that the timezone bug was present pre-FS2002 but didn't actually get fixed either? And that's only to name a couple that comes to mind."Some possibilites:a) Those are supposed to be fixed for FS2006 or 2008 - they need to keep some bugs so that people will have a reason to buy the latest FS. Microsoft sure is a very, very evil company.:( Those issues were not considered serious enough to warrant fixing. Few of the average joe-type buyers would notice them and even fewer would care about them.c) The wind shift bug is probably "by design" and fixing it properly would require a rewrite of the wind simulation. They may have been able to put up a "quick and dirty" smoothing algorithm or something but it sure wouldn't have been pretty. Timezone data is probably imported from a database and is bound to be faulty, just like the elevation or landclass data.

My perhapsing is no different that the perhapshing that takes place accusing Microsoft of being negligent, and Beta Testers being lazy and ignoring bugs.The simple truth, is that patching a product, cuts into profit. Plain and simple. Now in this forum, it seems that "profit" is a "bad word". Especially when I see so many folks complain because someone has the gall to release an "update" to their add-on to work with FS2004, and expects this "update" to be provided by the developer free of charge. Some people around here, have the unrealistic belief that once they lay down their $30.00, they should be provided with free updates the the life of the product. Which is like saying Microsoft should provide me with Windows XP for free, since I purchased Windows 95, 7 years ago.As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the general consensous of some around here, and we see numerous posts of people compalining that when the "update" finally appears, they should not have to pay for it at all.Flight One had quite a bit of press with their release of Ultimate Traffic. Folks complained that the update process took too long and not one of them suggested that UT might be worth purchasing an update. Heck most people won't spot the $5.00 necessary to update the flight schedule data, and expects Flight One to pocket this expense themselves.FS Genesis, is one of the finest add on companies IMHO, is working on Hawaii. The Hawaii Mesh and Landclass is a $9.99 add on and is easily worth that. Since it's release, Justin has put in an unbelievable amount of work updating the shorelines, and moving scenery objects that were based on Microsoft's less accurate data. I am going to purchase it again, even though I already have it. Why? Because the version of Hawaii that will be released is nothing like the version I paid $10.00 for a year ago. As a result, Justin must balance releasing new product, with updating older product. Luckily, there is plenty of areas requiring mesh. However, once we run out of areas to put in mesh, the question is, can Justin remain profitable by simply providing free updates to his already released product? My answer is no.Unfortunately, I am in the minority in this opinion. In a land of All you can Eat buffets, Unlimited internet surfing, and unlimited long distance, we as consumers feel that once we pay for a product or service, that subsequent improvements should come to us at no cost. As if all that work that is performed post release is "free". None of us would buy a 2004 car, and when the 2005 model comes standard with GPS, would expect the car manufactuer to just give us GPS. Yet that is the overwhelming attitude of some people here. There is no guarantee that a future release will fix your bug de jour, but you also have the option of holding back on buying to product until you look at what has been added, fixed, or whatever.For me, and I believe a great many people here, the enhancements and greater realism provided by each subsequent release outweighs any bugs that may transfer from version to version.NONE of us know the reasons that Microsoft fails to provide a patch, and NONE of us will ever know. What we can do, is decide what to do about it. I for one, like the status quo. I find MSFS to be a suprisingly full function simulator and any bugs I find, while annoyances, does little to destroy my enjoyment of the product.This does not make me a Bill Gates butt kisser. For those of you who are unhappy with the status quo, then write a letter to Microsoft, explaining to them, that you have no intention of purchasing any future versions of FS until they fix your bug of choice. If enough of you feel that way, there may be impact. Or, for some of the more vocal of you, feel free to develop a flight simulator yourself, you will grow to appreciate the software development process, and perhaps will have the added perspective of walking in another man's shoes.

"The simple truth, is that patching a product, cuts into profit. Plain and simple. Now in this forum, it seems that "profit" is a "bad word". Especially when I see so many folks complain because someone has the gall to release an "update" to their add-on to work with FS2004, and expects this "update" to be provided by the developer free of charge."I haven't seen people complain specifically that they had to pay to updated a 3rd-party add-on to work with a new version of FS if they purchased the add-on for an older version.. is that right?"Some people around here, have the unrealistic belief that once they lay down their $30.00, they should be provided with free updates the the life of the product. Which is like saying Microsoft should provide me with Windows XP for free, since I purchased Windows 95, 7 years ago."You're mixing apples and oranges here. There is a big difference between having a release work as it's supposed to, and dare I say, promised to - and being given wholly new products.It's NOT like saying if you purchased Flight Simulator 4 then you should be given Flight Simulator 9 for free, and I haven't read a single comment that would lead me to believe anyone here feels that way.

I know that when I have kids they are really going to have cause to complain because for me I had to ride 3 miles to school everyday in either my moms or dads Rolls Royce, I doubt that I am going to be able to give my kids that luxury. :-) It truly is sad that in most places today we can not let our kids walk to school, what has happened to our country, and for that matter our world? Believe me if I could turn back the clock I would, well for everything except the advances in FS!!!!!!!!!Best Regards, Philip Olsonhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

I go with number 3.The wind shift bug is almost certainly by design. It occurs only when we run real world weather and that weather is updated through the internet.The interval for updating is 15 minutes. So every 15 minutes new weather conditions are updated and overwrite the existing weather. This is especially true if the person has dynamic weather set to other than "none" when using real weather updates. Here's the scenario. Your flying, get an update, and immediately the dynamic weather engine starts changing the weather on you. Then 15 minutes later, you download your next update. It gets loaded into the sim and overwrites whatever the current conditions are. This is why I turn off dynamic weather when using updates.Even with dynamic weather OFF, the same scenario can occur when crossing over to different reporting stations. The real world weather is not real time, it is snap shots, and the weather stations that report are reporting THEIR conditions, not the conditions at your plane. So when running "real weather updates" you have a very coarse update process stemming from both the fact that you are updating snapshots of weather that are 15 minutes apart. AND the fact that you are downloading the conditions that are closest to your plane, but can still be a long way from your actual position. AND the fact that your plane has travelled roughly 100 miles (when using jets) away from the last place you downloaded weather. AND this, doesn't even take account that the weather servers may not always providing up to the second results.The effect is like a flip book animation, and obviously when the update occurs, the effect can be dramatic.The effect can be minimized by turning down or off dynamic weather, so that the weather engine isn't generating an entirely different set of weather conditions in between updates. It can also be eliminated completely by not using real weather with constant updates. Take a Snap Shot and then let the dynamic weather take effect for the rest of the flight.However, if you insist on using real weather with periodic updates, this will always be an issue.Yes, Peter Dawson, has "minimized" this effect with FSUIPC by artifically lengthening the transition time, by only allowing wind Changes to occur at 5% per second, so that a wind shift takes 20 seconds to fully occur.Is this genius? Yes, it's very effective, but people erroneously report this problem as a "bug" when it is simply a function of a very rudimentry system of updating weather based on polling often far away stations, for snapshot static weather conditions, a relatively long period apart.

"Unfortunately, I am in the minority in this opinion. In a land of All you can Eat buffets, Unlimited internet surfing, and unlimited long distance, we as consumers feel that once we pay for a product or service, that subsequent improvements should come to us at no cost. As if all that work that is performed post release is "free"."I've met few simmers who "expect" that the upgrades offered for free by some payware vendors should be free. Indeed, most customers have voiced their appreciation for the upgrades.But Will, try to stay on point here.What we're talking about here is getting what you pay for. No matter that it costs $54.95 or $5 million. If a company advertises that a product will do something, then the product should deliver the goods. To that end FS9 has some rather glaring failures... real time downloadable IMC is not possible. If the server can deliver the IMC and the game engine fails to produce it on-screen, then it needs to be fixed. MS advertised that new autogen would be a part of FS9, but that buggy feature simply brings even the best hardware to it's knees. Needs to be fixed. The seasonal CTD is now easily remedied, but to do so reguires the customer to disable features that he/she thought they were getting when they put their money down. Fix it.You seem to continue dwelling on why fixes can't be addressed by MS... while many within the community refuse such excuses and simply want what they were told they were buying. No more, no less.Regards,Greg

Just to set the record straight (TIC MODE ON)...Profit is not a dirty word here. Were it, you would see ######'s everytime it was used. :-lolAnd my editorial... anyone who views "profit" as an evil thing, either has not worked in the real world, or lives off an inheritance and can afford to dismiss that real world around them. Or, they are criminally naive.

"There is a big difference between having a release work as it's supposed to, and dare I say, promised to - and being given wholly new products." Bolding is my emphasis...This is specific to MS and the FS series. In our seven years of publishing, interviewing and meeting / joshing with the MS FS team, if there is one thing we can attest to, they are very circumspect about what they "promise". In fact, I cannot think of one instance in either an interview, a press release, a meeting or any other time for that matter, when the MSFS team promised anything at all, except maybe a schedule for release that was vetted by every lawyer that MS has. If you are referring to box specifications for systems, then I would hasten to add that those are minimum specs for the system to "run". The definition of "run" is like those of "beauty". The definition of "running" is in the eye's of the beholder.

It is you who miss the point.As far as the autogen.xml file. While it is true that the system does not release objects in the autogen.xml file until much later than they are loaded, doesn't mean Microsoft failed to deliver. The items are relased. Microsoft never promised you that you would be able to run your system full sliders right. I don't see you arguing about Lock On's famous performance issues, that easily bring a system down much quicker than FS9 ever has. You have made a choice, you disable .xml objects so that they don't get loaded, and as a result can have more autogen density at the sacrifice of autogen variety. You could also buy more RAM, or buy a bigger video card. Those are your options. If the .xml items were never released, that would be an issue. But they are, they're just not released in a manner that you find consistent with how they are loaded. We don't know if that is by design or an oversight, but without that knowledge, you jump to the conclusion that it must be a bug. Many of us use lesser densities of autogen and don't find the loading of releasing of the .xml objects to be a problem. But because it doesn't match your interpretation on how it should work, it is obviously a bug.As far as weather goes, the weather engine simulates IMC conditions to the best of it's ability given the limitations of current hardware. If Microsoft had truly simulated IMC using it's existing weather engine, no computer available would be able to run the simulator in IMC. The engine is capable of generating it, but computers today are not capable of running it. So Microsoft either had to choose to implement IMC with the best compromise available, or scrap the new weather engine in favor of the old style. I personally like the new engine. What you are asking for is not a "fix" of a broken engine, but rather an entirely different engine that will "kick in" when IMC conditions exist. This "new" engine would have to use an entirely different 2d cloud set so as to not adversely affect performance, and would need to blend in with the existing engine so that as we transition across the cloud layer we would not notice the change. Quite a feat in my book. Would you rather that MS simply allow the 3d engine draw the clouds in the same way that they do in non IMC conditions and slow your computer down? No, your arguement about the .xml file attests to that. So you won't be happy until Microsoft bolts on an entirely NEW engine or the OLD FS2002/FS2000 engine just to handle your IMC conditions. I don't see this as a bug fix, but rather a feature request.And finally, the CTD bug. Yes it is a bug. Yes, it did get overlooked or ignored. But, the existing fix in the community works around the bug with minimal impact on the simulator. It is likely that Microsoft would choose this method to fix the problem. Just like they "sacrificed" guage movement to make overall smoothness in the out of the view window in FS2000 better. Any other fix, would require quite a bit of effort, and may indeed not be fixable. As of yet, no one even in this community has determined the true nature of the bug. We know what generally causes it, but no one has been yet able to determine the exact cause. Yet with all this, you still claim that Microsoft failed to deliver the goods. I think many of us would disagree that Microsoft failed to deliver on it's promises based on three issues you've brought up, two of which are not truly bugs, and one of which affects us only 8 weeks out of the year, and can be easily avoided or eliminated.When I go to a Steak resturaunt, I expect a steak dinner. I don't expect it to be without flaw, nor do I expect it to be the best I've ever eaten. Yet you seem to think that Microsoft should be held to much higher standards.There is not one thing in FS9 that they advertised that is truly missing from the package.LOMAC seems to be free of criticism, even though none of their patches have addressed the fact that even with a system 3 times their minimum requirements, I must turn off nearly every feature in the simulator to run adequately. And after turning off said feature, I get a simulator that looks no better than Janes F-15 or Janes USAF. In my book, most of the LOMAC fixes incorporate fixes, that I would never have known were problems unless I was the engineer designing the weapons system. However, I still need to turn off almost all the buildings, roads, and mountains to achieve smooth paly on a system that is 3 times more powerful than their minimum requirements.By saying that Microsoft didn't deliver the goods, the only thing you tell me with your three examples is that you have problems seeing the forest through the trees.

Tom,I would like to thank you for your input on this thread. I would also like to make a simple request. During the AVSIM conference could you do an in depth coverage of the simulators that you and other attendees will be flying. Including Screenshots of out the window views would be nice if they are allowed (without violating confidentiality agreements)When I visited the Boeing simulator center in 1986, I marvelled at the smoothness and immersion that the simulators provided with their full sized, full motion simulators.What struck me as amazing, however, was the fact that the out of the view window was in many ways less complex than the version of Sublogic Simulator I had on my C64.The airports, although properly "shaded" and marked, were sparse in comparison. Cities were non existent, and bodies of water were not represented unless they came into play during the actual approach. Mountains were much more crudely drawn and rendered, and really only served to be obstacles during the approach.In fact many times, we were told that simulation sessions were routinely simulated as night time simulations, as night flying was not only more challenging and a better training aid, but the limited visibility of night flying tended to minimize the graphic limitations available to them, as lights could be simply rendered as dots on the ground, and there was no need to render landmarks and other real world data.20 years later, it may be a different story. Today's simulators may have out of the cockpit views that put to shame the best efforts we have today, but I sincerely doubt it.Perhaps if we could see what the "professionals" train on, we would have a much better appreciation for what our $55.00's buys us with Flight Simulator. And regardless of the fidelity of todays simulators, I highly doubt any of them can adequately simulate a full trans atlantic flight rendering properly all the the scenery that occurs with such a flight. From what I understand, a majority of the training occurs during departure and approach, and as a result, their scenery databases only contain those areas.

Will, we'll see what we can do. Post 9/11 though, things like photos are a touchy subject. We'll most certainly shoot as many images as we can, and we'll post them on AVSIM following the conference.

that this is the first thread on a patch to MSFS that has survived more than about a day or two. I would like to thank everyone in this thread for maintaining a civil tone and attitude and for having a mature discourse on the subject - it is a welcome change. Thank you to all for achieving this new standard in "patch" discussions.Now, don't no one ruin it!!!! :)

"As far as the autogen.xml file. While it is true that the system does not release objects in the autogen.xml file until much later than they are loaded, doesn't mean Microsoft failed to deliver."So you're saying that because those chicken restaurants are released from system memory far beyond what the best eyes would be able to see them, that's okay. The fact that they are at some point in time released qualifies as the developer having done his job? Did you just hear the collective chuckles of your fellow simmers? Sheesh!"...Microsoft never promised you that you would be able to run your system full sliders right."I don't run with my sliders full right, nor did I expect to when I bought the sim. I'm pretty competent at configuring the sim to run on my system based upon it's capabilites. Again, please stay on point. We're not discussing system requirements... this is about things that don't work right in the program (AG, IMC, seasonal CTD, etc.)."I don't see you arguing about Lock On's famous performance issues, that easily bring a system down much quicker than FS9 ever has."LOMAC runs just fine on my system. If you have problems perhaps you need to reconfigure it to run on your system."You have made a choice, you disable .xml objects so that they don't get loaded, and as a result can have more autogen density at the sacrifice of autogen variety. You could also buy more RAM, or buy a bigger video card. Those are your options."I don't feel I should have to make a choice when it comes to bad coding. Like others, I want the seller to fix their error. Don't need more RAM or better video card, either (see sig). There's nothing in my system that was available during development and testing of this sim. So how would better hardware resolve a bad programming issue?"If the .xml items were never released, that would be an issue. But they are, they're just not released in a manner that you find consistent with how they are loaded. We don't know if that is by design or an oversight, but without that knowledge, you jump to the conclusion that it must be a bug. "Who in their right mind would program any piece of software that held items in memory when they are no longer needed. Why would anybody program to have a chicken restaurant be "active" at FL300?"Many of us use lesser densities of autogen and don't find the loading of releasing of the .xml objects to be a problem. But because it doesn't match your interpretation on how it should work, it is obviously a bug."It'd not just my interpretation, it is a fact that many knowledgable simmers know exsists. Sorry you can't accept it as fact."As far as weather goes, the weather engine simulates IMC conditions to the best of it's ability given the limitations of current hardware. If Microsoft had truly simulated IMC using it's existing weather engine, no computer available would be able to run the simulator in IMC. The engine is capable of generating it, but computers today are not capable of running it. So Microsoft either had to choose to implement IMC with the best compromise available, or scrap the new weather engine in favor of the old style. I personally like the new engine."So what you're saying is that the programmers chose to save hardware resources by having a hole in IMC conditions near the aircraft? Again, listen for the chuckles.How did the programmers save us from ourselves when the only true way to simulate IMC is to add additional cloud layers (thus using additional resources)? And of course this can't be done using FS's downloadable weather. Seems to me they didn't save us from anything but the frustration of knowing there is no way to have true IMC with their downloadable weather."What you are asking for is not a "fix" of a broken engine, but rather an entirely different engine that will "kick in" when IMC conditions exist. This "new" engine would have to use an entirely different 2d cloud set so as to not adversely affect performance, and would need to blend in with the existing engine so that as we transition across the cloud layer we would not notice the change. Quite a feat in my book. Would you rather that MS simply allow the 3d engine draw the clouds in the same way that they do in non IMC conditions and slow your computer down? No, your arguement about the .xml file attests to that. So you won't be happy until Microsoft bolts on an entirely NEW engine or the OLD FS2002/FS2000 engine just to handle your IMC conditions. I don't see this as a bug fix, but rather a feature request."The sim offers truely excellant (for it's price) IFR flight capibilites within it's engine and it's aircraft. What is the use of having those features when the downloadable weather can't produce true IMC? Again, just give the customer what was offered at time of sale."And finally, the CTD bug. Yes it is a bug. Yes, it did get overlooked or ignored. But, the existing fix in the community works around the bug with minimal impact on the simulator. It is likely that Microsoft would choose this method to fix the problem. Just like they "sacrificed" guage movement to make overall smoothness in the out of the view window in FS2000 better. Any other fix, would require quite a bit of effort..."That effort is the responsibilty of the seller. They included it in the product and they should resolve it. Again, give the people what they paid for not what you wish them to accept because it's convenient to the seller."When I go to a Steak resturaunt, I expect a steak dinner. I don't expect it to be without flaw, nor do I expect it to be the best I've ever eaten."This perspective is a used car salesman's dream come true!"There is not one thing in FS9 that they advertised that is truly missing from the package."Many disagree with this."LOMAC seems to be free of criticism, even though none of their patches have addressed the fact that even with a system 3 times their minimum requirements, I must turn off nearly every feature in the simulator to run adequately. And after turning off said feature, I get a simulator that looks no better than Janes F-15 or Janes USAF."You should know better than most that the "minimum requirements" are not to be taken seriously by the diehard simmer. And LOMAC runs just fine on my hardware. Better out of the box than FS9 and it's shortcomings ever will without fixes being made avaialble by the seller.I'm not here to bash MS... I've purchased alot of their software over the years. I have fun with this sim, and I'm fortunate that it runs better for me than many others... after some of what I paid for is disabled or unusable. But for you to say that MS has fulfilled it's obligations to the customers based upon what they advertise is offered in the product is wrong, Will. You can split hairs all you like (the issue of AG items being "eventually" unloaded from memory is the best example), but in the end many folks feel that they didn't get what they paid for (based upon MS words, not customer's lofty expectations).Cheers,Greg