I just landed at Vancouver, BC in a SGA/FFX Boeing 737-400 with a Boeing 737-400 panel by Luis Pereira, using FSNavigator. It was one of the most satisfying sim flights for me in ages and made me realize how much superb stuff is out there that may be dated but that still rocks.I've acquired a truly massive aircraft fleet over time and have the commercial add-ons that many simmers have. My principal challenge with all such add-ons is the time and complexity involved in mastering them and the performance hit on my very decent mid-end DELL P4.Well, today's flight was flawless and I had perfect PC performance from start to finish. I'd previously tweaked the FFX cfg file slightly just to get more realistic N1 and fuel flow and I got it down to the book by Boeing. I have a slew of Boeing data from Matt Zagoren's legendary files that I've printed out to keep me company. Incredibly, I only recently discovered the remarkably good FMC characteristics of FSNavigator that enable you to program specific SPD/ALT waypoints. The panel even includes a "Drag Required" annunciation when decelerating on descent! Mainly, I was most impressed how FSNavigator "stepped down" the IAS on descent based on FMC input from me and it calculated ahead to allow for braking and descending. My descent profile matched closely anything from a more complex commercial add-on FMC.It's virtually impossible to screw up landing an SGA/FFX 737 of any variant and today I landed at close to zero fpm at 4 degree pitch. I do have several GoFlight modules and these assisted me. The great thing about them is how they work flawlessly, out of the box, with the default MSFS autopilot. In sum, I feel, strangely enough, as if I've made a big discovery in "re-discovering" how the simpler, less complex FS stuff actually brings joy and satisfaction.Doubtless I'll be expanding my commercial add-on fleet--and sweating over more realistic FMCs, huge manuals, and frame rate issues--but I have to do more of this "simpler" FS flying as well.JS

i fly mostly the default aircraft because i get pretty good framerates even with stormy real world weather. yea, they're not as complex as most addons but that can be a good thing too. i don't have to tweak things to get them to run properly. everything's a tradeoff though. i spend more time planning a flight which i like doing and flying itself so i'm good to go, no fuss no muss. there's nothing wrong with simplicity. william

If I want less complexity I choose a simpler aircraft, not a simplified one ;)If I want to spend hours preflighting the bird and working hard at a flight I take the RFP.If I just want to zoom along and enjoy the scenery I'll take an Airbus or a Cessna...

Ahh, but all Airbus aircraft in FS2004 are simplified Jeroen ;-)

>If I want less complexity I choose a simpler aircraft, not a>simplified one ;)Which is the way to do it right. ;)

>If I want less complexity I choose a simpler aircraft, not a>simplified one ;)Got to agree. It would feel strange for me to grap a 'complex' aircraft only to simplify it. It would bring no joy and satisfaction to me.*:-*Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

If you consider everything, ALL aircraft in FS are simplified...If they weren't each would need thousands of pages of manuals for one thing.I think most people got the point though...