In the end it doesn

I don't understand how a choice can be a problem? First off, we don't know if the next version of flightsim will even be fs2006. Next, we have no idea what new features will be added. I won't even consider thinking about upgrading until I know what features are coming. We've all seen the recent "wishlist" threads. I know there are a few features in particular that I am looking for. As someone else said, run both sims at the same time. There are lots of people who still run both fs2002 and 2004 at the same time. There are a lot of 767pic fans out there who still love that addon. The only real difficulty in doing that is making sure you have enough hard disk space.

Hi Mark,I too would like to see innovations on a regular basis (a la no blue band etc). I just feel that providing a backwards compatible environment is hampering the sim from being what it really can be. Having first used the sim on a single 5.24 floppy called SubLogic Flight Simulator, I have seen the evolution of this product from day one. I really believe that it is time for a quantum leap by not being shackled by the past.CheersChris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Same goes for me too. No VC I just can't get into it.

I love it (not) when folks start bashing holes in a follow-on product that isn't even announced yet.When FS2004 came out, I continued to run FS2002 for a while, and gradually migrated over to FS2004 as more and more things came on-line that were either ports from '02 or outright new, '04-only offerings. At this point, I have not even installed FS2004 on my new-as-of-November gaming rig, and don't plan to.When the next version of FS comes out, I'll probably do the same. What's the big deal?One other thing about this - I don't see that FS needs a radical overhaul (someone said it needs the Halo graphics engine - that made me laugh out loud). It will never be perfect, but every release has made it better and as a RL pilot I am just amazed at how many things are very close to Reality in '04. At this point these are my main wishes:- less predictable ATC- voice recognition for ATC- redone helicopter flight model, so that at least autorotation behaves properly--- subset of the above item: ability to model vectored thrust, for true tilt-rotor supportThat's a pretty short list!Dave Blevins

Dave I would like to see better modeling of the Turboprop flight regime (engine performance, etc.) as well as more realistic seaplane behavior on water. Water operations in FS2k4 is very arcadish... Better seperation and sequencing for AI traffic would be a great plus as well... Get the smaller GA (Beech Baron) aircraft landing and departing on smaller runways at major airports... Slower aircraft hose up approaches for larger jets when their cleared for landing on the same runway. Tom (AVSIM) can you guys unlock my post above so I can resize that picture... :-) I'm unable to do it now because the editing time limit is up...

>Exactly why I'm still with FS2002.>>I have FS2004, still in the box, in a drawer. Don't want to>go back to constant tweaking or have to use a disc to run the>sim. Well, Ive been using FS2004 since day one, and once it was set up havent had to do a single bit of tweaking... (To me it looks like some use "tweaking" as their Hobby, instead of FS.) FS2004 runs faster than FS2002, and has much better framerates. IT also runs the addons that I like from FS2002... Go GMAX all the way for aircraft and scenery, without tweaking! Cheers, Bob

>Guys the pic below is more common than you would think at many>airports around the world. It would be about time something>like this was addressed in Flight Simulator's scenery. Reminds me of Vineland NJ, except its a Grass Runway, outlined with tires... Used by the Forest Service, and some GA, Crop Dusting, etc. When I saw how deep the dip was in the runway there, couldnt believe how deep it was. Either heading, you takeoff up a steep hill. Bob

"If it doesn't have a VC, I won't be flying it" cos what good would my track-ir be :-)

The reality is that (as far as corporate decision making goes) MS isn't interested in what you or I or any of us on these forums think they should do with the next version of FS. Oh sure, the developers may read the forums and probably consider quite a bit of what they see here, but I'm pretty sure most of the super-duper suggestions we make have already been thought of and either sheduled for implementation, noted for future consideration, or flat-out disregarded by the development team. Contrary to what many seem to think, they are a pretty smart group of fellows. As far as when a new version will be produced, that is entirely a marketing decision on Microsoft's part. They aren't worried at all about whether or not we hardcore users are finished with FS2004 yet or whether we'll be able to use all our nice add-ons with the new version. They are concerned with two things:1. Is FS2004 still selling well or at all,2. Is the new version ready to go.Once the answer to the first question is "no" and the answer to the second is "yes", a release date will be set. 90% (or more) of the people who buy this product don't even own an add-on for it and I'd be willing to bet close to that same percentage don't even download freeware stuff for it. We represent a pretty small portion of the overall market...That's not to say we don't matter to them and it's a safe bet they will do what they can to keep us happy, but they likely aren't basing any of their major decisions specifically on what we want.

Backward compatibility would be a minor problem with a powerful SDK, which needs to be provided beforehand to developers and not 1 year later. Also things like FSUIPC interface should be provided by microsoft.All in all, what i think MS should do with their product is make life a lot easier to third party developers. It is impossible for them to cope with all the features we may require. I would waste my time improve the base of the simulator like physics engine (in aircraft handling, in scenery, in weather...) graphic engine, sound engine and SDK. I think main FS failures are found in the base of it.

thoughtful comment .. however, we enthusiast make up a small fraction to the total MSFS sales ... the average buyer will pick the new version with little allegiance to FS2004 ..Vernon

The bottom line is the Bottom Line!ROI is what it is all about! They can't fix everything, or they wouldn't be able to sell future versions.So a little frustration, is a good marketing strategy. It IS all about marketing. If they just solved the FPS problem where it didn't dip below 30 REGARDLESS of Panel, weather, AI AC, etc with A/I and cloud rendering, I would be happier.I hope they take FS 2006 to a platform like XBOX II (MS next version of XBOX). Then ALL that time WAISTED tweaking performance can be spent flying! Imagine, Flying on a bigscreen in HD, WOW! If you think about it, MS then could really optimize for the platform instead of dealing with a couple of bizillion configurations. Flight Simulator DOES not need the overhead of any OS. Imagine the performance!And really, I have ended up spending $400 - $500+ even more probably upgrading video cards, motherboards, memory, hard drive etc when the new version of FS comes out. So if MS sold a console specifically optimized for FS and or other games, and it was priced around $200, I would buy it.Of course it would have to support USB 2.0 and have a Control SDK, because after all, a Yoke and Pedals are a core component of flight realism.MS, just give me a 10% cut for my idea, thank you! :)Barry

"The reality is that (as far as corporate decision making goes) MS isn't interested in what you or I or any of us on these forums think they should do with the next version of FS."This statement is soo far from the truth Zevious Zoquis, I think you need to do your research before making a statement like this. Believe me MS does care and read these forums regularly. They have personally said so...

No, it is quite true.They may consider the (usually completely unrealistic) wishlists of the people here to get ideas but the final decisions on what to do and don't are based on other things as indeed we're a very small part of the market.There's some 20.000 registered users here at most, maybe 50.000 in all the forums (distinct users that is, a lot of us are involved in several of them so you can't just add all the numbers).Out of 2 million units sold that's 1%, IF all had the product.I'd venture that at most about 50% are active and maybe 80% of those have FS2004. That's 40% of 20.000 or about 8000 users or 20.000 of the total count of all forums.So all forum users (let's for the moment say all those are the 'hardcore' simmers) make up 1% of the userbase.And you still think our opinion are the driving force behind the business decisions of a multibillion dollar multinational enterprise (or even a project of that company whose budget is in the tens of millions of dollars)?If that were the case every default aircraft would be the equivalent of something put out by PSS or FSD, with gauges like those from RXP.All scenery would be photoreal with 10m mesh.FS would have fully dynamic navigation data refreshed from official sources automatically like you can refresh the weather.Software like squawkbox would be integrated into the core product.etc. etc. etc.And of course it would all be free of charge because it's "only a patch for FS5".