>I want more realism in the flying experience.Yes - but how much? I would guess that you would rapidly get fed up with the restictions FS would impose on you if it was coded to real world standards.Would you be happy with FS if it limited you to the C172 until it recognised your skill was enough to move up? Would you like it to penalize you for flying into danger areas - or into controlled airspace or IMC because you hadn't passed the ratings? Would you really be happy sitting at an airport for three days waiting for the fog to clear? Would you like to see your engine burn out on you and wait days for it to be repaired? Would you like to hit turbulence that made you physically sick? Maybe you would - but it would kill sales of the program.No doubt that FS could be coded to record your flying hours and ability. No doubt it could be coded so that you could only move on to better aircraft after passing the ground exams and the flying test. No doubt it could grade you on your adherence to the Rules of the Air and penalise you for violations. No doubt it could give you an aircraft type rating and, as in real life, restrict you to that type only.I think you are looking at the picture with slightly rose tinted specs. It's not complete realism you want - just a slight step in that direction. Believe me when I say you don't want FS truly as real as it comes because you wouldn't find many folks prepared to do all the groundwork to progress through all the stages to an ATPL. It would take years (as in real life).FS isn't as real as you would like but if it was I don't think many users would stick at it long enough to get in the left hand seat of a B747 - assuming that they would make the grade anyway (as Speedbird11 rightly pointed out).Enjoy the sim for what it is. Real life flying isn't all fun and some things will never be translated into the sim. You will never experience real emotion in FS - it can't make you afraid, it won't teach you fear and it certainly won't teach you to treat an aircraft with suspicion or distrust. Maybe a good thing too.It seems to me that you have lost any sense of real challenge in FS. Start looking for higher goals - there are many real world pilots who still find it testing within the scenarios they set it to.

Bones, I think you are missing the point, it's not about can we handle the reaalism or should we have the realism it is about having the option. As it stands, no 2 simmers do things the same as is. Some like autogen, some don't, some like AI, some don't. as far as this goes... "Would you be happy with FS if it limited you to the C172 until it recognised your skill was enough to move up? Would you like it to penalize you for flying into danger areas - or into controlled airspace or IMC because you hadn't passed the ratings? Would you really be happy sitting at an airport for three days waiting for the fog to clear? Would you like to see your engine burn out on you and wait days for it to be repaired? Would you like to hit turbulence that made you physically sick?"YES, I want the "OPTION" to experience this in the sim, I want repercussions and accountability for my performance during a flight at times. I do some of the things now. if I do a VA flight and it's below minimums, I practice my IFR flying or go do something else.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Well guys, let's not get too upset, remember that real pilots died in war so that you could have your Flight Simulator that's free of "blood and guts." While I believe that FS and any combat FS should remain a seperate entity, I don't see anything wrong with people talking about this as some people want a sim that emulates ALL aspects of flight. Don't be so quick share your poltical views here, this isn't the place.Jeff

I agree, after all that's what our MOA's are for and that's the only place where fighters do their training.Jeff

>Somebody mentioned that they would like to see ATC fixed>up - so that he doesn't have a 747 overtaking him on approach.Ahh, those are the times I've often wished FS was merged with CFS and I had a sidewinder available. Wonder how hard it would be to mount an AIM9 onto a Cessna? j/k :DAs for the discussion. I see no problem in adding some combat capability to FS. They could easily have an option when installing so you could pick between "Civilian" and "Civilian+Military". For online flight the server could be set to allow weapons or not allow weapons. That way those who want to engage in online combat could do so and keep the kids from shooting down the civilians. Just pick the server you want to use.As far as the military aspects of aviation in general I believe the first use of the airplane as suggested by the Wright Brothers was as a military observation platform. Further almost all major advances in aviation technology have been for military purposes. Military and aviation are inextricably combined from an historical point of view and whether I prefer the military or the civilian side when I sim should be my choice. Same for other simmers. If you don't want it then don't download military airplanes and weapons and don't use the ones provided in the sim. That is, of course if Microsoft provided this option. I seriously doubt they will.

You know, I can't make a decision on this one.I really like combat flight sims (hence my username)But I also like the non-violent FS world.I guess my response is keep it seperate, so they will ALWAYS be seperate, no intermingling (no F16 chasing a MiG across the skies at Domodedevo (sp?), for example).However, I can get very passionate about combat flight sims, if I've a mind to. So keep 'em seperate and keep 'em real.-JeremyThe Ozark DogfighterHappy Flying!

>right now, we really treat Fsim as a joke -- the a/c are far too >easy to fly and we fly them anywhere in the world that we care toMaybe you treat Flight Sim as a joke, but there are many who don't! Part of Flight Simulator's appeal is the ability to fly anywhere, without having the qualifications that would be required in the real World. The aircraft are easy to fly? Some FDEs have been verified by real world pilots, and are very close to reality. Maybe the aircraft you fly aren't realistic?

Back to the original question: I would prefer if MS didn't have offensive weaponry! It's a civilian simulator. What would American Airlines think if they saw screenshots of their airliners being shot down ......It will never happen, thankfully .... it would be too controversial and not PC!

I guess one of the things they could do is have it as an installation option. For example:1) Install with Military option (or something like that)2) Install Civilian option.Just my thoughts.

I would love to see FS10 with a military option complete with weapons. Then it truly would be - as real as it gets! That way you could do the military thing and civilian or both with realistic navigation and flight modeling. Course, they would have to come up with AI that could dog fight and targets that could be destroyed. The mix of both would be the ultimate all in one flight sim. Don't know how feasable it would be though. If it could be done well, it would be awesome!

>What would American Airlines think if they saw screenshots of>their airliners being shot down ......Keep in mind guys.This could even give bigger problems , with angry airliners having problems with their planes and names being used in a flightsim.For this reason alone , I think MS will be so wise , never to launch a flightsim like that.I am sure they will keep it civillian.RegardsLeen

But MS doesn't include any real name airlines in FS so that isn't even a concern for them. You can load any FS2000/2002 aircraft into Combat Flight Simulator 2 ( I can make that screenshot now if you want), so that doesn't apply either.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Lets stay clear of the weapons, even if that is a simulation of the world as it could be, not what it is.. Just as art (and mediaproducts in general) imitates life so does life imitate.... computergames! Don't believe me? Meta-data seems to suggest it clearly to this media-student. Therefor, having a prog like FS creates the hope that life could again begin to imitate stuff non-lethal and non-empiric.Just my opinion...- Dasher7

After using FS2004 a while with new better mesh terrain , Ultimate Terrain (roads, rail , coastlines, bodies of water etc), Active Sky weather and MyTraffic AI traffic , I can see that having also the ability to have combat would bring my system down another notch. I imagine the stutters would be more too!I say keep them separate for the sole reason of simplifying the code and making the sim as efficient as possible.However, I used to play some aerial combat (but I seem to have lost the desire to fight hehe) and I was always a bit disappointed at the fact that the real world locations were only vaguely similar to the actual real world.It would be neat (as an example) if the soon to be released Battle of Britain II had realistic terrain , cities and landmarks for the area within the game.But perhaps MS could have a seperate combat flight sim based on Flight Simulator's same world-wide terrain (or perhaps only for the area concerned within the game), landclass, and landmarks. I would call it the next in line in the 'combat flight simulator' series. I always felt CFS3 would have been much better if the world was more accurate.