To be honest I dont think you can bag the "Screwy ATC" too much. I mean working out the ATC subroutines etc....isnt easy. Have you ever wondered why you dont see computers doing ATC?I know of maybe ONE and only one computer that even comes close to ATC and that is $$$$$$$$$$$$$ experimental with BAE I believe. I dont discount the fact that there are better programs (RC) for instance but for a starter the FS version aint too bad - is it better than none at all?P.S. Real ATC often five 'yoyo' climbs as you say in the real world.Scott

nope, it will be 2 days after the ANNOUNCEMENT, not the release ;)

The BUS limitation could be what makes it look like it is a CPU limitation. If you think of a 1" hose(bus), and are trying to force data thru it which requires a 4" fire hose(bus), maybe you can see the limitation.... ;-)

>that doesn't say anything...>One person from one website talking to one person from one>company about a product produces by another company mentions a>possible future product of that third company.>>As long as there's no press release from Microsoft you know>nothing.Try stowing the attitude for once in your life.Fiesty little bastage! :)

While FS certainly does take advantage of the GPU to a certain degree, you cannot tell me that FS9 is up to par with some of the current cutting edge DirectX9 game engines like Source, Crytek, Unreal, etc. Those games all run at over 60FPS for me and have waaaaay higher resolution on the textures and way higher poly counts on the models. FS9 may techincally be a DX9 game but I don't believe it is taking advantage of any of the really impressive shader stuff that allows those other games to run so fast and looks so great. Lighting is a great example - why do "night textures" even exist in FS? If the sim modelled light sources in a realistic way the way those other engines do, you wouldn't need to fake the dark look by swaping out alternate textures - it'd probably decrease the install size of the sim by a significant amount to.It looks like they're going in the right direction though - there was talk a while back about the FS team adding a shader developer etc...

I hate chickens. You know the ones, they sit on top of those autogen takeaways. I saw one at least 15ft tall the other day, I wish I could remember the airport I was at so that I can be sure of not seeing it looming over like some monster from #### as I taxied to the active:-hang Andrew BrownRoaring Thirtieshttp://www.gordiusfs.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

>I hate chickens. You know the ones, they sit on top of those>autogen takeaways. I saw one at least 15ft tall the other day,I highly doubt anything that size was a chicken. More likely an ostrich:( Dan

I do not want the distant clouds to appear to be in front of the rotating beacon beam of light. I do not want FS 10 to come out for a while, because I already plunked down $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on FS 9.I do not want any default aircraft. Well maybe one. Ok two.I do not want the airports to be on a plateau.-Shawn

Just out of curiosity, Scott, why don't the real ATC (those in the real world) leave you at that new altitude rather than have you go up and down?

>Just out of curiosity, Scott, why don't the real ATC (those>in the real world) leave you at that new altitude rather than>have you go up and down?I don't think real ATC makes you go up and down. This has never been my experience. They may make you hold an altitude longer than you wished but going up & down is not what real ATC does to you.Michael J.

I think the problem stems from the minimum vectoring altitude. The game ATC when you are on approach to landing will try to drop you down as quickly as possible to the MVA IN THEIR SECTOR without regards to obstacles in other areas. I have run into this doing an approach to KLAS from the north. In real life even if you are switching from one ATC sector to another the human behind the scope knows better than to drop you down too soon. I know they do not like to have planes going up and down too much because that just complicates keeping IFR planes apart when they are crossing.

>I think the problem stems from the minimum vectoring>altitude. You are correct. The way FS obstacle avoidance works is that first they drop you down then they realized you are too low and they will ask you to climb. This is simply poor software and it has nothing to do with real life ATC.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

I don't want to see anyone with a 1.8 gig machine, 512 MB RAM, and a 32 MB video card complain about performance while running the PMDG 747 at 1600 x 1200 and all sliders right. ;)-Jon

There is another slight problem with the way that ATC handles some approaches. They clear you to the MDA before you intercept the final approach course. It does this on vectors and on the full approach. Most times you don't get in trouble, but on some full approaches with a procedure turn, there are two altitudes, one outbound, one inbound. What I would love to NOT see is those rather nasty looking default paint schemes for the airlines. Not to mention the red ratty looking Cessna Skyhawk.

Hey!!! I know..... Why doesnt' MS QUIT producing FlightSim? That way there will be NOTHING to complain about!!!! :)I know this thread carries a bit of constructive criticizm, but come on guys...... imagine life WITHOUT Flightsim? Or the fact that MS set up this software so WE(we being all the addon developers that do such quality work) could add OUR "wants" ? Sure, improvements can and will be made, but such things take time (versions) and technology. I'm sure MS could write a "airline" quality sim, but I am quite sure NONE of us would have the computer to run it! LOL I, like all of you, look forward to any advancments on the MS / FS front....let's offer ideas for moving forward......Harry