Wouldn't that be wonderful? I can dream.Certainly, it would be worth the extra paying for a first class sim program so we don't have to wait until we can fly something decent?What do you think, come on lets give MS some fuel?Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/http://www.captainsim.com/user/dl/c130/c130_captain.gif

Dont think MS will really want that, as they would need to increase the system requirements alot, while FS is meant for everyone including lower end systems. They can of course just help the payware/freeware groups a bit to make the products FSX proof as quickly as possible.

Not to mention the fact that, in addition to increasing the cost of the sim, 98% of the folks who buy FSX could never figure out how to fly them anyway. Not a good idea in my opinion.Doug

it would be terrible. It would reduce the customer base for MSFS from over 2 million customers to around 20.000 which would mean a 100 fold increase in unit price for the core product alone.Add a unit price increase of another $500 for the aircraft, and you're talking about FSX having to sell for not around $70 but $7500.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with all above... putting in highly complex aircraft as default would certainly confuse the heck out of the vast majority of sim pilots who buy MSFS. What would be FAR better would be for Microsoft to somehow tweak the way MSFS starts up so that we can *set* our PMDG's, LDS's, PSS's, and other complex aircraft AS our defaults... right now many addons require that you start the sim with the default Cessna in a power-on config in order to work. Somehow changing the code to allow 3rd party aircraft to function 100% without the default Cessna would be a far better use of time.But, of course, new features are pretty much done for FSX, so if it's not there yet, it probably won't be. :) -Greg

those restrictions have nothing to do with FS and everything with the addons.They're programmed to expect certain things to be certain ways when started, rather than detecting how things are and setting what they want themselves.Bit sloppy, but by now pretty much expected.

>I hate to say it, but I have to agree with all above...>putting in highly complex aircraft as default would certainly>confuse the heck out of the vast majority of sim pilots who>buy MSFS. How can they be 'highly complex' if you, I and most of the others that frequent these columns are able to fly them after a little bit of RTFM?It just seems like an eternity when a new version of the sim comes out that the software addon people catch up?I, for one would have very quickly lost interest in FS9 had it not been for people like PMDG and Level-D, to quote just a few?The default 737-400 climbs like an F-16, need I say more? Is that a simulation or not?Granted most buy FS to find out what it's like to fly in a sim but lets face it now, it has moved on since the old days and by doing that has become more sofisticated.Those who just want to 'kick the tyres, takeoff, go into the circuit and land' will be more than satisfied by just purchasing FS98, surely?MS 'do' read these post's with interest. It's up to us to tell them what WE want. This is one of those chances, don't throw it away without thinking about it or you'll never buy another paywear download again, will you?Who remembers FS2002 and FS2002 professional?...............................No prizes for guessing which one I bought!Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/http://www.captainsim.com/user/dl/c130/c130_captain.gif

>How can they be 'highly complex' if you, I and most of the>others that frequent these columns are able to fly them after>a little bit of RTFM?Indeed I too can set off on a flight in one of the above mentioned airplanes without even a few moments of R'ing TFM, and be quite sucessful in managing all the systems. Many of us here have had experience and enjoyment doing so, and look forward to that continuing. But UNLIKE us and the many enthusiasts here, the majority of users of the MSFS series don't care for complex system simulations or high fidelity. They don't want to have to read through a 12-page quickstart and 10-page tutorial flight in order to simulate their vacation trip, while printing a 200-page systems manual for one plane... And who can blame them - MSFS is an ENTERTAINMENT program first, and a simulator second. Putting that burden on an average user would turn the enjoyment of the sim into a work effort, and you can kiss any entertainment value out the window if that happens. Most armchair pilots don't CARE that the default B737 climbs like an F-16 (which is an overstatement to say the least anyway) - to them, they are flying an airliner. All MS owes them is a reasonable approximation of the aircraft they are in, and they are quite successful doing that. We may be the MSFS users who push the envelope and use MSFS as a platform to its fullest, but we are certainly NOT the users who account for the bulk of income when it comes to purchasing it. What WE want from a simulator and what the vast majority of purchasers of MSFS want from their game are two totally different things. In business, you make sure the people who are paying the bills are happy - in as much as we can grouse about it, in a business eye we are not those people. There are just as many different ways of using MSFS as there are airports to land in it. We here account for a more enthusiastic bunch - getting enjoyment from MSFS with the details and technicalities that most other users don't even know exist in the real world. But in order to keep MSFS accessable to all those who DON'T share our excitement, they have to provide airplanes that are usable by people age 5 to 95, and everyone in between. (After all, the default planes are indeed quite usable to us too!) Besides - now is not the time or place to ask MS for such additions to the new product - that chance passed us by months ago. FSX is 99% feature-complete at this point in its development cycle, and hardly anything new will get added in - certainly nothing to the degree of a new set of systems-rich aircraft. -Greg(Another FS2002 Pro purchaser)

I agree with everything you said. Think of the complaints from general users when they can't even start the engines on a complex model. There have been enough posts on the various forums about this point alone when a new model is released.Another point is that not every user wants to fly modern airliners. I prefer GA and vintage aircraft. That's my choice, so why should I have to pay the extra cost of including proprietory models for the benefit of others.

some people underestimate the population around them. it makes them feel better.while some will be turned off by an airplane that is a little more complex, giving good training examples and a good manual will help many.if people honestly believe it takes months of studying to fly a simulation like the LDS 767 or PMDGs queen and 737 I have a bridge to sell you. It isnt that complicated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to turn the engines and take off. Now the FMC is a different animal, but one that can be learned in a few tries like everything else on an airplane. boeing and airbus and others worked hard to make their airplanes as simple as possible to operate.

I guess it depends on whether one wants to fly it, or FLY it :-) . If one just wants to fly it, I agree it doesn't take all that long to get the hang of it. But if one really wants to FLY it, then the learning curve is much, much longer.DougEdited 'cause I can't spel

No matter how complex these planes are, its just a matter of remembering pressing some buttons and entering a few numbers in correct order to get them in the air and land them, we dont have to learn or understand anything unless one really wants to.I know what to press and enter when and where, but other than that i have no clue whats going on, anyone can start and autoland these planes, complex or not.

I don't think i have flown a default ms aircraft since fs5 except when testing or the cessna :) The cessna is good. I don't even see the need for MS to include any planes with FS. they are inferior to anything you can get free or not so i am not sure how much of a sales pitch they are.

Thanks Alex,Nice to know I'm not alone, if I was any more knowledgable I'd be doing it for real.Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/http://www.captainsim.com/user/dl/c130/c130_captain.gif

I agree with Big Al,And as for people being turned off by complex planes, Microsoft could include a EASY, REALISTIC version of the planes. The EASY would be the MS default with the default panels and CTRL-E to start engines and the REALISTIC would be PMDG/LEVEL-D planes all of which could be selected from the main CREATE A FLIGHT menu.John