>others that frequent these columns are able to fly them after>a little bit of RTFM?and great majority of FS buyers do not care for "RTFM".Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

I'm sorry to say but you are plain wrong Jeroen. Here is the link to the "Urban Myth: why it becomes necessary to load a default aircraft before some complex aircraft." thread posted a while back.Worth reading, as it explains in details exactly what is failing in the "load an aircraft" feature of FS...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&topic_id=27252Hope this helps!

People here need to realize:-That the people here are a small minority of FS2004 buyers-That the people who enjoy complex commercial planes are a very,very, very small minority. -making default aircraft of the PMDG/Ld quality would make the sim much more expensive and take considerably longer to make.Why do you people care about the default aircraft anyway? I consider myself an avid flightsimmer, but I honestly can't tell you the last time I flew a complex commercial addon. It is mostly GA for me. How do you think I will feel when you tell me that the next flightsim will cost twice as much and take 3 times as long to be released? The best thing for everyone is choice, and forcing people into a small minority's view of what is right is not the way to go. Now, what exactly are the PMDG/LD fans missing out on anyway? They can purchase their addons and fly them as long as they like.

sorry kid, means nothing.If addon makers were to do more than just expect a certain situation to exist and instead anticipate what can happen it would not have to be a requirement.Most will fail to start properly if the previous aircraft had avionics turned off for example. That's an easy thing to check for in your startup code.

And would you be willing to pay a few thousand dollars for that sim?'Cause that's what the price would have to be.

>The best thing for everyone is choice, and forcing people into>a small minority's view of what is right is not the way to go.Agreed.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>it would be terrible. It would reduce the customer base for>MSFS from over 2 million customers to around 20.000I'm grateful for the sheer number of "CTRL-E" users :). They prevent the hardcore users from taking over, and getting rid of 2D panels :-lol. The number of hardcore VC users must number several hundred .... at best. Oops ... I digress :)---------------------------------------"If it doesn't have a VC, I won't be flying it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/smug.gif" ... hang on a minute .... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/unsure.gif ... that is too restrictive! Most flight simulator planes don't have a fully functional VC .... I'm happy to fly non-VC planes such as the brilliant iFDG range, Samdim's fantastic aircraft, POSKY's wonderful planes, and many many others! I'm the richer for it :).[/b]Advice for uploaders: please remove those horrible thumbs.db files - they are useless :)

>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.That would be great sales technique! A Flight Simulator with no aircraft so buyers would have to spend more money and time acquiring and installing add-on aircraft (and having to find out how to do it) before they could use their purchase.I wonder why Microsoft didn't think of that - perhaps because it would send its sales through the floor?

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmm well what a nice discussion, here is my perspective and I may be wrong, Microsoft is in the business to make money with a nice product, and in no way will they jeopardize that buy catering to one particular group of avid flight simmers.They must stay in the middle as far as getting people to buy there product, in no way will they make product out of reach of a general flight simmer, you know the guy or gal that just wants to relax and just fly around there neck of the woods, without and I will say again without any add-ons.But a person like me got hooked on the sim and I wanted it all, I wanted everything and more, I wanted eye candy, and more add ons you can count, now it takes me and hour just to get in the air.Microsoft the company in my opinion is not very user friendly, meaning they stay within there product only, you cant get no info from them about why there product is doing this or that with and add on.And here is another thing that Microsoft did in my humble opinion, that made it harder for the hardcore simmer however small it may be, buy making it harder for you to undock your instrument to another window (it used to be real simple) now you have to go through to much just to get it to work right every time. And when you contacted them on the matter, they were not concerned on what an add-on does just default planesAll im saying is even though FSX is a nice product it will remain in the middle to cater to all folks that like to fly.So if they start catering to us hard-core simmers Microsoft will lose a ton of money in my humble opinion.

Jeroen, please do read the thread entirely, in detail, and you will learn that some simulation states are not controlable by the vendors, and are imposed by FS, when loading a situation under some circumstances. When this occurs, because you have no control over it permited by FS, you then have nothing to do but having a defective situation.There is nothing to do about this but to wait for FSX if it corrects this and/or load a default C172 flight prior loading a more complex aircraft.Note: this thread started in the Aircraft and Panel design forum after another thread in the General forum started, and gave roughly more than 80 answers. This was mainly because the poster asking the question, like you, was skeptic about this and was strongly blaming vendors. This poster is the one who concludes on the thread posted above: "..." well, I'll let you read the thread and see for yourself his final conclusion.However, one main difference between you and this poster, is your ignorance on the subject, you blaming vendors, along with your pathetic answer "sorry kid", that makes me really wonder how you are still allowed to show a "Flight1 Certified Professional" banner in your signature.I was under the impression that Flight1 Certified Professionals are knowledgeable of this kind of Flight Simulator specific limitations, and if not, they are professional enough to learn from the others that know, even more if these others are Flight1 partners you are supposed to respect.Nevertheless, for all other that cares, the truth (and not the myth) is technically detailled in the thread linked above).Hope this helps!

It's never gonna happen. But they should at least have nice looking models and better flight dynamics. Something like the Posky planes. It also wouldn't hurt to have a semi functional fmc instead of the gps for the airliners. Something that would use FS flight plans but would at least calculate v-speeds from the gross weight,fuel, etc. and the flight plan display on the ND. That would be a much better introduction to flying an airliner so they can then, if they wish, take the next step to the PMDG's and Level D's. The default GA planes are not all that bad since they are more realistic in their workings than the default airliners so only sharper textures (especially in the virtual cockpit) and maybe improved flight dynamics would be needed.

The strange thing remains that most of these add-ons don't have an own default flight. You have to load the FS default, change the aircraft and change the starting location. At least 1 of these steps can be eliminated by providing an add-on with its own default starting situation.Setting things like pitot heat and cowl flaps to the needed settings could be done by a DLL and even a small utility that scans the FLT file for problems would be possible.Using the default settings and planes is an irritating workaround for a problem that should be solved years before.

I'm glad it won't happen. Complex PMDG and Level D planes are very nice, but sometimes real airline pilots don't want to spend ages doing preflight checks in Flight Simulator.Hardcore sim-users are a TINY percentage of the MSFS users. In many ways I'm glad for it, otherwise I would be forced to buy half a dozen addons just to use Flight Simulator!Can you imagine if the hardcore users ruled the roost?!? :-eek

>>Can you imagine if the hardcore users ruled the roost?!?>:-eekWe DO 'half'lingMUA, MUA.. MUUUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! :-batregards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

That is true and a some aircraft add-ons do offer default situations for the aircraft. Not all, but some.However, if you do read the thread, you will see that a number of parameters are handled by FS internaly, that affect the simulation state, for which no developper can work around, not even with a DLL. The most obvious like the ones you cite are usually already taken care of of course.As for scanning the FLT file, bear in mind there is no FS provided facility that permits a vendor knowing each and any file FS loads when loading a gauge or an aircraft. With a number of "tricks", some the file path can be known, but not all of them.In any case, let's just hope (or more than hope, report to Microsoft) that this will be solved/manageable with FSX.Hope this helps!