Hey... just thinking; the Space Shuttle would be a nice surprise. It would make the box cover for sure.Along those lines, knowing that we can get "pretty high up", is the function of atmosphere density built-in?Seems like it would be relatively easy to do by simply reducing the amount of lift as one gets higher up in the atmosphere (or naturally the lift would change based on temperature) so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.Of course, this says nothing for whether "heat" would be generated during re-entry, but I guess that can be scripted with the adventure editor?HmmmAndrew

Actually, you bring up a good question, last I read about 2 months ago FSX would model up until 1,000,000 ft. That's only 189.3 miles. Anyone test this out?Edit -- the reason I say only is because the Shuttle orbits higher than that.

I believe its 19000 miles you can slew out.

100,000,000 feet.

No (flyable) Shuttle in (or on) the box.

Since the "Rocket" engine type was depecrated since FS98, it's not likely to be (easily) possible to create one either! :)

That's where I'll be spending most of my time once a shuttle addon is released.:)

>100,000,000 feet.FSX goes up to 100 million feet? Thats 18,939.3 miles up! Dang, thats almost geosynchronous orbit! Some Shuttle landing simulations are in my future! Heck, I wonder if we can have a whole new FS presepective..space and space vehicles???

If you want a space shuttle, here is a complete *free* space simulator.http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/Comes with a shuttle.Expect to read some stuff. This is more complicated than flying Boeings :-)Alex

I had that one time, didn't like it. By the looks of it FSX will be a lot more detailed graphically and will be more enjoyable because of it. Imagine the kind of things people will make with the mission editor, the possibilities are endless.:)

Ok - but is thinning atmosphere modeled?Andrew

>Heck, I wonder if we can>have a whole new FS presepective..space and space vehicles???What part of "Since the "Rocket" engine type was depecrated since FS98..." was unclear?No "Rocket" engines, no launch vehicle, no Space Shuttle...

Awesome simulator, very complex. Just getting into orbit took several days worth of reading and trial and error, still wasn't a perfect orbit but makes you realize just how unbelievable it is that in 1969 the US was able to land on the moon and make it back, or launch vehicles to mars and beyond.Ian.

One thing I'd like to know in regards to being able reach up to ~19,000 miles in altitude is wether orbital mechanics are modeled. If you go that high up and were to have some sort of propulsion mechanism (i.e. rocket engines), then you should be able to enter into orbit. Frictional heating during re-entry would be nice as well.If orbital mechanics arn't modeled in FSX then it'll still be a wonderful addition to the long line of Flight Simulators that came before it. At least I know I can still fly the Deltaglider in Orbiter (available for free at http://www.orbitersim.com).

Though, in theory, one could glide a shuttle down for a landing, so hypothetically a space shuttle is still possible as a big glider.Still, the free, and I stress free orbiter is the way to go as has been stated many times. If one wants thrust and planetary gravitational fields, friction, re-entry, apollo missions, shuttle missions etc....orbiter is by far the best way to go, though the complexity may be a bit much for regular flight simmers. You just don't hop in, launch and fly to the moon or mars.Maybe future versions of FS will implement the desired space enviroment.Ian.