A mission idea to "drive to airport in rush hour" posted by Dirk at subsequent discusion going on at http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.php...topics&forum=32Check that out!

That's a ridiculous idea.

>That's a ridiculous idea. It's so amazing to realize that almost always while something looks or sounds so great to some, it simply has no appealing to others. That's what makes life so exciting and mutual respect a priceless commodity for peaceful co-existance.

I agree. - Doug

>>That's a ridiculous idea. >>It's so amazing to realize that almost always while something>looks or sounds so great to some, it simply has no appealing>to others. That's what makes life so exciting and mutual>respect a priceless commodity for peaceful co-existance. I agree with you, but it is still a ridiculous idea.:+

I usually sit in traffic on my way to the local airport, so the concept is not really appealing to me. If such a mission should ever see the light of day, then please include at least a fully functional Sirius radio.Pat

Man, talk about being closed minded. I actually love the idea of the sims mixed with FS, no reason that it has to take away from what we have now, only add to it. How many fly for a VA and 'simulate" the happenings BEFORE you take you flight? setting up the charter, walk arounds, pre flights, maintenance, etc. How sweet would it be to have a virtual cabin in ketchikan Alaska and you hop into your jeep and drive thru a dynamic town to the airport, interact with the people at the FBO and then start your flight, same for the destination. All you realism nuts can't get any closer than that. I built myself a nice little office at KORS (or any place I put it) and some days I'll just sit there and look out the window and watch the AI.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

"but it is still a ridiculous idea."But according to the new preview report even the ones you could call "ridiculous" will be created by those desiring to and be enjoyed by them.

>Man, talk about being closed minded. I actually love the idea>of the sims mixed with FS, no reason that it has to take away>from what we have now, only add to it. How many fly for a VA>and 'simulate" the happenings BEFORE you take you flight?>setting up the charter, walk arounds, pre flights,>maintenance, etc. How sweet would it be to have a virtual>cabin in ketchikan Alaska and you hop into your jeep and drive>thru a dynamic town to the airport, interact with the people>at the FBO and then start your flight, same for the>destination. All you realism nuts can't get any closer than>that. I built myself a nice little office at KORS (or any>place I put it) and some days I'll just sit there and look out>the window and watch the AI.>>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>http://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpgCertainly!

>That's a ridiculous idea.I completely agree. Lads don't forget, this is a FLIGHT Simulator, not a car, bus or train simulator. If you want to drive to an airport then look elsewhere for sims that were made for that purpose.

Ok, here is obviously someone who has lost touched with reality. Maybe I am missing the point and this is some kind of joke (looks around, not April 1st *whew*). Yes, a complete simulation would be nice, but an "FBO simulation" would be still a lot more useful than DRIVING TO the airport. I can't see how this would have anything to do with a flight simulation!? Do you want to a simulator to model your home, so you can prepare a sandwich before leaving? Where does is start, where does it end? Aren't there any higher priority stuff that we would like to see, like FS2Crew for every plane? This would be at least something that could be realised.Um... confused.Pat

With open-end simulation framework, which MSFS is not but may become one day, one can model anything he/she likes whether it is train sim, or car sim, or flight sim, or a "sandwich-making" sim (well, ok, this one is silly). Think this: you want world-covering flightsim and you want world-covering ship sim; you can have two different products with 60 Gb of world data each or instead, a single framework with two different addon sims that share the same universe. So, if you want to fight rush hour on the way to the airport before actually "using" the flight sim, just buy a car sim "addon", and do it. That's the future of all simulators I think, from space orbiters to deep-ocean Alvins... What's the point of putting incredible details into the virtual worlds of many different simulators when you can share their sceneries as one single base platform and work more on each simulator's aspects such as physics, AI, etc?=S.V.=

Why would I want to simulate driving? This really is a bad idea. If I want a train sim, I play Train Sim, if I want a Flight Sim, I'll play flight sim. If I want a car sim, I'll play Grand Theft Auto.

As in reality, most imaginable simulators share the same world. Same trees, buildings, DEM, weather, planetary physics (Sun, Moon, stars), etc... the scenery is the same. Now try to separate that virtual world from simulator. Some devs can focus now on improvement of the virtual environment (world sceneries, lighting, shading, weather, ....) while others improve the "simulator" part. And those "others" can be flight, ship, orbiter, car and whatever simulators groups. So, when you put those parts back together, you get better sim (improved dynamics, AI, ...) and better scenery (texture aspects, detailed cities and landscapes), all compatibile with different simulators. So if I want realistic flight simulation, I install a reference world with global scenery and buy a flight sim "addon". If I want a ship simulator, I just buy a ship "addon" and have it over the same world. OR, I can buy a separate Ship program, occupy the rest of my disk space and deal with different scenery issues etc. If you ever had CFS2 and MSFS2002 installed on the same disk, didn't you feel like you installed so many things twice? :)=S.V.=

Moreoever there already is "Sims" for that,