>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.No, it isn't. The resolution and fidelity of data required to accurately depict the world at human scale at ground level is significantly different than that required to depict the world at altitude. Let's consider just the mesh: a toplogy mesh with 38m between data points is considered high-resolution in flight-sim terms and is perfectly adequate to depict the world at altitude. That same mesh is completely inadequate at ground level. For an adequate depiction of the world at ground level, you would need a mesh that has 1 or 2 meters between data points and even that mesh would be barely adequate for the simulation of ground vehicles. Where are you going to get data at that resolution? Further, mesh at that resolution is several hundred times denser than 38m mesh, several thousand times denser than 76m mesh and several tens of thousands times denser than the mesh that comes stock with FS9. How on earth do you propose such staggeringly huge data sets be distrubuted? How many people have the multiple terrabyte storage capacity that would be required to install the data?And that's just the mesh. Where do you suppose all the other data that would be required to model the world at the level you propose would come from?

Reference virtual world can provide basic global DEM (as in stock MSFS), and you can enhance it locally by specific addons. I'm not talking about global coverage by super high rez scenery, no! If you want to land at the airport and then drive from it, you should have a hirez ground scenery installed for that location! There are large-scale and fine-scale features in all simulators. For the fine scales, you can go measure your neighborhood, make hi-rez model and share it with others as a scenery for: (1) FS, (2) first-person shooter, (3) RC field, (4) racing track (5) you name it. Sharing large-scale features, general physics, graphics e.t.c, and the ability to see the same view from a plane, a car, a boat, etc. is what I'm talking about. There's also such thing as scaling. In MSFS we see scaling in different texture levels and LOD of models depending on our range to object. Scaling can be controlled by your computer's capacity, type of flight simulator, and user prefs. Scaling also works with mesh, as you don't really see all the 38m details until you are close to the ground. Also, you can have 76m areas and 38m areas, and a fully detailed commercial addon airport, with details so meticulous that you really want just to stroll around... =S.V.=

>Moreoever there already is "Sims" for that,Obviously to each his own, but you can't simulate flight in the sims.As for not being able to have the detail needed at person level, obviously you never leave your aircraft in FS, there is plenty of detail at person level, sceneries like the georender ones are very believable at person level.As far as the 'this is flight simulator" BS, fine, go fly only, but as long as MS models the world and you can place boats on the water, cars on the roads and people on the tarmac, then it can be used for whatever you want it to be. With the open architecture of FS you can have your cake and eat it to, no need to be so closed minded. Thanks to some great non aircraft addons from many developers, such as Bill Lyons and others I have had some very enjoyable non flight, post flight and pre flight times in FS.With the new sim can't wait to see the complainers when high altitude/space addons start coming out since you have that option now.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

LOL!Completely OT, but these two words from this year's National Spelling Bee are begging to be used... ;)I find much of the "discussion" in the various FSX forums full of psittacisms and quite recrementitious.

"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."Times are that I wonder if why it's possible to do that by now. It would certainly be a great idea for many like myself.But as for me the FS is king!

That wouldn't be a problem. It would be easy to generate intermediate data points, either by simple interpolation or by more sophisticated fractal techniques. This technique could be applied to all scenery data such as terrain mesh, coastlines, roads, generic textures etc Indeed, if there was not sufficient data the simulator could 'create' details that look convincing and would make the world look very convincing at ground level (this is essentially what autogen does!) Of course, this would depend on the availability of data for the specific area. And of course in ten years' time storage and processing capability will be vastly superior compared to today. Best regards, Chris

I agree. For a long time I thought that all the different types of simulator would converge to what would be called a 'world simulator'. I thought this was still maybe ten years away. But a couple of years ago I realised that world simulators already exist - they're called 'game engines'.Of course they are still young and need lots of development. I'm familiar with the CryEngine that powers Far Cry. The possibilities are incredible (though ironically Far Cry is very weak in the flight sim department).Crysis, based on CryEngine2, should be out about the same time as FSX. It already has a strong flight sim aspect and is hugely advanced in many other areas (for example it has volumetric clouds that look fantastic).I think that CryEngine, and the other competing game engines, will eventually become true world simulators, where you can build cities, drive in the rush-hour traffic to your local airport, hop aboard your aircraft and head for the clouds.My prediction: in ten years' time there will be no flight or driving simulators etc. Flight Simulator will be no more. Instead there will be Microsoft World Simulator (and hopefully other competing products). But the good news for flight simmers: the flight sim aspects of MWS will be far superior to anything in FSX and of course it will be fully open to allow vast numbers of amazing add-ons. One very important feature of MWS: it is filled with realistic humans who have emotions, some of whom are pilots, and who go about their daily business - just as in the real world. It would also be an online system, in many respects similar to Second Life (indeed, in Second Life you can pop over to Abbott's Aerodrome and buy your own Stearman or go for a free flight).I think the prospects for simulation in the coming years is very exciting. Best regards, Chris

Obviously nobody here lives or works in Boston. A commute sim is not my idea of fun. Flying a 747 is :)Now that the tunnel that feeds the airport from the South and West (Ted Willimas Tunnel) is closed, getting to the airport is a nightmare. I live South of Boston, and work right on Boston Common.The universal suggestion- even by cabbies is to take public transit.

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. And furthermore, I hope they eventually implement the process of driving from your sim home to your local airport, filing your flight plane at the terminal, prepping the plane, etc. All as a virtual "player".

I should say that convergence of game engines has already began from the designer's point of view, as now you can design scenery and dynamic object in gMax and export it into MSFS, Train Sim, quake, CSF, e.t.c. Many engines use the same coordinate systems, physics, graphics.The question of how's going to be the first to offer a single simulation platform, a virtual Earth, or how you call it, World Simulator. MS has all the cards with mighty FSX but who knows if some underdog company emerges. I also agree that the prospects of simulation become mind-boggling, especially with latest graphics and hardware technology.

I wish I could fly to work, well maybe virtually and then work from home :). My commute from Cambridge to Lexington is not that bad. Sometimes, when I go very early and there is not as much traffic, I think: "gee, this is how a commute sim would look like with a traffic density slider set to minimum :)"Cheers,

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.This is exactly my vision of FS. A virtual world which immerses FS into that world.