Let me begin by saying that FS2004 is great! It is so close to being right on the money, and that is why I think FSX is so anticipated. These requested improvements are much needed "out of the box improvements," and they don't, as I believe, equate to requiring rocket science type programming to get them right.I hope, and am pretty sure, that FSX will be released with 1> gates that are commensurate with aircraft size and not the 747-400 gate sizes that are currently present at airports like ATL. And, 2> the ability to plan a flight in FSX from, say, ATL to LGW, using high altitude airways without having to go through Alaska first. Flight planning to many international destinations is problematic in FS2004. I am pretty sure that will also be corrected in FSX.What do you guys think?RH

1> How about gates that fit all heavies in FSX? Do you think it will come about?2> Do you think the flight planner will work for international flights (using high altitude airways) in FSX?RH

How about upgrading the flight planner to allow for better international routes?RH

How about getting a proper 3rd party flight planner ? No Offense MS !

Don't you think we deserve one straight out of the box?RH

But there is already one in the box.If you want to go more advanced, go for a more advanced planner like FSBUILD or FSNAVIGATOR or even Jeppesen (spelling?) if u have the money to burn. The standard one in the box ( I would say ) is more for the novice pilot that just wants to get from point A to Point B using general airways..... they don't care if the AIRAC cycle is up to date or if the airway name has changed since last month etc etc....So basically FSX should come with a standard "generic" flightplanner ( can probably be improved a bit - i do agree ) but to do really hardcore planning - i'd use a 3rd party tool.This will let MS get on with the more important things and let them concentrate on getting things like smooth DYNAMIC WEATHER with SMOOTH VISIBILITY transitions sorted out - Hint Hint ;-) ;-):-hahPleez MS...Pleezzz:-hah:-hahCheers

every time I see someone saying "simple request" (or something similar) I just know that person has no idea about the effort needed to implement his request.Yours are no different, what you're demanding may seem trivial but isn't.And in case you've never seen jetways at real airports, go and take a look. They're pretty much all the same size irrespective of the aircraft parked at them (only difference being the special jetways at Schiphol, formerly at JFK, and maybe one or two others that have 2 exits specifically designed for 747s).And you as said already don't have to go through Alaska to fly from the US to the UK, you just have to know how to use the planner provided (or use a 3rd party planner, but the integrated planner can do it as well if you're not too lazy to manipulate the plan created a bit sometimes).

Currently, you can make a flight plan from JFK to LAX using the standard FS2004 Flight Planner. However, the same planner will not take you directly to LHR from JFK, unless you use the GPS option. The two flights are similar in terms of complexity, except the one from JFK to LHR is slightly longer. So, are you saying that a flight from JFK to LAX is for the novice pilot and one from JFK to LHR should require a more advance planner? I think you should be able to do this right out of the FSX box. If Microsoft are going to take the time to make a detailed world and include a flight planner, then they should allow that flight planner to be utilized directly to fly from one part of that world to another.I do agree with you on the Dynamic Weather and Smooth Visibility are more important improvements, but I think the above could be fixed with only minimal programming.RH

I don't see how it would be that difficult to vary the height of the gates at various high definition airports. At KATL, for example, 747s or 777s only park at Terminal E. Right now, you have gates that are sized only for the 747-400 or 777s at the T-Gates, Terminal A, Terminal B, Terminal C, Terminal D, as well as Terminal E. The 737-sized aircraft look ridiculous at the gates. How difficult would it be to at least vary the height of the gates so that other heavies can fit at the various gates and terminals too?Also, we are not talking about rocket science. I mean, I know the individual or individuals who created FSBUILD and FSNAVIGATOR is/are bright, but don't you think it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the programmers at Microsoft can't do the same thing without requiring average users to "manipulate" a particular flight plan to make it work?RH

How about jetways that automatically adjust to the door height of various aircraft, and snug up the accordian seals? What that satisfy your desires? ;)

Oh yeah, that would be even better!RH

Now, how about the flight planner in FSX?RH

but the jetways at Schiphol don't fit my ATR in the real world...That's not realistic!!!!!

I have taken an ATR from Schiphol to Norwich, Endland. You are right. In that case, we had to take a bus out to the ATR. However, the ATR was not parked at the terminal, and the ATR is not a heavy. You have to account for the majority of heavies (i.e., 737s, A320s, MD-80s...) in terms of gate sizes.Now, back to the flight planner in FSX. RH

>How about jetways that automatically adjust to the door>height of various aircraft, and snug up the accordian seals?I should point out that this is already possible in FS9, thanks to the efforts of Arno G's tools, as well as other great scenery modelers... ;)