>Can't agree more.>>One more thought: FS is the Scenery. Level-D, is the SIM.>>You can say the same about PMDG or FeelThere 737, and some>others around. But Level-D!!! Oh God.>>Just throw at me FSX with Level-D, and I'll be happy as a>Clam. I no need nothing else.As long as they dont forget to add a full nav database in FSX for all the sids stars etc ;-)Peter

I don't believe it's necessarily arrogance which entices the hope for more than an incremental increase. We pay for this software every few years and hope each incarnation will come more close to what we feel is the ultimate simulation of our aviation desires. That is where it goes awry. My wants for simulation are different than someone elses, so how do you go about satisfying everyones perception of what FS should be? By simulating everything. Simulating a living, breathing planet mimicking what we see and feel in reality is not within the reach of current technology, I can not feel the vibrations of the aircraft, the rumbling of a slip or slide, or the occassional pit in the stomach as I fly through a bubble of air. All we have to rely on is millions of lines of code compiled to simulate that experience within the confines a CPU and TV screen, no easy task I must say. To that end, FS9 and now FSX seem to push the envelope towards the ultimate goal of simulating the world we see, to mimick on a computer the aviation enviroment and everything related to it. Birds and animals, Cars and roads, mountains, oceans, people, weather, all part of reality, will eventually be realisticly simulated into our virtual worlds.To say one is more important than the other misses the whole point of the final goal. Everything a real pilot encounters in real world aviation should be within the simulator itself. Each addition of reality simulated in Flight Simulator contributes to the ultimate goal of the ultimate virtual world we should fly in. Of course, the big question is, how much closer to that ultimate goal will FSX bring us? We can only speculate and hope, only the developers know the answer to that one, so hopefully patience will prevail as they decide what features will make the final cut bringing us ever closer to the reality we all hope and need from a flight simulator.Ian.

>To say one is more important than the other misses the whole>point of the final goal.Nice post.However, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, if it was a choice between moving 3D cars on roads and better flight dynamics, I'd take the flight dynamics in a heart beat.I doubt it's that binary, however.

>I don't believe it's necessarily arrogance which entices the>hope for more than an incremental increase. >>We pay for this software every few years and hope each>incarnation will come more close to what we feel is the>ultimate simulation of our aviation desires. That is where it>goes awry. My wants for simulation are different than someone>elses, so how do you go about satisfying everyones perception>of what FS should be?... >To say one is more important than the other misses the whole>point of the final goal. Everything a real pilot encounters>in real world aviation should be within the simulator itself. >Each addition of reality simulated in Flight Simulator>contributes to the ultimate goal of the ultimate virtual world>we should fly in. >>Of course, the big question is, how much closer to that>ultimate goal will FSX bring us? We can only speculate and>hope, only the developers know the answer to that one, so>hopefully patience will prevail as they decide what features>will make the final cut bringing us ever closer to the reality>we all hope and need from a flight simulator.>>Ian.Yes, you are right, arrogance is probably too harsh a word. The point I am trying to make is that there seems to be an expectation that the MS dev team should deliver a certain "quantity" of FS improvement over (in this case) a three year period.My personal view is that they should deliver what ever it is they deliver and then it is up to the individual to decide whether it is worth the value of the asking price. At the same time, I don't begrudge anyone from wanting the most from each new release, it is only natural.Having used various iterations of this title since 1984 I am only too aware of the steps taken to get to where we are now, and would still use the word "incremental" in each and evry new offering. Semantics perhaps...Anyhow, please ignore the "arrogance" thing and any offence taken is regretted.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outta

Thank you. As far as deciding whether to implement a new feature or improve an already existing feature is a difficult choice. Both enhance the experience.I am hoping that both options would be done by the developers and from what I'm seeing it looks like they are working on the FD and implementing the new "eye candy", giving us the best of both worlds if you will, so hopefully there is no choice to be made.Fingers crossed.

Absolutely no offense taken on my part, I love a good discussion. I've been perusing these forums for years, but tend not to post much, yet have been on a release as of late ever since the announcement of the new version though I'm not sure why. I've been using flight simulator since 1982, "flying" on a commodore 64 with a 5 and quarter inch floppy (had to beg my parents to buy the separate floppy disk drive), and did not get another version until FS95. Well, that was a very large increment of change. :)Anyway, I concur, the size of incremental change is the eye of the beholder. Ian.

Why all or nothing? No one says you can't have your cake and eat it too. Particularly with the leaps in technology, programming, etc. And so-called eye-candy is fundamentally important to the advancement of this product.

This Chris agrees absolutely! Best regards, Chris

Ian, very nicely put. Incidentally, it reflects my feelings almost exactly! I now feel quite dicontented with FS9. I think one reason is the complete absence of the human dimension which makes it feel a bit sterile. I have quite a bit of experience with Far Cry, and one thing that really got my attention was the human AI. Although the AI is obviously mostly aimed at shooting people (more specifically, shooting you, the player!) I think the possibilities are amazing. Imagine Flight Simulator filled with realistic humans going about their business, whether passengers or flight crew, or engineers prepping the aircraft before departure. With sufficiently advanced AI you could walk up to them and engage in conversation. And with a Human AI SDK scenery designers (world designers would be a better title) could do truly amazing things. FSX may still have plenty of surprises in store (I certainly hope so), though it probably won't have advanced AI humans. But in a few years, who knows? Then FS would at last be a true flight simulator, because it would faithfully reproduce all the sensations and experiences of flight that we have all known in the real world. Best regards, Chris