"Ever hear of VATSIM?"Ever hear of "I prefer an AI driven ATC system in a SINGLE PLAYER environment ?" :-roll Chris Low.

It depends how biased you are.Having been a developer for years, tweaking the odd bit of programming to produce reflections and new water effects isn't worth any extra price tag, more like a free upgrade.I'm only commenting what I've seen (as like the rest of you), so far, not impressed. I will be sticking with FS9 for some time unless something MAJOR!!!!! happends in this upcoming development.I think they have still got to touch on that weather system, nothing looks different. If they have made changes there lol..!!!.. where the heck are they????

To you people who are comparing a fully add-oned FS2004 to FSX; Don't you see the forest for the trees...? Does the barebone FS2004 look anything like those FSX screenshots...? FSX will be dependent on add-ons even more so than FS2004. FSX's ability to be a good platform for further development is one of the most important equations here, so don't forget it....In addition comes all the non-visible aspects of FSX.

Don't get me wrong, those screenshots are impressive but some big questions need to be answered regarding fs9 limitations and how fsx will overcome them. It is easy to get excited over screenshots. As I said before, they are no use to me at 10fps. For me I have made so many compromises with fs9 to get the 'right fit'. Adjusting scenery complexity, AI, VIrtual cockpit (add-on aircraft)and settling with a certain level of perfermance. Hopefully fsx reduces the strain of sacrifice and compromise when it comes to these factors. CheersTristan

>To you people who are comparing a fully add-oned FS2004 to>FSX; Don't you see the forest for the trees...? Does the>barebone FS2004 look anything like those FSX screenshots...?>FSX will be dependent on add-ons even more so than FS2004.>FSX's ability to be a good platform for further development is>one of the most important equations here, so don't forget it.>>...In addition comes all the non-visible aspects of FSX.Good point with one caveat. That developers can only work with what they have and therefore it is more important than ever that this isnt just a Candy sim but has major reworks of the FDE, weather engine etc.ie the structures under the candy coatingPeter

"To you people who are comparing a fully add-oned FS2004 to FSX; Don't you see the forest for the trees...? Does the barebone FS2004 look anything like those FSX screenshots...? FSX will be dependent on add-ons even more so than FS2004. FSX's ability to be a good platform for further development is one of the most important equations here, so don't forget it."It depends what your personal preferences are. I don't use Autogen in FS2004 as it's totally unrealistic, objects waaaaaaaay to large, so I prefer to have them either on low or switched off. Sure the forests look good, autogen towns etc, it depends what your going to use and what will stand out the most.Changing the weather system, well I think 100% of people use that, a bit hard not too :(.Sure any advancement is a good thing, but by how much exactly is the question - time will tell.Eye candy is a good thing. When a person first see's a product, they go on the screenshots, THEN glance down at the detailed info on the product. IF the eye candy bit fails, well, it effects the overall deciding factor.Would you buy a sim for just the realism or eye candy stuff (the general environment and detail) or both, for me it's both, and both of these aspects need to achieved in a product, thats what realism is all about.On a side note, Airline Training simulators have *loody good cockpits, but *rap visual computer environments; they still surve their purpose of training pilots as graphics aren't important.

Well, after a second look, I must agree that screenshots presented look very good comparing to bare-bone FS9. They are on par with FS9 with good replacement textures/mesh and landclass plus some new details like bumpmaps and specularity.This is good, that means no more of spending money and time on replacement textures etc.. these look good enough to fly around with pleasure. Looking at these screenshots I see no reason for any land replacement textures at all.I'll keep my FE handy though ;)I just hope everything will work 2 times faster on good machines :) and we can be sure we will get 5.1 sound which is major improvement for me personally.

B777ER (Eric),Happy New Year and with a press release like this from the FS team it sure is starting out as one. I'm also wandering about the multiplayer enhancements mentioned. I wander if during multiplayer now user will be able to keep AI traffic? I know many user use Squawkbox but for those who dont it would be nice to have more traffic then just one or two. Also I wander if Default ATC will be available in multiplayer.I'm also looking at the textures to try and see if they have roads on them like FS9 or if all roads, driveways and sidewalks are layered on to them.If thats the case then in the event we want to use UTerrain for our roads, tracks and water data bases when we switch them out there will no longer be any fake roads under them as part of the textures.

Well the new FSX landscape screenshots sure do look tons improved over the standard FS9. i just hope that all the stutters in the engine are eliminated! just think this time next year we'll probably all have our hands on this new one and then most likely we'll all start to say what we want included in the next version! and so it goes on.:-)

>Wake me up when Microsoft starts delivering Half Life 2 style>graphics for its flight simulator series. Why always so negative? You've seen less than 1% of what FSX is going to offer and you've already closed your mind? :-roll

>I would love to know where you fly,California, Nevada, Arizona.Never saw a single bird.Even if I did I think it is hardly a factor in flying. Yet other important features that you very often interact with - weather (numerous issues with weather in FS9), sloped runways, terrain are there ALL the time. To give us birds and neglect other critical items (there is no proof they will be addressed) is I think a bad joke.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

Personally I think it looks great, especially thinking of what add ons will make it look like. :)Being a GA flyer I'm really liking the look of the autogen and landscape.. will also be looking forward to seeing how the mission element pans out.

Well I'm excited.... it would appear the ground textures are greatly improved and that's what I see most of when looking out the window... they really got old in previous versions.It give me a chance to save for a year to!Best RegardsBoone,[email protected]"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle. It's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

HiMy feeling so far is it looks great! If everything improves like the ground textures/autogen visible in the screenshots I think it'll be a hit.Hoping Fs10 is great.P.

>California, Nevada, Arizona.>>Never saw a single bird.>>Even if I did I think it is hardly a factor in flying. Yet>other important features that you very often interact with ->weather (numerous issues with weather in FS9), sloped runways,>terrain are there ALL the time. To give us birds and neglect>other critical items (there is no proof they will be>addressed) is I think a bad joke.>Wow, I'm suprised you don't think birds are a factor, let alone a hazard to flying. Check this out, hopefully it will open your eyes to the danger, it really is something every pilot should be educated about.http://www.birdstrike.org/Here's just a few facts from the front of that website:DID YOU KNOW THAT?