ok, so there seem to be at least 2, 3, or maybe even 100 (with all of your friends) that won't buy FSX immediately...Will definately make a big change to the whole FS world. lol quote: "I find it hard to understand anyone wanting to purchase this new sim only to find it looks and runs worse than what they already have with FS9."Hm, since you are talking about anyone, I'm sorry that I have to disappoint you, but this is not true! I am running the fileplanet beta on my 2 year old 3.4 ghz Intel Pentium 4 Dell notebook with 1gig memory and an ATI 9700 128mb video card, and it looks and f e e l s worlds better than my FS9- even with all sliders only halfway maxed out. And no, I am not talking about tons of addons that'll bring my computer down to it's knees anyway. That said, I can only imagine what the final product will be like, and I am already excited to get my preordered copy. Honestly I just can't wait :)Rodger

Look the simple truth of the matter is that those who have never used much in the way of 3rd party addons will be falling over themselves to upgrade to FSX. However other simmers who have intalled a large number of addons aren't going to find FSX all that exciting in the short term. The visuals while an improvement are little better than FS9 with GEPro, ASV6, UT etc. But more significantly no one who flies the big iron products from the likes of LDS and PMDG is going to be happy flying the FSX default versions no matter how pretty the view. Of course over time this will all change as upgraded or new FSX specific versions of these addons come on stream but the process is likely to take many months.Bruceb

I've got to speak up here which is not meant to put down anyone or sound negative, but people are forgetting one group of people. People like me that like to fly everything from payware to freeware to defaults. I don't always feel like "waiting for some 3rd party addon" to have nor do I want to have my pocketbook on the ready to shell more money out. I enjoy all the default aircraft but in the beta as you can all see some are better than others. I and the rest who want to install FSX to enjoy are not asking for an FMC or everyline of text available in ATC world, just make the release polished and give *ALL* the default aircraft the same amount of effort. Sometimes I don't want to be bothered with a complete procedure and I just want to hit CTRL+E and use the Flight Planner with auto pilot on a tubeliner. Other times I'll have the time to program the FMC and generate a flight plan externally and have the stewardess make her announcements. But *PLEASE* stop making this cut and dry as people who never played it will be fine for and the rest of you set up a trust fund to get the most out of it waiting to purchase every addon!

I'm not sure that I fully get your point in that post - I haven't followed the debate on the quality of the FSX default aircraft closely as quite frankly I never use the defaults in FS9 and if and when I get FSX I expect he same to apply. But I think what you are saying is that you would like all the default FSX aircraft to be somewhat more complete than what appears is going to be the case so that you don't have to wait months for and spend more money on 3rd party addons. Seems a reasonable enough expectation to me.Bruceb

You got it Bruce, although I wasn't directing my post at you personally but just in general. :-lol

It's that curse of just clicking reply on the last post in a thread.And Bruce, I'm that guy falling over themselves. Except for a few freeware scenery and aircraft add-ons (most of the planes are things like Bill Lyons WACO, as my friend has one in real life and I love it), I'm very vanilla with my Flight Sim. And as we've gone back and forth about (not you and I, but the forum) in countless threads, there is at least a small majority of the people buying the sim who don't even know that there are add-ons. Point is, I think I'm a pretty decent witness as to the type of reaction we can expect from "Joe Public" (I personally love this term, because besides the tweaking and programming, the behaviors attributed to Joe are pretty much hand in hand with what I do) when FSX hits the shelves.And I tell ya, it's night and day.

>why are you so defensive? there is no other word for those>airplanes, not only are they simple and control bad, but they>most certainly leave a bad taste in the mouth of first time>flyers. The FS was never created to make aircraft easy to fly, learn to fly them, and you will not think they are simple and control bad. Ive been flying FS aircraft since before MS bought the program from Bruce, and have seen it steadly improve every version. Do as I did, take off, fly the pattern and land 20 times a day, before doing anything else. When carriers you could land on were added to the FS, could land every one including the Lear on the Carrier, without using an autopilot. If you think they =control=bad= that is -your- problem, not the fault of the FS.>How many people would be attracted to FS and want to>learn more if they had, say a PMDG, Dreamfleet, or Level-D>type airplane that could be flown easily if they choose?Not a lot, many use the FS as a challange, not to look for aircraft which are =easy= to fly. Ive bought most of all payware aircraft available. But, find myself going back to the Kingair or C182 over and over. In fact, because I enjoy the Kingair so much, have been using Kingair as my signon for Flight Sim Websites for about a decade. Five of my Children including the girls use the FS... Seven of my 16 grandchildren currently use it, the youngest is six, who has NO problems controlling the aircraft. They have no problems, because they learned to use it correctly from their parents, who learned from me. Most of them choose to land in the most difficult airfields to make it as challanging as possible. We are always looking for more difficult fields, and sent them in emails to challange each other.If it was =easy= we'd soon be bored with it, and stop to do something that was more of a challange mentally. Dont blame the FS for your shortcomings or those of your equipment.

>what are the facts? well to have one of the largest selling>games of all time (the largest, I could be mistaken) yet such>a small community for that size game, can only point to the>default aircraft might be good enough for a few, but most get>bored with them easily and go move on to another game. 30>thousand avsim forum members to millions of copies sold speaks>volumesActually, the community is not as small as you ASSUME...Ive got five children using the FS, plus my grandchildren, and NONE of them ever log onto the forums. Ive got seven friends who use it and their children, none of them log onto the forums. Why, most of them say I'd rather be flying the FS than writing about it or reading a bunch of messages which do not interest me. Yes, they have logged on from time to time, but never became interested in staying.That means there are more than 17 users who are not in this community, for one person who is writing in the forum... It also means there are MILLIONS using the FS, who have no interest in writing about it. Remember what research shows, for every one person who writes about something to a polititian, there are about 10,000 with similar opinions who =never= bother to write. Thus, your manipulation of statistics means nothing... Research indicates there would be 10,000 people using the FS, for each of the 30 thousand avsim forum members who would never be interested in writing. In fact, there may be even 10-100 members reading messages here for every person who writes a message. Not everyone feels they have an opinion worth stating. Others see those who write being attacked for their opinions, and have no desire to defend their opinions.>Now I dont mean to say they should simulate realistically>every system and switch, what I mean is, they should be highly>detailed, fly by the numbers, and feel like their real life>counterparts. Many who actually fly the real aircraft have stated how close the FS is to the real thing. After flying both a C182, and a WACO, I'd say the only thing missing is the feel you get in the aircraft.>I have always wished they>stick to what they can do best, create a great engine and>allow 3rd party developers a chance to show their products>(dumbed down so you can jump right in and fly) in the game>when you buy it off the shelf. Imagine a PMDG 737 or 747 that>if you want, you can use the default GPS, or you can select a>realistic option and LNAV and VNAV with an FMC are there>instead.The greatest number of people I know, have no desire to fly a 737 or 747, and no matter how realistic the PMDG is, they do NOT believe they could ever fly one. They prefer to fly GA Props, as they believe it is possible to really learn to fly one. IN FACT, the FS is realistic enough to be used to help train Air Force Pilots. The US Govt bought 50,000 copies after a trainee in TX learning to fly, achieved higher scores than Instructors who were taking a refresher course. He practiced each night what he learned in the classes or flights with the FS.... His ability to navigate was better than anyone else they could recall. It blew the minds of the Flight Instructors, that a newbee did so well.... Your comments that it is worthless, are worthless.>The whole aggrevation I have with this series, is they could>spend more time wasted with the default aircraft, and put it>towards developing a better engine for others to work with.HE used the default aircraft in his flight training.HE did not find the default aircraft so limiting, it may be your ability to understand how to use the FS is limiting your use.