Let's all post something we don't like, and balance it with something we do, by the end we may actually work out where MS went wrong.I'll get the ball rolling:likes:1/ some of the missions are good, especially the tutorials2/ online can be really great as people work out how to use the voip correctly.3/ the traffic on the roads really adds some life to navigation at low level. Makes it easier to follow major routes.4/ the pushback tugs at airports so I see my airliner pushed back, it was cool seeing a tug hook me up and begin pushing.5/ It's flyable at lower framerates than FS9 was.dislikes:1/ the desert thing - far too much of it.2/ still the transparent cockpits at night and the sun shows through, and I tried the latest Catalyst drivers, which are now gone as they freaked my entire PC out.3/ Other terrain anomalies that weren't there even in FS9.4/ they promised backwards compatability, but most of our add-ons don't seem to work correctly, not least because they've moved FSUIPC from modules to add-ons, keeping it in modules probably would have made a few more add-ons work, and changing the whole directory structure didn't help.5/ no rain on the VC, doubtless it's there in the 2d cockpit like it was in 2002, but why not in VC anymore like it was in FS9.So you see on the whole pretty balanced, but the add-ons not working is a real downer, one of those gave me a co-pilot offline, and do you realise how hard it is to find a decent co-pilot that you don't even know? On top of that we've got to wait ages for FSPax to be updated if it can be, but Dan is saying it needs to be re-written from the looks of it, and the original took him over a year.For now I'm pulling my FS9 back out, with all it's terrain/wx addons, and planes I'll add as I want to fly them. When FSX gets the terrain addons updated to kill off the desert and I find people to fly as my Co-pilot, then I'll yank it back out again, and probably begin to love it.

dislikes:- inland 2.0 water (big ocean waves cutout and pasted into a river doesn't look that good to me)likes:- everything else ;)And too some up some random stuff I like so far:- popup windows (like the GPS and so on) SNAP to the side of the screen (that wasn't the fact before, was it?)- ATC window with history (history could be found in the kneeboard before, but I like this a lot mote)- Ultralight: it's my favorite!- traffic (AT LAST the world is ALIVE! I'm not all alone out there!)Well, that were just the first things that came to mind: the list could be A LOT longer! ;) And all that already without the DX10 patch... ;)

You're telling me that the transparent cockpits at night with instrument lights turned on from the beta are still in the retail? That is a huge bug and was the main reason i was going to buy the retail! If that isn't fixed then forget it...

Since I have been accused by some of being overly positive about this sim I am only going to post some negatives.. :-)1) I don't like the new water effects-about the only place imho it looks good is the ocean-but lakes, and rivers look very cartoony with it on and the performance hit is incredible.2) I don't like the fact that changing prop pitch makes no change in sound on the Baron-doing a feather check should be earth shattering...3) I don't like how the autogen when maxed makes a circular band around you with a desert in the distance-and then refreshes as you fly. I also don't understand why if you fly over say jackson hole at altitude-the look with/without autogen is exactly the same-yet the frame rates differ by 30 fps-something not right here. Also I think a slider should have been included seperate for trees/houses/types since autogen seems to be the huge hit factor. I personally love the new trees but really don't like the lego buildings.4) Don't like that there isn't a slider for wildlife like there is other ai traffic. I see a lot of birds where I fly-haven't seen one yet..I'd like to be able to crank this up.5)Not wild about the open/closed mike issue in multiplayer. Agree it is unsettling to hear sound coming thru that shouldn't-like the first time I tried multiplayer and remarked to my wife-"this is ^&^^# cool" and then found out everyone else heard this too. :-lol6) Don't like the long load times-I know nothing can probably be done about this but still don't like themJust a few I can think of right now-I have lots more.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I feel real bad for the U.K. simmers who lost parts of the River Thames,But I'm happy to get lakes in my region of the USA, that I've been missing for years, even with 3rd party enhancements.Balances it out, at least for me! :-hah L.Adamson

Wow amazing GeofA doesn't like everything :-loledit, I don't like 5 FPS :(edit2, I also dont like how the roads get dropped on top of the textures. IMO, the textures/autogen should be rendered around the roads.I like the dense autogen in the bush.

I like1m texturesMore autogen (Love those forests)CarsDefault aircraftNew stream texture The waterI don't likeThe "desert" areasWhere are the animals?High fps impact for many even with even low autogenMy system E6600, 9700GT 256MB and 2GB RAM.

likes ...graphics (but they are expensive - $200 a frame - lol)Baron with G1000 (very nice)new options and slidersmissions (not really sure yet)multiplayer (improved)cockpit sharing (awesome)traffic (kewl)airport activities (kewl)a place to send comments/suggestions --> [email protected] ...$70 upgradesperformancelandclassstock aircraft (yuck)flight planner (same ol')animals (don't care) are there people? haven't seen anymesh problemswhere do the dll's and gau's files go?waiting a couple of years for a patchI am officially disappointed. :-erks Well MS has got to make a serious patch to fix this thing up.Everyone should send to MS constructive comments/suggestions/bugs.

My main thing that I can think of that I don't like is graphics to sum it up. Cloud graphics and water are beautiful but everything else is very unimpressive. I understand that the whole world can't be 3d modeled and every single airfield but they should have 3d airports and a good radius around the airport that is in 3d just like FZ02 Portland by Flightscenery. This game plays great. I just wish I could really enjoy taking off and seeing the ground underneath me with beautiful detailed graphics. Not a bunch of corny houses just planted on a very blurry ground. I feel like when flying lower then 1000asl that I am flying over a satellite picture and that is basically what I am doing. I think what they need to do is make more 3d airports/surrounding areas just like 3rd party developers do such as flightscenery. I play war video games like Battlefield and when flying in a helicopter there in the rich 3d world I get more visual enjoyment out of it. Of course it's not a simulation I am just flying with 2 analog sticks but visually I am completley satisfied. I can't see why MS can't make more 3d enhanced airports taken from aerial photography and not satellite. I would love it if I could take off from say Rhode Island in January. Watch the scenery underneath me as I take off and then while I am flying across country at FL350 I can enjoy the satellite scenery that has to be used. I can't think of too many people that would care about 3d imagery from Rhode Island to California at FL350. Then I make my descent in San Diego to land at KSAN intl. Now 5 hours later I see beautiful palm trees and I get that feeling that I actually flew across country. That is what is missing. I know it's not easy and I'm not saying MS should go out and do this with ease. It would take a lot of work but if 3rd party developers can do beautiful scenerys such as FZ02 Portland by flightscenery then why can't a big company like MS make the same thing at even higher detail (although I would be pleased with the same) for more airports. They can either design these 3d airports from aerial photography or even take a lesser approach and increase the detail of autogen. IMHO autogen graphics are absolutley awful. The same exact houses one after another are awful. Buildings aren't anything to write home about either. There should be an autogen graphics slider or something as well as autogen density.

HelloThere are around 24000 airports of various sizes in FSXNow cosidering that Flight scenery took around a year each to produce FZ01 and FZ02, Just do the maths, it wont happen in your lifetime.

>Hello>There are around 24000 airports of various sizes in FSX>Now cosidering that Flight scenery took around a year each to>produce FZ01 and FZ02, Just do the maths, it wont happen in>your lifetime.Did I ask for every single airport?? Photoscenery such as megascenery would do just fine to cover the entire area. I like to fly US flights. I would get as much photoscenery as I can, be happy with it flying at cruising altitude and then have either better placed autogen at airports or possibly bigger companys such as MS producing these high detailed 3d airports. I don't know anything about flightscenery and how big of a staff they had working on their FZ01 and FZ02 but I can only imagine that it would be much easier/faster for MS or a bigger company to do it. Flying into a runway on a flat zoomed in satellite picture that becomes blurry because it's 2d is not my idea of flight simulation at its best.

I like :The missions, those are a blast.The helicopters can actually be flown by me lol (not sure if this is a good thing all in all for everyone else but it made me happy)The sea and land traffic make it alot more realistic.The animals are cool if you could actually see em somewhere.I dont like:The fact that I can cook supper while it loads lol.Cant get any fs9 addons to work yet but I havent tried many yet.

HelloTell me what is your idea of Flight simulation at its bestWhich actual product available now is your idea of the bestWhile you may not have asked for every single airport, which ones would you want, your answer will be different to mine and mine would be different to someone from another location.Remenber that the Flight Sim series is a global product designed for mass market appeal.What i do is to enhance the areas that i fly in with all the available payware and freeware till i get the best representation that i can.I fly mainly in europe, most often in the UK and have all of the UK2000 airports, GEPro, AS6, FSgenesis mesh, UT europe ect and i can tell you it costs big time to get FS9 looking good, It will be the same again for FSX. This is what i have now with FS9 flying ot of my local Airport and i am happy enough for now so FSX can wait awhile.In two years time FSX will be the sim you are looking for but there is a long way to go and much money to be spent.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159091.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159092.jpg

I am looking for FS to go 3d. If I am not mistakened everything (scenery-wise) in FS is 2d except autogen. Default FS scenery is taken with satellite imagery that is poor resolution. The best that we can do is get say 1m/pixel texture resolution of aerial photography but even that would be 2d. It would be gorgeous flying at altitude but when landing it still wouldn't look right (at least I don't think it would) because we would be "flying over a flat picture". We need 3d autogen that is more accurate. Autogen that is based on aerial photography. How about the term "photo-real autogen". If they can do something like this for airports and surrounding airports so when you are below 1000asl you can see a beautiful 3d rendered accurate approach to the airport you are flying in. You will see beautifully rendered palm trees, different types/colors buildings/houses, etc. There's a fine line between 2d and 3d and FS has to come up with something. Like I said 2d is absolutley fine for most of the world. I am not expecting the whole world to be 3d. 2d works beautifully when flying from location to location at cruising altitude (1500asl+). But when flying at low altitude at an angle of high incident (taking off/landing) you experience the feeling of flying over a flat picture which is blurry and zoomed in. I'm sure 1m/pixel texture resolution will definetley be better but I'm not sure it will still work with the poor autogen that just pops out of the flat picture. There has to be an area for autogen that is based on aerial photography. I'm sure this is basically what FZ01 and FZ02 do but I could be wrong.

Aviation Background===================Medically-grounded PP-ASEL and former USAF Air Traffic Controller.My rig:======A64 3500ASUS A8N-SLI1 GB 3200 RAMATI X1800 512 MB...and the fun stuff...=======================TrackIR 3 with Vector ExpansionMS Sidewinder Pro joystick (it's really all that I need)Overview:Likes:------* Flight dynamics* The Orion.* The sky.* Stock models are much nicer than their FS9 counterparts.* Better VCs.* Dynamic World.* Water effects over ocean.* G1000-equiped C-172 and Baron.* Some of the missions.* Wildlife.* Road traffic.Dislikes:---------* High system requirements.* Water in-land.* Standard world textures.* Load times.Details:--------Out-of-the-box performance of the sim was dreadful. It took me the better part of five hours to tweak FS X to an acceptable performance level on my machine. I used all of the suggested FSX.cfg tweaks, inserted the simplified autogen trees, but did not replace the textures. Further refinement included specifying no Air Traffic, sparse autogen, but 1280 x 1024 res. I now see better performance -- and nicer graphics -- than the stock FS9 with higher settings.I don't list FPS because the number doesn't matter. What does is whether the updates are smooth or "choppy", and whether I can easily control the aircraft. As it stands, FSX flies as smooth as silk, with better flight dynamics.My only slight dissapointment has been with the missions. I had hoped for something a bit more "career-tree" oriented. Instead I got more of the tutorial-esque missions that we've seen in other versions. Regardless, the missions I've tried (Search and Rescue, Oshkosh, and flying the Pepperidge-Farms wannabe to the airshow in his old Cub) have been a blast. Looking forward to logging some more stick time this weekend.Avindair