I am a FS enthusiast. Have been simming since FS was released by a company named SubLogic. Not sure if that was MSFS or not, but it gives you an idea how long I have been flight simming. I have always been able to buy the new releases on whatever system I had and enjoy some of the new features. Maybe not "all" of the new features, but at least some of them. I have tried the demo of FSX on my system, and can fly, but it is very ugly and not enjoyable at all. But I'm not complaining about that. I was quite amazed and somewhat proud that I could even fly!I was going to buy a new system, but now have decided to wait because I know that if I buy a new system now, I'll have to upgrade the video card eventually to take advantage of DX10, and I guess Vista. From what I'm reading, I'll have to reactivate my purchase upon making these changes to my system. Seems like a lot of trouble to me. I liked the disk in the drive thing, when compared to the nightmares everyone's having now. I am not a programmer, nor a computer tech, just someone that has always enjoyed flight sims. I enjoy realism, and so was quite excited about FSX, but now, (sigh), I can do without the headaches.Just a thought that I'd like to put out there. I have not been a MS a really excited user. I've tried all of the flight sims. Flight Unlimited 1,2,3 (still my favorite). Not all the MS platforms, but when it improved graphic wise and flight wise I'd purchase it, Pro Pilot, Fly 1,2, all of them. Here's my point.MicroSoft can pretty well release what it wants to friends. There is no longer any competition. What we need is someone to release something right out of the box that will quite simply blow FSX right out of the water. I believe the technology is there to do it, but I'm not sure if anyone wants to take on the giant. But that's the only thing that will make a corporation sit up and notice. When someone starts taking money out of their pocket due to competition, releases like this just will not happen...plain and simple.

Agreed - competition is good. I've always wondered if FLY 2 lead M$ (hehe $ sign hehe) to make FS2002 better? Please discuss!Myself, I started on Fly 2 and while I saw FS2000 I didn't use it enough to see what kind of improvement there was between 2000 and 2002.

I agree ... competition can be a very constructive thing! :) It would give us choice, which we don't have at the moment.

There was a massive improvement between FS2000 and FS2002 :). FS2000 is the only version of FS I have ever hated! It was such a leap forward that ou can still run 90% of modern FS aircraft in FS2002!!!I don't hate FSX yet ... I'll give it more time :)

I think Pro Pilot set the tone-the first sim that had 3d clouds, real cockpits, built in atc, and 3d terrain based on the real stuff. Ms had at the time vector drawn scenery, and ice cubes for clouds.Then flight unlimited and Fly came around and heated it up once again.Those were great days for simmers....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>There is no longer any competition. X-Plane is still there. Some still use FLY!. You can get yourself Elite or other commercial software. So there are other simulation options.>release something right out of the box that will quite simply>blow FSX right out of the water. I believe the technology is>there to do it, but I'm not sure if anyone wants to take on>the giant. It is not that anyone wants to 'take on' a giant. Nobody is willing to risk this kind of investment because we know that flight simulators require significant initial financial commitment that may not pay off for a long time. History of the Fly! franchise is a good example what can happen if you underinvest. The recent history of Fly!, ProPilot or Flight Unlimited should have taught you a lesson it is unlikely that anyone else enters this market anytime soon to take on directly the FS.Yes, technology is here - FSX is a good example of this technology. I personally think you are in a fantasyland if you think someone could 'blow' FSX while at the same time deliver superior performance. Many here are quite happy with FSX and recognize fundamental limits what can be achieved with todays 'technology'. FSX represents certain tradeoff between hardware and software. Frankly I have not seen any conclusive evidence that someone else could select a better tradeoff point. If you insist that FSX is poorly designed or poorly executed then you can clinge to those views if you like it - there has been countless posts on the subject of FSX and its architecture but again - no one delivered conclusive evidence that it would be possible to do it better. Actually the body of evidence seems to counter any such claim.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif

Nobody wants to go though the BS that happens when a new Sim comes along to much money invested only to be meet with the out crys of a vocal few about how bad the new Sim is even if its not. So now we are where we are today. With one huge company that puts out what they want us to have.It happens with all Sims sports, auto, flight, we complain to much so we get left with one or two companys making stuff. Yet they can turn out 25 FPS made from the same old mold year after year and the complainers will rush to buy that.Remember the days of up to 10 flight Sims a year now we may see 3 tops.I guess we are almost all to blame for this.:(

>X-Plane is still there. Some still use FLY!. You can get yourself Elite or other commercial software. So there are other simulation optionsI said competition>I personally think you are in a fantasyland if you think someone could 'blow' FSX while at the same time deliver superior performance.No, I'm in the real world, MS's world when it comes to flight sims. It's a sad day when you have to refer to my desire for competition as a "fantasyland" idea. Companies have done it before. Who knows? Maybe there is someone out there quietly developing a Flight sim. If MS is the only one, then we're back to my point. We NEED some competition.>Many here are quite happy with FSX Many are quite sad, if not angry.>If you insist that FSX is poorly designed or poorly executed then you can clinge to those views if you like it.Hmmm, did I use these words? Did I insist that? Didn't I just say some competition would be good? That's what I thought I said. I just believe that the North American way is that good competition produces a superior product. Is that so wrong? I think competition is always good for the consumer.I realize that competition is not what 2nd and 3rd party scenery producers and other add-ons like to hear. It also takes money out of their pocket. But to the ordinary consumer who is on a limited budget and wants to buy a flight sim that he can fly and enjoy without purchasing another 3-400 dollars worth of add-on products...competition is good!

>We NEED some competition.1. We NEED to eradicate world hunger2. We NEED to get cure for cancer and other diseases3. I need $10,000,000 in my bank account. :-lolEverything equally doable as your 'NEED' for competition. By the way if you really feel so strongly about it - roll up your sleeve and get into this business - internet talk is cheap.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif

World hunger - usually caused by a few large corporations monopolizing the food industry - needs competitionCancer and other diseases - not cured yet because if they were, the few large corporations that are monopolizing the drug industry would go out of business - needs competitionAll I'm saying is competition never hurt anyone or anything, except maybe those who are monopolizing because there is no competition.>internet talk is cheapditto

Well I guess I'll bite and insert my opinion on your opinion. :)You mentioned three things that I can see. Perhaps there more but mainly I see three.1) Performance:Some people like the idea that as the sim ages you can get newer hardware to receive a better looking and performing sim. Some wish MS would pull in the reins a little so that it can be run at mid to mid-high settings upon release on mid-range(not top of the line) systems. This is a personal preference thing. It seems MS has pretty much chosen to always push the envelope. So for the most part, the sim does not come into full glory until hardware that is available about a year or so prior to the next release. Especially if you put in all kinds of addons in to it. Since end users seem divided on this issue, it doesn't seem likely that MS will change their current course. All I can state is my personal preference, and that is that I wish they'd pull in the performance issue reins a little.2) There are certainly some people that are having activation issues. No doubt about that. However, I do think that number is probably a somewhat small percentage, but it's also probably larger than it should have been! Shame on MS? I don't know that I can make that call, but there a certainly people that have voiced their opinion on the matter. I feel I should let you know that I do take some exception to a blanket statement such as "when compared to the nightmares everyone's having now". Everyone? O RLY? I know if I'd have had trouble I'd be fairly ticked off and probably even be thinking about getting a refund and just staying away from a product that doesn't even let me get my fair share of the pie I spent on buying it, at the get-go. The new activation system may end up turning some people off and away. How much it deters pirates and well it works in bringing in more revenue, or discourging revenue they could have gotten, will determine whether or not this was a good idea for them. If the sound of the new activation process doesn't bother you then dive in. If you don't like it then make your decsion be known but not handing over your money, or getting a refund after getting stung(unable to activate) if that irked you enough. But I don't think that `everyone's having nightmares`, I would guess that the majority that purchased are running the new version of the sim, probably a good healthy majority(just a guess). Again, if I were having trouble activating and the offered support personnel spoke such broken english that it was like aliens from outer space ebonics I know I'd be voicing my disgust pretty vehemently. In the end I think it's most likely that the new activation process for FSX is here to stay, and only individuals can make up their own minds about it. If it had bombed out(a healthy majority were unable to get it activated), then it might not have been here to stay, but I don't think that's the case.3) Competition:Yeah, I'd like to see another competitor too. Well, actually there is one, X-Plane. But yeah, I wish there were even more choices. Of course there is only so much of a market for civil aviation flgiht sims, and if there were more of a demand then I think we probably see another company or two willing to have a go at "the giant". Nevertheless, in the end I think MSFS is pretty darn cool. And for them having the ability to be able to pretty much dish out whatever they want to us, I feel they do a pretty decent job at advancing the sim and I am grateful that new versions continue to be developed. Now for a poke at my gripe with the current version... ;) However, if there were some heavy hitting competition I have some doubt that we would have seen the Great Sahara Deserts of the Globe(from what I hear, I have yet to fly outside of Colorado yet, but it too has vast swaths of desert) and the Rockie Mountain Range turned into the Sandy Mountain Peak Range that we got handed to us in FSX!!Ok, I know my post is pretty much, much to do about nothing. I didn't say much of anything in my long winded post that isn't obvious. Guess I just felt like talking. :)Cheers,JimEDIT; Wow, quite a number of replies while I was typing all this in! :)

Try flightgear. It's free and is the result of many people contributing to a freeware flight simulator.Ian.

>Nobody wants to go though the BS that happens when a new Sim>comes along to much money invested only to be meet with the>out crys of a vocal few about how bad the >I guess we are almost all to blame for this.:( Absolutely.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif

I don't think many disagree that competition would drive development and force a lot of product one-upmanship (one only has to look at how much aviation developed during WW2 owing to competition between opposing nations - it started with biplanes still in service and ended with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons - all in the space of six years). Compare that with FS, which will celebrate 25 years soon!The simple fact is, that when you have a company as large as Microsoft in the leading position, that enables them to strangle competition on the vine, and if that is easier to do than waiting for a competitor to come along and kick your ####, a lot of companies will choose to kill competition before it even starts, including MS - that's big business for you.Much of Microsoft's development has taken this form, in that they bought out competitors and got control of various technologies rather than developed better stuff in isolation, or simply employed the staff. FS is a case in point really, it wasn't originally an MS product.So you are left with hold-outs like Linux and X-Plane that can't attract the same kind of investment even though they may well offer a technically better product. And when it comes to platforms for an accurate flight simulator, the only, even partially capable alternative to a PC and MS products is a Mac, a computer which has always been underpowered and overpriced in comparison to the latest PC. Granted at the time of the Mac's introduction it offered an alternative to a PC which was geared towards the less computer literate, and so they had a reason for being, but that's no longer the case when everyone's mum and dad has a PC with abroadband connection these days. And so Apple go up the 'style over content' road in order to get sales, which is why they are popular in the advertising and media industries, but very few other places.And with such a comparitively small user-base, Mac software has rarely been cheap or as varied or widely available as PC stuff (I only ever had about three flight sims for a Mac: Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Red Baron and an A10 one, the name of which escapes me. Whereas I could fill a warehouse with all the PC flight sims I have bought).Apple's refusal to de-regulate their technology to widen its appeal - as they briefly considered some years ago with the Blue Maq et all - has meant that it is still a niche product, although the subtle market penetration and attempts at nurturing brand loyalty with the I-Pod etc may some day possibly change that. However, until that unlikely day, the PC, and as a consequence MS, dominates.Back in the flight sim world I agree that Fly and Flight Unlimited offered superior flight modelling to FS at the time, and in many cases better graphics and ATC, but (taking off my rose-tinted spectacles) they lacked the freedom that FS had in terms of being able to fly pretty much anywhere and get reasonably convincing terrain straight out of the box, that was the real killer for me. X-Plane has the world database and reasonable autogen these days, but despite all those laminar flow modelling claims, I remained unconvinced with regard to its fidelity when I bought a copy some years back, so despite the fact that I applaud X-Plane's singular stand, it's not for me.I do not regard MS as some kind of evil Bond villain that is out to rip us all off; much of what they do is simply business, and in any case it's the add-on developers who are in the driving seat as far as pushing things goes. Unfortunately they are stuck with the graphics engine that MS FS has. Which clearly has many limitations. So I think that a far more realistic hope would be to desire FS to completely ditch any kind of backward compatability (which will always serve to hold it back) and go for a new 3D engine which developers can push to the extremes that modern computers are clearly able to attain. And given how MS usually goes about things, they could surely just buy that technology rather than develop it.

TOUCHE'...best post in a month!