This argument never ceases to amaze me. And frankly using it gives MS "the permission" to continue to ignore other aspects, which is something I dislike very much.The way MS is marketing the FS series indicates exactly opposite. MS and ACES is now in contact with the "non-average" users in a regular basis (average Joe doesn't read Avsim either). So this means they're asking US for opinions. In effect, this has happened with almost every release, just not in public. Now, if they do listen to us in various other aspects of the product, why would they suddenly not care of the physics engine? If all they wanted was opinions from Average Joe, then the game would be totally arcade. This simulator was born from perhaps the most non-arcade title of its time, and MS has tried to keep this setting throughout. Only, they don't succeed in this too well, because their emphasis is (I think) constantly put in the wrong places. Doesn't stop them from marketing the title as a "Simulator" does it ?Do you think that the Average Joe is interested if the navaid frequencies or if the airpot layouts are correct or even close? What about all the other aspects of FS that are clearly there because it's also aimed at the serious users?I would say that the idea of FS being directed at "computer gamers" is long gone. I don't think it ever existed. The simulator includes a host of features that clearly indicate that MS/ACES want it to be desirable also for real pilots, experienced simmers and other "non-average" sim enthusiasts. In that sense, there simply is no excuse then why the most basic flight simulation aspects are still lacking while they are putting emphasis on graphical stuff.Anyone whose flown real level C or D full flight simulators knows exactly what I'm talking about. The simulation of flight on those things has been captured so well (even without the motion or other gizmos) that it really doesn't matter if the view out the window looks more like FS2000 without addons. Yes yes, I already know that MSFS costs a couple of bucks and level C/D sims tens of millions. Heard all of that before. The point isn't how much anything costs, but the fact that all of the good flight model stuff would be possible in MSFS. Real, expensive simulators can also be really bad in FM stuff. So their high cost doesn't always just come from the fact that their flight models have been tuned to perfection. Good flight modelling comes from the people who have either done it right or not. I only wish that MS would at some point pay more attention to the basic core of the *simulator*. I don't think that's too much to ask now is it ?Tero

Hi Tero,The basic core is there. Now it is up to 3rd party developers to build upon it, just as always.Do you really think that the missions and all the cute animals were designed for the hard core user?Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

YESmacc1966

NO, not first priority. A lot of things, like actual poor ATC system or AI traffic system, have to be improved before considering a radical new graphics engine. On the other side, it have surely to be solved the poor usage of multicore processors made by actual FSX version.Really not interested in any further development of Mission system or any other tool that makes Flight Simulator more similar to a toy.Andrea

>I remember reading somewhere that every third issue of>something that Ms creates is very good and this is in fact the>case here fs2000, 2002 were non events 2004 excellent, shall>we have to wait for fs12 for you to get it right? i hope not>if it took 2 years to get fsx so wrong how long will it take>to rewite it completely and get it right?And what you read was only someone's opinion. FS2000 was the sim that raised MS Flight Simulator from just an entertainment title, to a real use simulator. Real world topography, airport, and navigation data-bases were added to FS2000, which also added thousands of new airports, real world elevations, etc. The flight models were improved to. If this is considered a non-event, then how would one know what's "rubbish" or not?L.Adamson

Forget backwards for this next one.I say start from scratch and create the next genearation of flightsim, something far beyond what we currently have with graphics, flight model and realism, but keep it open so additional future scenery and aircraft can easily be added.

>Anyone whose flown real level C or D full flight simulators>knows exactly what I'm talking about. The simulation of flight>on those things has been captured so well (even without the>motion or other gizmos) that it really doesn't matter if the>view out the window looks more like FS2000 without addons. Yes>yes, I already know that MSFS costs a couple of bucks and>level C/D sims tens of millions. Heard all of that before. The>point isn't how much anything costs, but the fact that all of>the good flight model stuff would be possible in MSFS. Real,>expensive simulators can also be really bad in FM stuff. So>their high cost doesn't always just come from the fact that>their flight models have been tuned to perfection. Good flight>modelling comes from the people who have either done it right>or not. I only wish that MS would at some point pay more>attention to the basic core of the *simulator*. I don't think>that's too much to ask now is it ?>A few points here. MSFS is trying to capture the "look" of real flight. MSFS is not a simulation of a simulator. Whether you realize it or not, what we see on the screen is a standin for the lack of moving hydraulics of a full blown motion simulator. What we see on the screen allows our brains to compute the feel of motion.I'm tired of this crap, that the outside view doesn't matter, just because some full blown simulators are not up to spec in the graphic development department that MSFS is! Afterall, why do companies such as Evans & Sutherland, continually upgrade the outside visuals for high tech and expensive simulators?L.Adamson

L.Adamson,You are clearly the great defender of Microsoft -- have you used their development tools VS 2005 or VS 2003 or VS? If you have, you might understand why I'm not terribly impressed with the results coming from Redmond these past 4 years or so.Every FSX flight I've done to date always had some issue:1. performance (5 fps at detailed airports)2. graphics problem (shadow boxes, bleed thru cockpit instrutments, texture swapping, etc.)3. AI aircraft (continue taxi, hold taxi, continue taxi, hold taxi in an infinite loop)4. ground vehicles that will crash into aircraft (mine included) while taxing5. ATC that routes to no where6. pressure readings that never happen other than a hint that I'm above/below assigned altitude from ATC7. real world weather system that says my internet connection is down so I alt tab and it is working fine8. taxi markers that will disappear in cockpit view but be fine in external view9. weather that just magically appears and disappearsI mean seriously, the folks that Beta tested FSX needed to speak louder or Microsoft really were not listening. Their feedback site is a joke, I've posted detail bugs their many times and I'll be lucky to get a response (50/50), and when I do it's "were looking into this", "working as designed", "issue has been closed due to time constraints".That's why I think the spoty posts by Phil Taylor about how he's now listening and committed are too little too late and I've been thru the same marketing blurbs many times from Microsoft. His posts also have no real content -- as in he does NOT really commit to anything, does not list the specific details of issues, he's kinda like the non-stick surface, Mr. Teflon.I've been coding on Microsoft platforms since early 80's and their tools were pretty good, but within the last 6 years their level of quality in their development tools has significantly dropped off along with very poor documentation. It is reflecting in everything they do including FSX. Their OS's are security swiss cheese, primarily due to the compatibility they're trying to maintain -- just as they're trying to do the same for FSX compatibility.I respect you for defending them, but don't you want a better product? Do you not have any of the issues that everyone else seems to be having? If so, please tell us how you're avoiding the long list of problems with FSX? ####, I'm willing to even toss in the towel on performance, because I know how to overclock my system to a spec that will still be very respectable 3 years from now (and as a side benefit I don't need to turn on the heater in my house this winter). But what about all the other problems?? Even the much cheered new flight model, that I originally gave MS credit for, I'm finding does very strange things at the limits -- things a real AC just doesn't do. Sure, under normal flight conditions it feels pretty good (especially turbulance), but at the limit it's not accurate at all.Rob.

No need to shout, mr. Adamson.It's not "crap" to expect that a flight simulator would simulate FLIGHT correctly, or let's say: significantly better than its predecessor. Visuals are important, of course. But their endless development over other, rather basic, issues that have been on the table for a looooooong time, is what *I* would call CRAP.over and outTero

I also agree on not needing any of those "let's play flight sim!" toys.I'd rather see that time spent on making MSFS a true simulator.I wonder if that'll ever happen... seriously ?Tero

"..WRT sceneries. I think: finish the physics engine first, and then think about the goodies for the eye. If the physics are not right, then all FS is, is an arcade computer game with true-to-life scenerial layouts..."Isn't "eye candy" the reason people pay thousands of dollars on new large LCD TVs?You assume that everyone enjoys FS for the same reason as yourself. You have to realize, that no entertainment software can sell much copies, if the grapchics are not dramatically improved on every new version. Remember that 99% of the people simulating flight are not hard core flyers like you and me. They wouldn't know a slip if it bit them in the ####. MS won't sell a new version of FS, if they mostly worked on flight physics and ignored eye candy. People would look at the promotional pictures and say "looks like an old software..naah thank you..I 'll get XYZ.).Even majority of real world pilots (who fly for hobby), myself included, fly because it gives them a magnificent vista and a sense of freedom that is hard to reproduce if ground bound. So I don't know why some people talk so dismissively of ACES' work on "eye candy". P.S. In real life flying, I don't care about slips. It is something I have to do, but is uncomfortable to me and my passengers.

>TeroAll that anger and distaste.., and yet here I am; having more fun and "feeling of flying" with FSX than I've ever had. And that even before 3rd party addons, DX10 and future hardware is here. It's kind of bizarre and ironic the difference in views. As for the flight model, it's mostly in the hands of the devs now. Some devs already said that they were not near hitting the roof of the FS9 flight model, and just in another thread I read a post from the RealAir devs that on their way to port the SF260 to FSX their flight model is even better! And this is kind of on their first try, just to patch one of their aircrafts to FSX. "Do I want better?" Of course, isn't that in the nature of mankind really...? Do I want better multicore support? #### yeah! Is FSX good enough to have plenty of fun with right now? #### yeah! Do I see FSX as an exciting plaform for the future? #### yeah! So excuse me for not completely buying your one-sided doom and gloom argument..

>No need to shout, mr. Adamson.>You're correct. I thought about it today, and thought, did I really write that! And as I can see now, sure enough, I did. It was a bit over the top. Not enough coffee or something.L.Adamson

To be brief...20-25 fps is my FSX standard. Should I need to use a high density airport enviroment, then I'll revert back to FS9 and put up with all the things I no longer like about it, since getting familiar with FSX.Real weather has never been a problem, and I use it all the time.As to flight modeling, I've never expected a default model to perform every aspect of a total flight envelope. I believe that it's un-real expectations, as the majority of users wouldn't appreciate it anyway. That's what 3rd parties are for.As to FSX, yes I still prefer it over FS9 the majority of the time. I don't use it in the mannor you do, and therefor don't have that specific list of issues. I see little point in telling me, why I shouldn't like the product, considering I've used every "full world" desktop flight simulation since the invention, as well as several IFR only simulators in the last 15 years.But fear not, I've defended Microsoft since FS2000. I just hated FS98! :-hah L.Adamson

>It's not "crap" to expect that a flight simulator would>simulate FLIGHT correctly, or let's say: significantly better>than its predecessor. >>Visuals are important, of course. But their endless>development over other, rather basic, issues that have been on>the table for a looooooong time, is what *I* would call CRAP.>I fly real airplanes for the "visual" experience of flight over the magnificant panaramic views of the Mountain West mountains and deserts. If it wasn't for the visual aspect of flight, then I'd never bother with the expense and hassle.I see no reason why a flight simulator that's attempting to simulate flight, shouldn't keep on improving it's visuals, since what we see on the ground, is very much a part of flight!As to flight "basics", FS9 & FSX already has them. We can fly rather realistically from point A to B with normal pilot imputs, using the default aircraft. For those that desire outer edges of the flight envelope, then it's no problem to get a 3rd party addon. Afterall, it's these 3rd parties who specialize with years of experience in producing a certain aircraft or specialized flight dynamics.L.Adamson