is that it gives me a clue of how many simmers there are. I'd say about 3/4 of them, the rest being XMas shoppers. 200,000 in North America extrapolates to what worldwide? 1/2 million? Which in turns gives a clue of the "market": 20 to 30 mils wolrdwide every couple of years, 10 to 15 per year. A small team of 5 to 10, probably profitable financially but on a very small scale for a large business and therefore more profitable image-wise.I'd say there are a 1/3 of hard-core simmers, say about 100,000, which represent the worldwide market for a new sim and 200 bucks a pop is about what it would take to make it.

>Thanx, Pat - you beat me to it! My pet peeve is those who use>the word "everyone" as in - everyone knows FSX is a failure ->everyone is returning their copy, etc. I rank the frame rate>junkies along side the script kiddies.Oh my God, Vic, you nailed it on the HEAD. The whiner crowd is always starting their posts with "Everyone knows", "As everyone knows", "All ...". If they'd just post some issue they have (or more than one), maybe someone could help them. But they start with this pontificating attitude...And then there are the ones that are just tortured about Microsoft and/or Vista. They have so many issues with Microsoft, that FSX doesn't stand a chance.Go, Pat, go!

>>I guess I can't even post public YouTube videos. No further>>comment. I'll let the action speak by itself.>>>>Pat>>>>>>From the video forum, where we have clarified the rules>regarding video posting:>>"All links to videos here must adhere to our simple and>straightforward copyright and ownership rules. If you do not>have permission to use material included in your video, do not>post a link to it here. If you wish to link to a video not of>your making, that includes copyrighted material, that link>will be removed. In short, if you don't own the material or>you do not have permission to use that material, do not post>it here.">>As much as I enjoy the Gorillaz, the band featured in the>soundtrack to that video, it is copyrighted material.This doesn't make any sense as it is a link to a video that is hosted by another site. Let YouTube be the police if needs be. There is no reason for this 'red tape' here.Does this mean that we have to have permission from MS to use video footage of FSX? Seeing as none of us actually OWN the software, only a licence to use it, this would seem to be the case. I don't recall seeing a section on 'public broadcast' in the conditions of use.....Very strange rules....I would imagine that AVSIM has had to remove 90% of the videos and / or links posted here since that rule came into effect.Glenn

I know, i know. Sorry bout that. The purpose of the video was not encouragement to rip some 7yo low-quality music, but display that FSX can run and look great. Anyone knows that. But I understand the issue. One more hate mail to the RIAA.Pat

Exactly,Who cares about low recording quality music in a Flight Sim Video?It's not like I can rip the song and play it back in CD audio quality is it? You can't even download videos from YouTube anyway!Crazy........no wonder some people resort to piracy to get around DRM and the such like.

People buy the FS series because it's the thing to do. Habit. Most play it once, get hugely poor performance and then shelve it. The numbers mean little. It has always been a good seller though.

>>People buy the FS series because it's the thing to do. Habit. Most play it once, get hugely poor performance and then shelve it. The numbers mean little. It has always been a good seller though.<

>I would like to see the the number of original buyers who>still use FSX. My hunch is that the number of current users>(including me) is around 12. :)>>Bob...Hi Bob... I'm sorry to hear that FSX is not up to your expectations.FSX is hear to stay. Coming into the FSX forum and taking cheap shots at it isn't going to make it go away. If FSX isn't your cup of tea fine, go back to FS9. FSX has been out for 4 months now, and still some people seem to have nothing better to do but continually bash FSX while adding nothing constructive to their comments. Please leave us -the ones who come to this foerum and enjoy FSX- alone and return to FS9, if you prefer it. It's high time after four months for the moderators here to step up to the plate and start warning/banning those who continually post the unconstructive cheap shots at FSX, It's really bringing this forum down.Regards,Mark

Yes, and it will probably take another $500 worth of addons to make FSX look good away from the major centres.

>Yes, and it will probably take another $500 worth of addons>to make FSX look good away from the major centres.Just the opposite!It's FSX that looks good in so many areas away from major "addon areas"! Yes, FSX has some of those less than pleasing sand deserts, yet the default high resolution mountain and city textures more than make up for it.In my own experience, I find that some airport addon's for FS9 are amazing. But once out of the addon area, I can only wish that FS9 would look more like FSX.L.Adamson

"It's FSX that looks good in so many areas away from major "addon areas"! Yes, FSX has some of those less than pleasing sand deserts, yet the default high resolution mountain and city textures more than make up for it."Actually it's the lack of larger lakes and very poor coast lines that really are lacking.Many areas on the coast of Vancouver Island are not half as good as they were in FS9. And believe me I thought FS9 had terrible coast lines.To me it does seem like a backward step in that respect.

>"It's FSX that looks good in so many areas away from major>"addon areas"! Yes, FSX has some of those less than pleasing>sand deserts, yet the default high resolution mountain and>city textures more than make up for it.">>Actually it's the lack of larger lakes and very poor coast>lines that really are lacking.>Many areas on the coast of Vancouver Island are not half as>good as they were in FS9. And believe me I thought FS9 had>terrible coast lines.>To me it does seem like a backward step in that respect.>What????:-hmmm If your comparing it to FS9 with UTUSA/Canada I may be able to see, but FSX vs FS9 default, FSX is 100x more accurate. If you ever used or saw UTUSA or Canada, you would know that a good portion of FS9 3D landmarks ended up in the water when the more accurate coastlines of UT was applied. The same is not true with FSX! Now there was terrain bug caused by elevation data, that caused some phantom islands in some waterways. If this is what you are seeing, there is a fix for this, I believe where to get it is posted in the FS tips and tricks forum. It also will be in the SP1 patch. Based on the screens Phil posted in his blog! Other than that, I don't see the issue! I compared the area around Victoria Int to Google Earth, and it looks pretty accurate to me!! Can you post some top down areas of the parts of Vancouver Island, you see a problem?

Are you using FSX Vector USA? If so, I found that it really messed up the coastlines, water bodies and water ways on Vancouver Island e.g. Elk and Beaver Lake are completely missing, as is Thetis Lake etc. I live in Victoria and spend a lot of my FS time in and around Vancouver and Vancouver Island. The default FSX coastlines and water for the area are generally pretty good, though there are some significant problems in the Fraser valley and a handful of other areas.

So, how much value do you reckon you have to pay for to start whining?Surely

>Actually it's the lack of larger lakes and very poor coast>lines that really are lacking.>Many areas on the coast of Vancouver Island are not half as>good as they were in FS9. And believe me I thought FS9 had>terrible coast lines.>To me it does seem like a backward step in that respect.>In my part of the country, I got several lakes back, that MSFS has been missing for years! And the mountains look much better too!