>Bill, I'm a little confused by what you said.Why the confusion? I used short, concise, plainly written sentences... :)>On the confusion, are you saying that "news models" relate to>all payware and freeware models from this point forward?>That's how I read that.I said "new models..." >In the case of say, the CRJ that I want to use, that>means MS would have to re-compile them.>>Is that the way you meant that?Since no one but ACES has the source code, that is precisely correct.>If so, I don't see anything wrong with the griping above.I see it as petty, pointless petulance. What's the point?Absolutely nothing is going to change what is. :-violin

Not if that's going to become the predominant view.I've liked a lot of software over the years including versions of FS. This one needs more work. That's pretty much what this is about.

>Not if that's going to become the predominant view.>>I've liked a lot of software over the years including versions>of FS. This one needs more work. That's pretty much what this>is about.Sooo..."the responsibilty of MS/Aces on the lighting for their products and if they don't offer a solution then there is little you can do until they do offer a solution in either the DX10 patch or some other avenue.Hope this helps:-)

They have all needed work since fs1-isn't that that what makes it great?When it duplicates 100% reality I will have to give up paying $150-$200 $ an hour to fly my real plane. Thank god it is is close but not perfect yet....otherwise I couldn't justify real flying to my wife....:)

>They have all needed work since fs1-isn't that that what>makes it great?>>When it duplicates 100% reality I will have to give up paying>$150-$200 $ an hour to fly my real plane. Thank god it is is>close but not perfect yet....otherwise I couldn't justify real>flying to my wife....:)>>Ha Ha, you have that right:-)Just got my monthly flying club invoice...logged quite a few hours in June and was a bit surprised. Oh well, nothing like the real thing to put the costs of flight simulation in perspective:-)

Guys, stop with the excuses already. We're not talking about the lack of a direct neural interface that stimulates hormones and presents a completely drop-dead believable simulation.We're talking about fixing things that were intended to be RIGHT. There is NO excuse for shipping ANY product with basic design flaws. The excuse that Microsoft has been doing this for years is just silly. I can't believe someone would even try to trot that one out. Imagine that excuse coming up in everyday life. "Eh, he's been unable to show up for work on time for years so we just don't mind any longer when he misses the morning meetings and strolls in at 11am." Yeah, okay.Is it not reasonable to assume that switches that actually function and are clearly intended to function do so?????? I'd go a bit with you if you want to attempt to make the case that Microsoft never intended for planes to be started cold. That's a feature debate. I think it should be a clear option in every flight creation area. I could understand the argument that they had no intention of modeling the ability to turn on and off the avionics as there is no switch. But to sit here and try to defend the lack of functionality in something that was clearly intended to be functional is, in my view, ridiculous and, frankly, not in your own best interest.What exactly is there to gain by just ignoring these sorts of issues? How many more before you say something? Where's the line?

Take a deep breath Rich. We have not defended anyone with regard to missing functionality and have stated that Eaglesoft has taken the time to fix the FSX lighting issue in its FSX line.We also stated that your recourse is with MS/Aces if you are not satisfied with a feature/non feature:-)You wrote: "What exactly is there to gain by just ignoring these sorts of issues? How many more before you say something? Where's the line?"Sounds like you may be wanting to stir folks up against MS/Aces...if so, we doubt you'll get far because most of the FSX ranters are worn out:-)Hope this helps:-)

That's good to hear, somewhat. Obviously it's not great to hear everyone is worn out. Note Bill's comment with respect to the "griping" here, "I see it as petty, pointless petulance."I don't find it at all petty, pointless or rude to expect a product to work as designed and advertised. To suggest that flaws in the product are what make it great.... well, the math just doesn't add up on that one for me.As I said, I'm glad to hear that Eaglesoft won't be hindered by this. That has little to do with the point here. I'm asking about a fix for the taxi lights in the Microsoft planes. Perhaps a slight subject change would help. I'm interested in getting the CRJ-700, specifically, (I'll leave it to others to gripe about their favorite FSX planes) to work as designed, not as left in a rush to market.That isn't to say that I won't be on board to buy a payware CRJ. I most certainly will look at any such offering. Like most of you I've spent a small fortune on add-ons but add-ons don't get MS off the hook for dropping the ball on this. Is it huge? No. No one is going to die as a result of non-functional taxi lights in MS aircraft. It's not a question of degree of pain. This was designed to work, should work and should not just be shrugged off.I've said my piece on it. heheheh

Want these type of customer service issues to go away MS?Agree to fix default aircraft lighting and other FSX problems and include the fixes in the next SP. I speak for myself when I write that I expect nothing less. If this is not possible, please understand that I will not be purchasing the "feature pack".SD

Rich,My response was in no way intended to mitigate the issue you mentioned. Just seems to us that you are better off addressing this directly with MS/Aces than in a forum where folks cannot provide a solution.Many public forums serve as a "complaint box" but unfortunately fall short with regard to providing actual solutions. As mentioned, the issue is a tech issue and the only solution must come from our good friends at Aces.Hope this helps:-)

Ron, that may be the case but a few points:1) My initial post was in hopes of someone coming forward and saying, "Here, do this and you can fix that yourself."2) The Aces team clearly has a presence here. They can do something about it and they have obviously seen this thread and many others.3) By posting in a public forum, as opposed to perhaps calling a support number or sending a private e-mail, you find out if you're alone or if you're part of a significant swell of people who feel the same as you. If it's the latter then those voices can then start to speak as one and start to carry more weight and can apply more pressure. Aces is here (and on virtually all the other forums) for a reason and it's not just because they like the color schemes. hehehe

Rich,1) There is no solution other than has been posted.:-)2) Of course Aces sees the thread and of course they can do whatever they like.3) We don't see a ground swell on the issue but perhaps your input has caught the attention of those who can do something about the issue:-)

We all have our personal list of what is flawed. One I would like to see is the prop making a proper noise change every time the pitch is changed-something I do on every fight vs. taxi lights which I rarely use.Flawed and not working as advertised-or just not implemented yet?Glass half full or half empty.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/