>Glad you liked it guys, took us about a month to make. :) The>previous threads here griping about about the Acceleration>pack were the inspiration for it. I felt I should respond in>the best way I could, and hopefully bring some humour back to>the situation. ;)>>Cheers,>>MikeMike,Excellent work my friend. I hope you have more up your sleeve in the coming weeks!Owen

>>>Oh man, Owen. That was amazing. When they intro'd the>>>ultralight, I just about spit my coffee all over my desk.>>>>Hahaha - my favorite part is the Valkyrie's exploits at Mach>>2, especially finally making it back to SF at the end. ;)>>Alphasim should pay this guy for some promotion of that>bird.>>>>Owen>>>>Glad you liked it guys, took us about a month to make. :) The>previous threads here griping about about the Acceleration>pack were the inspiration for it. I felt I should respond in>the best way I could, and hopefully bring some humour back to>the situation. ;)>>Cheers,>>MikeThat was you guys?I owe you a drink.

>That was you guys?>>I owe you a drink.Just a drink? I'll get 'em a whole case. ;)Owen

Cheers Brian and Owen. Yup, that was my cohorts and I, 'group lotus' as it were. :) I had a point to make with that one, hence the ATC comms at the end hehe.I'll have a Stella please, thanks very much!...haha though I probably owe you a new keyboard or cup of coffee, or both, for that trike overtake. Sorry mate. ;)-Mike

>Yep, my reaction as well.>>It's almost as if the only thing that's "flight simulation" is>"Delta Air Lines simulation.">>Air racing is a very popular sport and is certainly part of>"flight" as in "Flight Simulator.">>Glad to see it getting its due.:-lol bizarre....Sorry, but that isn't my definition of a flight simulator. That's my definition of an arcade racing game. WHY does that make me 'elitist' all of a sudden?!? :-lol What a strange assumption to make! I haven't misinterpreted what anyone has said. I was simply answering the question of the initial poster. He asked a question, I answered it. And I gave my opinion. If I think something is stupid, then I'll say so. And I think it is stupid. It isn't flight simulation. That's my opinion. That doesn't make me 'elitist'. Make what you will of that. These ARE discussion forums after all (*flight simulation* discussion forums, mind you ;-) :-lol )And Ian, please, I beg you, don't set your wife on me!!! :(

>>Yep, my reaction as well.>>>>It's almost as if the only thing that's "flight simulation">is>>"Delta Air Lines simulation.">>>>Air racing is a very popular sport and is certainly part of>>"flight" as in "Flight Simulator.">>>>Glad to see it getting its due.>>:-lol bizarre....>>Sorry, but that isn't my definition of a flight simulator. >That's my definition of an arcade racing game. >>WHY does that make me 'elitist' all of a sudden?!? :-lol What>a strange assumption to make! >>I haven't misinterpreted what anyone has said. I was simply>answering the question of the initial poster. He asked a>question, I answered it. And I gave my opinion. If I think>something is stupid, then I'll say so. And I think it is>stupid. It isn't flight simulation. That's my opinion. That>doesn't make me 'elitist'. Make what you will of that. >>These ARE discussion forums after all (*flight simulation*>discussion forums, mind you ;-) :-lol )>>And Ian, please, I beg you, don't set your wife on me!!! :( >> Nick, "arcade" when placed as a direct comparison to simulation, means not realistic. That is what people are reading when you say "Sorry, but that isn't my definition of a flight simulator. That's my definition of an arcade racing game." I'm confused if it was your intention or not, but it reads as if you are suggesting that air racing, specifically (it seems that you are singling out the racing and not looking at the military aspects of the add-on), is not actually simulating flight, but is unrealistic. That's what confuses people who suggest you are being elitist or anything else. I read your post and it says to me that you think that not only is air racing or anything not point-to-point commercial or general aviation is not really flying, and on top of that, it's stupid.

>>>Yep, my reaction as well.>>>>>>It's almost as if the only thing that's "flight simulation">>is>>>"Delta Air Lines simulation.">>>>>>Air racing is a very popular sport and is certainly part of>>>"flight" as in "Flight Simulator.">>>>>>Glad to see it getting its due.>>>>:-lol bizarre....>>>>Sorry, but that isn't my definition of a flight simulator. >>That's my definition of an arcade racing game. >>>>WHY does that make me 'elitist' all of a sudden?!? :-lol>What>>a strange assumption to make! >>>>I haven't misinterpreted what anyone has said. I was simply>>answering the question of the initial poster. He asked a>>question, I answered it. And I gave my opinion. If I think>>something is stupid, then I'll say so. And I think it is>>stupid. It isn't flight simulation. That's my opinion. That>>doesn't make me 'elitist'. Make what you will of that. >>>>These ARE discussion forums after all (*flight simulation*>>discussion forums, mind you ;-) :-lol )>>>>And Ian, please, I beg you, don't set your wife on me!!! :( >>>> >>>Nick, "arcade" when placed as a direct comparison to>simulation, means not realistic. That is what people are>reading when you say "Sorry, but that isn't my definition of a>flight simulator. That's my definition of an arcade racing>game." I'm confused if it was your intention or not, but it>reads as if you are suggesting that air racing, specifically>(it seems that you are singling out the racing and not looking>at the military aspects of the add-on), is not actually>simulating flight, but is unrealistic. That's what confuses>people who suggest you are being elitist or anything else. >>I read your post and it says to me that you think that not>only is air racing or anything not point-to-point commercial>or general aviation is not really flying, and on top of that,>it's stupid. >>I know what 'arcade' means thanks. For your information only, I'm talking about air racing in FSX. Head-to head racing, which makes it seem like an arcade racing game. I disagree with it being introduced into FSX. I'm talking about its *suitability* for introduction into a flight simulator, which I believe is about flying planes and not racing them side-by-side. One can argue that you ARE flying a plane when you're racing one, but I think the emphasis with air racing is more about the *racing* and not the *flying*! That's why I feel it is not suitable in a *flight* simulator. FSX is a flight simulator, not a racing simulator. It says that on the box! What's more, if you wanted a racing simulator, you would be much better off just buying a Playstation 3, which are specifically designed for racing games of this type. It appears to me that you are the only person here that seems confused as to what I was implying. The people who responded to my comments were simply disagreeing with what I said and giving their own opinions. And that's fair enough. They are most welcome to do so.

>I'm talking about its *suitability* for introduction into a flight >simulator, which I believe is about flying planes and not racing them>side-by-side. One can argue that you ARE flying a plane when>you're racing one, but I think the emphasis with air racing is>more about the *racing* and not the *flying*! That's why I>feel it is not suitable in a *flight* simulator. This is absolutely absurd. "One can argue?" Can argue? If they're not flying what are they doing, pushing airplanes on the ground? Regardless of what you think, once an aircraft's available thrust has caused air pressure around its wings to generate enough lift to gain a positive rate of climb, you're flying. I'm pretty sure if you're paying more attention to the "racing" and not the the "flying" aspect of air racing, you're going to have a life span thats only a few seconds long. If you even got off the ground in the first place. And its "flying" in spite of its purpose for sight-seeing, commercial passenger operations, racing, or the delivering hydrogen bombs to their targets. The primary emphasis of a B-52 is to lift cruise missiles to their launch points; the primary emphasis of the Blue Angels is to demonstrate the capabilities of the F/A-18 and to recruit for the US Navy. Are either of those not "flying" because their purpose is something other than moving a metal tube and passengers from point A to point B? If it was Microsoft Driving Simulator X, would you be seriously arguing that it should only be commuting on the Interstate? If they threw in some dirt tracks, would you claim that's not "driving" despite the name of the act being called "driving" and the people doing it "drivers" and the commentator on the TV saying "that's some skillful driving" and so on?I don't like helicopters and have absolutely no interest in them. I would never say there shouldn't be helicopters in the FSX and then attempt to construct some flimsy reason why they shouldn't. You evidentally have no interest in air racing and have then come up with some absurd reason (its not "flying" despite clear evidence that it is, in fact, flying) why something should not be included. In the world of 2007, where is the role for the reborn warbird? What if someone wants to fly those? Well, there's exactly two places to do that these days: airshows and air racing. Putting high performance super-planes and their life in FSX is just like putting some supercars in my non-existent Driving Simulator. Yeah there's a place for the Dodge Neons (Cessna 182s), Mercedes M6 (Lear 45), and Toyota Tundra (Maule Orion). But there's also a place for the Shelby Cobras (P-51) and Bugatti Veyrons (F/A-18).

Nick, just a few questions...A) Are you a real world pilot or student pilot?B)If yes, how can you say the piloting skills or racing aircraft are unrealistic?C)If not, how can you say the piloting skills or racing aircraft are unrealistic?As a real world pilot, just standing next to a parked racing aircraft gives me a real appreciation of what these aircraft and pilots actually do:-)

>>Thats true, but MS really should fix the issue, the entire>Fraser River missing at Hope B.C., comeon at least put it in>the add on pack?This has been discussed before. To fix these types of things, ACES would have to devote or hire several people to JUST fix scenery all the time.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>I know what 'arcade' means thanks. For your information only,>I'm talking about air racing in FSX. Head-to head racing,>which makes it seem like an arcade racing game. I disagree>with it being introduced into FSX. I'm talking about its>*suitability* for introduction into a flight simulator, which>I believe is about flying planes and not racing them>side-by-side. One can argue that you ARE flying a plane when>you're racing one, but I think the emphasis with air racing is>more about the *racing* and not the *flying*! That's why I>feel it is not suitable in a *flight* simulator. FSX is a>flight simulator, not a racing simulator. It says that on the>box! What's more, if you wanted a racing simulator, you would>be much better off just buying a Playstation 3, which are>specifically designed for racing games of this type. > Head to head racing would require many of the skills that are used in precision formation flight. Which means a whole lot of throttle, rudder, and aileron coordination nearly every split second. In other words, this could be "flight simulation" at it's best; and would require the full aray of controls to be used as realistic as possible. IMO, it's very MUCH suitable as a method of flight. Especially the fact, that it could keep your full attention, rather than snoozing or fixing a pot of coffee while on auto-pilot. :-hah Besides, I've been a Reno type racing fan for a long time.L.Adamson

"If I have to pay for .... I prefer to pay for a FSX SP2 or SP3 with improved (and garantied) scenery, textures, ATC, multiple monitor .... performances."I agree. Although having this latest offering is Ok, I wish MS would focus on improving the core product (which only they have access to improve). For instance, they could offer an ATC add-on module with improved- more elaborate ATC, or a expand the AI capabilities even more to add for blimps etc, or include program capabilities to make it easer for programmers to add maintenance and failure programing, and include a more interactive failure model in aircraft . There are dozens of things that can be done to improve the core program and I am sure many would be willing to pay for this type of improvement. With limited resources to make Flight Sim "As real as it gets", I say leave the add-ons to the experts; the payware/freeware community. Their add-on products have been excellent and my guess is Microsoft will have a hard time beating (or even matching) them at their game. Let Microsoft do what they do best- the core programing.

Haldir,Thank you so much for that video. I have NEVER laughed so much in my ENTIRE LIFE. I had to play it again because I had tears in my eyes.Surely there must be more.....PLEASE

If the Acceleration Pack has airplanes and is fun, I'm buying it. (I left my flightsim elitism in the hangar, too busy out here having fun flying to gripe and moan and whine endlessly about everything, everywhere... Zzzzzzzzzzzz.)By the way, that was a fantastic FSX video, Mike, really superb!

Haha, thanks Maxy and Eric. Yeah, I felt it was time to stand up for the low and fast crowd and have a little fun at the expense of the 'wingviewers'. They had it coming haha, and maybe some will get my point. ;) Acceleration isn't taking anything away from anyone, it's just rounding the product out, and it's great to see.And yup, I have some other stuff in the works. hehe.Cheers,Mike