As the name indicates it is a Flight SIMULATOR.I was bitterly disappointed with FSX before SP1, because I upgraded my rig with high-end hardware and FSX didn't take advantage of the new hardware (multi-core). FSX ended up unflyable for me.SP1 has been a very welcome and well-done surprise, which let me enjoy flying again. Granted I still cannot efficiently use the more complex airliners yet, because I am still running into fps problems due to the complexity of those add-ons and due to the fact that I am running MyTraffic, which eats up a good 5-10 fps on top of that.FSX is visually and functionally stunning and I welcome any addition. I think ultimately it's a job well done.Pat

>Someone once said or wrote it is always M.S. 's third issues>that are worth buying and he sited office and a few others to>which I mostly agreed and I think the same could be levelled>at fsim because looking back FS9 was superb fs2002 and 2000>suffered from many problems, FS98 was great for its year but>fs95 not so, and so we go back to fs5.1 which was also good.>So on this plane I think I shall wait for FS12. I shall of>course persevere with FSX and come back to it periodically>especially if people produce aircraft and ad ons that are>noteworthy but somehow I cant see this version living up to>all the pre-launch bru haha>Time will tell. Thanks for your thoughts guysAnd as a different perspective; I thought FS98 was a turkey, because I found much more realistic features in Pro-Pilot. I did away with FS98 altogether, until I found that I could incorporate it with Microsoft's Combat simulator, and then the Pacific Northwest addon scenery.For what I needed out of a "simulation", FS98 just didn't have it. Once the Rockies start rising in altitude west of Denver, FS98 started suffering from a bad lack of topography mesh. It basically presented a flat table with pyramid shapes for mountains, and a blue ribbon for the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, this also did away with a large amount of airports, let alone accurate airport or topography elevations.FS2000 had it's share of problems; but now it had realistic Jeppesen databases for navigation and airports, as well as topography mesh for mountainous areas. Many additional airports were included, as well as virtual cockpits, improved animation, and clouds that finally resembled clouds, instead of white rectangular blocks!I'm always surprised, that some think FS98 was a better sim than FS2000, since FS98 was so unrealistic in terms of navigational, airport, and topography databases. IMO, Pro-Pilot was the more realistic "simulation" at the time, due to real life databases.Heck, FS98 didn't even feel right, in terms of flight modeling as compared to Pro-Pilot or Microsoft's combat simulation. It was truly a flight model on rails, that allowed many chores and cups of coffee, with out resorting to auto-pilot! FS2000 seemed to change that with improvements that mimicked the combat models in regards to intertia, dampening, power to weight; and just an all around improvement in the sense of feel.Needless to say, I don't believe in the off cycle myth of FlightSim products.:7L.Adamson

re:zebras and animals in a flight sim...I am nearly at the end of my 6000 nm rw trip across the United States. In my 18 or so legs I have had warnings of birds on two of the atis's, a warning of coyotes in Santa Fe both on the atis-and then from tower the next day at takeoff-this Warning on the door of the terminal at Wenatchee, Washington after landing-and at my briefing this morning before takeoff a notam for cows on the runway. Now that I am at Coeur D'alene, Idaho-I would not be surprised of deer on the runway tomorrow since I almost ran into many in the car today.Let's see-6 animal encounters-in 17 flights with landings in10 different states! Wonder why it took so long for this reality to be finally added?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/177165.jpg

"LAdamson wrote:And as a different perspective; I thought FS98 was a turkey, because I found much more realistic features in Pro-Pilot. I did away with FS98 altogether, until I found that I could incorporate it with Microsoft's Combat simulator, and then the Pacific Northwest addon scenery."You mean you could fly combat over FS98 with CFS1 planes? *Edit - Googled this. Now I remember. I flew countless hundrds of hours in CFS1, loved it. (But not much FS98.) I think I'm going to throw this together. Does it work in XP?

DANG then MS did get something right, in that, animals can be a part of the flight experience? What a concept!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Geofa that just rocks. You're sooo right. I'll forever remember a particular session of doing circuits at Boundary Bay, BC about 3 days after my first solo, in a piper cherokee.On my third approach about 100 feet from the threshold I see the unbelievable and firewall the throttle back into a climb...BB Tower: Golf Mike X-ray, are you declaring an overshoot?Me: Affirmative tower, there's a bald eagle on the runway.BB Tower: There's a *what* on the runway?Me: A mature male bald eagle, sitting in the middle of runway 25.BB Tower: You're joking.Me: No sir, grab your binoculars.pause...BB Tower: There's umm... yeah copy that, an eagle sitting *ON* the runway... wow.See, even birds want to fly planes. Two other pilots had to abort their approaches until it decided it had had enough of the noise. ;)-Mike

>DANG then MS did get something right, in that, animals can be>a part of the flight experience? What a concept!MS certainly did get it right. :) I appreciate anything that adds realism and immersion to the sim, and adding wildlife certainly has added an increment in that direction.For me, FS is a simulation, but I'm perfectly fine if others see it as a game. Our perception may be subjective, and in the end it's all in the eye of the beholder. :-scatter

From a technical point of view FSX is a game as it's not FAA certified. It should be noted that the certification is for a combination of hardware and software as the FAA don't allow pilots to use mouse clicks to control their instruments! :)I have two other sims that are certified (but alas I don't have the hardware) and these are Elite and X-Plane.I prefer FSX over FS9, but I'm under no illusions at how poorly coded it is. Even by MS's own benchmark (their previous sims) I would expect to be able to dial in a similiar visual setup to FS9 and get similiar framerates but this is certainly not the case.If one compares it to an external benchmark like X-Plane, the frame rates in FSX are a joke. X-Plane runs liquid smooth at all times (60+ fps). In addition X-Plane scenery (except water which is being upgraded for v9) looks more convincing than FSX's which to me look a little cartoony at times.I remember when I was patiently waiting for FSX I saw a video demo of MS staff showing it off to an audience. I got a little bit alarmed to see the pilot operating the helicopter with an X-Box game controller!What FSX does do well is systems modelling, thanks to the great work of addon developers. It would be nice if MS can look at other parts of the sim/game. I for one would like to see runways that follow the elevations of the land upon which they are placed. In Plymouth Uk where I live, its quite hilly. In FSX, the airport seems to be stuck on this artificial plateau which really breaks my immersion.I think the FSX team need a good kick up the #### from some competition. They got that with Fly! and the result was FS2002 a vast improvement on the poorly performing FS2000. X-Plane's followers are apparently growing and are now estimated at 1/2 million (still small though by MS standards). After the release of their next version (their team sent me some preview shots), there maybe many others jumping ship. X-Plane needs to provide stable interfaces for addon developers to work to, otherwise they will never attract the support that FSX has. This is especially needed as X-Plane is traditionally updated on 10 week cycles.Its wierd, but I have always found that MS are always at their best when they are in second place...RobP

Too bad, that X-Plane does NOT have anything, that "desktop" flies like the 3rd party addon RealAir SF260 for FSX (as well as FS9)! If it did, I might be a bit more serious with X-Plane after all these years of demo's and owning versions 7 & 8 as well as global scenery.As to scenery, it's a hit a miss thing, as I can get more convincing screen shots from either sim, just depending where, and sometimes the time of day.In the meantime, I just don't really like the percieved "feel" of X-Plane, as it's lacking in dampening, interia, and mass. It's somewhat twitchy, and much harder to tell the difference between small and larger aircraft. Besides, to be FAA approved, X-Plane requires a very expensive sim platform, and uses a much older version of X-Plane as well.Yet, I'm not really down on X-Plane, and will probably purchase version "9" as well, just because it's different. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's certainly in "3rd" place, as compared to FSX and FS9.L.Adamson

Today I had a notam for the airport I took off from (pnm) to watch out for for model rockets up to 5500 msl around the field-not to mention a lot of parachute jumpers en route.... :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>Today I had a notam for the airport I took off from (pnm) to>watch out for for model rockets up to 5500 msl around the>field-not to mention a lot of parachute jumpers en route....>:-)>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg>Forum Moderator>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Microsoft better get on that.