Sooooo, what do we do now?

[virtualstuff 759]

>I told my wife-think how much I would be spending on real>flying during this 3 month downtime-she bought>it...shhhhhhhhhh.shhhhhhhhhLol Geofa that's the argument I'm using to and sometimes it works :-rollhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Dreamfleet said on 16 Dec 07:"I installed FSX. That's right. Last time FSX was on my machine it was in beta, and I saw it then, and made up my mind then that I would wait and see."I thought that a bit odd, given that you're one of the principal developers of the Airliner-XP add-on, touted for both FS9 and FSX. How could you have been developing an add-on for FSX all this time if you just now installed it?? Maybe that explains the endlessly-slipping delivery date?"Stick with FS9, but do not expect much if any new add-ons for it as, like it or not, most of the market is using FSX."Not sure where you get your market data, but I doubt that most of the market for add-ons is using FSX.I've given FSX a number of chances, and it has failed me every time, and on a high-end PC. I see some potential possibilities for some fringe usage like soaring, or maybe helicopters, but FS9 with a full suite of the best of the available add-ons (panels, gauges, models, weather, scenery, etc) simply eclipses FSX in terms of providing an overall believable simulation of the complete environment for me. And with a well-enhanced FS9 there are no desert moonscapes where it should be green. No sudden wind reversals stalling a jet at altitude. No OOM errors when running a stock aircraft. No prop or rotor textures disappearing behind distant clouds. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.ACES has told us that FSX is finished. It is finished indeed.I've decided to skip this generation and stick with FS9.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Guest jordanmoore]

Geofa, Lou,I'm sure you guys mean well, but the repeated cost comparisons to real-world flying (and aircraft ownership) in response to FSX frustration posts are getting tired. For users that just want to get their software working and enjoy their hobby again, these comparisons are neither helpful or relevant. They also have an elistist slant to them that is sure to patronize users that are already frustrated. FSX has left a lot of people in a state of frustration as they try to get things back to a normal and enjoyable state for themselves. Knowing how much you guys spend on your airplanes doesn't bring any relief to people in that situation. Whether they have spent $50 or $5000.Jordan Moore

[jrhoads 6]

>Geofa, Lou,>>I'm sure you guys mean well, but the repeated cost comparisons>to real-world flying (and aircraft ownership) in response to>FSX frustration posts are getting tired. For users that just>want to get their software working and enjoy their hobby>again, these comparisons are neither helpful or relevant. >They also have an elistist slant to them that is sure to>patronize users that are already frustrated. >>FSX has left a lot of people in a state of frustration as they>try to get things back to a normal and enjoyable state for>themselves. Knowing how much you guys spend on your airplanes>doesn't bring any relief to people in that situation. Whether>they have spent $50 or $5000.>>Jordan MooreJordan has a point gentleman... And a very good one.I am sole owner of my own aircraft. I have been for over 10 years now.I never talk about how much it costs nor do I billboard my ratings. If it is that big of a problem, then there are other outlets for spending cash or spending my time. But it does no good nor is it relevant to what FS9 - FSX hobbyist are going through.I spend way more money on my airplane and related items than what would normally make sense to a non owner. It doesn

[Guest FredGherkin]

Excellent point, Jordan. It *does* get old after a while.

[Guest Mapper]

Finally!!Thought I was the only one who chuckles at these "look at me, I'm a real pilot" folks in a flight simulation forum. The best picture one is the fellow wearing the uniform and strips in the single engine piper.Some of us here have real pilot certificates, and a few fly professionally for a living here. It takes quite a personality to post pictures of themselves around, on, or in the aircraft they own/rent/borrow with the sole intent to impress those who wish they had the means.....or to simply make they FSX/FS9 opinion seem more valid.Guess there will always be those who want to be a big fish in a little pond.Michael

[Erv Moore 24]

O.K.! I really didn't want to show off my love for flight sim but you guys forced me.erv/KSDF

[timers15 11]

The comment about personalities makes me chuckle. Not about anyone here, but that anytime you have a group of people in a hobby you always have those guys. They're great fun to pick on but after they help you might feel guilty. :)I think if I flew for real I'd be seeing the FS vs. Real pros and cons.But for people who don't fly for real it can sound like a silly comparison. Anyway, I just want a good future for this hobby. However that works out.

[N400QW 205]

From a pilots perspective: I fly the local flying club 150 or occasionally rent an Archer when needed. The posts by Geof and Lou can help reset the perspective for simmers who have tunnel vision and forget that their investment in their sim hobby should be an enjoyable thing at whatever level they can afford.My addiction to golf or snow skiing, along with real world flight, costs a great deal of money to enjoy and the same can be said of any other hobby.If their posts help simmers move away from tunnel vison then that's a positive. If it becomes a "look at mr. big show" then we can see where it could get old:-)

[Guest Mapper]

Love it! I'm gonna have to save that!You know, AVSIM used to be a different place 7 years ago. Now is seems to be a little boys club with some testosterone thrown in. Many conversions have become very unproductive with a bit of the "mines bigger than yours" routine. I don't think anyone is to blame, rather just the natural course of community.

[Geofa 108]

I'll answer all 3 in one post.If it comes off as elitest I am sorry-that is not my intent. As far as posting pictures, creditals-I think if more people did that on this board things would be much more civil. I believe it is important that people know who they are addressing in internet posts-and far too many hide behind their names, and therefore feel free to engage in poor behavior. If some see that as bragging, so be it. I just joined a board that requires this of its members as they believe it encourages better behavior-and I agree. If I had my way everone would have a little band with real names and a small bio of what they do.The point Lou and I are trying to make is as this is a "flight simulator" it seems that a much higher standard is expected for a $50 piece of software that simulates an airplane than is ever seen in the real world aircraft. Yes-having gone recently thru recent mahem in the real world drives this point home rather strongly with me on a daily basis-especially after having to read every post on this board.Every time I fire up the sim I think what a bargain and amazing privledge we have to experience a good portion of what real flight contains for a extremely small cost. In my perspective-it would be good for some (not all) to think about that.....I think you find on this site most do help those with trouble, and most work to make the experience better and ultimately bug free.If you had witnessed what went on last night (largly deleted) though-this is what I am addressing.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Mike T 208]

Geoff:Comparing a simulation to real world flying is absolutely wrong. 1) No matter how long you use FS you will not get your pilots license, so you must still shell out > $5000. Need a Intrument, multiengine, commercial, ATP? Then add $50 for MSFS to the cost of the $50,000 - $80,0000 it will cost to get it.2) No matter where in the world you fly in FS, you are still at home. You still have to pay for airfare if you want to get somewhere. Add $50 for having MSFS to the price of your plane ticket or aircraft rental. 3) If you want to checkride in a piper cub, you have to go and rent (or buy) a piper cub. Having MSFS on your computer does nothing towards the cost of that.4) Need to build hours towards your next ticket? Good, $50 + the price per hour (+$120 and up). 5) The fact that you can land on a carrier in FSX doesn't impress the folks at Annapolis. The Navy still is required to spend over $1,000,000 on you to do it for real and no money is saved because you did it in FSX. Add $50 to that.6) Try explaining to the checkairman that you saved boatloads of money by not actually flying a real plane and instead did all of your time in FSX. So at the end of the day, for $50 you get a $50 piece of software. It is not a replacement for anything, does not make one an airline pilot, private pilot, sport pilot, fighter pilot, naval aviator or even a glider pilot. What one should expect from a $50.00 piece of software is simply a $50.00 piece of software and nothing more. Having MSFS does NOT save on AVgas, landing fees, transportation fees, airline tickets, flight time, instructor time, hangar fees or anything else to do with aviation. I couldn't disagree more that we should cost factor FSX as a replacement for real world aviation costs. You simply cannot.Regards,Mike T.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

I agree with you Geof, it is a bargain and we are all blessed real pilots like you spend their time sharing their experience with us all, and makes us live the dream of flying by procuration as well. At least, I do.Speaking of bargain and real world aviation, you can't be wrong. Here is a small example of mine: you can train on the GNS 530 GPS purchasing CBT products that are merely slideshows of sequence of actions to do on the GNS unit, and they include the free Garmin Trainer on the CD: some retails for $250. Then you get complaints you pay too much (actually you pay more than an FS aircraft, not true nowadays anymore) for a real time simulation of the Garmin GNS in flight simulator (using the same trainer) for only $30.Like Ron said, some readers might be dragged in a tunnel vision of the hobby, and it is always refreshing to see/read other perspectives.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

"Having MSFS does NOT save on AVgas, landing fees, transportation fees, airline tickets, flight time, instructor time, hangar fees or anything else to do with aviation."Besides my post above to compare cost of real world aviation training aids and what you can train with (for what price) on FS (example of the GNS product), I certainly would consider spending a certain amount of money on FS + addons saves real world dollar training and here is why: although there are a minimum number of training hours to spent money on to get the ticket at the end, most of the time people spend more because they require more time than the minimum, and FS with correct addons can certainly train you on many of the topics you will have to train and practice for real, and can help you spent less in avoiding extra over minimum flying hours.If you can "master" some of the VOR navigation in the confort of your FS home, this will save you paying to fly to train on that for real isn't it?

[Geofa 108]

"If you can "master" some of the VOR navigation in the confort of your FS home, this will save you paying to fly to train on that for real isn't it?"It did for me. Not to mention using fs4 to learn how to do crosswind takeoffs without using the yoke as a steering wheel. Had that done in about 2 hours of using fs4.Must be a reason most flight schools are using sims more now.By the way-Mike-I am not talking replacing real flight. I am talking experiencing a good deal of what it offers. For those who have lost their medical, or don't have the ability for a variety of reasons-the replacement is awfully good-even with all the warts.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/