I took almost the same ferry a couple of years ago, from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour, except this version was a high-speed catamaran. I wonder if they're going to model it sometime.

Yes- it was a catamaran. When we found we couldn't fly into Canada we considered taking it-but driving it was about the same.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Great compares!GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Nice story. Nice to hear memories echo in a place I just saw for the first time.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Thanks to the sharper resolution, textures, and shadowing...........the mountain regions of FSX (at least in the Mt. West, where I fly) take on a much more 3D look of depth, compared to previous versions.L.Adamson

>Nice story. Nice to hear memories echo in a place I just saw>for the first time.>Geofa>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/We drove into Nova Scotia from Maine, then took the ferry back. It was neat driving the van with a large trailer attached onto the ferry with a bunch of other vehicles. I remember we could go down to the vehicle and trailer at any time during the trip. I'm sure if I looked hard enough through my grandparents things I'd find a pic. I know we have video.I still have a deck of playing cards from Nova Scotia, with a design and Nova Scotia markings on it. I still remember as we passed houses driving into NS, people who were outside would all wave, it was crazy.

I enjoy more what I don't see or at least what is harder to see. In all previous versions of FS, airports stood out like a "sore thumb." That is to say, as soon as they were visible, they were impossible to miss. And it didn't seem to matter if it was KORD or a Texas ranch strip, airports were set on polys that were just too easy to see. In the real world I have real problems picking the airport out of the "ground clutter" and so it is with FSX.I've been using FSEconomy lately and flying low and slow planes into airports with narrow asphalt or gravel, or dirt or grass runways and they are near impossible for me to see, just like life. Not long ago it took me three passes before I was able to line up with the runway to land, and that was flying a 65 knot final.R-

Having made FSX into some of what I had in FS9, and more, I find that FSX is "fuller and richer" and gives a more realistic environmental feeling that its predecessor. FSX is much more "vibrant" and can be simply visually stunning (with 3rd party addons).It is however, unexpected at the dismal lack of 3rd party content 2 years after release. I keep hearing that development for FSX is more complex, however, as demonstrated by FSDreamTeam's KORD and Zurich, the sceneries look exactly the same as the FS9 version. The FSX LDS 767 and PMDG 747, CS 757, et al look exactly the same. fly exactly the same and function exactly the same as their FS9 counterparts. So as a "layman" I have to conclude that development may be harder, but functionality remains largely unchanged. Is that an accurate summation or am I missing a killer functional aspect yet unleashed? Has "needless" complexity been intruduced simply for the sake of change? Or is there next-level functionality still untapped within FSX (not superficial such as larger texture sizes or dove hunting in Wisconsin missions)?I'm waiting for FSX to turn the corner, so to speak. I keep thinking/hoping that there is that certain "something" that will be released that will allow FSX to turn the corner, inspire true community adoption, fire the retrorockets and allow FSX to take a place of greatness. Right now what I see is FSX coasting along on its own merits, biding time until FS11, but not offering anything yet to convince the masses to move platforms (you see posts almost every day stating, I just moved to FSX or I just moved BACK to FS9). Much like Vista is coasting along, biding time until Windows 7, but not offering anything that will convince XP users to mass migrate (prettier only convinces so many people it is also better).There is still time left (2 years?) and since the newest rigs can run FSX with very little compromise, if the 3rd party developers can bring that "better mousetrap" to the table, FSX may yet shed its FS2000-like moniker and woo the masses. Regards,Mike T.