Apparently, it's been discovered that the planes in fs2004 have fewer flight dynamics variables than those in fs2002. In essence this reduces their "realistic" potential to something less than fs2002 planes. Gee, if only a few developers were to rediscover FLY2.....I've been tweaking some fly2 planes and have been having alot fun. although, I must admit that all those variables are scary. ;-)tony

For several days I have been receiving email from people trying to install my airport scenery. The problem is they are using the MS flight sim.

Wayne,don't even think about doing airports for MSFS!!!We all appreciate the great work you do for FlyII:-beerchug

Hi Tony,No wonder it's called a game and FLY2 a sim.chris

G'day Tony,I also lurk through the other sim forum ; I can't help but smile at a few of the posts, ( reminds me of earlier days on this forum :-) ). We have been blessed with developers who have put in a lot of work ( gratis ) and given us all the beaut tools needed to produce nice add-ons for Fly! II. Rich wanted Fly! to be a community driven sim and now it's up to us, the community, to pick up the baton and run. I'm going to give it a go and I urge all on the forum to " have a go ". There is no penalty for failure and with a positive attitude who knows what can be achieved.Cheers all,Roger @YSSY

I understand this is not a forum to discuss weakness of FS (whatever version). Last week I've reinstalled FS2000 and tried to enjoy it but couldn't. Why FS2004 articles still focus on external views? Why FS panels are so limited. You get upper panels in front of front window and also pedestal over main panel. This is not what a pilot sees in reality. You need to turn your head down and up, right and left to see the complete panel instruments and to take appropriate actions.Fly! (whatever version) deals with panels with the right approach. As a former pilot I love to see planes taking off and landing in airports. But when inside, as a pilot, I don't care about external views.For this and other reasons I think Fly! will last for a long time yet. All of you that enjoy Fly! can contribute to its life. I've seen an important decrease in Fly articles and add-ons posted in this forum. I hope we can reverse this tendency and increase Fly! discussions, etc.....I still think we can keep Fly alive.....___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158

>No wonder it's called a game and FLY2 a sim.Both are and always will be just that - games - look at their prices. Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

G'day Michael,>Both are and always will be just that - games - look at their>prices. That begs the question then just what is the magical dollar figure at which a product ceases to be a game and becomes a sim?Since when does price determine the purpose of a product? Price may (not always) reflect how well the product achieves it's stated purpose.AND as for saying it can't possibly be a simulator because of it's cost just reeks of elitism and snobbery. Every day I use a lear 35 sim by our good friends at Atlantis (Canada). The cost of the sim was about Aus$550,000. Peanuts compared to the cost of a modern full motion simulator buts it's still a simulator ( albeit with limited functionality.).Microsoft ( " as real as it gets " ) and Tri ( " if reality had a patent - we'd own it. " ) both call their products flight simulators. They do not have the sophistication of a full motion simulator, but that doesn't relegate them to being just a game.It must be left up to individual opinion as to how well they achieve their stated purpose. Cheers,Roger @YSSY

>That begs the question then just what is the magical dollar>figure at which a product ceases to be a game and becomes a>sim?Yes, difficult to say exactly but any serious flight trainer software would have to sell for a minimum $200, don't you think so ? And, btw, no Wall-Mart or CompUSA would carry such product on their shelves since target audience is too small.>>Since when does price determine the purpose of a product?It does so always indirectly. Applies to video cameras, photography or any other product including switch blades. >AND as for saying it can't possibly be a simulator because of>it's cost just reeks of elitism and snobbery. Hmm... a $20 Rolex Watch offered at the corner of Lexington Ave and 51-st in NYC looks like a real thing from 3 feet away. I touch it and I immediately know what's going on - but this is just my "elist" genes that make me into unabashing "snob".BTW, who said that games can't be extremely good for their price ?. I believe both FLY and MSFS products are pretty darn good in what they do considering price tags they carry.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

I really don't think the word "game" applies here. Both MSFS and Fly! are simulators. They both simulate aircraft and flight. There's no denying that point. Now are these professional simulators? Not by any means. It doesn't matter if they cost $20 or $20,000,000; they are still simulators. There's no point in debating the accuracy of MSFS and Fly! because that's been done to death already. The topic usually degenerates into a flame war anyway.On a related note, I recently saw a TV show on flight simulators, and the MS developers said they dumbed down the flight dynamics in FS2004 a bit so the average simmer can have more fun. Those were not the exact words, but that's what the developer said.

I completely agree. Either both are 'games' or both are 'simulators'.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

> Rich wanted Fly! to be a community driven sim and now it's>up to us, the community, to pick up the baton and run. I'm>going to give it a go and I urge all on the forum to " have a>go ". There is no penalty for failure and with a positive>attitude who knows what can be achieved.Truer words were never spoken. Thanks for the reminder Roger.CW