David Vega

At the high rate and quality that these things are coming out, I think Gary must be a robot from the future.

EHAM EDUPO UZ738 MISGO UZ741 GMH UL603 DINKU UM867 NIPEL UM178 ILB UL607 ATV UL995 KEA UN132 KUPIS UN134 KOSEG UA16 RASDA A16 BLT A16 CVO A727 SOLAM A727 SML A727 NUBAR UA727 MRW UR611 KTM UB527 MLK UB612 NAK HKJKThis one comes from vroute. Happy flyingDave Vega

These types of threads are proof that human kind is evolving. The pundits are becoming super pundits. Dave Vega

Thank you for the alert. I've been waiting for this.Happy flying,Dave Vega

So what do we know for fact on these two very promising releases, PMDG NGX, and iFly's B737NG for FSX? They both will be released "soon" The photos for both look very good Owners of iFly's B737 for FS9 have "an idea" how the FSX version will fly A stock copy of FSX performs different on different computers and needs more resources than a stock copy of FS9 There are different degrees of simulation immersion sought by different FS pilots Did I miss anything?It's likely that: Some will not like some PMDG's NGX features and would even seek to replace them Some will combine parts of one simulation with the other while some will complain why people do that Above all this, we have more than one group of FS add-on developers with different backgrounds, perspectives, etc, releasing a simulation to be enjoyed by all. I'm grateful that we have the choice to purchase or not, and enjoy either or both. Best regards,Dave Vega

I don't know if fs9 traffic bgls would show up in FSX, I don't see anything out of the ordinary, just AI traffic. I would recommend you try it and see. Regards,Dave Vega

Sherm,I'm one of those that uses WOAI, W7-64, w/o problems. Since I just run the installer, I suspect that the problem may be with your #2 step. Have you tried omitting it? Trying to help.Dave Vega

At first read, I thought the obvious caution embedded in the title question was meant to entertain-alarm (what headlines news and reality shows do these days), but then I noticed what could be a sudden stop in a couple of hot, to-be-released titles. For example, the photos and talk about PMDG's NGX, and Digital Aviation/Aerosoft's CRJ stopped. It's almost like only those projects that were past a specific production point are moving ahead. It makes one wonder if MS has announced to its inner circle that "Flight" is going to be that different from FSX, and that close to release. As it has been pointed out, other developers offered discounts in very popular products. What developer wouldn't want to sell their MS Flight-compatible add-ons at the same time MS Flight comes out and take advantage of the buying wave? My plans are to remain cautiously optimistic. I still use FS9 and FSX and, just last week, purchased add-ons for FSX. Hmmm. Dave Vega

Ansarias,Based on your criteria for realism and the airliners that I own, I would say:Level-D B767 PMDG B747 PMDG B737 Have fun learning the complexities and enjoy the rewards.Dave Vega

For me UAC is a security protection measure similar to virus protection. I don't like it, but I use it. My PC is connected to the Internet, and it is not exclusively used for flight simulation. For example, while performing an image search, I can't guarantee that I won't click on the one that could load a file to my PC with the intent to do harm. I simply don't want to run that risk. Regards,Dave Vega

PMDG B737-700 (FS9) from KSTL to KDCA. Regards, Dave Vega

To summarize, most FS9 users who have invested a lot invested in this version do not see enough in any other small computer simulator to entice them to switch. Most in that same set would like developers to also not abandon FS9. MS Flight and X-Plane 10 are still in "marketing", too soon to tell what they will really offer. A new MS version or another sim would have to offer same basic features in FS9 plus:1. Silky smooth performance on medium to high configured computers2. A weather simulation catering to all types of FS users (GA, airliners, bush, etc.)3. A robust ATC simulation where ATC is aware of AI... configurable go-arounds (just like configuring random airplane failures), smart randomness (you're not told to climb to the next altitude at exactly 200 feet before reaching target altitude every time), aware of DP and STARs, data-updatable, (what else?)4. Real clouds5. What else?Regards,Dave Vega

John,Why were you "so disgusted with" FSX when it came out? Was it poor performance on your PC, and if so, did you experience same when transitioning from FS8 to FS9? Was it that there wasn't enough of a difference between the versions to justify reinvesting on FSX? Regards,Dave Vega

Let me change the question to a statement. I will cease to be satisfied with FS9 when ... . Would it be when either a different version of FS, or a different simulator has BLANK, and if so, what would x be? It is clear that some would post they will stay with FS9, regardless. For the rest, what would BLANK be? I would hope to see not just another list of features, but what would be strong enough to make one no longer satisfied with FS9. Regards,Dave Vega

The only tool I know to let you know the active runway at your destination "before being in range of atc" is the ACARS gauge included in FS Flight Keeper. Dave Vega

A very good question. I would say the answer is "yes," but the real question for me is "when." The simple answer is when a new flight simulator offers enough innovative improvements over FS9. From the user point of view, with enough add-ons, one can make FS9 look and feel "almost" like FSX, while still experiencing FS9 performance. And it seems, again from the user point of view, that the FSX improvements are mostly visual. It is typical to see folks summarizing it by saying that while one can now see wet runways, one still gets the same ATC and weather. And this makes me wonder if MS fielded FSX as such because backwards compatibility. For example, with these I'm-staying-with-FS9 threads, is MS hearing that we demand backwards compatibility because our heavy investment in FS9, and is that backwards compatibility getting in the way of innovation? I'm sure most FS9 users would agree that the real desire is to let add-on developers know that there's still an FS9 community willing to purchase quality add-ons. While some developers state the numbers don't justify the investment, some are and will continue developing for FS9. Is it only the prospective sales that drive some devs towards FSX. I understand that from the developer point of view, it's easier to develop add-ons for FSX than for FS9. Note that MS did provide data on how to interface with FSX, where before that the only thing apparently available was FSUIPC (and thank Peter tremendously for that). Good thread, good discussion. Dave Vega

Good news indeed. A short hop from a B190. Dave Vega

Andy, thank you for the posting. Dave Vega

You have to tell Windows to "Open With" that file with a specific program, in this case Notepad. While pointing at one of the .cfg files, right click and select "Open with..." from the pop up menu. Follow the prompts from there to change the default file to Notepad. Here's a link with detailed instructions. Regards,Dave Vega

Very nice posting, thank you. Dave Vega

This is a very good concept. Good luck with the site. Hope to see it populated soon. Regards,David Vega

Mark,The original KTPA scenery also taxes my PC, but the new one does not. There are no guarantees with anything MS Flight Simulator. You get an idea of how it would perform on your PC, buy it, either are happy with it, or improve your PC. It's almost a never-ending cycle. Dave Vega

Daniel,Suggest PlanG. Have fun,Dave Vega

It would be great if either company would produce a Beech 1900. This would be the bridge between GA and airline types. Dave Vega

Impressive. It is interesting to point the contrast of the smooth human motions and the stiff flag. I'm sure the flag will wave. Dave Vega