protzler

Oh! Me! Me! I used to look over the charts in the back all the time planning flights in the Chicago area. In fact, using those charts, I flew my first cross country from Meigs to the JOLIET VOR, and from there to the University of Illinois (KCMI)! I was so proud of myself.Little could I have predicted the path that that made me take. :(

I'm not sure. Their only domicle is in MSP, and I don't know if they're CASS participants (I'd assume they are) but you could always commute in. If you're thinking of applying though, I wouldn't hold your breath. They have 36 pilots or so on furlough.

Hi Les,It doesn't take any more time to load on my system. In fact, I'd say I get better performance out of it than with default scenery, since there isn't any autogen. From what I recall the maker of the scenery placed a new layer on top of the default and just put real high quality satellite imagery on it. I could be wrong on that however, since it was awhile ago. The best advice I can give is download it and try it out! http://www.blueskyscenery.com/It's definitely possible, in my opinion. It'd just be a pain with the autogen and airports I think, since they're on a seperate layer.

I think Feelthere's Map program might be what you want. I haven't read the description or tried it, but judging by the pictures it looks like it's similar.http://www.feelthere.com/2005/map.html

I think everyone gets what you're saying, Alex. But what why can't we have both? I don't think anyone is asking for the level of detail you mentioned about the dash-type marks on highways. The resolution of the tiles in the screenshot I posted above however is very nice. Even more so with your setup. It's win-win. And trust me; when flying in real life, at any lower-level altitude, the resolution is much, MUCH more like in the screenshot I posted than in the default textures. Regardless of field of view.

It can be done. Here's a picture from BlueSky Scenery's Phoenix. It just takes a lot of work. This doesn't include seasonal or night textures, nor any autogen, but it's a really good start and shows what's possible.Personally, I think it looks amazing.

If that was about my post, I was just using that as an example. Though it does surprise me (pleasantly I might add) that you said that you thought that was too much money!

While reading this thread I was thinking along those very same lines.I have no idea what goes into the development of an add on. So, I don't really know if you could go back later and add things without having to redo the whole thing. But if you could, it may be worth looking into coming out with upgrades later. Don't even announce them until they're almost released.For example, create an upgrade so that the pneumatic system worked. Charge..what? $15? $25? Later, create the hydraulics. Charge again accordingly.and so on. While I'm sure a TON of people would howl yelling Captain Sim this, and too expensive that, I'd think it'd sell, if appropriately priced. It'd also keep a pretty steady flow of money coming in.Just a thought.

I, for one, appreciate the post. It lets me see what kind of bugs are in the aircraft from someone that may very well be more independent than a reviewer.In that same breath though, I hope no one answers his questions here. I'd rather see him get them from Airsimmers forum, then just post back here, "fixed" or something like that. There's a reason only customers can access that area. :(

How is someone asking you how you know how many people downloaded a torrent in any way related to your banking information?I don't really know how torrents work (only that it's sort of a peer to peer-type file transfer tool), so please explain to me; how does answering someones question about how you know how many people downloaded it in any way help them to pirate software? It seems like a pretty innocent question to me..

True. Just about as odd as an FSX-only add-on...

Hi Ron,I think you and I had the same problem in a different thread...I can't remember which one though, where it's all about reading it wrong. I really need to stop doing that!Anyway, I can certainly see that the future holds more and more promise for FSX as time goes on, and eventually, it will be what the majority of all users use. I just read it as you pinning the blame that the lack of sales for FS9 solely on the buyer which I disagreed with.So, as usual, you say something, I take it to heart, and we end up in this situation!See you in the next thread having to do with this, or anything else controversial. :(

Lou's still active on other, non-sim (non computer!) related forums. I say good on him for that. He's had a hard year...Personally, I don't really care what happened. They never released a product and never took any of my money. In my opinion they don't owe any of us anything. While a heads up would have been nice (and perhaps morally right), I've been in positions before where the last thing I was worried about was letting people on the internet that I had no real obligations to know what was going on. Hey, real life is infinitely more important. I do hope that in the future Lou finds his way back to Flight Sim at some point in the future. He was an excellent addition to Dreamfleet (my favorite developer!).

Even with the Fokker, they're not really in wide use anymore. You have a few airlines in Europe that still fly it, but I think that's about it. If you don't want to fly KLM or Air France routes (assuming the user is one that loves real routes), you're kind of S.O.L.. The Majestic Dash-8, while great, is for some reason not all that popular. Besides the obvious turn-off's, such as the graphics, I think they priced themselves out of the market, and their marketing is, well, less than stellar. A popular one would be the CRJ series. I'd wager that the family may well be the most widely used "regional" jet. DA is supposedly working on one, but who knows when that will ever get off the ground. They've started and stopped working on it so much that I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. Feelthere's CRJ is extremely dated....And that's all we have. Eaglesoft's offerings look good. I don't think they model the systems as well as other companies, but they have a nice solid grip on their market. I think that if they went the extra mile in system depth and graphics they would become a lot more popular. That's from an outsider looking in. I don't own any of their aircraft for the reasons I just mentioned.Carenado did well in FS9m until I believe they stopped doing QC on their ports from FSX to FS9. If I'm wrong on that, let me know. But they did smaller aircraft, fairly priced. People love their stuff. Feelthere continues doing what they do best; Embraers, and they seem to be doing fine, with FS9 still being a viable option. I find it remarkable that somehow they're still making a good profit off us while some other developers say that they can't...Just my $.02

Absolutely. It seems to me that any aircraft that is made that is in widespread service would sell fairly well. Especially if you can find one that hasn't been done before. It seems that Feelthere excels in that regard, with your A320 and Embraers. If you were to redo the CRJ I'm sure that would sell well also.As far as designing what the users want, while I believe it pays to listen to them, butI also don't think it's a good indicator of the demand. For example, I've seen tons and tons of posts begging for a BAe-146. However, I really don't think it would sell once developed. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it. All in all, I don't think "It's all your fault that I am not going to develop for FS9." is a valid argument. In my opinion, if the developer made something that the simmer wanted, then it would sell. It's a two way street.

Ron,That's only half of it, however. If developers want that to happen, then they should produce products that people actually want.A perfect example would be this thread, which has mentioned the MD-11 and Jetstream. Not many operators utilize the MD-11. And the Jetstream...I haven't seen one in real life in years.

Wow...who peed in your Wheaties these past couple days? You're blood pressure must be through the roof if something as innocent as a person asking a question on a message board upsets you this much...

Hell, looking at forums yesterday and today, it seems you can't avoid giving it some thought! I completely agree. If you look at my posts in the Airsimmer topic in the FS9 forum, I thought I was being pretty fair. A few others...not so much. I just think it was the wrong word to use...or at least, the wrong way to put it. The way it came across to me, and I'm sure I read it wrong now, was that you would rather the community didn't have a voice to speak negatively about a product. I now realize that it's just for those who would borderline slander the product.My mistake!

Wow...I hope you were joking.

Wow Mike, Great great great post!

No, if you want the basic version, you pay 40. If you want the advanced version when it's released, you have to pay another 90. And I don't know how many bugs it has. The ones I've heard about seem pretty minor to me, but they very well could be deal breakers for others. Personally, if I buy it, it will only be the advanced. I'm saddened at having to wait longer, but it's really not a big deal. I just wish there was an upgrade-type system in place for those that purchase the basic version now then the advanced later.

Ryan, you're missing the point. I don't think anyone's really upset at you releasing a 'basic' version. What people are upset about is your lack of upgrade pricing.

I see that if you purchase the basic version...for $40, if you want to upgrade later to the advanced version for $90, you don't get a discount. Looks like I'm going to keep waiting.

Interesting. After you said that I looked again and it says the same thing for third class medicals. Figuring that I was wrong though I went to look on the FAA's website and came across this:http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/m...uance/diabetes/Thanks for the eye opener! Learn something new every day!

Looking at the FAR/AIM 2009 (I'm sure the 2010 version is out, but I don't have it yet), here's what it says (pertaining to your condition) for all classes of medicals:67.113 General medical conditionThe general medical standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug for control.I'm not up on diabetics, so I have no idea if type 1 is where you need insulin. If you don't though, I'm thinking you would be good to go for any class medical. Even if you do, I'd still strongly STRONGLY recommend talking to a flight surgeon. Hell, see two or three. Look at the AOPA forums (you don't need to be a member) and ask there for to see if anyone knows good flight surgeons in your area. Hope this helps...I hate to give bad news.