stevekasian

...and anyone who doesn't live their entire life behind their computer keyboard and monitor, "contributing" every waking moment of every single day with the untimate goal of having the most posts on a forum ... doesn't belong. You are all really showing your true colors. lol - Might you have a life?

It serves a constructive purpose of letting the reader in on the truth about this forum, and people like you. Anyone who doesn't see things your way, or the mods way, gets booted. That's a real nice open, inclusive "forum" you've got here. lol

...And it's quite apparent by your comments here that the bulk of people who post comments are self-righteous mutual admiration society members. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "troll" and "rude".You've most certainly found a nice, cumfy home here.

Now I see what AVSIM is all about - silencing anyone who is as disgusted with FSX and Microsoft as I.It took less than 24 hours for you to delete mt negative review. Now I see exactly where you're coming from here at AVSIM. You're obviously getting kickback of some sort from Microsucks to hold down anyone who is willing to stand up and speak about the truth of how Mucrosucks operates, and the fact that their brand new flagship gaming release is the piece of crap it is.Way to go AVSIM! Now I know first hand exactly why so many people are adamant about keeping their freeware releases out of your file libraries. You are skewed, biased and paid off... just like the politicians in Washington.Let's see how long THIS post lasts. lolSK

Hi - I just noticed something weird...I have 2 separate ASV6 installations in my Modules folder.One is here:I:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesFlight Simulator 9ModulesASv6And the other, apparently the latest SU, is here:I:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesFlight Simulator 9ModulesASv6ModulesASV6It's imbedded in the original folder, as though the installation path was incorrect and it created a whole new folder tree instide of the ASV6 folder, as opposed to overwriting the original files where necessary.I uninstalled the whole thing, then re-installed my original core ASV6 package. It all goes into the FS9 Modules folder as it should. But when I attempt to install any of the updates (1-5), it gives me an install path ofI:Program Files 2Microsoft GamesFlight Simulator 9ModulesASv6as opposed toI:Program Files 2Microsoft GamesFlight Simulator 9...and doesn't allow me to change it.Is this by design, or is the install path string get screwed up in my registry or sup'm?Thanks,SK

Wow. I really appreciate all these responses here, from all sides and angles. It's been quite the interesting read.But this comment absolutely takes the cake for a blatant untruth. "95% of his wealth" - lol... roflmao... HAHAHAHAHAHAHASK

I have been simming for a long time. I started back in 1982 with a little app called "Flight Simulator" for the C=64, a few years before SubLogic's Flight Simulator II came out. It was nothing more than a black screen with a starting position at a landing approach phase, with about 10 or 15 little pixels designating the "runway". lolFlight Simulation has come a long way since then. Before FS2004, the best sim out for the PC, IMHO, was Sierra's Pro Pilot. When I started using FS2004, I was amazed by the whole thing, but I also noted many of the fundamental differences between Pro Pilot & FS9 - differences in the overall approach to creating the look and feel of the software package - which convinced me that if Sierra had been able to continue the development of their simulator to this day, it would have evolved into something far better than both FS9 and FSX put together. Why? Good question - hold that thought.When I tried the FSX demo, I was not at all impressed. With FSX, the only things I find that are "better", at least to a degree befitting a completely new version that's been 3 years in the making, are the presence of birds, stock watercraft and the improvements in the rendering of clouds versus sky & horizon.Of course, there are a million and one new options available that provide for increases in level of detail for various aspects of the FS world, but when one is unable to set any of those options to levels beyond about 50% of what can be achieved with FS9 without bogging a cutting-edge box down to about 5 FPS or worse, all those neat little "wish-list" options are nothing more than a sickening, frustrating tease.Back to the "Why" question - Why would Pro Pilot have evolved into a better sim than FS9 & FSX combined, had it not been knocked out by Microsoft encroaching on it's customer base, much like Walmart laying waste to small-town America's downtown shops & stores?Two words: Stifling innovation. That is the name of Microsoft's game. No, not in the beginning - after all, innovation was the means by which Microsoft came to rule the software world. But once they became God, they took a well planned 180.If there was any question in anyone's mind before now, the new FSX demo illustrates perfectly what everyone should understand about Microsoft: that they have absolutely ZERO interest in making any of their software as good as it can be.As the leaders in their field, Microsoft's entire business plan is modeled around a single core concept: That if you provide as little improvement in quality, functionality and usability as possible between major releases of any software application, it will extend the marketability/profitability life of that product indefinitely... and you will RULE THE SOFTWARE WORLD until you are forced to compete in order to maintain that rule.So the only surprise I have is in the fact that with FSX, Microsoft seems to have outdone even themselves in the department of stifling innovation. And I must applaud them for their (under)acheivment. Bravo, Bill! You've managed to stagnate the world of home flight simulation software even to a greater extent than you've stagnated the rest of the software world! Bra-VO!!SK

Look at this screenshot from FS2002! This is 6 years and two major releases worth of innovation to Microsoft.My point has been made inadvertently. Thank you, Roby.SK

You're not safe Bryan, sorry. You've ASS_U_MEd wrong. REAL coders don't use MACs. lolI am a Linux guy, but only as far as is practical. That impracticality of Linux, by the way, is simply a by-product of yet another fine example of Microsoft's stifling of innovation.SK

Thanks... I feel a lot better now that I know I'm not being forced. So I won't. :-)I'm sure FSX will do fine as well, btw. Microsoft Windows did fine, and continues to... and will keep continuing to. But that will never change the fact that it's the most non-secure OS ever made, with more bugs, problems and holes than any application in history. Like I said, when you're God you can dowhatchalike.SK

Two words, sir: "First Place". That's what it boils down to. When you innovate in the "first place" to become the biggest and the most powerful, you then have the luxury of continuing to innovate at your own pace.Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect business sense. Companies in all different industries do it all the time. Appliance manufacturers, for example: Why do you need to buy a new can opener or a new toaster every several years? Consumer electronics manufacturers: Why do you need to buy a new cablemodem and/or router every 3 years or so? Because they make products to break. If manufacturers made products to last, they'd never get repeat business. It's common knowledge this is the way of industry.My only problem with Microsoft doing it is that, unlike the appliance or electronics industry, the software innovation comes from talent, and lots of it. There are countless talented programmers in this world whom have an interest in creating software with the foremost emphesis being on QUALITY, FUNCTIONALITY and SECURITY. But in the world of software, Bill Gates is "The Man", and The Man keeps all those programmers under his thumb by stealing their ideas, out-marketing them or just plain buying them out to keep them out of the game.It makes perfect business sense if all you're interested in is making money. I just happen to feel that in the world of software programming, profits shouldn't come at the expense of artistry and talent. That's all. I realize people that aren't programmers have a hard time seeing it that way, but that's the way most coders feel about it. And yes, I am speaking for "most coders" because I know it to be fact as opposed to my own humble 0pini0nSK

Thanks Vorlin.Yeah, I'm not really looking to recreate 'everything' in the VC view... sometimes I just like to be a "passenger" on my flight... like the little gremlin from The Twilight Zone movie that was jumping all around the wing of the aircraft in the movie :-). So if I'm on a flight using the viewpoint concept which I described, I have no need for the actual cockpit textures or the 'inside' surfaces of the fuselage. I just want to tag along for the flight like a stow-away. :-)(Just to clear up any confusion here: when I am just 'tagging along', I let FSNavigator fly the aircraft. :-) I just love flying, regardless of whether I'm piloting it or not.)I've created a quick-change system for changing my cockpits, sounds, models, etc., around in my favorite aircraft, so this is something that would be used for "special" flights only, not necessarilly all the time. If I want to use the actual VC textures for a flight, I'll just switch to that .cfg for that particular flight... know what I mean?But it sounds like John has pointed me in exactly the direction I need.Thanks a lot for all the info Vorlin! Much appreciated and quite informative. I will no-doubt be needing this knowledge in the future, as I move on to different aspects of FS design.All the best,SK

Nice! Very nice! Thanks a million for this info John - I'll be checking it out, as your description here sounds like exactly what I'm looking for. :-)All the best,SK

Thanks n4qix.Well, when I switch to exterior view with Active Camera, that viewpoint doesn't follow the aircraft. It essentially acts like a "tower view", creating a viewpoint which is static relative to the FS world.Any way you know of to make that viewpoint follow the aircraft instead?Thanks,SK

Thanks for the info Vorlin. Much appreciated.So I guess what you're trying to tell me is that the entire aircraft, essentially, needs to be "recreated" a second time in the .mdl in order to be able to see it the way I described from the VC view... right?And, of course, in order for one to do that, one has to know how to create (or at least manipulate) the aircraft .mdl file, so that one can duplicate the original model a second time in the same file. Right?Which, in turn, means I have to learn aircraft modeling (at least somewhat) in order to do it... and even if I do and I am able to duplicate the full model within the .mdl file, it will probably choke my computer to a crawl and won't be worth it. Right?Thanks...SK