cimgrp501

You seem to know so much more than the developers, including how many copies they would sell at half the price, so you know both their internal cost structure and market dynamics better than they do? Amazing indeed! At half the price, if indeed they sold twice the copies, that would likely just mean losing a lot of money rather than a modest margin at current pricing. No one understood marketing strategy better than Steve Jobs, who once had about 60% of the mobile market revenue with less than 20% share. He understood that the more narrowly you define your niche and value proposition, the better you understand your consumer and deliver on their unique expectations. You also, over time, move more of the larger market to understand and pay premium for your uncomprimised unique value proposition. Why you would assume that twice as many would buy at half the price, when they do not value what is unique about this product, and it's complications would just get in the way of their "turn the key and fly" expectations, is beyond me. And as you point out, the market already has good options for lower systems and value expectations. The developers are obviously smart enough to understand clearly their brand value, target market, and I have no doubt will do well rather than lose money and market value with pricing that says to their primary target looking for systems fidelity...sorry, not for you. That is the true lost opportunity cost and unintended consequence for them, and they are obviously smart enough to avoid it.

Monument valley Bill in Utah where they have the Red Bull aviation competition, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUHMkGacFD8

Devon...that is priceless as Bill stated, thanks for the comic relief. Is there an uncanny facial resemblance to JL Seagull or is it just me? Ironic that people like me are catching up to the latest mods for Flight due to his post. I suppose he would think Falcon 4 was also a decades-old worthless sim rather than the modern definitive F16 sim thanks to community dedication and mods. But in the end it is his small world...we just live in it :wink:

It doesn't, read what Kyle said, follow the #1 rule of flying even at the expense of onerous SOP's in the event you are flying for an airline...given visual conditions of course as stated previously. Prioritize safety vs. procedures. Roy Holley

Here now Lee Ponskey am what i ask Jim is the nose down enter the sim Ferd...SO it is to patch down up thrust if you can the weight of the annoucementy...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6489/playing-with-op Seems to indicate potential of significant (up to 10 times) performance degradation of SSD under certain parameters, have no personal experience to validate this either way. Roy

Pete...on what research or factual evidence do you base your presumed correlation between more restrictive gun laws and less gun violence? Cities in the US that have passed by far the most restrictive gun laws have seen about a 300% increase in gun violence (Wash DC and Chicago esp). The UK and Australia have both seen their "murder by gun" rates increase by about 20% since they passed more restrictive legislation. People cite comparative data between countries, but fail to cite the data from prior to the new legislation. Every factual study I have seen establishes the same correlation, because new laws just create more "gun free" zones, which criminals welcome since they seem not to have much regard for adhering to laws. Not of the new laws proposed in the US in response to SH shooting would have prevented it; same with prior horrific incidents, and they are horrific, but responding with well intentioned laws which reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and prevent crime has always produced the same result in all the research I have seen. If only we could get the criminals and mentally ill to regard the law as much as you I would be in full agreement. Roy

I feel compelled to chime in relative to the FedEx/Fred Smith comment, since I spent 12 years with that great company from start-up to 7 billion $ global leader. Many respected, knowledgeable and intelligent people saw the great vision and potential of FWS business model or the substantial number of extremely intelligent and talented human resources would never have fully committed to the venture at start. The only person I know of (having heard FWS personally discuss this on numerous occasions) who completely dismissed his idea was his Yale B school professor (no surprise there), who still gave him a "C". Having spent hours in the cockpits of 721's and 722's as well as DC-10's, and having flown 172's et. al. a bit, to describe the differences in flying as "subtle" boggles my mind. I know of more than one flight crew member who did not transition well from the 72's to the 10's due to "subtle" differences in approach and landing characteristics. The difference from light AC to 737 is far greater than transitioning to driving full speed around the track in a F1 rocket from driving your 325M like a rocket on your local expressway, and that would be a very low percentage stretch for 99% plus of humankind (my opinion, no research conducted). I think the "bias" (with all due respect) is reflected far more in the "subtle differences" perspective than that of the veteran Airbus driver, whose perspective seems firmly rooted in reality and years of experience. And to compare ability and performance in a company sim to the real thing is, from my perspective, to fail to grasp an equally challenging transition from an artificial reality to the real world dynamics. But it's an interesting conversation, and I wish there were some way to give all so inclined a go at it, as long as I am several miles away. :mellow: Roy

Surely the analogy of arming teachers to building arks/floods was not meant to be serious? I may have missed something but I have not noticed a plethora of global floods recently. The established fact is that the shooter had the rounds to kill at least a hundred more children, yet he did not. He stopped the massacre and killed himself the moment someone with a gun arrived on scene. Had a few of the staff been armed, professionally trained and immediately confronted the perpetrator we would almost certainly have far fewer deaths and conceivably none among the children. Is that the ideal and permanent solution, probably not. But 300 M guns are not going away overnight nor is the 2nd amendment. New laws and bans will only serve to further handicap law abiding citizens since guns can easily be obtained illegally here; it's amazing some seem to think criminals and mentally unstable people bother to check the law before acting. There is plenty of research proving that crime/murder rates are lowest in the US where legal gun ownership and CC permits are highest. Washington D.C., Chicago and other markets have experienced on average a 300% increase in crime when legal ownership has been severely restricted; there is no better place for a criminal or unstable person intent on murder to go than a "gun-free zone." Thanks to Stephen and Tom for allowing this discussion to continue. I don't have the ultimate answer, but I would hope for facts and reflection in such a discussion rather than dismissing any opposing view with naive, flawed and disrespectful analogies or characterizations. This is a complex set of variables which will take time and hard work to unravel the primary root causes and best remedial actions. For example, all (best I can determine) of these recent mass murderers were white, upper-middle class young kids with dysfunctional or broken relationships with their fathers. This is not an issue that can be legislated away with a policy signature. To our friends around the world.....the 2nd amendment is not primarily about guns for most law abiding citizens...it is about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which would prima facie include the right to defend your life. We are well aware of the costs of these rights in global, national and local conflicts as well as the tremendous benefits not only to our citizens but to those across the pond when their very existence was threatened. It's challenging to always be trying to walk the fine line and adjust to cultural and political winds. I wish all those bad guys didn't have access to guns, but they do for now and absent a miracle will have for years to come no matter any new legislation, so any thoughtful contributions are appreciated no matter the perspective. I take them as motivated by "human" rather than "political" considerations. Roy

Thanks Rafal for many helpful posts including to my challenge, and also Graeme, not that tech savvy but got it patched!Roy

Downloaded 4gb patch from http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php after reading some threads on blurries here. It's a minor problem with some slow loading mountain textures on my Asus laptop, which has 10gb memory. After unzipping and trying to open, I get a "cannot open executable file" error message (Win 7 64 bit). Any advice on if this is valuable in helping the old FS9 better utilize memory and how I can open it? Tried re-downloading, etc, with no success.Thanks for any ideas!Roy

No, Umberto wanted to clarify what you still either do not understand or more likely refuse to admit. You say you simply "commented on terrible frame rates this airport is producing." Why are you still blaming the airport for "producing" bad frame rates, when several including Rafal, have even given you pretty pictures proving the airport does not produce terrible frame rates, because if it did it would do so on all systems. Something in your setup is producing unintended consequences and bad frame rates, what is so difficult to accept about that, and why blame Umberto for trying to help you and his product for your system hiccups?Thanks Rafal for the link on the downtown LA scenery...looks good.

Dave,I am about to start simming again after several years, sticking with FS9 for now so I can fly DF 727 etc. I feel caught up on everything except:1) Did not know about Howard Smith's work till you referenced. Do you use his major FSX Experience file for FS9 or just the trees? And what is the combo you use to upgrade FS9 environment. I have looked at realitypack (avsim), HiDef clouds (avsim hdev2), GE Pro of course, and now the Howard Smith option. Would appreciate your tips as a veteran, as I likely will not change or tweak, just enough time to fly.The only other question I have for anyone is relative to memory. After reviewing a few threads not sure, running a new laptop with SB and 10G ram (Asus), do I need to make any tweaks relative to memory or just fire it up and go.Thanks very much for any help.Roy

Hi Jeff,Would appreciate any info/link on the 2 files you placed in root folder to limit frames, or best approach for frame limiting to enhance smooth FPS; running FS9.Regards,Roy

After being away from FS9 for a few years I am about to buy a laptop and am biased toward Sony just based on past experience. Appreciate any feedback on whether the specs below would support FS9 with smooth performance, or if I need to go Intel or upgrade the GPU. I fly mostly DF 727 and LD 767 into major airports with add-on scenery and moderate AI. Plan to add mesh, REX, GE to the mix, probably not much more.Any input greatly appreciated. Regards, Roy SONY VAIO E Series VPCEF37FX/BI NoteBook AMD Turion II Dual-Core P540(2.4GHz) 17.3" 4GB Memory DDR3 1066 500GB HDD 5400rpm BD Combo ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5145

Dave,A sincere apology for misunderstanding your "assumption." I have been helped by many of your posts and extensive knowledge and share your hopes that QW advances the realism of what I believe is already a solid product for their target market. I am one of those people who no longer has time for the hard core flying, but certainly hope to return to it in the future. In the meantime companies like QW provide a great opportunity to keep flying and appreciate some of the "lighter" aspects I had not appreciated in the past. I do hope as you that they keep advancing the hobby.Regards,Roy

Why would you make such an outrageous and unwarranted assumption when Benjamin said exactly what he meant, which was, YOU, sir, are..." This is just as bizarre as assuming that flying is (or should not be) about visuals just because that is your personal taste, or that you get to define what "Quality" is for the entire add on market, or that you know what all Avsim readers are demanding. QW clearly segmented and defined what "Quality" meant in their marketing strategy, and they hit their target, which from prior threads obviously includes a significant % of Avsim users.They also raised the bar in some areas, sounds for example, which to many FS users are important, so I hope those "lesser mortals" will improve their quality of sounds in future releases accordingly, since "everyone knows that's the most important part of flying." :wink:Regards,Roy

This is supposed to be a discussion forum. But clearly there is a groovy clique that does not allow criticism of the latest toy. Really, what a bloody shower.Cheers,DaveDave...the reaction to Rod was because of his generalizations about iFly ("cheap," "joke") which clearly were completely out of line with the reality of other very critical and experienced simmers, and thus seemed more like an emotional rant rather than a balanced and rational critique which would be helpful to people like me who will make decisions based on this forum. Further, the CTD issue appears to be a user problem now, yet the developer is immediately assumed to be at fault. The "It can't be my fault" and "Anyone who does not share my simming priorities or tastes is an idiot" are not assumptions which will get you an ear by the developer or other simmers.I would like to hear as many perspectives as possible, if they are balanced and fair. When you describe iFly supporters as a "groovy clique that does not allow criticism," when in fact there is plenty of constructive and balanced criticism in this thread by supporters, and describe the thread as a "bloody shower," both statements are the same kind of grossly exaggerated emotional generalizations that cause your opinions to be immediately dismissed.Perhaps a balanced and reasonable tone would get your perspective at least fair consideration.Regards,Roy

Dave,I do not believe the Holy Grail of conclusivitiveness can be reached unless Ferd_Berful chimes in, which is unlikely since he last posted summer of 2002 I think. However, I continue to fly his Ponsky merge, xxrotflmao.cat3, although the nose of the aircraft is missing, so many near misses now never to miss, perhaps this test can resolve the problem. So many inquiring sheep, surely the miss of announcementy will soon by Horatio.

Has anyone used a disgronificator to see if there is a correlation between this test and the long aweighted announcementy of the new sim? Or does the patch applies the new projects hence already the Ponderosa? Merge? The test resolved is perhaps weightier, without Ferd_Berful, why the wait? Roy

Mike...during the years in the past you reference the bar was raised on systems realism so often because there was so much room for enhanced realism in systems replication. That gap is now closed for all practical purposes to the point that some simmers now fly in FSX with more complex procedures than their real-world counterparts. This was clear from a recent post complaining about FMS entry procedures from a developer. In my opinion the primary remaining gap is related to visual accuracy and enhancements, not systems. You talk about the "elation and satisfaction" of a first flight from "cold and dark" to "shutdown" making you wonder if you did not just fly the real thing. I concur! The movement to medium system aircraft is a completely understandable reaction to raising the systems bar to near real-world complexity. Some people, after experiencing the satisfaction of "knowing every knob or EICAS system" want to move back toward the joy and dream which first inspired flight when no such complexities existed. Why are you surprised now that the bar on visual realism is being raised higher with scenery like PNW that some people want to look out the window more and fiddle with knobs less? For me, this is a more compelling and enjoyable reason to feel like I have just flown the "real thing." You ask, "Is this now a sight-seeing" simulator?" Having jump-seated in more than a few FedEx cockpits in years gone by, I can with confidence say that "sight-seeing" has always been not only an enjoyable, but integral, part of flight from a professional pilot's perspective. This is after all, a "flight" simulator, not a cockpit or systems simulator. The fact that others prefer to enjoy enhanced realism and raising the bar on all aspects of flight "simulation" should not deter you from the enjoying how high the bar has been raised in the area of systems and knobs, and I think you have unfairly minimized the complexity of systems simulation available from good developers, but that of course is just my opinion, and I see no need to list your many options here as others have done so. Our world continues to raise the bar in general on the complexities and challenges which confront us everyday. So yes, there are days I do not wish to wait 10 minutes for the INS to align, or pause to read another 10 pages in the manual about how to do it, I just want to hit a few switches and fly from A to B. You asked, "What's the point then...?" Well, perhaps today, to see what is between A and B in greater simulation than ever before, and to wonder if "for all intents and purposes" I was not really there. Other days I may get just as much kick out of learning a new system; that's the full spectrum of "flight simulation." If you wish to move on after the systems complexity you so love has reached levels of realism unthinkable only a few years ago, and you cannot expand your joy of flight to include some of the other areas where the bar is now also being raised, then that is your limitation and loss. I spend more time flying now and less reading these forums because of the wonderful advances in systems and other equally valid areas of the whole flight simulation experience. It is awfully tiring to keep reading why anyone who does not share your exact preferences and tastes is somehow less intelligent or enlightened than you, why a developer, whose virtual pilot from the outside cockpit view has hair 1 inch longer than the real world airline P&P manual, is producing "junk," and why all developers should base their strategic financial decisions on your personal whims and are idiots if they do not. How dare they develop a plane just because they love that model and have some expertise in it, or worse yet, because they rely on actual market research and performance numbers rather than your intuitive assumptions based on the market of you, a couple of your pals, and the ingenious extrapolations of entire market dynamics you derived from reading a few posts on a couple of forums; (speaking generally Mike, certainly not of "you" personally). These poor souls are so enamored with themselves and their perspectives that you would think that it's their world; the rest of us just happen to be lucky enough to live in it. Seriously why don't you lighten up, stick around, and at least try to expand your horizons in flight simulation. You might one day actually fly from point A to B and for all intents and purposes so think you were really there that for a few minutes you forget about the INS. Would that be such a horrible thing?Cheers,Roy

My tribute to Jeremy, Ron, Geof, et. al. for enduring this madness. Seriously, thanks guys, I had to be away from FS for a few years, came back to catch up, and ran into this mess as I was especially interested in the Citation (and will buy it Ron as soon as I decide on the new laptop). I appreciate your efforts to keep this a forum where learning is possible for those of us who do not have much time to sort through what is intended to be honest and helpful, and what is intended to be something else entirely. Apologies in advance if it doesn't bring a smile! Roy Ron: Hey Jeremy, we need to know a bit more about Avsim, we think some users have multiple accounts just to target us, whose on first at Avsim? Jeremy: Hey. Ron: Ok, hey again yourself, now tell me whose on first please? Jeremy: Hey, Hey Sus Ron: Stop with the "hey" already and please do not call me Zeus. I am not Greek, but one out of two ain't bad. Now, who the heck is on first? Jeremy: I told you, Hey Sus is on first. Hardly anyone reads your posts anymore. You are now only the god of eagles, Hey Sus has stolen all your thunder. Ron: Oh my gosh, you are crazy, Hey Zeus is an invocation, not a person. Only Ed and Bill are required to pray to me. I'm so confused. Can you at least tell me whose on second? Jeremy: Word Not Allowed Ron: What, another Greek already? Is he a god too? Jeremy: No, that would be Hey Sus on first, but he is not Greek. We are EEOC compliant. Ron: You're truly insane. Everyone knows Zeus is Greek, and why do you keep saying "Hey Zeus" as though he were here. *******: Ron! Ron: Hey. Who are you? *******: Hey Sus. Ron: Will you guys please stop saying Hey to me, and why are you now also calling me Zeus? I am not Greek! *******: I'm not. I just think you should know my name

Way to go Jeremy! If everyone who challenged Ron had in fact been banned from this forum, membership would be now down to five people, three moderators, Ron and Ed. No, that would be just four people, as I believe Ed and Ron are also the same person using multiple accounts. "Ed" is Ron's alter ego saying what Ron would really like to say, "Ron" is the contingency account in the event "Ed" (the real uncensored Ron) gets banned. I hope this is investigated with the same diligence that was applied to our dear departed friend(s) Longyear et. al.Roy Holley

"Market forces" in the true sense of the word are apparently not under discussion here. When people extrapolate that what one person does with "their bank account" should somehow be relevant to a developer's marketing decisions, or that "poll results that have been unanimous across multiple user sites" remotely qualify as market research (results that if taken in total would likely not represent 1/10 of 1% of the potential market, and that are in fact extremely skewed from reflecting total market realities just from the transparent filters in, for example, a poll on a site selling an aircraft for FS9), no wonder they characterize developers as they do since those developers have not had the market foresight to make them their single "target" market, or accept their opinions as fact-based research on which to make life and death business decisions.It's very easy to pilot from the jump seat when it's not your butt who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft. It's a little different feeling, and just a bit more pressure, when your opinions become decisions with real consequences. Maybe we ought to give those guys actually driving the benefit of the doubt and consider that perhaps since they are looking out the window they see a thing or two that we don't. I am grateful that we have a few people left willing to tolerate all the speculative, if well intentioned, opinions and second guessing. Roy Holley

Ron,Be happy given your reputation to pay in advance, no previews necessary!Roy