Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
FS 2006
Hi !!
Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
thank you !!
FS 2006
Hi !!
Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
thank you !!
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
Vaxa wrote:
> FS 2006
>
> Hi !!
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
http://portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2237
>thank you !!
You're welcome - my pleasure..........
Vaxa wrote:
> FS 2006
>
> Hi !!
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
http://portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2237
>thank you !!
You're welcome - my pleasure..........
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
You tell all of US and I will make sure you get a free copy 🙂
Cheers,
Quilly
You tell all of US and I will make sure you get a free copy 🙂
Cheers,
Quilly
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
> http://portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2237
Crash,
You are a very naughty man...but I like it!
Cheers,
Quilly
> http://portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2237
Crash,
You are a very naughty man...but I like it!
Cheers,
Quilly
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
Like all MS products. its kept under lock and key, I think they even have a
secure separate building for projects as big as this to ensure they are no
leaked. Part from Halo2 they are are pretty good at letting only what they
want people to know, to know
--
Do you want to join a freelance design team? Can you code or design? Want to
join a team who is strict on Web standards complacency?
Go to www.deadlyhosting.com to see what positions we have available.
--
"Vaxa" <vasapolli@libero.it> wrote in message
news:ePnbe.64945$IN.1143250@twister2.libero.it...
> FS 2006
>
> Hi !!
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
> thank you !!
>
>
Like all MS products. its kept under lock and key, I think they even have a
secure separate building for projects as big as this to ensure they are no
leaked. Part from Halo2 they are are pretty good at letting only what they
want people to know, to know
--
Do you want to join a freelance design team? Can you code or design? Want to
join a team who is strict on Web standards complacency?
Go to www.deadlyhosting.com to see what positions we have available.
--
"Vaxa" <vasapolli@libero.it> wrote in message
news:ePnbe.64945$IN.1143250@twister2.libero.it...
> FS 2006
>
> Hi !!
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
> thank you !!
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
According to the Microsoft bod I spoke to at the London Airshow, FS2004 is
selling so well, and the add-on developers like it so much, that work on any
replacement has pretty much slowed to zero.
Was he lying?
It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad with what
you've got!?
D.
> Where can I find news and pictures about Fs 2006?
>
According to the Microsoft bod I spoke to at the London Airshow, FS2004 is
selling so well, and the add-on developers like it so much, that work on any
replacement has pretty much slowed to zero.
Was he lying?
It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad with what
you've got!?
D.
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
> It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
> version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
> with what you've got!?
Well since you ask!
1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic especially
GA.
4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go, but
have not yet had enough effect...
Need I go on?
--
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
> It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
> version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
> with what you've got!?
Well since you ask!
1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic especially
GA.
4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go, but
have not yet had enough effect...
Need I go on?
--
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
But then at the end of the day, there will always be improvements to
software what ever it maybe. Its a flight sim which en-compasses the whole
globe, there is alot of work to do and you also have to cater for the
"average" computer market. I.e while us hardcore'ers like to have a good
system to run it on, how many other people out there like to just open up a
747 and fly when their computer is not top-notch. It is a hard market to
cater for, and its why I think more money should be pushed towards a pro
version and a standard version being left at what 2004 stands at. I like
2004, there is a long way to go with FS on MS side, but then if thy did
scenery like all the add-ones that are available, a)would cost so so much b)
would take so so much time. I think add-ons are good as they allow us
hardcore simmers to expand FS where we want, and not buy a £200 piece of
software that was in development 8 years that 60% (or whatever I don't have
a figure) of the users wont care about let alone use because there system
cant run it.
--
Do you want to join a freelance design team? Can you code or design? Want to
join a team who is strict on Web standards complacency?
Go to www.deadlyhosting.com to see what positions we have available.
--
"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
>> version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
>> with what you've got!?
>
>
> Well since you ask!
>
> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
> especially GA.
> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
>
> Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go,
> but have not yet had enough effect...
>
> Need I go on?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
> An individual reply goes into my spam filter
>
But then at the end of the day, there will always be improvements to
software what ever it maybe. Its a flight sim which en-compasses the whole
globe, there is alot of work to do and you also have to cater for the
"average" computer market. I.e while us hardcore'ers like to have a good
system to run it on, how many other people out there like to just open up a
747 and fly when their computer is not top-notch. It is a hard market to
cater for, and its why I think more money should be pushed towards a pro
version and a standard version being left at what 2004 stands at. I like
2004, there is a long way to go with FS on MS side, but then if thy did
scenery like all the add-ones that are available, a)would cost so so much b)
would take so so much time. I think add-ons are good as they allow us
hardcore simmers to expand FS where we want, and not buy a £200 piece of
software that was in development 8 years that 60% (or whatever I don't have
a figure) of the users wont care about let alone use because there system
cant run it.
--
Do you want to join a freelance design team? Can you code or design? Want to
join a team who is strict on Web standards complacency?
Go to www.deadlyhosting.com to see what positions we have available.
--
"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
>> version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
>> with what you've got!?
>
>
> Well since you ask!
>
> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
> especially GA.
> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
>
> Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go,
> but have not yet had enough effect...
>
> Need I go on?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
> An individual reply goes into my spam filter
>
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:32:24 GMT, "Chris Harries"
<chrisflyer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Like all MS products. its kept under lock and key, I think they even have a
>secure separate building for projects as big as this to ensure they are no
>leaked. Part from Halo2 they are are pretty good at letting only what they
>want people to know, to know
>
>--
My son-in-law is a MS engineer.
He sometimes lets me know about some stuff they're working on.
(I knew about Longhorn way before the press found out)
Anyways, when he finds out and he lets me know, I'll let you guys
know.
As of today, nothing.
Ed
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:32:24 GMT, "Chris Harries"
<chrisflyer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Like all MS products. its kept under lock and key, I think they even have a
>secure separate building for projects as big as this to ensure they are no
>leaked. Part from Halo2 they are are pretty good at letting only what they
>want people to know, to know
>
>--
My son-in-law is a MS engineer.
He sometimes lets me know about some stuff they're working on.
(I knew about Longhorn way before the press found out)
Anyways, when he finds out and he lets me know, I'll let you guys
know.
As of today, nothing.
Ed
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
> My son-in-law is a MS engineer.
> He sometimes lets me know about some stuff they're working on.
> (I knew about Longhorn way before the press found out)
> Anyways, when he finds out and he lets me know, I'll let you guys
> know.
> As of today, nothing.
> Ed
Just as well this is a totally private NG then !!!! 🙂 🙂
--
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
> My son-in-law is a MS engineer.
> He sometimes lets me know about some stuff they're working on.
> (I knew about Longhorn way before the press found out)
> Anyways, when he finds out and he lets me know, I'll let you guys
> know.
> As of today, nothing.
> Ed
Just as well this is a totally private NG then !!!! 🙂 🙂
--
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
> > version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
> > with what you've got!?
>
>
> Well since you ask!
>
> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
especially
> GA.
> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
>
> Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go,
but
> have not yet had enough effect...
>
> Need I go on?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
Instead of offering many thousands of airports all over the world why not
have maybe one thousand and use the extra space for better scenery. I am
non-tech, just common sense.
Sabu
"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
> > version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
> > with what you've got!?
>
>
> Well since you ask!
>
> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
especially
> GA.
> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
>
> Addons from some excellent developers have long shown MS the way to go,
but
> have not yet had enough effect...
>
> Need I go on?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
Instead of offering many thousands of airports all over the world why not
have maybe one thousand and use the extra space for better scenery. I am
non-tech, just common sense.
Sabu
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
I think some re-assessing of priorities would be a good idea. But leaving
out some airports would be impossible because all our own favourite little
local airfields would probably be the first to go.
However, I think that scenery could be made sparce in the main program and
registered users could then download the addon scenery that they wished at
very high resolution for the areas that they wish to fly.
I rarely fly over Russia or the USA or Canada, or Asia, but would prefer to
use very high quality scenery over Europe and the UK, Australia and New
Zealand. If we downloaded only what we wanted, it would possibly leave more
space on the program? The same with aircraft. I have seldom flown any big
passenger jets, they just don't interest me, so if they were all left to be
downloaded only on demand I would be quite pleased.
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
I think some re-assessing of priorities would be a good idea. But leaving
out some airports would be impossible because all our own favourite little
local airfields would probably be the first to go.
However, I think that scenery could be made sparce in the main program and
registered users could then download the addon scenery that they wished at
very high resolution for the areas that they wish to fly.
I rarely fly over Russia or the USA or Canada, or Asia, but would prefer to
use very high quality scenery over Europe and the UK, Australia and New
Zealand. If we downloaded only what we wanted, it would possibly leave more
space on the program? The same with aircraft. I have seldom flown any big
passenger jets, they just don't interest me, so if they were all left to be
downloaded only on demand I would be quite pleased.
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
Or even 'sparse' !
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Or even 'sparse' !
Cheers,
Quilly
An individual reply goes into my spam filter
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
On Sun, 1 May 2005 11:19:00 +0000 (UTC), "Quilljar"
<wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I think some re-assessing of priorities would be a good idea. But leaving
>out some airports would be impossible because all our own favourite little
>local airfields would probably be the first to go.
>However, I think that scenery could be made sparce in the main program and
>registered users could then download the addon scenery that they wished at
>very high resolution for the areas that they wish to fly.
>I rarely fly over Russia or the USA or Canada, or Asia, but would prefer to
>use very high quality scenery over Europe and the UK, Australia and New
>Zealand. If we downloaded only what we wanted, it would possibly leave more
>space on the program? The same with aircraft. I have seldom flown any big
>passenger jets, they just don't interest me, so if they were all left to be
>downloaded only on demand I would be quite pleased.
>
Hi Quilly
I agree with what you say. However, it seems to me that acting as you
suggest would merely allow Microsoft to release FSX on fewer disks.
Humans and Flight Simmers both being what they/we are would just
download all those extras within moments of loading the program for
the first time.
Like you, from what you say, I prefer flying low and slow over the UK
and Ireland and only once in a while do I expand my horizons. Last
time I did so I made a beautiful approach into Boeing Field. The only
problem was I had intended to land at Tacoma!
The only add-on scenery I have is a freeware British Isles mesh from
FSGenesis, hence my liking for flying in that area. Also, I do have a
rough idea where I'm heading!
Others in this NG know far more than I do about MSFS and PCs in
general. Don't FS8 (in my case) and FS9 just "load up" what they need
regarding scenery and other traffic at any particular time?
Regards
James
On Sun, 1 May 2005 11:19:00 +0000 (UTC), "Quilljar"
<wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I think some re-assessing of priorities would be a good idea. But leaving
>out some airports would be impossible because all our own favourite little
>local airfields would probably be the first to go.
>However, I think that scenery could be made sparce in the main program and
>registered users could then download the addon scenery that they wished at
>very high resolution for the areas that they wish to fly.
>I rarely fly over Russia or the USA or Canada, or Asia, but would prefer to
>use very high quality scenery over Europe and the UK, Australia and New
>Zealand. If we downloaded only what we wanted, it would possibly leave more
>space on the program? The same with aircraft. I have seldom flown any big
>passenger jets, they just don't interest me, so if they were all left to be
>downloaded only on demand I would be quite pleased.
>
Hi Quilly
I agree with what you say. However, it seems to me that acting as you
suggest would merely allow Microsoft to release FSX on fewer disks.
Humans and Flight Simmers both being what they/we are would just
download all those extras within moments of loading the program for
the first time.
Like you, from what you say, I prefer flying low and slow over the UK
and Ireland and only once in a while do I expand my horizons. Last
time I did so I made a beautiful approach into Boeing Field. The only
problem was I had intended to land at Tacoma!
The only add-on scenery I have is a freeware British Isles mesh from
FSGenesis, hence my liking for flying in that area. Also, I do have a
rough idea where I'm heading!
Others in this NG know far more than I do about MSFS and PCs in
general. Don't FS8 (in my case) and FS9 just "load up" what they need
regarding scenery and other traffic at any particular time?
Regards
James
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)
"Robert Morrisette" <writer77@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:v7Xce.677373$w62.598194@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
>> > version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
>> > with what you've got!?
>>
>>
>> Well since you ask!
>>
>> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
>> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
>> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
> especially
>> GA.
>> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
>> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
>> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
>> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
>> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
My two biggest wants would be:
64 bit native support (since 64 bit XP just came out) along with 64 bit
drivers for yokes, rudders and joysticks
more 16x10 resolutions for those of us with widescreen monitors
"Robert Morrisette" <writer77@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:v7Xce.677373$w62.598194@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d4ql0s$57v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > It always amazes me, as an aside, how people start demanding the next
>> > version before the paint is even dry on the old one! What's so bad
>> > with what you've got!?
>>
>>
>> Well since you ask!
>>
>> 1. World scenery not accurate enough with today's technology
>> 2. Air Traffic stuck with American voices - just not good enough.
>> 3. Not enough control over amount and distribution of air traffic
> especially
>> GA.
>> 4. Weather and clouds have far too much effect on frame rates.
>> 5. Water, river, lake and sea textures too artificial looking.
>> 6. Mesh too coarse and inaccurate (see No 1.)
>> 7. Very few aircraft characteristics are as stable as real life.
>> 8. No worthwhile VFR maps or a flight planner as good as FSNav.
My two biggest wants would be:
64 bit native support (since 64 bit XP just came out) along with 64 bit
drivers for yokes, rudders and joysticks
more 16x10 resolutions for those of us with widescreen monitors
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram