cobalt

This is about as low as it gets. I have nothing to say in response -- your statement speaks for itself.

It's been 14 years -- I dropped FS9 as soon as FSX came out. No interest whatever in going back to either one.

You do know that 1400 people died on the Titanic?

MSFS is not just about "visuals". With its advanced flight modeling, weather, and ultra-realistic scenery, it provides absolutely the closest feeling to real flight of I have felt outside of a real-life cockpit. No other sim is even close, and I have seen enough posts here and elsewhere to tell me that I have plenty of company. What intrigues me about your argument is that your favorite sim is -- of all things -- FS9, a 20 year old relic that was great in its day but was rendered technologically obsolete by FSX, and that was 14 years ago! To me this is is hard to fathom, especially as I well remember FS9 and its pixellated ground terrain, among other now-quaint features. Clearly you and I have very different needs -- indeed so different that I see no way to bridge the gap. It is like my grandma and her beloved coal stove (see above). Bless her heart, and bless yours as well! Carry on and enjoy FS9. I will do likewise with MSFS. Peace.

Absolutely false. Everything is NOT broken in MSFS, far from it, and the statement is ridiculous (though not surprising in this case) and will be recognized as such by those -- and there are many of us -- who are having a blast flying this incredible, beautiful sim. As far as addons are concerned, I have installed over 200 already (scenery and aircraft) and they work beautifully. Finally, I was an FSX fan for its entire history and will say categorically that it was attacked ferociously at first, mainly by simmers who lacked sufficient computing power to run it at the time.

I be one of dose Masochists in a mental state. Havin' a ball flyin dis CRAP here in de Asylum!

Reminds me of my grandma years ago, who hated her new electric stove and insisted the food cooked on her old coal stove tasted much better. Have fun with FS9 and other technologies from 20 years ago I assume you also are still using your Commodore 2000 computer (or maybe a Radio Shack Tandy). Great machines, those -- for their time.

Can't resist pointing out that your post, spelling- and punctuation-wise, supports your comments about education.

This cannot have anything to do with updates, otherwise it would affect everybody, which does not seem to be the case. Must be a local problem in your system, assuming you are using the mouse correctly.

In a word, ridiculous.

matthewz, I have a question for you, just out of curiosity. I wonder why precise realism of SFO (or any airport) is so important to you, and to many other simmers. The reason I ask, is that only the exterior of buildings at airports (or anywhere) is modeled in MSFS, yet when I am in a real airport I am inside nearly the whole time while waiting to board a flight. Even in my local airport I don't see much of the outside scenery except when my plane is taxiing prior to takeoff (and the same would be true for the crew). So I don't quite see what a precise modeling of the building exteriors in airports adds to the sim experience. Clearly it matters to you; I just don't see why.

Here is the problem: you are having a bad experience with MSFS; to you, that makes it a bad product. But many of us are having much better results, and to us it is not a bad product -- in fact, speaking for myself, but I think many others as well, it has already provided many hours of great enjoyment, by far the best, most immersive ans satisfying flight-simming I have had in 30+ years of doing it. So, you and other MSFS-trashers are in the position of trying to tell us that we are wrong -- that we are either idiots or liars. Clearly that is not a persuasive argument. I suggest you try another tack.

Thanks. I had submitted a report on this and they are "working on it" but I haven't heard back. Since KSFO looks pretty good to me and I don't normally fly there often, I am too busy flying to worry about it. However if you find a solution please let me know!

The problem with the vitriolic point of view that you express here, is that many people are running MSFS just fine and having a ball doing it. I happen to be one of them. For us, it is not a "piece of crap". How can this be explained if the product is worthless?

I try to keep my posts restrained, but this is utterly ridiculous. Computer software changes all the time, and the notion that all new programs must be backward-compatible with earlier software is fantasy compounded by ignorance. If that idea had been followed in practice, there would have been no advance in computer technology in the last 50 years. Get real!

Just one more example -- groan! -- of a rant from someone blaming MSFS for a CTD when the problem is clearly in his own back yard. This stuff is getting tiresome.

Just FYI, I have 82 gigabytes of addons installed (almost all freeware) and my bird has been flying all over the world for months with few problems. Whatever your problems are, they are almost certainly not due to addons.

There is a great freeware addon for Pearl Harbor on flightsim.to that has what you are looking for (except the carrier for landing). This website has an amazing library of addons -- check it out!

No need to go through that multi-step operation in the video, which doesn't really address the question here anyway -- it tells you how to "find" a place starting at a nearby airport, but not how to go to a specific geographic location. There are two very easy methods to place any aircraft anywhere you want: (1) Simply enter the latitude and longitude of the desired location in the flight setup screen as noted above (and I think it will now accept either decimal or degrees-minutes-seconds format). If you have the plane in slew mode, then you can hit F1 after it is moved, to place it on the ground. (2) My favorite -- use VFRmap (a readily available freeware addon) to teleport to any spot on the globe.

matthewz, I haven't actually seen the Premium version so can't be certain I am seeing the same thing. But the KSFO I am seeing (I just did a recheck) looks very detailed, with ground crews, loaded luggage trucks, etc. and the airport buildings, runways, and taxiways look very realistic. It is hard to believe I am seeing a default KSFO, but if I am, I'm happy with it! I would be interested to know a bit more about the level of detail you are seeing.

I can certainly understand why you, and others, would choose to do this. But here is why I made a different choice. Despite some problems with MSFS (such as getting the autopilot in the A320 to work), I am having an absolute blast flying in smaller planes in locales all over the world in breathtaking scenery and real weather, with a feeling of real flight like I never had in any other sim (I am a 20-year veteran of FS9 and FSX). I would much rather be doing this over the next few years than just waiting for the sim's problems to be ironed out. But that's just my take on it.

It has one -- I think under assistance/piloting.

Frustration is understandable. Most of us have experienced it with MSFS, along with the joys. It's been a mixed bag. But ranting and foaming at the mouth are not convincing, and are a sure-fire turnoff.

Amen to this. Earlier I suggested a sedative might help.

An update to my last post. It turns out that the problem is solved by removing the KSFO scenery and NOT reinstalling it. When i reinstall the KSFO scenery file in Content Manager, the CTD returns! But here's the interesting part: with KSFO removed, the airport still shows up in full detail as far as I can tell -- everything seems to be there. This must mean that KSFO scenery is included in the basic MSFS install, so that the KSFO scenery file is redundant, and when present it crashes the sim. Does this make any sense? Bottom line, everything looks good with that file deleted.