Scenery needs allot of work!!
I just flew around Daytona Beach and it doesn't even look like it!! Just a couple of hotels no strip, nothing, if it wasn't for the ocean there I would have thought I was flying through Idaho! Not to mention where is Daytona International Speedway? Home of the biggest sporting event in the world!! They have plenty of little ball parks but the home of The Great American Race isn't!!
Also the much mentioned bridges, some better roads with traffic etc.
Some more stuff for us who like to fly VFR!!
How about some birds!! And wildlife! I could go on and on!!

cmon guys microsoft has to create the whole world!!! give em credit i think fs2004 is a big acheivement in terms of detail and realism (apart from miami ) but its not end of world some scenery designer will come along and sort it all out.

They should make the lakes freeze in winter.

Hmm, I have noticed that we have recommended AI helicopters, but they never appeared. We have even talked about this long before FS9 came out.

As for the scenery, M$ has a lot of money and resources. Therefore, they would have easily just bought satellite images from sites like Terraserver and used those to update the scenery.

NVIDIA's download section recommends a program called Key Hole [a satellite image program].

And to top it all off, these images are completely up to date. If NVIDIA [a large corporate giant] can utilize those images, why doesn't M$? I guess M$ is too lazy or too cheap.

Those up-to-date images would have made things realistic for all of us in terms of scenery.

MS was doing a good job until they made and released FS2000. WHAT THE H377 HAPPENED??!!

I understand M$ for not including every little scenery detail because of the end result of a huge program and higher price. But I think what Katahu and also myself are trying to point out it the lack of scenery detail in the places that most simmers will fly to.
I have found little remote areas even unheard off that have better detailed scenery than some of the bigger well known places. Even New York doesn't look like it really does! And it has been well over 16 yrs since I have been there and I know it doesn't look the way it does in the sim.
All in all I really like FS9, it is the first sim I have tried so I can't personally compare it to previous versions but it is impressive. But like in earlier post I fly VFR and when flying in a area that I'm familiar with in real life I get quite disappointed when flying it in the sim I get lost easy because of the landmarks that I would use to guide myself aren't there!!

Flight sim tries to re-create the whole world, so why this tirade of Miami???
Let's add your city to the list of 1000's other who is not depicted correctly in the sim, shall we?

More curved, smooth coast lines will just boost the polygon count, so more people would have trouble with getting acceptable frame rates. Is that a fair trade off?

I'm all for getting more realistic commercial airliners, the ones included in FS are a joke, period.

I noticed that Seatle has more detail than a handleful of other places.

I also flew over Homestead in real life. The Air Reserve Base looks just like any other DULL airport.

I have been to the base a thousand times and I RARELY see just ONE civilian plane parked in the tarmac. Not only that, the base is quite a large place due to its many facilities and houses.

OK, enough about South Florida.

I'm surprised that after every flight sim that was ever released by M$, I have STILL not seen not even ONE fence that surrounds all airports.

Not only that, the bridges as well.

I mean, look at them. Some of them are in places where they shouldn't be.

I was flying down along the Florida Keys to Key Largo. On my way there, I saw bridge that connected from one of the Keys to the OCEAN?? ???

Seriously, one end of the bridge was connected to land while the other end was connected to water and nothing more.

Not only that, there are many MAJOR bridges in places where you don't need a major bridge at all.

Simple scenery objects that are misplaced?

The only thing I like about FS9 is the weather. Beyond, the sim needs work.

Ok, enough about scenery. What about video card support?

I don't think the simulators are utilizing the full potential of our video cards at all. Instead, the graphics are just hogging all the resources without using our video cards' special features first.

Not only that, the technical support that M$ provides for the sim is pathetic. I sent an e-mail to M$ about a technical issue that happened to me long ago. More than half a year later, I still haven't recieved a reply. Whenever I did, they say: "Thank you for buying our products and supporting M$. We cannot help you right now because our service is <excuses, excuses, excuses>."