>Hey, > I say Microsoft should buy the Fly!II source and >implement it with the FS2XXX secenery system!1 Imagine the >Fly!II panel system and MSFS's scenery...Also have the FDE >system more like the Fly!II flight dynamics...seperate files >for wing, ground hadling, electric system, failure file, >etc..I think Fly!II is better for the developer!!! I do like FLY's panels.................... but they DO add up to "pilot overload" when scrolling or moving from the main panel,to the top, then bottom. And I'm not the first one to use the term! If you use quick keys in FLY to change screens, then it's no different from FS2002. I personally prefer a number of third party FS2002 virtual cockpits with drop down windows. When switching to FLY panel corner views.......... I keep expecting the instruments to work! :)VC's are the future!!! Below is a pic from the DreamFleet Archer II virtual cockpit. They are getting better all the time!FLY II's scenery looks great from high altitudes, but not near as crisp as FS2002 lower down. The resolution also maxxes at 1024*768, and I run FS2002 at 1600*1200*32 on my 22" monitor.And as hashed over many times previously, FLYII has no edge over FS2002 flight dynamics, especially those modified by Steve Small, Ron Freimuth, as well as Rob Youngs. It does have the split wing, but that always doesn't end up working better. My preference for ground handling also goes to FS2002. The FLYII models are to "wishy,washy" when I'm applying right rudder for takeoff.Guess MS won't be needing the FLYII source code anytime soon!! And BTW--- I'm even using FLYII much more than in the past. That 3rd party SoCal scenery did the trick :)! SoCal is the second pic:L.Adamson

Got the same answer from Santa when I was little.

That'd be nice to have a sim that could combine pic 1 and pic 2 wouldn't it?

The biggest ones for me areATC- Be able to choose your runway and have a virtual co-pilot to answer the radio (Model it after Pro-flight.)Scenery- Improved at higher altitudes, Better runway and airport texturesPanels- Go back to the panel lighting from FS00. It was much more realistic. DAVID C. FREEMANCONTINENTAL VIRTUAL AIRLINESHouston

Hi,The major thing that needs to be done in FS2004, is to make a larger difference between the Standard and Professional version.The Pro version should have full system panels/cockpits and 100% accurate flight models. And the Standard version should have more beginner friendly panels/cockpits like FS2002 Pro.I don

>The Pro version should have full system panels/cockpits and >100% accurate flight models. And the Standard version should >have more beginner friendly panels/cockpits like FS2002 Pro. >The problem I see, is the fact that many of us prefer different aircraft. I can't see MS going all out with specific models that might not appeal to enough of us. That's why I believe 3rd party aircraft is still the way to go. I'd rather spend those extra hundreds $$$$ on my preferences, as well as keeping the 3rd parties in business.L.Adamson

Hi,Ofcourse we all need 3rd party addons. But what I mean is that there has to be a choice for everyone to get a full system Pro version, or a begginer friendly Standard version. :-)Then there will be full system Pro addons aswell as more simple Standard version addons. ;-) Something for everyone.... And beleive me, there will be addon producers out there for both versions.Fly safe, :-waveStaffan Ahlberg - FFG

CFS3 is going to produce a significant step forward in the realism of the clouds and atmospheric effects--but I hope they'll continue the good work being done in that area and make further refinements for FS 2004. Perhaps then, but hopefully not long after, we'll be able to reproduce something like this on the desktop....(USAF photo)

Better damage modeling, and being able to actually fire weapons with the warplanes in a pre-determined area only, like in real life. Cuz you cant take an F16 and fly around a city and start firing. The military has wargames in there own area. This being said, only targets in this area could be destroyed, and if you fly outside this area, weapons will not fire :) But all the other ideas mentioned are very good as well. I know this isnt a fighterwargame, but if your gonna "get as real as it gets" might as well go the whole 9 yrds. :D=Swiv=

All right, som points from my mail (much shortened):- FMS- GPWS- more complex A/Ps (like PSS), currently the A/Ps of the C172 and the B747 have no diffrence except A/THR, so: LNAV, VNAV... etc- COMPLETE overhead panels (also fuel dumping, fire panels...)- complete CRTs in the jets, lotsa informations are missing- of course a ND with MAP mode etc- improved gauge/panel lighting- no 'FS specific' switches for panels etc, just a 'real' panel not more not less- 'shaking' VCs- more working stuff in the VC and maybe clickable switches- syncronizes stobes, improved landing lights what is really lighting up what is in front of you- 'shimmering' and flickering air coming out of the turbines and the APU (eyecatcher, eh?) ;-)- real reflections. I think there's currently just another texture moving over the aircraft textures simulating a 'reflection', but when flying over the sea there still ground to see in the reflection *:-*- better roads, all roads are currently countrylanes, even FS2000 had better ones- different sounds for the jets, I don't think the lil' 737 sounds like a massive 777 Trent engine...- taxiway centerline LIGHTS (why the hell did they forget this when they're makin the centerline lights?!? :-mad)- ground textures look to 'new'- much better skidmarks and, like someone else said, they should stay- more lines etc on the apron like streets, prohibeted areas, taxiway lines up to the gates- docking system at the gates- MOTION in general, moving cars, buses, fuel trucks etc- 'working' pushback trucks- moving gates- airport signs- (automatically generated) airport charts, sectional charts, enroute charts etc could use the AFD- much improved failure system, many new failures- ATC should handle SID/STAR, assign holdings, more than one active runway, wind/traffic information in takeoff/landing clearances- really dazzeling sun :-sun1- rain/snow should have effect on flight dynamics (on the ground: slipping etc??)- METAR reports. Should be quite useful if you know the weather of your destination before you depart...- MUCH IMPROVED force feedback- idle taxi- aircraft icing- for the sailplane lovers: tow or winch takeoff possibility- load editors/weight and balance calculation- fix all the hundreds of known bugs... :-smoochThat's not all, just a selection of my mail.Some inspirations. Let's see what becomes real... :-hahBesthttp://flightsimmers.net/airport/etti/signature_pro.jpgEtienneEDDF

You can take an F16 and fly around a city and start firing, (not a nice thought though),it is the pilot who ultimately decides when/where to fire not the area the plane is flying over. Surely you should only shoot at legit targets in your sim, shooting at anything else is the same as driving to hit pedestrians in a driving game or other sick flight practices which I won't even credit with a mention.Terry Beddoes:-hmmm

maybe im a bit optimistic, but I would likeother AItraffic than just aircrafts, like cars, ships and trains.detailed mountainsand realistic weather/clouds.

Hi, Plans,project, feature for fs2004 are already set including weather, sky, interactive scenery,more realistic ATC, new planes etc..BUT For the time of fs2004, on the market will be available near 4ghz, so expect 2.5/3.0 ghz. Fs 2004 will be created on the latest technologie card feature like they never did with fs2002. This is why I skip the system upgrade for fs2002, I am waiting for fs2004 to upgrade my system. FS2004 will be a PC resource hog, MS want to utilize the latest and greatest in the PC market which they never did with FS2002,You will have to upgrade.Ps: Don't be disapointed if all your wish are not on fs2004, they can't do it all in one.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Do I understand this right, ya don't have FS2002???And where'd ya get that information about FS2004 may I ask?Thank youhttp://flightsimmers.net/airport/etti/signature_pro.jpg

I think he has FS2002, but he's just saying he didn't upgrade his system for the new sim since he is planning to once FS2004 comes out. And I would also like to know where he got this information on FS2004 or if it's just an assumption?Jason