FS2004 wish lists..........

[Guest]

Hey, I say the above i.e weather/FDE/Scenery!!! I think Europe should be more detailed tooo!!! the US is fine..Europe aint as detailed..the US has lots of special texture..europe and the rest of the world has stndard generic texture...Menorca for instance is not GREEN..it has lots of sand too...If they would redo the FDE area maybe they could implement a load editor so you can adjust how may passengers you fly with just like you can with fuel..maybe some cargo too!!! Maybe an option in the setup to have more detailed a/c!!! How about a redone panel system to 3RD Party authors can program systems/subsystems/ gauges/etc...and what about FBW? of some description....and alot more failure simulation1!!....and an SDK that is available for the launch of FS2K4!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

I have to agree with Wolfgang i love the vc remember !! the vc or still early in fs man the thing just came out now with 2k2 give them time then in a few years from now you sould see a vc that would blow your mind out hehe :) as far as improvement heres what i would like to see.1: Better WEATHER !!2: higher and more detail texture's roads highways etc etc3:Better Atc Ai4: More advance vc with clickble swiches :)thats it for now but i think there going to do good for next version cant wait !! :D

[Guest]

Ability to manage what the scenery engine manages first to last like autogen, texture quality etc..tim

[Guest Eric]

Hello, "CFS3's clouds (though hopefully they'll be taken significantly further for FS 2004, with all kinds of varieties possible)."I still found the clouds cartonish specialy the high level clouds, they need Chris Willis to works with them, his latest screenshots for the new clouds are very very impressive cumulus clouds and high level clouds better then Cfs3.Eric

[Tabs 2,790]

Here's the email I sent to MS on this very subject:Hi,I've got a few suggestions for the next version of Flight Simulator that I've come up with after using FS2002 extensively. I hope you will consider implementing some or all of these:1. Make the full FS2004 SDK available to the amazing 3rd party developers like Dreamfleet, Lago, Wilco, etc with the release of the game or if possible, even before it. I'll be absolutely honest - I NEVER fly the deafult FS aircraft - the quality and realism of the add-on aircraft that companies like DF make is staggering and you guys have to know this. Help them to make FS even more real by providing them the tools they need to build whatever they can imagine.2. Following this same line, I'd like to see developers have control over anything they'd like in the game and engine itself while running their aircraft in it. Example: I've read that FS models the coefficient of friction for taxiways incorrectly, which results in the rediculously high thrust needed to taxi a large airliner - if developers could change these types of parameters, it would allow for incredbily realistic flight dynamics and special things like modeling Airbus fly-by-wire, etc...3. I've heard that FS2004 will be using clickable virtual cockpits only - this is great! Please take a look at what Jane's F/A-18 did and implement an intuitive view zooming and panning system for looking up at the overhead, looking down at an FMC keypad etc simply by clicking on them... That will GREATLY enhance the feeling of being there in the cockpit.4. Since FS2004 will not use BGL files, I'd like to suggest that you take this opportunity to make the FS2002 nav database of VOR's NDBs, airways, fixes etc fully upgradable either by yourselves or 3rd parties - giving ad-ons access to this database would standardize the navdata used by FMC or GPS equiped addons and allow them to be updated with the real world AIRAC cycle. Currently, add-ons like 767 PIC or the PSS Airbus have to use their own text-file based navdata set, which can be upgraded through a site like www.navdata.atThanks for your time and I hope I've been of help...Ryan MaziarzTucson, AZ

[frantzy 4]

2 wishes: Have AI/ATC use more than just one runway, and make the flight dynamics parameters more robust & more transparent to 3rd party developers

[Guest]

Your first point is most interesting.Considering the complexity of the sim I can't see how 2 years can be enough time to put all those to fruition. I agree that the SDK should be complete and available as soon as the sim is released if not sooner. Let the 3rd party contracter work with more outside people to make the world more interesting.The least they can do is make an editor.X-Plane has a great one!(WorldMaker). If your local roads and rivers seem odd, just a few mouse clicks will fix them. If you want to know how complicated the current way is just visit the scenery or mesh forums.

[N562Z 4]

I can't believe there is such a thing as an FS 2004 wish list. Good lord, some of you are never happy. And to think that someone actually thinks FS 2002 is not dark enough......LOL.....AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAlex CN562ZMinneapolis, MN

[Guest JohnN]

Hi,I'd like to have the facility to speed up AI planes ahead of my plane at airports.

[Bearracing 3]

Interesting to read through everyone's suggestions and I would be quite surprised if MS failed to implement some of these. I do say interesting, because the difference between the above suggestions and what was listed as improvements over FS2000 before FS2002 was released it quite extraordinary! :)By reading between the lines and looking closely at what they (MS) intend on doing with Combat Flight Simulator 3, can give you some areas of speculation or insight into their intent for FS2004. What has leaked out (from various interviews with the FS Team on CFS3), is that FS2004 will incorporate many major fundamental changes, starting from the baseline up. The most predominate being the requirement of Gmax modeling (for aircraft and scenery macros), which means you will have the inability to install aircraft files from FS98/FS2000/FS2002 that have not been designed using Gmax. In one interview with a CFS3 design member, it slipped out that aircraft and sceneries designed for CFS3 will not be compatable with the next version of Flight Simulator. It has also been announced that the new version of FS will not recognize bgl files, so sceneries designed for prior versions of FS will obviously not be compatable with FS2004 either. It has been stated (by the CFS3 design team) that CFS3 will not contain any aircraft with a 2D panel, the panels will all be 3D virtual panels-cockpits, but that may not necessarily be true with FS2004. One can assume that the FS design team has found a way to provide full control over the panel in the 3D mode (but remember, the requirements in design and functions for Flight Simulator panels are far more complex than the requirements for the simpler panels from a combat aircraft of the 1940s)I think (speculate) that the Flight Simulator design team that worked on FS2002, had already decided on the direction they needed to go with the Flight Simulator programming, but they elected to not include them with FS2002 because the changes would have been too dramatic at the time. Their biggest concern back then was to correct their mistakes and errors with FS2000 and to gain back their loyal fans, before throwing an entirely new version of Flight Simulator that basically obsoletes all previously (3rd party) designed aircraft and scenery packages.The best thing that all of us can do at this time is to begin listing our "wish list" here in the forums (like this thread), so that the design team at Microsoft can began considering ideas that may not have occurred to them, plus solidify the desire for those features they've already committed to.Steve (Bear) Cartwright

[Noel 4,507]

Here Here Steve! And another thing: I would love to see rays of light streaming through broken clouds--like in the real world. This could be modelled well within FS and would add some more depth of realism.Noel

[brandon 0]

1. Better weather engine. I would love to see virga falling from clouds, rain storms, and lightning that actually looks real. I would like to see heat lighting, and cloud to cloud. I have never been a fan of Microsoft's lighting in FS2000 or FS2002... I really hope this will be improved.2. Clouds that appear on the horizon and get closer as you fly towards them. I cannot stand flying and suddenly seeing a big cumulus cloud appear 5 miles in front of me... :-lol Also I would just love to see cloud shadows on the ground that match up with the clouds in the virtual sky. Now that would be awesome!!3. Real sky effects and colour. I would love it if we were not restricted to FL100. Wouldn't thast be awesome be able to get into the space shuttle and launch from KSC and them come back to earth and land. I know I am getting alittle out of the realm of flight simulation but its just an idea :)4. Better ATC such as Unicom, FSS, and when flying over the ocean the ability to use HF radios. I don't like talking to Oakland Center on VHF when I am over the south pacific. It would also be cool to have UHF ability and to be able to do GCAs for all the military fans out there :)5. AI traffic that can fly the pattern like in FU3. I would also like to be able to customize AI flights like having jets fly in Formation, or fly along a specific route instead of a stright line. FS2004 also need to allow AI jets to keep their distance so when landing you don't have to deal with so many go-arounds or 3 jets coming in at the same time.6. Nice looking scenery of KSAN since it is totally ignored in the scenery department. Yes I am being a little biased here but c'mon guys its my home airpot ;)That is all I can think of now but I know there are many more wishes I would love to see... I am really enjoy reading these keep posting them everyone !!BRandon

[Guest allblack]

Yup, all of the above please.Oh, and the NZ$5000 to buy the new computer to run it all on would be great too.It would annoy the hell out of me if MS decided to follow through on a lot of this, and then leave 80% of the world unable to afford the PC's to run it on.As much as I love MSFS, food and clothes for the kids would have to get priority over PC upgrades, so I guess I miss out.Hmmm....maybe I could sell the kids.....???(That was a joke before anybody with no life gets all upset).Seriously though, better ATC is my #1.Allblack

[Guest]

allblack,you shouldnt have had kids,they are too expensive,all i can say i hope i marry a women who doesnt want kids!! :-lol :-lolp.s i agree with you ATC with SIDS STARS and better Separation, is my first priority as well !!

[Guest]

While I do not agree with all your wishes (and that's a bit problem for the team, deciding which new features will make the largest group happy without allienating too many others, it's marketting making the major decision after all) you do show an excellent way to write to them.No demands, good arguments, no shouting and screaming.This is the kind of mail I would read and take into consideration (if possible) were I the person responsible for that.1) SDKs: you say they should be made available before release to commercial partners. I fully agree (and am under the impression that this already is done). You only have to look at some of the addons appearing very shortly after the release of FS2002, some of which seemed like magic at the time.2) effectively amounts to increasing the scope of the SDK (and maybe some changes in the dataformat, depending on what can and cannot be changed at all right now). Might be feasible, but maybe only in incremental steps (depending on time/effort needed).3) Virtual cockpits: unless there is a MAJOR (and I mean MAJOR) improvement in the way they work (from moving around them to readability to interactivity) I don't agree here. JF-18 is indeed an example of a good VC, iF-22 is another. Personally, I still don't see the use of VCs in airliners etc. but if they are indeed as good as the examples you give they would be nice for light aircraft (mind, not essential).4) opening up the nav database sounds good, but remember that it might become a support nightmare if BillyBob Joe calls because he messed up the update and now he has no navdata at all.You didn't ask for improved eyecandy (except the VCs :-lol) which is good. While there is always room for improvement it's good enough now that it is quite acceptable without major changes (and we all know MS always improves it between versions because eyecandy draws many users to a product and the capabilities improve as well).