I agree 100% with wet runways and systems, I hate to have switches like:Auto feather, Primer, Fuel Pump, Pitot Heat, etc, and no differece in the simulation.....boring.....I feel like a child pressing buttoms in home made spaceships and using only my imagination.Ulisses

HiWhat I would like to see! Is a much better sub-system. Better night lighting and better weather, like fog. ect. Just see ES. http://www.es.com/resources/28+esig_comm_sim.wmvLove the lighting and fog. Henrik

Hi, My sugegstions: -To add passengers and cargo load option underneath the Fuel in the Aircraft Menu. It can work the same way with percentage or Lbs or persons and for the cargo in the same window somehow underneath -To seperate the Nose wheel steering from the rudder for jets please. giving the nosewheel a seperate set of keys to control it will make the rudder and the nose wheel have seperate paramters in the air file and the cfg therefore more precise and realistic to tweak and control. -This one is more ambitious but the weather transition in FS is still rough from a metar station zone to another. It would be nice to have a smooth transition auto computed based on whats before and whats after CHeers! Michel

Uhhmmm yes ground handling is currently so darn bad. Where's idle taxi etc. In real life I can taxi a Cessna with a maximum of 1200 RPM or a 737 also with very little thrust to start rolling, then I can pull it back to idle.BTW @Jim, what are 'AD' lights??

The ATC should have holding patterns cos u get 4 planes landing within 30 secs of each other so they all go around, also the AI craft should exit runway b4 the end. Maybe the aircraft could have different sounds? I didnt think a 737 sounded much like a 747, maybe im wrong. You should be able to make a route with a stopover so you could go Heathrow->New York->Los Angeles.And the aircraft should hav FMC's and you should be able to request alternative altitudes when in IFR flight.

Please Microsoft, I beg you, please put volumetric clouds in FS2004. There is not one flight that ever takes place that does not deal with weather in some form or fashion. This aspect of Flight Sim has been ignored for too long. It is time to model realistic weather systems even if it does kill framerates. Just add a slider that adjusts from what we have now to a dynamic and realistic sky full of beatifully modelled and detailed cloud and weather systems. If it drops framerates down to nothing then we will almost all respond by purchasing newer and faster computers which will in turn help drive sales of your newest operating systems.Flight dynamics that allow for VTOL and STOL aircraft modeling. There is a vehicle under development called the Moller Skycar (www.moller.com). It is almost impossible to model it's dynamics with Flight Sim as it is now. A creator named AC Kerkhove has made quite a nice attempt at making one for Flight Sim. It is available at http://www.skycar.co.za/I would also like to see dynamics of flight modeled in such a way that we could create vehicles that have rocket engines so we could go into space. For that matter, you would have to also make it so we could go beyond 100,000 feet.In addition to the above, I would like to see curviture of the Earth at higher altitudes. Also, darker skies at higher altitudes would be required.The ability to fly back and forth to the Moon and create scenery on it.These things would only be cool things to play with. I know this is a flight simulator, but I miss MS Space Sim. It seems to me it wouldn't be difficult for MS to incorporate a few little extras like this to attract more people.Jay

Sloping runways and model each wing as a separate airfoil instead of as one (allowing spins).

>Sloping runways and model each wing as a separate airfoil >instead of as one (allowing spins). RealAir Simulations seems to have done a respectable job of introducing spins in FS2002 with their Marchetti SF260. However they managed to "fake" it, it's quite good! But then I figure ALL of flight simming is "faked" in one way or another..............so what the heck! :)L.Adamson

My main interest in simulation is its future potential, so I've been following the development of CFS3 day by day for a few months now to see what new features and improvements will be incorporated to enhance the realism. Clearly there have been major advances made in rendering the clouds, and I hope that work continues because there's more to be done in that area--but the progress is obvious.However, I'm really disappointed to see apparently no significant improvements made in the realism of the autogen buildings, the textures of the ground and the representation of the water in CFS3 when compared to FS 2002. Comparing the development screenshots of CFS3 with those of LOMAC (and I think I've seen all of them)...well, there's simply no comparison in these areas. This is why I think LOMAC will set new standards for realism next spring.So, it would be great to see the fuzzy, splotchy, leopard-like ground textures that appear in so many places updated for FS 2004. It would be great to see planes sitting on solid tarmac as opposed to a sort of translucent, slushy computer gel. Realistic autogen structures and a more up-to-date representation of the water would round out the very basic improvements I think are required for the continued use of the "As Real As It Gets" slogan.Cut and paste these links to see some of the recent shots of CFS3that tend to illustrate the lack of progress I'm referring to in these areas:>>www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/img/screens/ss53.jpg<<>>www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/img/screens/ss30.jpg<<>>www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/img/screens/ss39.jpg<