Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

Submit Your Fs2004 Wish Now, Don't wait too much

Recommended Posts

Don't wait too much, Submit Your Fs2004 Wish Now, after Christmas it can be too late, first alpha fs2004 will be near febuary 03 and they will only implement the feature in their project plan list.Submit product suggestions directly to the Flight Simulator team via the Tell_FS@microsoft.com email. (Keeping bombarding this email with the same wish)Microsoft take only wish thats are highly demanded from user and ignore all others. Just one exemple: The line on the horizon (high level clouds) was not improved because there was not enought complain about this one.Things thats are sure in their plans for fs2004 are:AtcWeather (How much better? We don't know)New aircraftMore detailed sceneryMore and New Photo SatAfter is mystery or not official.....ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Yeah i send them 2 Emails so far on Improving the weather system in Fs 2004 :)Come on guys keep pushing them send them a ton of e-mails hehe ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what I sent.2004 wish listI would like to see these improvements in ATC. 1) No more report traffic when its from 4 to 8 o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just sent this:What will make me buy FS2004:- stunning physics engine: Over the last few months game companies have announced that their new titles will support more real life physics since processors are getting powerful enough to push the physics engines further ahead. Since some games will be released at the same time as FS2004 (eg DOOM3), we players will get spoilt with new physics engines and games with old physics engines will feel very dated. I expect that when playing FS2004 I will go 'wow' over the physics engine, and playing FS2002 will feel very simplistic. With more complex physics I mean for example flight and weather models. If there will be no significant improvements in that sector, this will be a very big minus in my decision if I will upgrade or not.- more non-visual detail: What I mean with that is best explained on an example. In FS2000 I wanted to implement a separate DME frequency. However, DME is still linked with VOR, there is no independent DME frequency, although simple DME receivers offer this functionality. It seems to me that it's only a matter of adding a few lines of code to support this (even if default aircraft don't use this feature). There are plenty of other examples where just a few lines of code can make the difference. In other words: make things work like the do in real life, not just from the side of physics, but also from the side of functionality. Be true to your "As real as it gets". - improved 3rd party development support: With FS2004 breaking compatibility to older versions in a few areas, this is a must. One of the most important things to me is to be able to add 3rd party products, and also make my own additions. Having to play with a 'virgin' FS2004 will make me not want to buy it, because FS2002 + 3rd party may bring more enjoyment. A move to more 'open' architecture will be mostly welcomed. Of course I don't mean 'open-source' here. As far as I see it, you should have full control over the main engines (physics, rendering, etc). It would be ideal to plug into those engines though, ie to create very high resolution scenery, etc. Here's an example: The number of cloud bitmaps is fixed. Why not use a txt file (or xml) instead that can load clouds dynamically on the fly, and 3rd party developers have full control over clouds in an easy way. Please extend the exiting framework to be more open and avoid hard coded limits (apart from rendering and physics). Also, the SDKs can be very much improved with more detailed information and they should be released on the FS2004 CDs!- bugfixes / improvements: On the scenery engine side I'd like things to be improved (speed and functionality wise, not eye-candy wise). Firstly, better terrain texture management. Currently, the textures can be very blurry even on high spec systems. Improvements in the level of detail management would be highly appreciated. I know there is a bug in the gloss mapping of buildings. The gloss map seems to take the ambient light to do the specular lighting, although it really should be the sun. On the other hand, although gloss mapping is nice, I don't consider it to be something that makes me run out and buy FS2004.- advanced design tools: The move towards gmax was a good one in regards to airplanes. It lacks in the scenery compartment though. We can't make scenery libraries, for example, although this would have been so easy to add. There still is no tool from you to do airports (interactive GUI tools please!). We want to be able to make great looking airports, including as much detail as possible such as taxiway signs and also ADF scenery! And we need the right tools for that. Also, an interactive GUI tool to create geographical scenery (roads, coasts, land cover, etc) is urgently needed. Also, how are we supposed to do airspaces (I actually know how to do that and have even done it, but I think I'm the only one so far, a GUI tool would be very helpful)?- I left out obvious things that you will hear lots. For example, AI aircraft should follow airways and fly patterns, and the like. That all goes under more realistic functionality. I'm aware you can't fix it all, but please put a priority on those things.Neat, but secondary things, that may convince me to buy FS2004 if I'm undecided:(address points above first, these points alone won't make me go buy FS2004)- per-pixel lighting on planes, cockpits, and buildings. This is quite heavy on the system, but would be nice to have if the engine can handle it. Otherwise stay away from it until graphic cards are more powerful. Same goes for more advanced shadows, like stencil shadow volumes. While these features will rock in any FPS game (and probably will be lots of fun to implement), it's not what makes a flight simulator tick...- better vegetation: I'm thinking of SpeedTree from IDV. More polygons and volume. Also more vegetation and make the landscape look more real (very good LOD management is required here). Again, only put this in if it doesn't freeze FS2004 into a crawl, on, say, a bit better than XBox specs.Things that will put me off buying FS2004:- gimmicks: I heard some rumours that in FS2004 you can watch people boarding planes and this is supposed to be one of the main features. My opinion on this is that this is a FLIGHT sim, not an airport sim, or 'watch people board airplanes' sim. If I have to watch people boarding my plane before I take off, and get a whole lot of other useless gimmicks, while none of the issues above are addressed, I will not buy FS2004. More interactivity at airports would be nice to have and could be listed as 'neat additions', but certainly not at the cost of a better physics engine (eg I wouldn't consider intelligent fuel trucks to be a gimmick, it would be quite neat to have, but it also doesn't rate as a must have, on the other hand people boarding planes or standing on small airstrips waving at GA aircraft are certainly gimmicks that I can live without, probably even would switch off to save frame rates). First address crucial flight sim issues, and if you have time left do gimmicky things...- the lack of conversion tools for FS2002 add-ons: If I can't use FS2002 add-ons in FS2004, I won't buy it. It's just that simple. Please, include conversion tools so the majority of FS2002 add-ons will work in FS2004.Cheers,Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thought.Don't make it like CFS3.Frenchy -- out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be at the top of my list. If FS2004 doesn't support FS2002 add-ons, forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeeezzzz, how many times do we have to see these rediculous posts???????????????????/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one.Better support for third party online add-ons (Sqawkbox.) I'd sure be nice to eventually see the whole phony ATC system M$ implimented to be transformed into one large, online network. Sure the learning curve would be hard, but in the long run it would be great.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com|Taxiwaysigns.com] Scenery Designer-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 41.03 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to be so upfrontbut this was posted a month or so ago and had a good replywhy go over it again:-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Geeeezzzz, how many times do we have to see these rediculous >posts???????????????????/ For some the subject alone must be like a narcotic ...Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this "if it doesn't run FS2002 stuff, I won't buy it" sentiment - everyone wants MS to completely rebuild the engine from scratch, put in better physics, interactive VC's, realistic weather etc, yet you also want it to be backwards compatible?? I don't think it's gonna happen - I've heard that it's pretty much set in stone that FS2004 planes will be VC only, and that the terrain and scenery will not be BGL based, but rather something completely new and MUCH more efficient, enabling FS2004 to have framerates like what we see in current FPS games. I don't think you can have it both ways - compatibility with old stuff is gonna add bloat that will slow the engine down. I'd much rather see them produce a stellar engine that gives us 30-40+ FPS at all times and with a totally realistic flight modeling engine than preserve compatibilty with old versions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>sorry to be so upfront >>but this was posted a month or so ago and had a good reply >>why go over it again >>:-( It's good to be upfront, so I'm going to do the same.I don't think this post was saying "Submit your FS2004 Wish List" here in this forum, but submit it to the email the FS Team have provided as quoted above. It may be your last chance to have an input.Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, I really find this one-way communication with MS to be a bit of a bottomless pit. When I check the LOMAC forums I see enthusiasts directly interacting with the publishers from Ubisoft, and I'd have to say that the level of communication is pretty decent--meaning that the users seem basically respectful of the publishers, and that the exchange is constructive.Then every once in a while I follow the link to some new announcement going on in Oleg Maddox's "Ready Room" (relating to the Forgotten Battles add-on for IL-2), and the users there are frequently jumping up and down with enthusiasm over the next announced feature, and often getting their questions answered directly by the programmers.Then we have the "Tell MS" e-mail address. Sure, it's a good thing to have in principle, but as a matter of degree I'm wondering what the point is right now. We've had a number of extensive threads listing what users want to see next, both here and at Flightsim. Now you seem to be saying that these requests should be repeated over and again, this time via e-mail. Quite frankly it has the aura of supplications rising up from some old church sanctuary, and I find the "other worldly" distancing and lack of direct response from MS to be demeaning at times.MS has heard from the FS community because they read what's here. For some strange reason they've decided to invest in focus groups above and beyond this large amount of feedback. I can't imagine other publishers doing that; I'm sure they wouldn't have the money to do it even if they wanted to.Personally I'm just finishing up seven months of day-to-day tracking of the latest news and developments going on with CFS3. I wrote a nice and constructive e-mail to the "Tell CFS" address, and on numerous occasions made comments at a CFS3 forum on various aspects of some of the visuals that were released in an effort to improve various things. Perhaps my feedback helped in some areas. But now after all that concern and tracking and talking about this, that and the other aspect CFS3 has been introduced and I'm one of those who is very disappointed (in fact I uninstalled it last night and returned it to the retailer).To sum it up, I think at this point it's possible to follow these things too closely; I would think it's better to just relax and see what they can come up with. If they retain the qualities that made FS 2002 so good for the majority, and add to them, then they'll succeed. In my opinion that's not what happened in moving from CFS2 to CFS3. I have every optimism for FS 2004 though; I just won't be asking the publisher for the umpteenth time if I can have another cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft take only wish thats are highly demanded from user and ignore all others. As they should. Start at the top of the stack of most wanted features and move down from there.Makes perfect sense...Submit product suggestions directly to the Flight Simulator team via the Tell_FS@microsoft.com email. (Keeping bombarding this email with the same wish)And what would flooding their mailbox with constant requests/threats/demands do except having them shut it down because it is becoming impossible to sort out the few real suggestions from the constant repeating whiners?Send your request once. Maybe send each request in a different email to make it easier to catalogue for them.But whatever you do DON'T send them 100 emails asking for the same thing. That is counterproductive at best.Things thats are sure in their plans for fs2004 are:And how do you know those things are sure?It would be logical given releases from the past, but I've not seen ANY pressrelease or otherwise on the Microsoft website detailing things to come in FS2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know, but the only way i think we can really have an influence is get together a list of, lets say 10 things the majority of the community wants, and have a representative, im thinking about avsim staff here, bring this list to microsoft in a way, preferably by meeting them at a conference or something.I dont think that many of the emails ever reach a programmer!So maybe avsim staff should try to get in contact, call them or something, telling them we are (how many are we?) many thousand enthusiasts who buy their "game" over and over, every other year. So we put a list of 10, maybe 15 things together (not more) and have a spokesman give that list to MS for us. Everybody puts their names under it, so MS can see how strong this community actually is!anyways, just my two cents!CYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will now lock this thread, as I can see it is going to go the direction that most of these type do... but before I do, let me respond to a couple of points.There is no need for AVSIM to act as the "representative" in conveying suggestions, wish lists and the like. The MS guys read these forums daily and know exactly what the users complain about, want in future releases, etc.On the subject of compatibility with previous releases; this has been stated by MS many times and reported here. MS' design philosophy is to make the upcoming release of an FS product to be backward compatible with the two previous releases. If a third party designs THEIR ADD-ON to the SDK of say the last release (in this case FS2002), then the add-on will work in FS2004. If the third party developer does something in their design that does not follow the SDK, then all bets are off. Almost all developers of add-ons are aware of this philosophy and for the most part, follow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this