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

[Chris Willis 8]

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

[Guest Joshieca]

Thanks Chris...Time to pitch my bietch :)[div align=center][link:members.cox.net/fstimes/wetimage.html]Click Here For Weather Image of the Day!

[Guest]

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 ;)

[Guest]

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

[Guest christian]

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

[Guest GZR_Frenchy]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest flightpro08]

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!

[Guest]

i agreethis is a stupid post

[Guest Eric]

"i agreethis is a stupid post"lando and checkpointcharlie you can go to bed and look whats M$ Released: http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...&conf=DCConfID3We don't want buggy fs2004 like cfs3. If you are not happy don't post here!!Eric

[Guest]

Hello,Better Atc, Terrain, Weather :-ukliamPaul

[Guest]

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

[michal 44]

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

[Tabs 2,790]

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...