What can we expect in FS2004?

[Guest]

I know this is early to be asking, but, what can we expect to see in FS 2004? Will/Can the scenery be improved upon (better land class, terrain mesh, airport buildings/signs/markings)? Better weather engine? Improved ATC interaction? How about new additions to the default aircraft fleet? I know these are some of the questions that many may have. I was just curious about what others can speculate or offer.Thanks,Larry :-wavehttp://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75.gif

[Guest]

Probably the need to buy a new computer to run it.Probably more scenery problems many have suffered with 2002.Probably the need for a new video card.Probably the need for more ram.Sorry.. I know this wasn't much help to your question!!:-eek

[Guest]

There we go again...Seems the pace is picking up, number of threads where people are floating their wishes, 'demands', and rumours is now way up from the once a week it was 2 months ago.It'll come when it comes, which will most likely be this year (if only to reap from the events around the Century of Aviation celebrations).

[Guest]

You are probably right on all points. I for one will not be able to buy a new computer. My wife would not let that happen. :-lol Larry :-wavehttp://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75.gif

[DaveH 14]

Do we even know if M$ is working on FS2K4?

[kerosene31 349]

I for one will not get it unless they do more than just update the graphics engine. They really need to talk to the 3rd party aircraft developers and see what they can do to make the flight dynamics more realistic (or at least easier to tweak). Is there a way we can communicate with the developers and make our voice heard?

[Guest]

They need to fix CFS3 before they start on FS2004. I'm not at all happy (massive understatement) with CFS3 and will not purchase another MS product until they fix it to my satisfaction.

[Guest]

Sure, but do you really think they'll do this? People have been suggesting this since FS98. Have the developers improved their product through the use fo third-party techniques? No. What commercial incentive do they have? I doubt these developers even visit our community sites, contrary to what many would like to believe.In many regards, FS2002 has taken many steps backward, and CFS3, apparently, to a far greater extent. I (speaking for myself) am certainly willing to wait another two years for a product that works as good as it looks.

[LAdamson 240]

> I >doubt these developers even visit our community sites, >contrary to what many would like to believe. If you're talking MS............they do.........really!!>In many regards, FS2002 has taken many steps backward, and >CFS3, apparently, to a far greater extent. I (speaking for >myself) am certainly willing to wait another two years for a >product that works as good as it looks.I'm confused again............Many steps backwards, as compared to what? As a whole, the product (FS2002)gained many steps forward, which ends on a rather positive note! As to CFS3------------yes, I agree, and have not been impressed whatsoever!L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>I for one will not get it unless they do more than just >update the graphics engine. They really need to talk to the >3rd party aircraft developers and see what they can do to >make the flight dynamics more realistic (or at least easier >to tweak). >Now honestly.........................what's better??FLYII..............no........ Rob Young & RealAir has even exceeded FLYII's dynamics with the SF260 and FS2002X-Plane...........no............planes still don't seem to have mass, and left drift isn't near as realistic.IL-2 Sturmovik.............great flight dynamics but the SF260 beats it in the spin & slip department.And the panels from Dreamfleet, Flight1, FSD and others are getting more realistic daily!I have no problem whatsoever in purchasing 3rd party products where the developers have spent additional thousands of hours building aircraft that suit my particular taste. The majority of the flight sim base users, wouldn't appreciate or recongnize these finer points of flight dynamics anyway..As for Microsoft making it easier to tweak.........what's in it for them? At this point, the 3rd parties probably know more about the flight engine "work-arounds" than the MS programmers do..L.Adamson

[Guest]

I could care less about the default A/C because of all the great 3rd party products out there. I don't think MS will ever get them right. Any considerable improvement in graphics will require me to buy a new computer which I am not doing. My 1.4ghz will have to last a while longer! My only wishes are for a better environmental engine (clouds, precip, winds, etc, etc...). ATC improvement would be nice but I use Radar Contact so it would have to be a great improvement. Considering I used FS98 up until FS2k2 hit the shelves, I'll have to really weigh the options in the case there even is a FS2k4!

[Guest]

Hi,My categorized wishes are:1. Program new graphic engine based on DX92. Aircraft behaivior dynamic weight and balance. Allowing user to configure pay loads at each flight plan creation.3. Scenery one step detailed terrain likely 150m glid LOD all over the world. more accurate scaling of 3D objects such as building or trees. they are way too big against 2D bitmap scaling.4. ATC allow returning to departing field, diversion, flight level change enroute. large voice pack contains at least several different English pronunciation depending on place flying like Freich accent, Japanse accent etc.Too much ??Yuki

[Guest]

Yes it is in BETA as we speak but I cant tell you how I know!!!

[Guest]

I agree, with so much great third party software out there, why limit yourselves to MS anyway. In fact, the last thing I want is for MS to buy or obtain license from third party developers. MS should focus on the environment and associated engines and more detailed terrain and scenery graphics. Maybe dynamic and a/i airport scenery and ground ops, although third party vendors probably do that better as well. DP