Sign in to follow this  
Guest Terblanche

Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Century of Flight

Recommended Posts

All I ask from this FS2002 patch is:1. Please (PLEEZE) Microsoft we've asked it when you developed FS98, again with FS2000 and again with FS2002 ... could you enable the switch that will turn on runway and taxi lights in low visibility, regardless of the time of day?2. Fix those horrible clouds! Almost every other sim from Pro Pilot to Fly have better clouds than MSFS ...3. Enable the possibility to delete aircraft from inside MSFSFor the rest, freeware and payware designers are doing what MSFS could not dream to do. In my humble opinion they are the true designers of our flying pleasure!Dreamfleet - http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Caranado - http://66.33.47.235/ecommerce/index.php3Wilco - http://www.wilcopub.comLago - http://www.lagoonline.comPSS - http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk/POSKY - http://www.projectopensky.com/index.phpMeljet - http://www.meljet.com/FSD - http://www.fsd-international.com/Brussels - http://users.pandora.be/robert.buysen.fs20...ages/index.htmlAustria - http://members.kabsi.at/stefans-web/stefan2000/Germany - http://www.aerosoft.comUK - http://www.uk2000scenery.com/puplic/index.htm... and many many more!

Share this post


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

He didn't read anything, thinks it's a patch for FS2002 instead of a new version.He's just whining because his favourite DEMAND!!!!!!! wasn't met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JeroenI've read the line:"Dynamic weather system based on realistic atmospheric physics, with true three-dimensional clouds that form and dissipate, and automatic real-world weather updates when you're connected to the Internet."and if I look at the screenshots it looks like CFS3's clouds. I could be wrong but CFS clouds are NOT three-dimensional. They look 3D until you fly through them . . . I'm not "whining" about a demand but maybe you fly in clear weather all the time and only in day time, but if you ever fly online (SB) with real weather updates the last couple of weeks in Europe, you will find it more than unrealistic to have no runway lights when the visibility drops to 2000 feet and less.'DEMANDS' are for people with a short-man syndrome, underestimating the intelligence of tall men, while trying to through his weight around because he is angry of his own stupidity.The examples in our media are too plenty to ever try and DEMAND anything . . . hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1. Please (PLEEZE) Microsoft we've asked it when you >developed FS98, again with FS2000 and again with FS2002 ... >could you enable the switch that will turn on runway and >taxi lights in low visibility, regardless of the time of >day? >My FS2002 runway and taxi lights are on even during daytime in case of low visibility. Maybe you should adjust your settings.Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see most clouds in nice 3D in FS2002...Sometimes one pops up that's 2D obviously, but when you skim along the cloud tops in FS2002 you're passing in and out of clouds constantly quite nicely.So if they've improved on that in the new version, it should be even betterI have FSW clouds installed which might make the difference in rendering, but it does show that 3D clouds are already supported even if the default FS2002 textures may not show them in all conditions (or with all settings of your graphic options).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that when the vis drops beneath 2mi the lights will switch on, which means you can not see the nose of your aircraft and rwy lights will not help you a bit if you do a CAT III B/C approach ...... at dusk and dawn you have rwy lights for a while and then it switches off leaving everything dark with no visual of any rwy!Hell - now I'm whining!Let me not lament. Let us hope that Microsoft will read this and give us the option to switch rwy lights on with 3 click on the Tx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>All I ask from this FS2002 patch is: >>A patch!!! What country are you from? :-newbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on !!!You know as well as I do that this is an upgrade - go through that list of "WHAT IS NEW" and tell me what is NEW?Same scenery engin -Aircraft that you will find freeware and payware all over the internet -VC with clickable switches (hope it is not the same as the Wilco effort) -ATC have a face lift with request for higher / lower altitute -I seriously doubt if they will meet 10% of the WISH LIST that has been active for the last 6 months.Where I come from we call it a PATCH ... and by the way ... I'm from South Africa and very proud about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some screenies.# 1 shows runway & taxilights a few minutes past noon at low visibility# 2 shows runway lighting a few seconds before it is switched off. I think it is allready enough daylight to see the runway properly# 3 shows the runway a few seconds after the lights were switched off (just to proof again that there is enough daylight)# 4 shows an apporach at very low visibility (1/16 mile or 100 m), where the guidance lights clearly help for an instrument approach.Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patch = as the name implies, a fix to bugs and errors. This is not a patch, but a significant re-working of the title. Ever heard of Quake II? Same idea. And on the subject of wish lists, seems to me MS listened. Most of the complaints about MSFS were about the very limited ATC, the limited weather engine and blurry textures in the distance. Oh, and a lot of people said they don't use VCs becuase they can't use the switches. Most of the other wishes are pipe dreams. Take fully functioning FMCs for example. Why on earth would MSFS dedicate the programming time to something that only a small number of users will ever appreciate. Doesn't make sense. The current market model makes much more sense and we get better products. Those who value that level of detail and realism are willing to pay more for it, and programmers are willing to meet their needs. And the airbus rant. Why no airbuses? Because the MSFS team doensn't have any kind of relationship with the Europeans where they can get dimension and performance data and time in simulators that they do with their neighbors, Boeing. We'll see about the blurry textures. MS wouldn't include them in any kind of feature summary because they have never aknowledged that its a problem. Is it worth $54. To me it is. I'm glad it's not a total re-work. I'm expecting all my add-ons to work out of the box, unlike FS 2002. Best.Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clouds aren't true 3D. I dunno if anybody has done that yet though, I mean real 3D textures. Sounds insane to me anyway, imagine all those clouds as 3D textures and that where the terrain textures already seem to tax our graphic card memory like hell. Sure the GFFX has 256MB, but my GF4 with 128MB seems to struggle already with texture bandwidth. The extra memory should really be used for those terrain textures.Anyway, noone needs 3D clouds for good realism anyway. A reasonable number of imposters will do the job quite nicely. What would really impove the appearance of clouds would be realistic light scattering. Anyway, if I had the choice between realistic light scattered clouds or ATC at uncontrolled airports and dynamic weather, well... I think I made my point in the thread that went out of control. Thank god the features of FS9 will be locked by now, so all these insane suggestions won't make it anymore anyway.Cheers, Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well there buddy. Wait untill we get our hands on the product before you beat it down. This is FS2004 {well what we were calling it} and it's not a "patch". As to the cloud issues, that's why I bought Active Sky. I don't know about most of you guys here but I for one NEVER use the default AIRCRAFT or airports for that matter {well for the ones that have not been done by Simflyers etc.} and look forward to developers producing add-ons for us. It's the platform we want, I can give a hoot for the rest.Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithcrvm@iwon.com" A little learning is a dangerous thing"AMD XP2100 |MUNCHKIN512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ]K7S5A MB |[b]GF364 MEG |WIN XP PRO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is supposed to be FS2004, the flightsim we have to use the next 2.5 years, then I'm really dissapointed. It isn't a new sim, it's just an improved version of fs2002. Just look at the screenshots. It looks like fs2002 with better clouds, but not like a new sim. The whole scenery-engine is the same expect some updates in Auto-Gen. So there won't be dynamic features like ground traffic, cars, boats or even animals. And stop dreaming about better groundtextures.The whole grafic-engine looks the same. So no directx9 features, no exact lightning, no real reflextions of the world on the aircraft, no dirty engine, no exact shadowing for example shadows of the fuselage of a plane on the wing and all other improvements that could been made to come closer to reality.And now a few words to the aircarfts included. Do we need all this aircraft made by MS? As we know from FS2002 the default MS aircrafts do not even depic the general shape of their reallife counterparts. The visuals of the boeings for exemple are absolutely horrible. That's why I don't want MS to design more and more aircraft on every new release. I want them to make a few aircraft that are made "as real as it gets" to say it in the words of MS. Todays free- and payware designers do a much better job in designing aircraft, so there's no need for MS to include such a huge amount of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they had made a completely new scenery and aircraft engine you'd complain about that.The FS default aircraft are DECENT representations meant for the AVERAGE user.Most people that come here fall into the most discerning top 5% of MSFS users, and Microsoft can't cater only to us as it would mean potentially loosing 95% of their userbase.90%+ of all users never install a single addon, for them adding more aircraft will make all the difference.For them the improvements in the scenery are huge. For us they may be less because we've replaced all the default stuff in FS2002 anyway and will most likely do the same in this new version before we ever start it up ('cause the default can't be any good, can it now? It was bad in FS95, FS98 and FS2000 so why should it be good now).Microsoft now HAS listened to us and put in all those features you've been screaming (not even asking, but demanding at the top of your voice) for for almost 2 years:- improved ATC- improved weather engine- probably improved default flight dynamics- no more Std and Pro versionsetc. etc.And now when they HAVE listened you say they shouldn't have but instead have improved the eyecandy? Kinda hypocrytical don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really couldn't agree more!People forget that its not really us that MS sees as their target audience.The vast majority of the ppl who buy MSFS are like father who look for a nice game for their son to play, that has no violence. (of course only an example). They buy the product because they think, hey ,this might be nice, flying is an interesting topic, no violence in it, the pictures on the box look nice. etc.They don't give a **** if the 737 included represents a -300 or -400 version and whether or not they look like their real- world counterparts, they probably don't even know there are different versions. They also don't care about flying by the books. Heck, they probably just want something with 2 wings that is easy to control and gives them a rough idea of what pilots see in the cockpit.This is what I, if I were a MS marketing.......ahmm, guy :-), would target my product for. Of course, you can't totally neglect the say 10% who like getting somewhat more into realism, hence the ATC for example.Hmm, I think im talking somewhat crap today, I got a hangover and slept like 3 hours, so excuse me if what I'm saying makes no sense at all.Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>And now a few words to the aircarfts included. Do we need >all this aircraft made by MS? As we know from FS2002 the >default MS aircrafts do not even depic the general shape of >their reallife counterparts. The visuals of the boeings for >exemple are absolutely horrible. Seeing how I don't really care about commercial airliners as much as GA, the Cessna's & Baron arn't bad ----- looks wise. In fact, with a few added airfiles & the high frame rates with the default VC's, I find these aircraft quite fun to fly around, for a change of pace. FWIW---- I do have nearly all major payware & numerous freeware releases out there.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS has always been evolutionary not revolutionary. But calling this release a "patch"....Gimme a break! Someone has too much time on their hands and an overactive imagination, or just likes to whine. You need some cheese with that whine? :-lol/rant---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize PAI sig banner here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!! :-fume :-grr :-zhelpI'm at my wit's end with all the folks who are complaining about this "patch" that MS is trying to push over on us as a new version. As has been stated, a patch is primarily a bug fix with perhaps a few added features thrown in. An upgrade is the reverse: fixes some bugs but is primarily focused on adding/improving new/old features. Well folks, this is an upgrade. Is it a "NEW" version of MSFS? There hasn't been a "NEW" version in a long time. A "NEW" version means they throw out everything and start over. Just as FS2000 was an upgrade from FS98, FS2002 was an upgrade to FS2000, and so on. They tweak, they change, and they add. As Frank said, it has always been evolutionary, not revolutionary.Our current systems are already choking on the amount of detail presented by the graphics engine. Realize that you cannot use a FPS graphics engine for flight simulators. It is far more complex than UT2k3, Quake3, or any other FPS. Why would they want to provide a new graphics engine when the current one is working well? All it needs is a little tweaking, which I'm sure they have done. Making a whole new graphics engine would probably present many more problems than anyone wants. And of course you all would be complaining about MS's decision to fix what wasn't broken.They answered our primary demands (weather, ATC, signage). To add blowing grass, animals, cars on the road, and every little detail on the ground would be to make this into a ground simulator. Go play the Sims or a racing simulator if that's what you want. This is a flight simulator. They are addressing the areas most important to a pilot.BTW, Randy what the heck is Munchkin RAM. I have a bunch of Mushkin RAM, but I've never heard of Munchkin RAM. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There USED to be a company called Jane's. They built sims that required us to sit for hours with little books and study arcane minutiae about how to lob a JDAM guided bomb through in some fictinal complict. All us fanatics bought these products, studied the books and complained a F-15 in real life could do this or that. The problem is the software business is not driven the fanatics like us but by my grandma. All she wants to do is look at pictures of her grandkids and trade that recipe with my mum. Now theres a company called Microsoft who for years, have built an empire on a simple premise, ignore the trend setters and opinion makers - let them buy Apples, all they do is find my grandma's wallet and get her to buy the next upgrade. WHY it makes it simpler and simpler... Don't rock the boat, don't tell people how much more intelligent your average customer is, just get grandma to buy that upgrade. The moral of this tale is this, go to the store and you'll find all the the study sims like Jane's and Microprose F-16 next to all the other bankrupt franchises, but there on the shelf is CFS1, CFS2 and CFS3. Those folks at microsoft they must know something we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with those of you saying this isn't a patch. Also, I have a question about those griping about ground stuff. When was the last time you were flying and said, oh look at all the animals. Seriously, who says that? Most people love to look at the clouds and stuff like that.Those of us that fly, well instrumentation, real life weather changing, worrying about whether or not we're going to make it there before that damn storm gets there, stuff that's important. Sorry, but stupid complaints about simple things on the ground is pointless. If you want it that bad, learn how to program and come out with your own "patch" for the sim.CMSUpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering if they people who want to have cows roaming over the ground and cars rolling over highways haven't figured out yet how to take off?!? :-lolCheers, Christian

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