Maybe I should have made it more clear. The tranistion altitude can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft, but around Heathrow, which has the most air traffic in the UK it is 6,000 ft. European authorities are thinking about standardizing it anyway... And yes transition level is given in ft, but I am not transmitting to an ATC or filing a flight plan right now, its just a shorter way to write it online. Anyway, I guess it is incorrect because saying FL060 is stating the transition level and not transition altitude

Did you not read my post? The UK Transition Altitude is (not can be AS LOW as) 3000 ft unless otherwise notified.Is 6,000 ft (FL060) a shorter way of writing 6,000ft?6,000 ft is not the same as FL060. Also the Transition level is the lowest flight level available for use above the transition altitude. It varies between FL055 (QNH 1050-1032 mb) and FL080 QNH (949 - 943 mb).

Did you not read my post? The UK Transition Altitude is (not can be AS LOW as) 3000 ft unless otherwise notified.Is 6,000 ft (FL060) a shorter way of writing 6,000ft?6,000 ft is not the same as FL060. Also the Transition level is the lowest flight level available for use above the transition altitude. It varies between FL055 (QNH 1050-1032 mb) and FL080 QNH (949 - 943 mb).

I know what transition level and altitude is............ Uh, yes it is a shorter way off writing the altitude as long as your NOT flying in real life or transmitting to an ATC. Yes it does mean Flight Level which means at a standard pressure, but who really cares if you are typing it on a forum... Also if you look at Airbus and McDonnell Douglas FMCs, there cruising altitude is entered in as FL*** despite that you may not be above the transition altitude. Doesn't mean its designed incorrectly.... And yes, transition level can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft but like you said its different for different areas. I said the transition altitude can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft which means depending on the area it can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft, because some have higher transition altitudes.

I know what transition level and altitude is............ Uh, yes it is a shorter way off writing the altitude as long as your NOT flying in real life or transmitting to an ATC. Yes it does mean Flight Level which means at a standard pressure, but who really cares if you are typing it on a forum... Also if you look at Airbus and McDonnell Douglas FMCs, there cruising altitude is entered in as FL*** despite that you may not be above the transition altitude. Doesn't mean its designed incorrectly.... And yes, transition level can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft but like you said its different for different areas. I said the transition altitude can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft which means depending on the area it can be AS LOW as 3,000 ft, because some have higher transition altitudes.

I thought this thread was about improving the reality and accuracy of a future version of FS.If we're not going to bother with the very real distiction between altitude and Flight Level, I suggest the Kollsman knob on altimeters is omitted from future versions to avoid confusion.

Fix flying @ FL180. When I file FL180 and climb to it, the ATC tells me to change my altimeter. I think it should be at 29.92...

Your altimeter should not be set to standard until you are climbing through the transition altitude. If you are still below that altitude, you should still be at the local altimeter setting and ATC should be giving you the local setting as you check in to a new frequency. On descent, you should keep the altimeter at standard until descending through the transition level. ATC should give you the local altimeter setting when they assign you an altitude below the transition level.

As you probably know, a new company that has started from employees at ACES, called Cascade Game Foundries could possibly develop a new flight simulation game, and also Aerosoft may develop a flight simulation game as well. I just want to post some more suggestions/problems in FSX. ACES also announced earlier this year that they are developing a flight simulation games, although they have been very quiet for a long time. They may possibly be working still.*Pilot Records does not show total hours for multi-engine aircraft. Would be nice to have a logbook that shows total hours for each aircraft you fly.*Shared Cockpit function works with all aircraft.*More business/private jets.*Ambient Occlusion, parallax mapping, or tessellation.

Just when we thought this thread was dead....

Just when we thought this thread was dead....

Seriously mgh? This will make it easy for developers to see what people want in their flight sims. Your sarcasm is not flattering at all nor is it humorous.

Just when we thought this thread was dead....I laughed when I read it.JimCYWG

Your sarcasm is not flattering at all nor is it humorous.You're right there. But boy was it ever timely...

I guess I interpreted it in a different way. It is kind of funny now when I read it... :(

Seriously mgh? This will make it easy for developers to see what people want in their flight sims. Your sarcasm is not flattering at all nor is it humorous.

* Lets have birds and allow bird dung to get on the window

.... :(No need to search for past posts to attack me.I think that what would be a great feature, you probably don't get what I'm saying. There is no dirt, scratch, pollen, etc on the windshield of the default fsx aircraft and it could increase realism if you have things that obscure your vision or at least make flight simulator a little more visual appealing.

.... :( No need to search for past posts to attack me.I think that what would be a great feature, you probably don't get what I'm saying. There is no dirt, scratch, pollen, etc on the windshield of the default fsx aircraft and it could increase realism if you have things that obscure your vision or at least make flight simulator a little more visual appealing.

I'm not attacking anyone - just pointing out how unrealistic this thread has become. Any serious developer who reads it is just going to smile and then ignore it.Developers work ro a budget - they don't have unlimited funds. A key question for them is how much extra revenue would including a particular feature bring and is that worthwhile in relation to the cost of implementing it? Put in those terms, I suggest allowing dung on the windscreens is a non-starter. No one is going to say I'm not going to buy it because it doesn't have dung on the windsceeen. They might well not buy it based, say, on the way ATC is implemented but not dung! How would your idea be implemented? I imagine there would be complaints if the dung didn't appear in a realistic fashion, or if the aircraft wasn't fitted with wipers to clean it off realistically. Would developing that really be a sensible use of developers' limited time and money?