MS Flight Improvement Wish List

[bmwagner72 0]

The two things I would really like to see involve the same component, improved ATC. I'd like to have real world DP and STARs included in the flight planner and ATC vectoring. Even more important though is I'd like ATC to actually care if I have 2 engines on fire and need to land ASAP. It would be nice to be able to inform them of an emergency, get clearance to land, and maybe even have the fire trucks roll out to meet you.Granted I have a lot of other things I'd like to see but those are the top 2.While I'm talking one other thing that I think would be great for the simulation is a FTSB report as to why I crashed and recommendations as to what the "pilot error" was.

[Guest wingflex]

I guess I may as well throw in my own wants for this new sim.1. Atmospherics, and lighting. FSX definitely improved greatly in this area, but with new hardware improvements I have no doubt we can get a superior immersive environment in this next release.2. As stated numerous times, performance. I realize that we won't be able to max it out day one, but I'm not into the whole waiting 4+ years after release for this to be finally attained.3. Improved Weather, no spinning clouds, and when it's overcast not be able to see through the cloud deck. Cloud shadows would be phenomenal but won't hold my breath.Now of course this is a wish list and don't expect all this to take place, but no matter what I certainly look forward to whatever is in store for us.

[maxter 0]

At no one in particular :)I’m not sure we really understand what we’re asking for.Why limit the display sliders like this?If right slider draws 10,000 trees and your system can only draw 5,000 trees.You’re saying right slider should max out at 5,000 trees.That’s what you’re saying.Reduce the display capabilities of the program to match your current maximum.Well someday you might actually want 10,000 trees…or 50,000 trees.But you made slider only go to 5,000 :(.....Display sliders are bad because the user thinks if they’re not maxed something is wrong.It's like they are a little game people want to win.MS could fix this in many ways...and it's all about UI design not actual performance....these sliders go to eleven.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeOXsA8sp_E

Best comment in this thread so far. Excellent explanation.Cheers and thanks for that,

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Best comment in this thread so far. Excellent explanation.Cheers and thanks for that,

I don't agree. Without sliders, how does one make their sim run properly on their computer. There are a few things they could do different in the UI for settings, but sliders work the best for terrain, texture quality, autogen, etc.:(

[Greg4 0]

I don't agree. Without sliders, how does one make their sim run properly on their computer. There are a few things they could do different in the UI for settings, but sliders work the best for terrain, texture quality, autogen, etc.:(

He wasn't saying that they should get rid of sliders, he was saying that if Microsoft Flight was able run with full slider on day one, it only meant that the graphics had been limited and would have no room to expand in the future. I would rather have a game with great graphics that had even more potential for greater graphics in 4 years than a game that had great graphics, but it was already at the "maximum" setting.

[Wynthorpe 51]

+1 That is a MUST. The VC is OK for hand flying light aircraft, but I find it almost impossible to operate an airliner this way.

Try using EZDOk EZCA! makes a hell of a difference, and relegates 2d's to the dark ages where they should be.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

In addition to things I already mentioned prior and things others have mentioned, I would like them to bring back the better looking snow effect that FS9 had, rather than the horrible looking snow that FSX has. The FSX snow looks like its comming down as fast as rain and looks like sleet. Also on the subject of that, I would like to see the VC rain drops back even though some devs added them in some of the FSX a/c, it would be nice if it was standard again like it was in FS9.

[jetlag 65]

I'd like to see AI aircraft follow airways, SIDs and STARs

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I'd like to see AI aircraft follow airways, SIDs and STARs

You can already get this in FSX if you use UT2. Except for the part about flying SID's and STAR, the UT2 flight plans have the AI follow a flight plan rather than just direct from point A to point B like .bgl style flight plans do.

[jetlag 65]

You can already get this in FSX if you use UT2. Except for the part about flying SID's and STAR, the UT2 flight plans have the AI follow a flight plan rather than just direct from point A to point B like .bgl style flight plans do.

That's good to know but I'm still on FS9 and don't have UT2. Let's see what FSnext has to offer...

[Samwise 1]

A search on this thread pulls up 8 posts about better ATC. Mines the 9th. Better ATC please!!!Whilst I think Microsoft could give us a flawless and perfect ATC system, it would take atleast 10 years. So my oppinion would be to open up the system, let the radar contact team do something special for it or similar, and then Microsoft can concentrate on giving us better weather with realistic visibility and wind graduations, (lets be honest, it sucks at the moment), a more immersive environment, similar to the kind of detail just announced for X-Plane 10.I also think a "Built from scratch" method would be best. To use the same engine that they have been, whilst trying to improve the FPS friendliness seems like a dead end. I regard myself as having a top end system, but using a PMDG 747, at UK2000's heathrow with medium sliders and 100% AI still only provides me with 20-25fps. I can only presume that another sim based on these previous builds will just follow the same I understand that it would be unlikely that previous add-ons would be compatible, but if you think about it, we were not expecting another sim from Microsoft anyway, so this would be a "fresh start" so to speak. People will still go to the aftermarket developers because we trust them so much to provide additional add-ons to improve or simming experience.Another thought, Aerosoft are still planning their 2013 simulator. Why not team up and give us a super-sim. Maybe even ORBX aswell. Think about what would happen then!! Just my thoughts!

[nbz 4]

My improvement wishes:1) I second all the requests for better ATC2) If "Content is updated virtually" (which I just copy-pasted from the Flight FAQ), then PLEASE do not miss one great opportunity here: add the ability for developers to provide a FREE low-detail, low-res AI external model for online / multiplayer flying.Just imagine: Acclaimed developer XYZ comes out with their new fantastic you-name-it, and before you have noticed, you see your online buddy fly it. No more generic substitutes...-----Regarding the slider debate:Yes, please leave room for the future, meaning no maxing out of all sliders on top-of-the-line hardware on release day. But, EXPLAIN this to the customers, and explain what the saving-profiles function is for, maybe supply some default profiles like "bush flying" or "jet" (which I would use VERY different settings for).The problem of FSX is/was never that it didn't run well maxed out. The problem was that pulling the sliders DOWN did not improve the performance enough to be reasonably fast for a lot of machines.Also, with FSX already, this is not a one-way-or-the-other issue. Yes, Aces could have placed some of the maximum slider positions further down to make FSX "faster", but they still didn't max out what the engine actually can do with the maximums they chose. With a lot of settings you can still go way higher than Aces' slider maximums by messing around in the fsx.cfg and/or your saved profiles.For instance, it is perfectly possible to extend the cloud draw distance such as to span ALL the way to the horizon in all directions, while cruising at 38000'. I see it everytime I fly a jet ;-)

[Fsau 0]

I agree with all of the wishes so far. Performance wise FSX runs fairly decently now, better late than never. Yet even with decent frame rates the fact there is no motion blur when panning makes it appear jerky at times, an implimention of some sort of subtle motion blur (when paning) would smooth out the lower end of the frame rates. Some type of depth of field effect in spot view would also look great in my opinion, just out towards the horizon, of course these effects would have to be implemented in a subtle way.I really hope they are developing it for DX11, the improvement of performance and visual candy in the DX11 games I have played so far is fantastic. This would also push people to upgrade to windows 7 working in MS favor.Weather is another major area for improvement, like some have already said volumetric clouds would be simply amazing! but I'm not holding my breath on that one. One thing that has always annoyed me with FSX is the transition in to bad weather being as if someone just throws on a switch and you go from 100 miles visibility to 10. I would love to be descending from FL200 seeing a storm front up ahead in its full glory, and as I drop below the clouds be enveloped by clouds and have the windscreen being beaten by torrential rain. I really hope they can create some convincing weather this time round.Real shadows and lighting effects, not just textures are a must. Having clouds that block sun light would be great, being dark and stormy below the cloud bank and sunny above. Clouds and mountains casting true shadows on the landscape. Buildings, trees, and other objects that cast true dynamic shadows as well as VC shadows.Real reflective textures, such as windscreens, windows, metallic metals, and wet surfaces reflecting the environment around them like the 2x water shaders already do.Some type of bloom system that doesn't destroy frame rates, I use enbseries with FSX and it greatly improves the visual realism, again though it would need to be subtle.An in built camera system similar to EZCA for FSX, with smooth panning and dynamic head movement. Scenery that fades into view not pop.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

One thing that has always annoyed me with FSX is the transition in to bad weather being as if someone just throws on a switch and you go from 100 miles visibility to 10. I would love to be descending from FL200 seeing a storm front up ahead in its full glory, and as I drop below the clouds be enveloped by clouds and have the windscreen being beaten by torrential rain. I really hope they can create some convincing weather this time round.

I agree with that 100%.As much as I love FSX now and FS9 in the past, the transition into or out of bad weather has always really bugged me. It feels like running into a wall all of the sudden when you have 10SM visibility and it drops to 1 mile in a second, or when climbing out of a storm and suddenly it's clear below you and you can see the ground.Even if the terrain textures and resolution don't get any better than what is available now I will be happy if they can just improve the weather and visibility rendering, along with volumetric clouds that actually envelope the plane. As it stands now I think that is one of the weakest points of FSX/FS9.

[johnw2010 0]

For me, its the fundamentals of realism that matter, the weakest part of this in current verions that needs the largets overhaul is by far the ai system.Thing with the ai is....its reasonable, but by no means great. In todays world of computing there is no real reason why the following could not be done.1. Improved intelligence on runway exit speeds and use of taxiways for this.2. Improved intelligence on 'line up and wait' operations on single use runways.3. Have planes fly in airways once at cruising altitude, harder and may require more computing time in to a database on loadup, but once running is unlikely to be any more difficult to control than the original method (point to point).4. Have an updatable list of navaids etc.5. I really think there should be the option to put in SIDS and STARS, holding patterns and final approach procedures in to the sim for each airport. Now the real crux of this should then for the sim to recognise, or allow you to set which airport 'professional procedures' should be followed for by the ai. That way, the computing and processing power can be just directed to the selected airports. E.g6. On loading, restrict the time it pre-loads planes meant to have departed to within 5 minutes. 7. Have ai properly seperate using speed variations.Say you have a full ai sim. In the new version id imagine you could have the professional procedures and holds etc built in for egkk, egll, egss etc etc (All london airports even). However, as your flying in to or out of heathrow (or even spotting at one airport) you tell the sim to use real-world professional procedures at say, egll but tell the sim to use 'standard ai rules (much like the ones in fs2004) for all the other airports....your not there to see the mess ups caused by the ai system at those airports. Again, this would be something you have to probably set before your flight sim loads the flight.I really dont think that is too much to ask and would add a considerable amount of realism...but not total sim-wide realism, this could occur on the hardest settings etc, but is something that from a programming point of view would not be horrendously difficult (imo), particularly if a built in add on program can be included which allows users to input specific airport data. Many have also said improved weather and clouds...agree with this.Thats my few cents worth and I hope if anyone does read this from MS flight, they can take note.