MS Flight Improvement Wish List

[Tierborn 188]

Mine are all weather related.1. Volumetric clouds rather than spinning bmp's2. Clouds that reflect light from a bright city below3. No more popping from clear visibilty to instant IFR, or the other way around4. No more crazy wind shifts4. Dynamic weather that you can actually see evolve. Would be nice to be able to watch a storm come together on a humid summer day.

my take .. you need a storm simulator 

[kerosene31 349]

I have a lot of things I want in a sim, but my #1 want in a flight simulator which has been lacking is dangerous weather. In previous versions we've had add-ons which do a great job of rendering the look of weather, but never the danger. You could put your Cessna 172 on autopilot and walk away and fly through a severe t-storm and never have a problem in the sim. Read any book on real world piloting, and one of the first things discussed is the weather. -Visibility, wind shear, downdrafts, icing, turbulence, etc.

[duckbilled 310]

Big three for me:1. Weather improvements including volumetric clouds and better lighting. If there is a thunderstorm, I want it to be dark outside - not sure if cloud shadows will achieve this. We will see when REX introduces them for FSX.2. Better ATC and flight planning, SIDS, STARS... Right now, you can't mesh default ATC and accurate flight planning. You have to use one or the other. 3. Better performance on available hardware, SLI...Edit:I would also love to see a simulated world that is connected to the date chosen for the flight. I have always wanted to create a retro FS world. I could do it if I reinstalled FS9 but my favorite retro add on aircraft are FSX only.

[Avantime 81]

My biggest wish for MSF would be the 'modability' e.g. improved SDKs and more open architecture for addon developers to work with. Right now I fly addon planes to addon airports using addon flightplan makers and addon weather generators and addon environmental textures.I couldn't care less if MS dumbed the the default planes but at least allow addon developers to develop stuff which I really want e.g. PMDG level of complexity.

[revporl 19]

Better weather and ATC as default.Greater scalability in performance (as opposed to FSX)

[crash_continental 0]

1) Performance, performance, performance... Never make the mistake again that they made with FSX and its terrible FPS. That effectively polarized the flightsim community (into FS 9 and FSX camps), splitting the potential customer base for add-on developers (who really and truly make a simulator all it can be). And make it run smoothly, from day one, with current hardware. No excuses this time.2) Open up the ATC architecture to 3rd part developers, so they can take it to a new level (including SIDS/STARS, etc.)3) Work closely with esteemed 3rd party developers (PMDG, FlyTampa, HiFi Sim, etc., etc., etc.) to give them the tools and open-endedness they need to bring the quality add-ons that make pastime of simming truly enjoyable.All MS has to do is create an efficient, reliable and malleable sim... the community will do the rest.- daniel

[G-YMML1 582]

I pretty much remember the topic like this when FSX was announced. What we got at the end was one big joke and disappointment.

[Qatsimo 7]

Like mentioned before: Performance x10, new ATC system, new weather system (realistic).And a virtual Co-pilot, in form of a pritty lady or just a common FO guy. But one that's really working during TO and from Approach to parking. Like, before the flight starts you have to make up who is Pilot in Control. If the Captain is the G key will work like a command and the FO will grab the gear handle and pull it up. When the FO is in control she will call 'Gear up' and the captain will respond, either with the left mouse button or the G key. But, FO control would mean that planes need a sort of invisible Auto Taxi-out, TO, Landing and Taxi-in function. Ok, so the whole procedure thing with the verbal parts audible and the FO model fully animated and such, just like in real life. From gear, throttle and flaps setting etc. upto the checklists. At cruise altitude the FO will walk into the cabin, so we don't have to watch a silly non moving dummy during the flight. The whole thing can be switched off also of course (for fps reasons, online flying, eye candy haters).Gerrit

[fsx 0]

Better performance and scalability of realism (in all aspects of the sim) is all they need to provide. I don't care if the basic sim sim looks like a barren, dust-ridden wasteland like the default FSX did - or whether is looks like the pre-rendered teaser video. What I do care about is the ability to be able to transform it to the latter state - because, somebody will do just that. I don't care about what default aircraft they include - somebody will make even better ones. I don't care if you can shoot things, blow things up - or not - or whether you can score points - or not. I just want the option to turn that all off. I don't care of the the clouds look like flat packed cotten candy. REX is waiting in the wings. Seriously, who of us actually use the sim in its default state anyway? I would just like the tools to be made available for developers to be able to transform the sim and be able to up the realism again as they did with FSX - minus the technical limitations in the current version. In fact, I wouldn't want the new developemnt team to spend any more resource than they actually have to creating fluffy, peripheral nonsense. I would rather have them invest time to create and deliver a premium, scalable (from kids to grown-ups) type platform. Everyone will be happy - from the bonehead who only really intereted in the thrill of crashing and shooting things when bored - to us, the guaranteed audience, including the vast 3rd party software industry MS have created over the last 20 odd years. Let's see how seriously they take their corporate responsibilility in sustaining the vast industry they have created. The fact that they have already engaged some of the top developers, gives me hope. And hope , right now is all we have. When's the next ORBX NA pack due?? :-)Eric

[greggerm 312]

Question to everyone requesting performance (aka: FPS, smoothness, playability):Are you proposing that Microsoft design this simulation to run at "full" sliders on a modern computer at the day of it's release? Have you given any thought to what will happen 2-4 years down the road from that day, when hardware has made another generational leap forward and this new simulation sits unchanged, with no additional detail modes to turn on and take advantage of the new power? Most sims, including FSX, ran just fine on the day of its release if you adjusted the detail settings to something appropriate for your computer. Nearly all simulations released since the late-1980's have had some sort of performance slider system... this enables the developer to market software that works TODAY, and allows that software to grow to a more rich experience TOMORROW. Although FSX is not a good poster child for this considering Microsoft's miscalculation over single vs. multicore processing, each simulator including FSX, was completely enjoyable and playable on the day of it's release. (I've been running FSX nearly exclusively since it's release)Let's say you have a credit card with a $10,000 limit, but you can really only afford to carry about $2500 in debt right now. Do you get angry at the fact that you cannot use the full $10,000 credit limit issued to you? Do you feel that it's lost potential for enjoyment? Or, do you understand the trouble you'd be in if you maxed it out without being able to afford it? Apply this same attitude towards your flight simulation experiences, and you can quite quickly get over any angst about sliders. Your computer can only handle so much, and it is awesome that game designers (*Microsoft and others) have given you the ability to ramp this up for when you can.Throughout all this speculation and hoping and dreaming, just keep your expectations realistic! Sliders are not a sign that software was poorly engineered... it is a sign that it was CORRECTLY engineered and is customizable to your computer. Far too many people consider having to use lower sliders as something preventing them from enjoying the simulator's full experience. It was like this for FS4, FS5, FS5.1, FS95, FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, and FSX.... ...Flight Unlimited I, II, III.... Fly!, Fly!II, Flight Light, ATP, Pro Pilot.... each of which CHALLENGED the top-of-the-line computer systems of their day to run them at full blast, but hardly any could. In time, hardware grew to fully support the simulation's abilities. I hope this trend continues. Microsoft sure did miscalculate on the hardware changes which would take place over the life of FSX, and that's led to a longer, more drawn out growth period as compared to the other sims. But, the logic is still about the same. Let's allow them to get back on track with it, and I think we'll all be in a better place!

[paulbakeman 1]

...among other things, a SEARCHABLE flight planner, wher you can input a waypoint in a search box and get a result that can be plugged into the flight plan. Ahhh, such simple pleasures...Paul

[fsx 0]

Are you proposing that Microsoft design this simulation to run at "full" sliders on a modern computer at the day of it's release

No. But you have to acknowledge that FSX was a performance cock-up of note - period. The blanket poor performance experienced by almost everyone should never have been. FSX shot out of the blocks half-cocked and unfinished and took much effort over the period of many months and YEARS for some brilliant people like ******* Altuve to improve performance rather considerably....merely by adjusting and tweaking the .cfg file. It was a completley dishonest marketing campaign. And I think the backlash was really caused by a brilliant job of hyping up an (initial) under-performing product. I think people were just hacked-off after months of building expectations - which included close engagement with the Aces team. I think what people are saying is that they don't want to have to wait for months - if not years before FSNext provides a basic enjoyable performance experience which may be averted by applying due care in the first place.

[kerosene31 349]

I think significantly better performance is a given. The old FS engine really showed its age.

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

Are you proposing that Microsoft design this simulation to run at "full" sliders on a modern computer at the day of it's release?

Yes, of course!It's well known that third-party designers of scenery, weather, aircraft, etc., have to temper the "realism" in their products to manage frame rates. The whole point of sliders in fltsim isn't to say one day there will be hardware that will let you max out the sim; it's to allow everyone on the day of release to enjoy the sim to the best of their current hardware's capabilities. People with top of the line systems are going to be disappointed if they cannot enjoy everything the default sim has to offer.The entire progression of designing the default flight sim beyond the capabilities of current hardware reached a ludicrous point with the release of FSX. If the franchise had released another version within a few years, as had been done with prior versions, users would have had the choice of a new sim before the old sim could be maxed out. There is something very wrong with that philosophy, and makes no sense with an open system that can be modified with add-ons. If Microsoft had released a sim that was closed and the user had to experience everything out of the box, then I can see why Microsoft would need to design for future hardware, but that isn't the case.Third-party designers can easily add more to their products to bring a system to its knees. Many posts in this thread are pleading for the ability of third-party designers to have the freedom to do what they want with the new sim. So let the designers manage what the hardware is capable of and have the default sim work really well at its release.Should there be a case where a user decides to stay with the prior version, don't worry about sliders being maxed. The default FS9 has long since been running with max settings with the latest hardware and yet users manage to pile on complex third-party add-ons to keep their systems churning.

[fsx 0]

Third-party designers can easily add more to their products to bring a system to its knees. Many posts in this thread are pleading for the ability of third-party designers to have the freedom to do what they want with the new sim. So let the designers manage what the hardware is capable of and have the default sim work really well at its release

Here here!! :(