How about putting it through the wqhl process and quality control it before releasing it.

Two requests for the next version: -1. LNav, VNav and FLCH on the MCP for the 747 and 777.2. A full-functional FMC for the above aircraft.These features have been sadly lacking for the last 3 versions of FS and it's about time Microsoft beefed up the large jets. They have been neglected for too long.Cheers,

I would like to see the same technology used to create moving wave effects applied to the main roads in fs, so that we can have animated flat texture cars/headlights.I would also like to see more region specific autogen, such as differences in houses in Yorkshire, UK to houses in London, UK.I would like to see more custom autogen types, such as harbor autogen, rocky coast autogen, oilrig autogen, windfarm autogen (not sure if these exist already), and other such things.I would also like to see some kind of sprite row autogen effect for long grass and corn fields.I would like to have built in Crew Announcements.I would like to see real water reflections (although I realise this is unlikely anytime soon).Would also like to see interactive firetrucks etc waiting for you if you have a landing problem.OliOSS

Wow... a lot of great ideas have been posted already. The one I would recommend most would be to have the emergency frequency and be able to declare an emergency and have ATC and the Tower respond appropriatley. Nothing kills the realism like having an inflight emergency over a major city and not being able to declare it...lolAnd in that same light, I would like to be able to pre-program malfunctions, such as V1 cuts. Load up the 737 and program it to kill an engine at a speed or altitude of my choice.I would love to see a drag and drop scenery program built in.DaveKSLC (for now)

I think that bringing back the 2 versions would be a mistake - it lead to confusion, and all the online stores sold out of the Proff. edition quickly, because half their stock was the std. edn.Airport wise, I would like to see VHHX restored - maybe as an optional extra. Also, if there are vintage planes, how about some vintage airports with really old scenery.Finally, I think there should be mayday distress calls on the radios if something goes wrong.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36121.jpgAthlon 3000512Mb PC3200 DDR RAM (400MHz)256MB nVIDIA GeForce FX 5600seFS9, running fine :-)

International Airports?Frankfurt (EDDF)This is the 2nd largest Airport in Europe (No. 2 behind Heathrow) and around No. 5 in the world, but it is constantly ignored by MS. One could think either Simflyers or German Airports pay lots of money to MS, not to make EDDF detailed. ;-)WolfgangPS the last sentence was a joke. I owns Simflyers EDDF and I was very satisfied with it in FS2002 (quite low on fps). I have not installed it into FS9 though.

I definitely agree with Frankfurt, No. 2 on the following list.These are the world busiest airports (passengers, 2000 data):Just work down the list and take the ones that are still missing in FS2004:KATL ATLANTAKORD CHICAGOEGLL LONDONRJTT TOKYO Haneda --- no1RJAA TOKYO NaritaKLAX LOS ANGELESKDFW DALLASEDDF FRANKFURT --- no2LFPG PARISEHAM AMSTERDAMKDEN DENVERKPHX PHOENIXKLAS LAS VEGASKIAH HOUSTON --- no3LEMD MADRID --- no4VHHH HONG KONGKMSP MINNEAPOLIS ---no5KDTW DETROIT ---no6VTBD BANGKOK ---no7KSFO SAN FRANCISCOKMIA MIAMIEGKK LONDON Gatwick ---no8WSSS SINGAPORE ---no9KEWR NEWARK ---no10KJFK NEW YORKZBAA BEIJING ---no11KSEA SEATTLEKMCO ORLANDO ---no12CYYZ TORONTO ---no13KSTL ST LOUIS ---no14RKSI SEOUL ---no15KBOS BOSTON ---no16LIRF ROME ---no17LFPO PARIS Orly ---no18KLGA NEW YORK ---no19KPHL PHILADELPHIA ---no20YSSY SYDNEYEDDM MUNICH ---no21KCLT CHARLOTTE ---no22PHNL HONOLULULSZH ZURICH ---no23KCVG CINCINNATI ---no24EBBR BRUSSELS ---no25MMMX MEXICO CITY ---no26LIMC MILAN ---no27RJBB OSAKA ---no28KDCA WASHINGTON ---no29KSLC SALT LAKE CITY ---no30KPIT PITTSBURGH ---no31LEBL BARCELONA ---no32walter

Just would like to see the following airports :Baltimore-Washington Int'l.Newark Int'l.Okecie in Warsaw Poland (a detailed Warsaw as well ?)FrankfurtGatwickMilanBerlinJust a wish list.

Frankly Nathan, I'd be amazed if I could add anything to your excellent list above!!! :)

no disrespect to Boeing, I love Boeing aircraft, but even MS must realize that there's a whole lot of us that drive the buses too - and business IS business after all.So unless there's some deal with Boeing, how about it MS? step up and stop ignoring some of the best most innovative and competitive aircraft on the planet.I suppose one could argue that based on experience thus far, an MS offering would be pretty dumbed down and fly nothing like an Airbus, but hey, maybe not, maybe they'll finally hear us and give us SYSTEMS on at least one or two aircraft.regards,Mark

ATC - pilot request deviations left and right of course for weather to fly around those nice new cells.Adam

Pilots don't need automation when tuning COM frequencies. All this should be done by the pilot as in real life. When ATC clears for a landing the ILS frequency should come up in the text or a option to request the frequency should be available...Last but not least it's about time that FS's flight models were on par with sims like X-Plane and Elite...

>Pilots don't need automation when tuning COM frequencies. >All this should be done by the pilot as in real life.This is allready possible depending on your traffic settings. You can tune in the com freqs manually (was also available in FS2002). But I tell you, this can keep you quite busy in in FS when flying a big airliner, where in real life you have a co pilot to do this.Wolfgang

This is an interesting list. Could you also provide one, based on the traffic movements (number of take offs and landings), which could be slightly different to the above in terms that airports with lots of commuter flights might be ranked ahead of airports, with many passengers, but mainly big iron traffic.Wolfgang

I'm amazed and just a little bit grossed out that so few people here are NOT talking about the flight model. MSFS has made great strides in creating a great enviroment to fly in but we're stuck with the same old clunky flight model and chunky gauge movement that we've had since Christ left Chicago. It's pretty much the same system we've been flying with forever. The way the aircraft move and respond to the controls at low speeds (especially light aircraft) is very unrealistic. I'm sure many of you have noticed how they move in discreet "steps" instead of displaying smooth movement that ramps up and ramps down in response to control inputs as a real object that has weight and inertia does. Some people who understand it's weirdness can do some nice things with the .air .cfg system but for most of use it's just a mess. I would suggest that they take a look at X Plane. It really sucks as a GA flight sim but one thing it does have is a very smooth, realsitic and rational flight model and wonderfully smooth gauges. Performance is dependent on the shape of the aircraft, real air-foil data and rational data inputs rather then the voodoo required in MSFS. For more info see my review over at:http://www.digital-flight.comIf the Microsoft team could bring there FM up to that level of quality then they would really have taken a giant leap forward IMO. They've done scenery, now it time for the flight model!Tony