I would like to see proof of this. Microsoft has always made fS since 1988 or perhaps earlier, That would be disappointing if that is true, but I do find this very hard to believe. At any rate my list of fs2006 fixes or improvements.1. Make the AP trim problem easier to use so you don't rocket up or decend like a madman in a jet. Go back to the way fs2002 had it.2. Continue to improve ground texture and mesh. I am not sure what meter mesh Microsoft uses but most freeware is between 10 and 30 meter mesh.3. Make different subdirectories for clouds. For instance when you customise your weather you see cirrus, cumulus, stratus and Thunderstorm. There should be cirro-cumulus, stratus Alto-cumulus, stratus and Cumulus and stratus, and Cumluminbus or Thunderstorms. Also make the clouds in proportion to size and height. The cumulus clouds look about the same size at 10,000ft as 15,000ft.4. When there is overcast skies please do not have the sun shinning on the plane or other objects on the ground. Make the ground darker where the clouds are and lighter where there is sun. In other words have ground shadows with clouds.5. Visibility. There should be two options for this. One blue haze when it generally sunny but hazy at 5mi, 10mi or 20mi.Grey or white haze when it is mostly to overcast skies with 2,5,10 miles.6. Don't go to XBOX. Keep fs as a computer program. It makes it very interactive meaning you can download off the internet your planes, panels, scenery, etc etc.If anyone would like to add to my list or new ideas just post. I would like to hear them.Thank You,

Hi, "Microsoft has always made fS since 1988 or perhaps earlier,"When is the next version of Flight Simulator going to be released? What are the new features?If you've read the article Making Flight Simulator, you know that the Flight Simulator team is always working on a new version. We've published Flight Simulator for some 20 years, and we plan to keep building new releases far into the future. Flight Simulator has become a very complex product, and it takes a long time to create a new version. During the development phase, we don't talk about our plans, because plans change. Although we work from detailed specifications and schedules, as we create the product we often add, modify, or remove features. To avoid confusion, we keep quiet about the details of new features and release dates until the product stabilizes late in the development process. We don't want to promise what we won't eventually deliver. When we do have news about new versions, you'll find it first on the Flight Simulator Web site, where it is posted for the entire community to read. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...02_readback.aspWhen you will see the end of Msfs which the percentage is extremly low, you will know from the popular fs web site or their site Msfs, for now keep sending your wish to be implemented on all future version. "Make different subdirectories for clouds. For instance when you customise your weather you see cirrus, cumulus, stratus and Thunderstorm. Because these are the cloud familly type."There should be cirro-cumulus, stratus Alto-cumulus, stratus and Cumulus and stratus, and Cumluminbus or Thunderstorms. Also make the clouds in proportion to size and height."Because clouds type in real world appears from specific height and altitude, there is clouds will never appears on altitude and range from height. Having a subdirectories this will means, you will put clouds type on all altitude at any height which is not on the weather rules information. Example: you can't have altocumulus on low altitude, some clouds type appears only with rain and snow like nimbostratus etc. The only way will be to block altitude from the clouds type, but see the chart below, it will be a long list with too many blocking altitude depending on the clouds type, too much confusing in this way. It could be possible but they will have to change completly the visual weather interface to make this easy to users without having problems to set these clouds.Here are the Clouds type in fs2004 that's should appears on height and altitude and these are all implemented in Fs2004. Each time you run fs2004 you will see different variation clouds model on the same categories see variation on each clouds type. There is the cirrus which is not included on the chart below.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/65669.jpgThe cumulus clouds look about the same size at 10,000ft as 15,000ft."depending what's cumulus type you put your layer on altitude and the height of the clouds.Using previous technique is impossible to covers all clouds type, fs2000/fs2002 was a streching rendering mode on the height of the clouds, when you put the layer high, you will see the clouds totally unrealistic streched from vertical etc. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Add to that last one:ARNZ's 737's/A32x's/767's are very framerate-friendly, too. They feature inbuilt service vehicles (animated) but are in general somewhat less detailed then the AIA's, which are beautiful. The newer Project-ai and FSPAINTER models also feature LOD's.The main FPS problem on most systems are:-the sheer number of different AI aircraft-the OVERALL number of AI aircraft/flights that have to be computed-lots of nonoptimized complex addon sceneryTM

The problem with that is that there is no automated way to do that. I use the freeware PAI planes and plans and there is no way I'm going to manually change all the planes over to aardvarks. That would take forever. I just wished that PAI would use the aardvark models or design theirs in a like manner. Until then I just reduce the Traffic percentage until I'm able to run with an acceptable framerate. But like I said before, this has nothing to do with MS. Its a 3rd party addon that is causing the framerate drops.

VATSIM, great system, big problem is lack of coverage. FS ATC and RAdar Contact is all airports 24/7.Take care!BArry

>VATSIM, great system, big problem is lack of coverage. FS>ATC and RAdar Contact is all airports 24/7.>>Take care!>>BArry>How is lack of coverage a 'big' problem ?Just fly where the controllers are that's all.Every corner of the world isn't covered sure, but one Center Controller in Vatsim covers a lot of territory.Plus there are other advantages of to online flying that computer generated ATC just cannot match.Both have their place in Flight Simulation, so you have to make your choice which is better.But this view of lack of total and complete coverage does not make these software programs better than the realism of communicating with a real live person IMO.Regards.Ernie.

While I bet MS will develop a version of FS for the Xbox, I think they would be very (very) remiss if they didnt develop primarily for PC. The PC is extensible. How would you get your addons onto an Xbox? Though interestingly an XBox version might be just ideal for those of us who dreamed of a cockpit but cant afford the multiple PC's and monitors etc. With Xbox you could probably do it on Televisions monitors, which are cheap and in multiple sizes.Eric

Chris, your 2D clouds for FS2002 were stunning. Still much better looking than anything (including your work) for FS2004. Im still a fan of 2D clouds because of how great they look.Eric

I think,1) Hyper Thread will allow for this.2) MS needs to overhaul the entire ATC engine like what they did with the weather in FS9.3) No comment.The ATC is the part that islacking the most and has the most room for improvement. I would love to be able to fly online (VATSIM) again but cant see do so since it would feel like a step backwards. My best trade off would be to have a new better ATC engine that can work in MP. That way you can get a server and host an unlimited amount of pilots and have all controllers on 24/7 at every airport. Even better would be to have FS reconize voice commands so that simmers could talk to ATC which added with MP and ATC would be the best interactive flying could be to me. Anyway below is all my thoughts for improvements. I have sent these to MS but feelfre to sumbit any of them you like as well to them.Fix the default.xml bug.Fix the Seasonal CTD bug. Performance improvement suggestions: 1) Allow Hyper Thread technology to be used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AI improvement suggestions: 1) AI aircraft can fly non-direct routes and use STARs and DP

>Where can we read more?!There's a general article in wired magazine about how release dates for games are being missed with greater frequency. (unfortunately www.wired.com is a little sluggish as I type this so I can't get the precise link). The problem is that games are becoming ever more complex. This means that development costs inevitably rise and when you add shareholders into the equation, funds can disappear quickly if the stock market loses condifence in the game companies ability to deliver to its audience. Games like Half Life 2, LOMAC, Halo 2 have all seen slips in their release dates. There's a long standing vapourware award by wired magazine for the sequal to Duke Nukem. If fs2006 is another iterative step in the series of flight simulator, chances are it will be on time but may gain a reputation of being a "patch". On the other hand if fs2006 is a revolution in flight sim design, it will most likely either be very buggy or rather late.In the end it's likely to be buggy rather than late - it all depends on the cost and time budgets allocated to the development team.Anthony

Well I like to fly around KIND, and its almost never covered (haven't checked availablilty of controllers in awhile). What about trying to fly when there are gaps in the ATC. Also depends on level of controllers experience. But practice helps..Coverage is important. Radar Contact and FS ATC 24 /7 all areas.Again great idea, just hard to implement because of the coverage issue.Barry

(1) I'd say Microsoft need to spend time optimising their product for 64bit computing architecture rather than worry about optimisation for current 32 bit platforms.Regarding (3) I personally think it will happen (not that I want it to happen). If you think about it, they can design, test and optimise fs2006 against one hardware configuration rather than the multitude of different setups that PC development currently demands. They can also use it to tout the xbox 2 to the likes of us (2 birds with one stone). That makes the job for the development team a lot easier. That said I think xbox-2 would be considered as a "market expansion" opportunity rather than a "market migration" opportunity. They'll still develop fs2006 for PC's.Regarding general scenery improvements. I'd like to see:Traffic on the roads- headlights and taillights- left and right hand driving- traffic density dependant on : size of road : time of day : distance from town/cities : size of towns/citiesFloodlit and dark roadsHigher definition textures (like LOMAC)Better Lighting effects (as opposed to the landing light whitewash we currently see)Clouds causing shadows and shafts of lightVisibility bug fixedHaze should be seen from above the haze layerHigh definition mesh for the whole world (with SRTM data, there are no excuses now)More accurate landclass, coast, road and railway placement.One more (slightly controvertial) suggestion. Addon file compatability for current and past flight sims should not be a design contraint. Designers should be creative and start with a clean slate.I'll leave it at that, others can chip in.Anthony

Hi,Wow Nathan, you got a lot of good stuff in your post. I have thought of making up a list myself but haven't taken the time and I'm not sure if I will. But anyway...My very short list of stuff I would like to see fixed.1) Severe/abrupt changes in winds aloft when using Real World Weather. :-mad2) Fix the default.xml autogen bug. :-erks3) Fix mountains that dance at far distances.4) Fix the missing and messy looking bridges that are apparent in some places.... especially where they were just fine in the previous version(FS2002).5) Fix shimmering scenery. A little shimmering at long distance might even be realistic. But I get a good bit of shimmering unless the scenery I'm viewing is fairly close. --> I suppose this is not an MS issue but a video card driver issue. Can somone advise on which it is?My short list of additions.1) Nathan's suggestion of providing separation via spacing and thru the use of speed restrictions or increases, along with having AI move thier rear end faster when still on the runway instead of at taxi speed. Have the AI slow down and move at taxi speed only when approaching turn off of the runway and onto the taxiway.2) The Career Mode Nathan suggested sounds great but we also need Jon Masterson's Flight Creator. I hope he is still working on it and is able to complete it. It gives you flights with random destinations with goals to achieve(sort of).a) It would be fabulous if you could be rated on your flights, get promotions and demotions. Make money based on your ranking. In other words, you don't make a very good salary if you mess up and are thereby relagated to flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poop out of Hong Kong for an obscure company. Then you have to work your way back up to a good ranking in order to get back to being a 777 Airliner pilot for that elite airline company.I could write more but that's it for me at the moment.Cheers,Jim

I'd like to see more accurate vectoring when on approach to an airport, especially when wx is VFR. (I'm not talking about VFR aircraft). In VFR wx, for inbound IFR aircraft, ATC takes you too far from the airport than what occurs in reality. In the real world when the airport is "socked-in", aircraft are give longer vectors when preparing for the approach towards the Airport. But when the wx is good, aircraft are vectored much closer to the airport to expedite traffic flow. In FS9, there is no distinction made, in this area.Bob

>Hi,>you mess up and are thereby relagated to flying a cargo planeI just wanted to say I misspelled! relagated should be relegated.No big deal but somehow I felt compelled to point that out.:-dohJim