Concerning scenery in the various successive MSFS-versions, we have gone a long way since SubLogic's FS 2.We have experienced an enormous amelioration in scenery-sights, which are, IMHO, as inportant as the flying itself when up there under VFR and having a clear groundsight.With nowadays CPU's, ranging up to 3.5 Ghz, an intern memory of 512 MB and an optimal videocard like the MSI NVIDIA FX 5700 VT DR 256, we may expect at least an enhancement of the present worldscenery available in FS 2004.Below a short list of famous world-scenery objects, which are still missing in FS 2004:Stonehenge in England - The island Mont Saint Michel in France - Monte Cassino with its monastery in Italy - The Borobudur on the island Java in Indonesia - The radiotelescope of Arecibo in Puerto Rico - The mysterious lines of Nazca in Peru - The volcano-island Mont Serrat in the Carebean Sea (the volcano being notorious for its pyroclastic eruptions!) - Aircraft carriers in US Navy-harbours, or patrolling the Oceans - The man-made dam in Holland, separating the North Sea from the former Southern Sea and turning this into a lake (IJsselmeer).Many other members of this forum have their own specific priorities for scenery updating, as can be noticed when clicking through the various topics.We know that members of the MSFS-Design Team now and then lurk in the background of this specific forum; so we have to wait and see with what novelties the FS 2006-scenery will surprise us!Like the Frenchman says: "Tenez courage!!"Paddy.

a few things i'd like to see in the next version:1. improved gaming engine to provide a sensation of speed, esp on approach. Currently it looks good at altitude but approaches are so slow it feels like you could get out and walk faster. we dont get that "ground rushing up at you" feeling on finals, which detracts from the realism considerably IMHO.2. Active Camera is a must have - maybe make it standard.3. As flight models become more sophisticated, novice pilots will need better training. How about a multiplayer option that allows two people to "share" the cockpit of one aircraft? I'd like to be able to sit in one seat and allow another player to fly, or critique my flying. That way experienced users can train novices in real time.LonelyplanetXO

RE:What would we want to see fixed in FS2K6i would love to have more force feedback/greater tension forces when flying aeroplanes., i believe this facility was reduced in order to implement more realistic wind shear effects etc, presumably to the satisfaction of a majority of users. However, i personally would happily pay extra money for the next simulator if this particular tweak could be made optional to the user, if this is possible...dsflyer

To add something I brought up in another thread:I think MS needs to make the FS engine use real lighting. The way things like landing lights and the lights at the airport are done is not at all realistic and they aren't even doing true lighting in the sense that other game engines such as Far Cry do. The current system works by having different textures displayed for night vs. day. Why is this even necessary? If the engine could actually do true light sourcing (and believe me this is more than possible with current DX 9 pixel shader capable video cards), then there would be no need for them. The landing lights on the plane don't actually light anything up, they project some bizzare transparent texture that mostly serves to just wash out the view. They don't light up buildings, other planes etc - those just remain silhouettes... I really think true lighting simulation would add a lot to the feel of the sim...

>>1. improved gaming engine to provide a sensation of speed, esp>on approach. Currently it looks good at altitude but>approaches are so slow it feels like you could get out and>walk faster. we dont get that "ground rushing up at you">feeling on finals, which detracts from the realism>considerably IMHO.>Change your zoom settings & get any sensation of speed you prefer. It has worked well for me, as is.L.Adamson

There seems to be an emphasis on serious aviation and all of its procedures in this thread. As a more casual user--or potential user--what I want more than anything is a realistic virtual world in a flight sim. I hope Microsoft will take a world class approach to its graphics in the future, possibly bringing in some outside experts to consult on the final textures and coloring and so forth.In FS02 I felt that sunsets looked like they belonged on the planet Mars. In FS04 there was considerable improvement, but still sunsets and sky coloring at times are garish and overdone. It seems to me that it should be possible to get those elements right, but one has to have an eye for that sort of thing. So, bring in some dispassionate, outside graphics experts as necessary and get their input and hopefully get it right.Water should look like water. Trees should look like trees. Tarmac should look like tarmac. Autogen structures could use a massive facelift so that they actually look like believable structures when flying low. Downtown high-rise buildings need a lot of improvement, in their textures, their night lighting, and even their straight edges.I also hope to see major advances in the clouds, with more detailed textures, sharper edges and improved coloring--to the extent that performance improvements will allow those at least.It would also be great to see grassland, and believable rocky textures when flying low.Apparently it's now possible to have accurate roads all over the US (based on the recent third-party product announcement). It would be great to see MS either add that capability themselves, or perhaps better yet buy it from the third party; I'd love to see some of those private programmers have their work go out to a wider audience.

Very good post, Paul. I fully agree.Peter Sydney Australia

Hello Paul,I agree, pretty good post. I'm also thinking that you should try a few files available in the Avsim library.>In FS02 I felt that sunsets looked like they belonged on the>planet Mars. In FS04 there was considerable improvement, but>still sunsets and sky coloring at times are garish and>overdone. It seems to me that it should be possible to get>those elements right, but one has to have an eye for that sort>of thing. So, bring in some dispassionate, outside graphics>experts as necessary and get their input and hopefully get it>right.How about trying out the following texture set by Nils Danielsson, they make a considerable change...Filename: fs9skytext.zipDescription:New skytextures for FS2004, by Nils Danielsson 2003. What's been changed: - All skycolors have been given a less saturated look - An "aura" has been added to the part of the sky around and below the sun. THis to create the effect of sunlight being reflected in water (or smog-) particles in the air. - Fog colors has also been desaturated, creating a more realistic look.If you don't like it he includes the default FS9 textures within the zip file making it very easy to go back to them.>>Water should look like water. Trees should look like trees. >Tarmac should look like tarmac. Autogen structures could use>a massive facelift so that they actually look like believable>structures when flying low. Downtown high-rise buildings need>a lot of improvement, in their textures, their night lighting,>and even their straight edges.Have you tried out various textures available(for free!), FS9 water by Bill Lyons? How about looking at the following threads. I highly recommended it as the water from these texture upgrades make for extremely good looking water! Thank you Mike Cruachan!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=163638http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=192933You'll need a video card that can handle the bump-mapped water effects though.Some improvement for some trees, but probably not the kind of improvement you are really looking for. These are under the FS2002 section in the library but work in FS2004. trees_v3.zip by Gerrish Gray, and confiers.zip Ed Truthan.>>I also hope to see major advances in the clouds, with more>detailed textures, sharper edges and improved coloring--to the>extent that performance improvements will allow those at>least.Improvement in the clouds that were in FS2002(some people complained about them quite rudely) were asked for, and the MSFS Team responded very well. The clouds in FS2004 are a huge improvement over the FS2002 clouds. ;) Thank you MSFS Dev Team! :-sun1 When whole bunches of these newer clouds are being displayed, there is quite a hit on performance from them too. My system can handle quite a lot of FS2004 clouds(I am using Chris Willis's ffpv2.zip in the library) but when there is a ton of them, my system bogs down. You never know, they may improve them some more for the next version of Flight Simulator.Just a few things I thought you might like to consider! ;)Cheerio,Jim

The ADF-pointer in the Boeing 737-400, incorporated in the HSI, is not too clearly readable IMHO. I suggest to give it a yellow colour and a larger arrow-head.Paddy.

Frankly, if you are not going to model an aircraft fully, don't include it. Those toy heavies are just embarrassing. Loose them instead of claiming you have all those extra aircraft.If I want a heavy, I'll buy a heavy. Matter of fact, gee, I already did.Spend the effort to update the smaller GA aircraft with better panels and better instruments instead of wasting time doing half arsed toy planes.Why after all these years can there not be a good IFR set of panels for the GA aircraft. You really have to wonder. If it was not for all the 3rd party guys making up for all the shortcomings in MSFS, it would have died a long time ago.

This is Priority #1Another thing I would like to see fixed is this Autopilot issue. I hate it when the plane suddenly goes up or goes down the instant you take off the altitude hold button. I know that this has been talked about before, and that is trim, but not all of the panels have the trim indicator or it is very differcult to tell how well you are trimmed at that altitude. MS please fix this issue especially for people who still use the keyboard. How realistic is it that on a real airliner a pilot switches off the autopilot and the plane starts to dive or to climb at an erratic rate. I certainly wouldn't fly on that airline again. Then2. Clouds, shadows with clouds Even scarier CB clouds that would rip your plane apart if you dare enter into them.3. Visibilty4. Winds5. Real weather, including tornaodes, hurricanes, and deadly windshear.6. Also have the ability to create a massive earthquake in Los Angeles while your plane is just about to land. Just like the 1974 Movie "Earthquake" when the American 707 was landing. I just sort of thought of this idea or when you are helicoptering around the city you could see downtown LA in ruins after the The Big One Hits Socal.

Kurt, why don't you post some of that in the 'CombatSim' forum. Some of those suggestions are a little far fetched for Flight Simulator... :-roll On another note, Microsoft please give us better gauge performance in the VC...

>This is Priority #1>>Another thing I would like to see fixed is this Autopilot>issue. I hate it when the plane suddenly goes up or goes down>the instant you take off the altitude hold button. I know>that this has been talked about before, and that is trim, but>not all of the panels have the trim indicator or it is very>differcult to tell how well you are trimmed at that altitude. >MS please fix this issue especially for people who still use>the keyboard. How realistic is it that on a real airliner a>pilot switches off the autopilot and the plane starts to dive>or to climb at an erratic rate. I certainly wouldn't fly on>that airline again.> I don't use any markings on the trim wheel to trim while in flight. It's all done by what I see on the screen in relation to the horizon or an artificial horizon. And this visual reference becomes sort of a "feel" for trim. Markings are just a good reference for takeoff trim positions.Point is............... get the plane trimmed, and it won't go "wacko" when you release the auto-pilot!L.Adamson

I thought of a few more things since my first post: The option for "dense" autogen to be truly dense! I'm referring to trees especially, which are unrealistically sparce even at the highest settings. When I get FS2006, I frankly would only want it to run perfectly at the medium/low settings on my current system. Improvement doesn't come without cost, and computer upgrades are inevitable in this age of rapidly improving technology! I would like to see more detail in just about everything visual: ground and water textures especially, but also textures for buildings and most other objects. Also, take the vegetation autogen to the next level like you did with the buildings autogen in FS9. Variation in trees depending on the region you're in would be a big enhancement (im not talking about just seeing some palm trees in tropical areas or smaller bushes in the desert), for instance, the deciduos trees all over the world all look like oak trees from new england. It would be nice to see dense tropical foliage when flying over the jungle, and to have different trees between farmers fields depending on whether you're flying in china or pennsylvania. I also second everyone who called for a more dynamic lighting system. This can be easily done on basically all newer graphics cards.-Scott

What I really want is more time to fly...sadly, I don't think that MS can help on that one...