I can

I've only been able to read about half of the posts in this thread, so if what I'm going to add has been said already, please forgive the repeat. Sleepy eyes hold me back. :)Everything that has been mentioned is very good. One thing that bugs me to no end, however, is on longer flights hearing AI flights get their clearance cancelled due to not maintaining the correct altitude. I'm thinking there might be some kind of bug in the way AI handles pressure changes from place to place. I should note that FS9 isn't nearly as bad as FS8, but it still happens about twice an hour on long hauls.Thanks,Jonathan D.

I would like the Aircraft folders to be a little easier to navigate, so all you have to do is enter the folder into the aircraft folder, not having to copy anything ANYWHERE else, except modules...For Example,Aircraft-Embraer EMB-120---Model---Effects---Panel----Panel Sound---Gauges---TextureI would also like the ability to alias Aircraft.CFG files and have like a texture.CFG section, where it has all of the bitmap names the model calls for, and a "transformer", which will make it use a different file.Like this:(Texture.cfg)[fltsim]texture=posky757-200-eng-rr.bmp alias=posky757rr-eng.bmpOr make it so you can have multiple variations of a texture in a single texture folder, like this:[fltsim.x]original_texture=*.bmp modified_texture=*1.bmpMy thoughts...Worst Regards (j/k)John

Carlos,Check to make sure you have not switched the damage modeling off in the Load Manager.Also, keep in mind that the Navajo engines are workhorses. Quite different than piston engines found in many other twin props. They are made to take a tremendous amount of abuse in real life. So if your are trying to damage the engines, or check to see how much they will take, you may have to put quite a few hours on them. The amount of stress that you put on them accumulates. And if you fail to perform standard maintenance per schedule this stress will accelerate.http://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif

>>I second that one Barry, after a while it gets boring to fly>"perfect" airplanes all the time. One of the great things>about real flying is the feeling of being on top of the>situation all the time, a feeling that FS2004 can't give you>due to the lack of realistic failures handling.>So let's see...........Do we want to fly "real" airplanes that we KNOW are less than perfect, and expect failures? Am I to expect a failure even while simming, to feel on top of the situation? And worse, would I really feel on top of the sitution knowing I'm flying a real plane that's going to fail?Since I follow the NTSB reports daily, as well as keep on all accident reports and the reasons for failure................. why do we have to have a supposeably well built 3rd party re-creation that's doomed?I don't get it! The difference between real & "gaming" I guess..L.Adamson ---- EAA, AOPA

Dillion what I ws saying is that during the install phase there is a check box for all the different addon items to where the user can check each item that they are wanting to purchase and install. This can be done during or right after the main install of FSS. All info and web hosting and what not is held by the authors and not MS. Just like how FS promotes certain websites in their help menu they could also step it up and host addons developers and products that have done a great job with product and support. There would be no tie in with MS and those addons just the fact that FS would work with a hand few of them it helping get there products released with FS insted of waiting for SDK releases. After reading a post from an MSFS developer I can see that theose who work at MS also enjoy the works of other developers in the addon field and use their programs as well. So why not just start taking a more team work approach and bundling the addons with FS. I know certain programs I've gotten before where they use things like roger wilco as something bundled with a war game that are not in anyway owned by the developers so it could be possible.

>I want an aircraft that I can't fly!!!! (or as Sammy Davis>Junior (or Groucho marx??) once said , I would not be a member>of any club that would have me as a member) So, as a non>real-life pilot, I want an aircraft that I can't fly!!! That>would be truely " as real as it gets!! ">>BarryNo Barry......To make it truely as real as it get's ......... you might have to loose your life in doing so..L.Adamson ---- just getting more realisticedit: Fly the default Cub with full realism settings. Sometimes it has real problems with ground handleing, and you can expect complete airframe destruction & a trip to the hospital with every other flight!

I would like to see sloping runways.. Would add even more realism to the sim.Happy flying,Matthias

Looking at the larger scale, this is what I'd Like to see.A return to two versions of FS. The "professional" version would be truly professional and cost significantly more because of that. It would be targeted for commercial, military, and power users only, and it would NOT be a store-shelf item.The professional and standard models would, for the most part, be functionally identical, except as noted below.The professional model would also include the following.1. DVD delivery with no "key" disk required.2. Standard, and 64 bit versions.3. Simple, unlimited, and synchronized multi-computer support (USB2). (String them up, set them up, and go.)4. Regional versions with improved mesh,landclass, and land textures for that version. (ie. US, Europe, Asia, etc.)5. Inclusion of some "must have" major 3rd-party add-ons such as FS Navigator, Ultimate Traffic, etc.6. Inclusion of high-end 3rd-party navigation equipment.7. Incorporated triple or quardrouple, single-axis tilt servo/stepper support with SDK. 8. ETC.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

>Moving vehicle lights on roads/highways. Space closer together than >in previous versions of FS.I'll go one step further than that. We need road traffic alright -1. we need dense road traffic during rush hour, we need quiet traffic in the small hours of night.2. We need dense traffic on six lane motorways - quiet on single track roads.3. Dense traffic near big towns, quiet in remote wilderness4. Left & Right hand drive traffic according to country5. Non Linear traffic density - make cars bunch up behind annoying caravan drivers who don't pull over and let traffic past!! aaarrrrgggh!!! (sorry, I'll stop ranting!) 6. Floodlit roads & roads that are completely dark.7. Light sources emitting from street lamps (not yellow textures on the ground)Anthony Dyer

My two sents and three drops in the pot - as previously asked for:to consider when you work on a patch (FS2006) for FS2004!1. The drop in frame rate after flying for a while especially on finals before landing2. The fact that you can not request runway lights in bad visibility and have to wait until it drops below 5mi to get approach lights and 2mi to get runway lights (We've been asking this since FS98)3. The online weather update every 15 minutes are not accurate and if it wasn't for Chris Willis' clouds, the default 3d clouds are unflyable unless you have a Pentium 7 with 4 Gb RAM4. The strange fog behavior around mountains5. Fix the haze and low visibility6. Fix the whole damn weather engine (with special attention to wind speed, auto update and wet conditions)7. The power settings for some aircraft are totally unrealistic while the same aircraft with the same *.air file will perform completely different in FS20028. The problems with video cards (reflections, 2d panels, stuttering etc.) while the same video card will have no problem in any other program9. The bizarre problem with some bridges and other scenery10. The zig zag vectoring by ATC for landing while you could still not request a 'straight in' approach and ATC clearance for a take-off on a active runway with a 15 knts tail wind as well as SID and STAR use11. The mess with timezones (enough said)12. Fix the ATIS that will give you accurate airfield conditions (not overhead) but at least 60

Terblanche, re: #1It's easy to fix with minimal loss to image quality.1. Rename Autogendefault.xml to default.xml.bak2. Replace your terrain.cfg file with the one I attach (make a backup of the original first):http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/76352.zipYou should no longer see a drop on final and framerate in general should increase.

TerblancheI agree with 99% of your list and feel that items number12 and 15 arent in real need of fixing. It might just me be but I dont see a real need for change of those two items. In regards to the ATIS I would like to see the static we had in 2000 return but also have it where the user has a chance to obtain ATIS before ATC starts instructing you on your landing clearances. Currently if the user has ATIS on comm 2 and Approach on Comm 1 at the exact sec that ATIS starts broadcasting and the user is able to hear it is when Approach gives yyou heading and alt changes and informs you of what runway and approach to expect. This needs to be fixed. It would be a lot more enjoyable to know the actives and field conditions prior to Approach giving you instructions so that the user can determine anny request they might want. This could partly be corrected by use of STAR's allowing the users to set up the approach and it would also benefit if the user could label a terminal at the destination where he/she plaans to shut down. That way the user might get a closer runway to terminal landing runway. But the fact that ATIS should be able to be obtained prior to ATC instructions, Request of entering airspace of B,C, and D should be within a veil and not right as you enter it and the whole ATC engine needs to be reworked so that spacing, holds, and restrictions are used with DP's and STARs starting with added features in the flight planning so that go arounds are a ting of the past.

Bring back the realistic bridges Microsoft... San Diego doesn't look right without the Coronado Bridge...

I would prefer to see a flight simulator based on the Flight Unlimited series. I haven't enjoyed MS Flight Simulator since FS4.