I have a simulated responce to that in which if its a field that is not all that busy then I just simulate that Tower does not instuct me to contact ground but instead "cleared to the ramp switch and monitor ground on 121.XX" That way I can save the flight and when I reopen it next go around I have the same options as you do when you clear the active after landing and can request take off taxi.M newest big wish they would fix on this thought is after you load up an IFR FP and you tune in your radio to the clearance Delivery fre then open the atc prompt your force to switch back to ground freq to then have to go back to clearance delivery to get your clearaance. This is something tht should be fixed by the next version.

>For an "outsider" using different sims I am still not very>convinced with the FS. flightsims.>The graphics and effects is indeed improved, but loading this>sim. I still have that bad feeling riding on rails like a game>from 1995-98. >I wish MS would redo the whole sim to simulate real forces>both for the enviroment and for the aircrafts.That's not the "feel", I get!I have three examples of aircraft that I've actually flown, provided by third party vendors for FS2004. The Marchetti SF260, Van's RV, and the Piper Archer II. These planes in addition to the MSFS have nailed the flight dynamics & "feel" rather well. Certainly better than other GA sims I've used; as my other flight model favorite was IL-Sturmovik."Riding on Rails"......... rubbish; FS98 was the end of it!L.Adamson

"FS98 was the end of it"And also the end of freeware addons I guess.I never buy addons for simulators.for me it is still just a hobby.Lars Peter.:-wave

Hi all,I made a fairly long post here, where I don't really say a whole lot. Just some background chatter. Guess I just felt like talking. :( Read it if you want. ;)>Weather: Clouds that block the sun, dont have the sun shine>on the aircrafts or buildings etc. That is unrealistic. So>there needs to be ground shadows with heavy clouds and>overcast conditions. If the clouds or overcast layer is not>over the sun then the sun can shine on other objects.>Pretty good suggestion for scenery improvment that it seems a number of people have mentioned. I wouldn't doubt if we see this in the next version MSFS. I would wager that such a change would also make it so that at nighttime, when I shine my landing lights on another aircraft or a building, they light it up. Right now shining my lights on these objects at night does not light them up like it would in real life. Seems like the only thing landing lights are made to light up right now is the ground.My opinion/speculation on a couple of other requests I have seen:I'll bet that the next version of MSFS has been in development for a little while now. I have seen requests that it be programmed as a 64-bit app. I doubt that'll happen. Why? Because there isn't even an x86 64-bit OS(other than beta versions) at this time, and as I said I'll bet the next version has already been underway for a while now. I just don't think 64-bit stuff is ready enough at this time for MS to developing an app on it targeted for normal consumers, who want stability. In other words, I don't think 64-bit has been around long enough yet. Heck, it isn't even around yet other than in a beta form! To be developing MSFS as a 64-bit app MS would have to be using a beta version of the OS, beta drivers, and a beta version of the compiler! Just food for thought. I am merely speculating though. Keep in mind I'm no developer. Just a humble end user. Perhaps they are designing it from the ground up as a 64-bit app. If so, then that would mean that everyone would be required to upgrade their hardware and OS to 64-bit. Would that be a total and complete surprise to me? :-lol Ok ok, with what I just said above, I'll admit it would surprise me a little, hehe.Although FS2004 doesn't actually make use of HyperThreading(HyperTransport on AMD processors), FS2004 is HT aware. I think HT has been around long enough now that, hopefully, the next version of MSFS will be programmed to be more than just HT aware, and actully be made to make use of it. If so, I wouldn't expect to see a miraculous increase in performance but of course it would be nice if it resulted in a little boost.One thing I'll bet we see is that the next MSFS comes on DVD. ;)Don't know that the following has come up in this thread, but I have seen it arise a couple of times on the forum here in the not too distant past:Building the next MSFS from the ground up clean and fresh without any concern for backwards compatibilty to third party developers, hmmm. I think I recall Jean Luc of RealityXP stating that if they in doing so they could also design it to take better advantage of the more modern video cards that are available today. Could they not do this without throwing everthing out the door and starting from scratch? I'm sure it would be hard to leave a huge code base behind. And as I've said I'm just a humble end user inserting some opinion here. But that would most likely be a large undertaking and could mean a considerable delay in the timetable that people are used to seeing MSFS released in. Since the development of the next version of MSFS is probably well under way, whether to take a 'start from scratch' type of approach has probably already been decided. Perhaps the time has come that they should design it from scratch in order to gain considerable advantages in the graphics engine and other areas and make MSFS more revolutionary rather than evolutionary. But I don't know and it's not my decision! Regardless I think I would find it interesting to hear other peoples opinions, speculations, ect. What would would be very cool is if we could actually get a reply from MS itself on such matters. Or at least from someone more knowledgeable than me about such concerns. As a simple end user I can't say that 'I know' that FS2004 doesn't take advantage of modern video cards to the fullest. I guess you could say I would just find talk about such to be interesting. You know, about the whys, wherefores, how much extra time required, ect.John(Byrna), you say that MSFS should be made to be more of a 'Sim' and not a 'Game'. Well, what makes it a game right now and not a sim? This is probably a subject(and has been in the past) for a whole 'nother thread. Personally, I consider it to be more of a sim than a game now. As you pretty much said, games have certain types of goals or objectives that you try to achieve in order to 'beat' the game or your opponents. MSFS has no such 'gaming' objectives. Sure, you can set your goal to get your PPL or other certificates in MSFS. But in doing so MSFS trys to simulate real-life instruments and procedures, and even scenery and airports. In doing so it doesn't feel to me like I'm trying beat or finish the game or beat an opponent. When I fly around on the Coral Sea map in Battlefield 1942 I have an objective, which is to go and bomb the enemy and sink their ship or kill enough of the enemy so that their tickets are depleted to zero before my teams is. In MSFS and BF1942 I may have the goal of going from point A to point B without damaging my plane or crashing and dying. But that goal doesn't feel like a game to me when I'm in MSFS. I'm not trying to say that MSFS doesn't have any game elements in it, but I'm having trouble trying to come up with what they are. As far as having more realistic looking mesh, aircrafts, sounds, panels, ect., of course that would all make it seem more realistic, more of a simulation of real life. I'm just trying to say that even right now I don't see MSFS so much of a game as I do a sim. I probably don't have to say this but I will anyway ;), something to keep in mind if MSFS is made with real-world limitations. Such as a real-world budget, and for computer systems that have real limitations. The people that make it also have limitations I bet. If it were made with ultra highly detailed mesh, panels, and aircraft models our computers would slow to a crawl trying to run it. I'm not trying to say that the MSFS team should not try to improve the default aircraft, mesh, and sounds. They do! Look at how we now have clickable Dynamic Virtual Cockpits. But since MSFS is made on limited budget this is where third-party developers and addons come in, freeware and payware(for those with unlimited budgets. just a little joke there, hehe). And my thanks go out to them! The number of them is absolutely mind-boggling. When the HJG 707 came out Aaron Swindle came out with a payware version of sounds for it. I bought and I like it. He said it wasn't easy to find a good source for those sounds! A little while after FS2004 came out I bought the great FSGenesis US Landclass and Mesh. I have bunches of freeware and payware aircraft. How often do I fly a default aircraft? Not very. If I do a lot of the time it's the DC-3. Now that MAAM is about to come out with an FS2004 version of the R4D and DC-3, well, hmmm. The detail of the panel looks astonishing from the screenshots. I just hope it has good gauge refresh rates while still FPS friendly! Sure looks yummy though.Just want to end by saying that I think that people are putting in some really good suggestions! Like the use of SIDS/STARS for ATC, Ryan's suggestion of making the Navdata updateable, foreign voices in ATC, ect, ect, ect! I certainly wouldn't doubt if we see a nice improvement in ATC. Then of course we'll be able to make further suggetions on how it can be improved.Cheerio,Jim

>"FS98 was the end of it">And also the end of freeware addons I guess.Huh? I'm sure I must be misinterpreting what you are trying to say here. But to me it seems that you are saying that freeware died, or least you feel that it died, after FS98. I would beg to differ.>I never buy addons for simulators.>for me it is still just a hobby.>>Lars Peter.>To me it's just a hobby too. It's probably just a hobby to the vast majority of people around here that are not payware developers or aspiring to be one. Obviously, how much one wants to spend on their hobby or whether they have any desire to purchase an addon is an individual choice.1) I really don't understand what you are trying to say in your post here.2) I really don't see this particular post relevant to the thread's topic.I'm not trying to complain or flame, just making an observation from my point of view while scratching my head a little.Regards,Jim

Lars that

Yea, that's what I need.Regards,Ed

As a real world controller (GSO, ZDC, ZMA, DFW, TMB) ATC in FS is bad. I agree with every request you've made

A CO-PILOT Folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We need a darn co-pilot function that could take over on those long, Transatlantic flights. That way, we don't have to go to sleep and worry about our aircraft flying somewhere over Siberia if we were heading towards Brazil.Everything else everyone has posted I second.Sincerely,Dennis D. Mullert

>It's simple. Flight Unlimited 3 has better flight models, a>better interface, better camera viewpoints and controls, a>great VFR cockpit view (I personally prefer to see what's in>front of me when I'm flying), excellent ATC, and is (in my>opinion) a superior simulator of a flying environment than all>versions of MSFS up to (and including) FS2002. I can't>strictly comment on FS2004, but I cannot seriously believe>that it is light years beyond FS2002.>>In short, some of us prefer the FU3 world to that of Microsoft>Flight Simulator. In my opinion, MSFS is sterile....and>boring.>>Chris Low.Chris,Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Ba Blah Ba, Ba Blah Blah Blah The some what cartoonish and limitted area of FU (World?)!!! Ca Snort LOL!!!Blah Blah ba Blah Blah Bla! LOL!!!But We still love you! Now get back in your pen!Cheers Chris!Paul

>You tell me...>>Point is no one can get FU3 anymore if they wanted to so your>point concerning FU3 is useless. If you like so many features>in that sim, why don't you just suggest them to Microsoft like>the rest of us are doing??? Your not helping anyone by>upholding an obsolete sim that's not being sold anymore.>:-boom I don't understand what your trying to prove here...>>Flight Simulator 2004 is the best game in town at this point>so deal with it.. Either help us make FS2k6 a better sim or>leave this thread alone

Thanx guys, I know the difference between COM and NAV radions, that's not the problem, the problem is ATIS (on COM1 or COM2) and it has nothing to do with NAV radios ...;-)

It's still a great flight simulator, Paul. The only problem is that a large percentage of flight simmers love MSFS, and the massive amount of planes, scenery packages and God knows what other add-ons for FS2004 and its predecessors makes it a far more inviting prospect. Unfortunately, some of the attributes that are very important to me in a flight simulator can only be found in FU3, and these were listed in my earlier post. Of course, this is only a personal opinion, but it is one that is shared by quite a few others who still use FU3.By the way, it's nice to "see" you :-)Chris Low.PS. Anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, upgraded weather effects, and the constantly improving high detail AI Pack make a MASSIVE difference to the quality of the graphics in FU3.

Dillon,Trust me. If the next version of MSFS includes everything that I am looking for, then I will be only too happy to "jump ship". However, that is very unlikely to happen. I am simply pointing out that I would prefer a flight simulator based on the Flight Unlimited series. That doesn't mean that I expect to SEE it ! :-)Anyway, I am not trying to PROVE anything. Just calm down and accept that myself (and a few others) prefer the FU3 flight simulation world to that in MSFS. That might be very difficult for you to understand, but that's life.Chris Low.

Sad thing is in the past I have started threads like this that hasn't gotten so many replys and feedbacks. Its very close to a year since the release of FS9 and if history dicates about a year give or take til we might see a new release. But in an interview from MS they mentioned that after a release they chill for about a month and then get crackin on whats next. Its why shortly after the release of FS9 I made many attempts to get a thread like this one going. Its threads like these as well as emails to MS that helps provide the input of what the users are looking for. I just hope its not to late in the game for some of these ideas to make it to the next version and for the FS team to get a feel for where we are looking for the sim to go next.