Hello Fellows,I have a suggestions here that if Microsoft takes advantage of it, we will enjoy this sim in what I will call "stages" and also we will not have to rush and upgrade our computers on each and every release.Instead of releasing every version with new implementation (such us FS9 wheather engine etc...resource eater), Microsoft can just in FS10 or FS2006 leave everything alone and concentrate on improving the following.1. Cockpit (2D&3D)eyeview point is unrealistic. Now pilots look downward as to looking ahead to the far end of the runway. Most obvious is in the virtual cockpit...which at this version seems like the pilot is leaning and flying behind the left seat. Which explains why even with a tool like "active camera" you can not get the right eyeview either in the cockpit or virtual carbin. This can be well modified with fluid instrumetation, crystal-clear gauges and pilots should be able to move their heads to many angle sets within the cockpit than what we have right now. Better even get rid of 2D cockpit and stick with virtual cockpit where pilots will have every control base on many angle sets that would be provided and of course a well modified crystal-cleared gauges and many many more.2.Flight plan....As good as the new ATC is, one can never use a real flight plan and fly with ATC from taxi to runway "XX" to taxi to the gate "XX". This flight plan should be modify so that we can update on every navigatation data cycle and have all these airways that we download from "Navdata". It should also allow pilots to inserthis/her own flight plans, file it with ATC and fly from start to finish.3. Flight dynamic engine codes should be expanded, so 3rd parties can define FDE much more realistic without trade-offs(win some loose some like we have right now).Microsoft can even choose to improve on just these two and leave alone "Autogen"....folks time to fly over our houses is far from now. The weather in FS9 should be okay left alone althogh far from better, but then we will have to again run to the store and upgrade our rigs if they choose to improve in next version.This "stage" by "stage" improvement can help keep our system on each version release till the time we actually know is time to upgrade. Then well again Microsft can decide if they are going to sell the "Stage" improvements as upgrade or new version....either way I will buy it.I don't think we at this time need a water soaked taxiways and runways with the current computers in the markets. Those "stages" will come in due course till we get the total package with little money spent on computers. As Microsoft tries to stretch it to that point, we the users pay from our pocket with little or no luck to get it running smoothly. I hope they heed to these and listern to others as well. Thanks.

Hi, You wont sell a product and make profit, with only 2d cockpit and some transparent feature to eyes, specialy when ms have to compete with world wide developper vs fs team, the standard is pretty high, but I agree with your statement above on some feature for sure to be on Ms default.Every area should be improved, if you don`t touch most area and fix things that`s are already reported from weather and others area, the graphics and feature will be outdated in 2006 and 2007, just figure how many did not saw major difference in fs2004 compare to fs2002, because they did not saw any new ground texture and major graphics improvement. The overall graphics and improvement are important since 90% of the time your eyes are concentrated to the ground and the sky. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

>cockpit than what we have right now. Better even get rid of 2D>cockpit and stick with virtual cockpit Don't ask for something because you may actually get it...If they got rid of 2D cockpit many addons would stop working and we know that avionics simply do not run very fluid in 3D at the moment. So unless everyone upgrades to 4 Ghz CPU and/or Microsoft makes significant changes to enhance quality of their VC - please keep 2D. There are many aircraft with spectuclar 2D panel but much less spectacular 3D. As to the eyeview - I am afraid this will always be a compromise on a highly confined computer monitor and whet you might consider realistic will loose utility for someone else. One should treat this subject very carefully before inflicting some serious damage.Are you really a beloved user :-lolMichael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

With all due respect to the first poster, I have to say that every time I see a post saying that the new version of FS should run perfect on current hardware, my blood pressure starts to rise. Gaming is what pushes the envelope in computer technology, and as much as people will scream, tear clothes, foam at the mouth, and scream "HERESY!!", MSFS is just that-- a game. Most of the new games that come out are designed to be best viewed on the latest and greatest systems that are out at the time of release. That translates for the FS world that FS2006 will be best played on probably a 4 GHz or higher system, and even then sacrifices will have to be made with 3rd party products, such as PMDG. That's the way it's always been, and to think that the FS2006 should work on YOUR 2.6 GHz P4 with a gig of RAM and ATI 9800XT, at 1600 x 1200 x 32 with all details maxxed out, and every resource hogging addon that you can throw at it at 50-plus FPS is the sign of a severely delusional mind. This doesn't have much to do with what the first poster said, but face it, folks, you're going to have to upgrade when FS2006 comes out if you want silky-smooth performance. Jon D.

Nah, 25 FPS should do the trick ;-) Dave

"Better even get rid of 2D cockpit and stick with virtual cockpit where pilots will have every control base on many angle sets that would be provided and of course a well modified crystal-cleared gauges and many many more"Have you considered that a fair proportion of us like and use the 2D cockpit- IMHO most of the virtual cockpits don't look any more realistic than the 2D ones.Dave

They get rid of the 2d cockpits and I quit flying. To me most all virtual cockpits everything looks distorted. I guess If I had a 52 inch monitor it wouldn't matter.Willhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

I have to agree with you guys. I have the PMDG NG, and the new 800/900 models have one the best VC I have seen, but I don't even load it, to big a hit on FPS and it still looks "funny", I ONLY use the 2D version, easy for these "older" eyes to read and it looks so cool.If 2D panels were eliminated I would have to resist buying the new version for the FIRST time in MSFS development history.I think the second poster has the right idea, MS will continue to push the envelope because that is what "SELLS" and they are in business to make a profit.CheersBob

Jon,With all due respect to YOUR post, it's not fair to those of us who can't afford to buy new rigs every time a new version comes out.Yeah, I know that the world isn't fair, and I'm not saying that those who can't afford a new rig who max out the settings should expect fluidity, but it's also not fair for MS to require you to run FS2006 (if there will be one) on the latest and greatest hardware.Let's look at it this way. Let's say that MS fixes three things:1) The built-in ATC by adding DPs and STARs, proper separation and accurate traffic calls (as have been mentioned in dozens of posts)2) The "autogen bug"3) The seasonal Crash-to-Desktop.Those users who have been waiting for these fixes, may love simming so much, yet have limited income that they can't afford a new rig, will miss out on these fixes. Who knows that by the time they can afford the latest and greatest, who is to say that MS won't up the ante once again with FS2008?Just my opinion.

>>but it's also not fair for MS to>require you to run FS2006 (if there will be one) on the latest>and greatest hardware.Yes, that would be unfair and therefore they don't require this. I can run FS9 on PIII 500 Mhz - with no autogen and few clouds but it still looks and run better than FS2000. So lets not bend facts...Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Steven,Oh, trust me, you're not the only one. I'm running FS2004 on an AMD 1800XP with only 256MB of PC133 ram, and a Geforce 4 MX 440, and an upgrade isn't in my near future. Those of us who can't upgrade every time Intel adds another .2 GHz to their chips tend to always fall behind the performance curve. Having said that, I still think that one can't expect any game developer to limit what their games do to satisfy older generation hardware. So, MS makes FS tweakable to match detail to hardware. Even on my lower end system, I can still cruise at flight levels at over 40 FPS, and land at between 15 and 20 FPS, depending on the airport. I just adjust the sliders as necessary and face facts that I can't go all the way.I've never understood anyone complaining why FS runs so poorly on their midrange machine. when they refuse to sacrifice details. And just to illustrate that the "problem" isn't limited to Flight sims, have you ever heard of the game Far Cry? It looks absolutely stunning. The developer makes no apology that you need technology that's still in Intel and AMD's R&D departments to run it maxxed out. And people are buying it like crazy.Anyway, I've rambled enough. Here's to sudden windfalls, or lottery winnings! :DJon D.

If the next version only had those three improvements then I wouldn't buy it. They're fairly low on my list of priorities. For the record, I only use virtual cockpits and as the viewpoint can be moved at will I think they're quite realistic, though of course they could be improved. I want the portrayal of the FS world to get ever more realistic. That means scenery, weather and clouds, effects and lighting. Compared to the real world, FS has a *huge* way to go still. I'd also like to see realistic, animated people portrayed, both in the airports and the aircraft. Having played and hugely enjoyed Call of Duty, the FS world now seems a bit sterile. Surely an important aspect of flight is human company. >I don't think we at this time need a water soaked taxiways and >runways with the current computers in the markets I'd love to see that! Current computers are incredibly powerful. FS could be far more realistic. I think the real problem lies in the time needed to develop the software, not the limitations of the hardware. For this reason Microsoft have to decide their priorities. For obvious commercial reasons, those priorities will be determined by what ordinary people in the shops are interested in. My guess is that such people would be attracted by realistic and impressive portrayals of the world and the aircraft while not being terribly interested in the details of how the ATC works. Best regards, Chris Wright

VFR cockpit view (in other words, FU3 style), better external camera controls, more realistic landings and take-offs by AI planes, RANDOM AI planes, more convincing low speed flight characteristics, flight models based on real world aerodynamics, high resolution satellite mapped terrain textures, high resolution terrain mesh, and a better interface.Those are my wishes. If they were implemented, I might consider buying the next version of MSFS.Chris Low.

>>>>>>>Better even get rid of 2D cockpit and stick with virtual cockpit<<<<<

Hi Guys,Unfortunately many of you missed the point that I'm trying to make even though I also agree with some of you, so let me try to elaborate on my suggestions a bit.At least I'm getting the impression that some of you want MS to raise the bar on every version even if the computers available cannot run the version smoothly without making sacrifices. Example MS made FS2002 to run on the systems that we are using right now; which will run smoothly without a doubt. The problem with that is, how many of us are using FS2002 now? Keeping also in mind that the reason FS9 is running better on our system at the moment is because many of us has deleted the XML file from the autogen folder and modify the CFG file to get rid of a lot of useless features. Question if we have to do that, then why MS put that in there in the first place?Now please hear me on this one. I do not think there is anybody out there that is competing with MS on civil avaition simulation period. If you say X-plane you are missing something. How long does X-plane has to go to implement a "PIC767" & "PSS747" type cockpit? Remember those were the FS2000 age some genetions ago. So what I'm suggestion is MS has set the stage with FS9 and it's time to have a "reality check".Imagine FS2006 comes out with the same FS9 engine yet you can now gradualy raise your head and realistically look over the overhead panel and turn on the start switch etc and gradually move your head down to feed in fuel switch, move gradually your head and tune in the radios all without having to switch to a new window. Imagine listerning to the airport ATIS and telling you that "the noise abaitment procedure is in effect on active runway XX". Imagine ATC clearing you to fly the "Kennedy4 departure" or "Macy2 arrival" to KATL. Imagine ATC clearing you to step climb from "FL330 to FL370 at anytime, but to be levelled by the next waypoint". Imagine ATC telling you to "slow to your best approach speed" or "decrease speed to XXXkts and decent to FLXXXX". Imagine ATC telling you to continue to your alternate airport on your filed flight plan due to wheather at destination. Even if that is not true, just hearing that sound byte is a satisfying improvement. I would love to apologise to my virtual passengers for been late at the gate because our aircraft has not been released by ATC and then get ATC at my home base vector me around traffic to land early jsut to make the lost time. Now add this feature to it, if MS expand the FDE so we can use combination keys to steer (as tiller) our 780000lbs B747 along the taxiway as oppose to using rudder and then realistically make a 180 degree turn at 5kts while looking realistically over our left or right shoulder without compromising the geometry of the cockpit or carbin like we have right now. Which has nothing to do with what kind of monitor you are using by the way. If the expansion occurs all 3RD party can easily insert whatever new features MS has changed. So if FS2006 comes out with all these features mentioned above, you are telling me nobody is going to buy it beacuse it does not have the laters graphics? and you are telling me I cannot use my P4 3.06GHZ and 1G memory to run it?. Furthermore the next version FS2008 comes out and this time MS is concetrating on graphics, sticky snow, moving jetways etc. Mind you at that time most of us will either own the next generation computer or about to buy one. Which will run the new graphic smoothly with "stages" improvement. This is my suggestion and not raise the bar on every feature in the new version at the same time so we can hurry to the store and upgrade our computers with cutbacks. Please let us not endorse. Thanks