Why would you buy FS 11?

[gandy 18]

If they made it i would buy it to show my support for the sim even if i stayed with fsx/p3d, I would class it as a plus if they did "not" make it backwards compatible, start with a clean slate for it so to speak as i think that is needed.. clear out all the very old legacy code and start again :)

 

Edit...

 

I would also buy it if it had an open sdk and the developers had the choice to sell through MS or the publisher of their choice.

[GeorgeLKMT 63]

'Combat related' addons is the last thing I would be interested in for a civilian sim. There are already lots of options for combat flight sims

I'll leave the combat to the combat sims.

 

Aaaaand I disagree. Combat sims are really nice, but all of them are very limited in specific ways like aircraft, map coverage, weather, graphics etc. Having a sim where I can fly anywhere in the world (like we do today in FS/XPL), looking great with sceneries and many other addons AND having the same sim for combat sorties is wet dream of every combat flightsimmer (well.. at least mine, but I think others would agree). Better than having gazillion specialized sims for different eras of flight, with different controls, graphics, physics... everything (and many of them only with limited singleplayer campaigns... that's not flightsimming, that's just playing the game).

 

And by the way.... in which universe is FS strictly civilian sim? I can't see a "Microsoft Civilian Flight Simulator" on my box. And why we are having Hornet in acc pack then? Yea... the combat itself is missing, but still...

 

But that's little OT.

 

 

Well, I guess there are so many things that needs to be improved it's difficult to name just one. But I say better and more efficent graphics engine, that could benefit from modern hardware and use modern technologies.

[ZachLW 37]

Aaaaand I disagree. Combat sims are really nice, but all of them are very limited in specific ways like aircraft, map coverage, weather, graphics etc. Having a sim where I can fly anywhere in the world (like we do today in FS/XPL), looking great with sceneries and many other addons AND having the same sim for combat sorties is wet dream of every combat flightsimmer (well.. at least mine, but I think others would agree). Better than having gazillion specialized sims for different eras of flight, with different controls, graphics, physics... everything (and many of them only with limited singleplayer campaigns... that's not flightsimming, that's just playing the game).

 

And by the way.... in which universe is FS strictly civilian sim? I can't see a "Microsoft Civilian Flight Simulator" on my box. And why we are having Hornet in acc pack then?

 

But that's little OT.

 

 

Well, I guess there are so many things that needs to be improved it's difficult to name just one. But I say better and more efficent graphics engine, that could benefit from modern hardware and use modern technologies.

 

I'll spare you the sarcasm. I much rather have specialized combat sims for the given aircraft, weapons, and combat theater. This is my opinion. No one said this universe was governed by a law stating MFS was strictly civilian. On the other hand, I think it would be stupid fool hearty to focus resources in a civilian oriented sim on "weapons". That being said, VRS's Super Bug shows what FSX can do with some ingenuity.

[Ben Cap 89]

Something less CPU intensive so it would run close to 60 FPS under full graphics load, thus, smoothing out the visual experience. That would entice me.

Would have to make proper usage of current hardware.

PMDG support

Proper coding

Realistic graphics and effects

Proper coding

Proper coding

Proper coding

Proper coding

Proper coding

 

I just can't say it enough

 

Proper coding!

+1

 

Also, I would like a FULL DX11 simulation that loads most of the scenery and autogen stuff to the GPU. In this scenario, we could run the NGX just about anywhere at 60FPS with a good GPU.

 

Newer updated clouds and weather is also VERY important for me. I am tired of FSX's failure of simulating weather realistically.

[GeorgeLKMT 63]

I much rather have specialized combat sims for the given aircraft, weapons, and combat theater...

 

In this I'm seeing the problem. There are so many aircraft and scenarios I would like to fly, but I can't because there are no specialized sims for that. In large-scale simulator like FSX with proper SDK being able to do such things, it would be only matter of time before developers would start releasing aircraft with capabilities like that and people could design custom missions for any scenario. All that in comfort of your well tuned and great looking simulator, with controls you're used to. I don't want to have 20 different simlators for every aircraft, and that's my opinion on the contrary. And I didn't wanted to disregard your opinion, but we are talking about "what if" non-existent simulator, so I'm not seeing a point behind rejecting something that does not exist and it's only in state of an idea and "what you wanna see".

[VeryBumpy 272]

Single? Hmm...assuming all the current features of FSX stay in, I would want to see an accurate role playing aspect to the sim. Having to manage your pilot character fully in a career as a major airline pilot or owning and being the sole pilot of your own private plane service. Manage money, flights, schedule stuff, have deadlines, plane/food/lodging expenses, etc, etc,...

[spilok 1,132]

I absolutely love FSX now. However, if Microsoft were to give us ANY upgrade as they have in the past, my $$$$ would be ready to go! Yes, consistent weather, a less CPU intensive sim, and upgraded (more realistic flight dynamics) simulation overall would be really very welcome. I'm hooked on Force Feedback, so with Russell Dirks' help (FS Force), I'd like to add real turbulence feel to the stick.

I thought FLIGHT could eventully get there, but I can't cry about it now. Too bad MS didn't invest in the sim to bring all of this about. See....I'm not too hard to please.

 

Stan

[Chief Cargo 0]

a less CPU intensive sim

 

Not to single you out but I keep seeing this over and over.

 

One thing I have noticed with FSX is that it's AI that kills the sim performance more than any other single thing. On my computer I can go from 60 FPS to 10 just by going from 0 traffic to 100% with no other changes. Even using REXE, even at the most advanced airports, etc...

 

Am I the only one to notice this? Do "online" flyers have a problem with FPS? I have a VASTIM account but I have never flown online.

 

The one thing I want at least from my observations is the ability to offload AI onto an/other CPU core/s which I believe would solve most of our problems with "less than stellar" sim performance.

 

-on topic-

The one thing I really want though, for me is better weather. Even with REXE Thunderstorms just don't look scary at all. Nothing like their real world counterparts for sure. I want to see a thunderstorm just once in FSX that actually makes me think twice about flying through it. That looks like it would rip my plane apart just getting near it, make it something to actively try and avoid.

[Polar 30]

Something that does not require a total revamping every 2 years and permits current add-ons to work so we ALL don't have to keep buying things over and over. Ya, I know, impossible...FS9 for me, only wish it had a round world.

[SirStiggie 63]

Slightly better graphics than Flight, similar "feel" to Flight, and the ability to use existing aircraft add-on's

[T_Fleck 36]

Plus more realistic simulation of weather. Real volumetric clouds, weather systems, radar support, a feeling of actually being IMC when in a cloud. Weather is one of the the single most important factors when making a go/no go decision in real world flying. FSX doesn't do the best job in this area.

 

100% this. I want to feel like I am flying through a cloud, not a "white texture in the sky". I would like it to be able to take weather systems and have them realistically interact. I want to set up a cold jet stream, a warm gulf front and watch the storms explode.

 

In all for me it is about all the the small details that FSX is missing that I would like to have. Cloud shadows -- better shadows in general, rain on the windows, haze/fog that is more realistic. For as old as it is FSX is not bad graphically, it just needs an infusion of small detail, the kind you don't really notice is there, but do notice when it isn't.

[Noel 4,487]

There's plenty of room for improvement it's hard to say where to start, other than that it's all been mentioned already here! Of course, it's arguably the best we have for now and it works quite well. I think if someone comes along w/ a passion for taking flight simming for the masses to the next level there is so much that could be done:

• A core engine comprised of native 64-bit code optimized for multicore hardware--yeah!
  
• Full utilization of DirectX 11, 12, whatever! To have routines like Bloom have no impact on performance in modern hardware--makes you drool! Bump mapping and all of the rest.
  
• Consider realtime streaming 3D terrain modeling when download speeds can support it. I guess it could be fed in in a certain format, then decompressed by the engine. It's not practical to have the entire world on your local machine in the kind of resolution & detail we'd all love to have. I'd pay a monthly fee for this whole concept myself. You could have several levels of membership: local, regional, worldwide, etc.
  
• Stick w/ the business model of making the solid core w/ robust SDK's. The core model can include the same elements as current FSX. This is such a great model which spawns lots of 3rd party development plus allows the core engine to have a long service life.
  
• Take ATC up several notches. It isn't half bad now--build on it at least.
  
• Improve on air traffic behaviors
  
• Design a weather engine that addresses the current weaknesses.
  
• Improve the core engine w/ respect to flight modeling. This is something I really don't know enough about other than I'm aware of how important it is for others here.
  
• Now, package it all w/ a high level of user configurability/scalability much as FSX has demonstrated, while at the same time strive to aim for keep it solid, more crash-proof, and intuitive to set up and operate.
  

I'd pay serious $$ for this package! When you look at how popular and long lived Flight Simulator has been, I really am perplexed why MS, Apple, Anyone hasn't taken this project on. Gargantuan project--but lots of promise, especially if you can do the subscription thing.

[NikkiA 7]

• Take ATC up several notches. It isn't half bad now--build on it at least.
  
• Improve on air traffic behaviors
  
• Design a weather engine that addresses the current weaknesses.
  

 

These are, IMO, best served by listening to your 1st and 4th points, that is, MS shouldn't try to make the best ATC/AI/Weather, but instead work with Flight 1, Mr Renck, REX, Hifi Tech, etc to enable the best 3rd parties to shine at what they do best.

 

Much of the mediocrity in parts of FSX boils down to 'trying to be the jack of all trades, master of none' that MS have been doing for the last 15 years or more (I didn't quite get that feeling with FS3 to FS5, tbh) with FS. A perfect flight sim developer today needs to realise that they are not going to be the provider of all, even the best intentioned MS-developed 737 is still going to have been begging for a PMDG 737, and it is better to realise that, and enable people like PMDG to have the best tools to build their products.

 

 

But to add to the list of things I'd like to see, non-plateau runways, ala X-plane. Whenever I spend time in X, I always come back and think 'nice scenery.... oh, a sheer cliff face all around my arrival airport, how I miss thee FSX'

[PIC007 82]

Lots of good input! I've been so satisfied with FSX I had forgotten a lot of this

[Noel 4,487]

These are, IMO, best served by listening to your 1st and 4th points, that is, MS shouldn't try to make the best ATC/AI/Weather, but instead work with Flight 1, Mr Renck, REX, Hifi Tech, etc to enable the best 3rd parties to shine at what they do best.

 

Much of the mediocrity in parts of FSX boils down to 'trying to be the jack of all trades, master of none' that MS have been doing for the last 15 years or more (I didn't quite get that feeling with FS3 to FS5, tbh) with FS. A perfect flight sim developer today needs to realise that they are not going to be the provider of all, even the best intentioned MS-developed 737 is still going to have been begging for a PMDG 737, and it is better to realise that, and enable people like PMDG to have the best tools to build their products.

 

 

But to add to the list of things I'd like to see, non-plateau runways, ala X-plane. Whenever I spend time in X, I always come back and think 'nice scenery.... oh, a sheer cliff face all around my arrival airport, how I miss thee FSX'

 

Great comments! My guess, not being a developer, is that the 'core engine' has to set up the rules of the game and the methods to address those rules thru SDK's. So yes, I agree the dev does not want to be Jack but create a more potent engine that 3rd party devs can build for. Since this is so they can afford to build a killer core and leave it right there, which means there is less to have to get right, and hence it could be more doable/attractive to that passionate developer.