Okay I was wondering what i would like changed or added to in FS2006.I would like to know what you would like in your list.This question has been spurred by another post further down but in my question you only have two choices and no more.1} I would like to see the abolition of 2D cockpits with replacement by VCs. But clear, smooth VCs.Part of that would be a clever way of simulating Pheripheral views as this is what is lacking in our sim world.2}I would like to see a further weather development with proper dynamic weather.Real Highs and Lows, fronts with their associated cloud formations with accurate winds and isobars and all downloadable realworld.Whats yoursPeterhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/82686.jpg

1: A much improved, more complex front end menu system to allow the sim session to utilise the maximum mount of resources for the requirement of that session's flying - leaving the IFR in the `box` and increasing the number of VFR features, texture quality and roads, or trading off the trees and fields for gates, ATC and airport complexity2: As above.Allcott

1) DPs and STARs2) Gate Numbers and Marshallers.

Nothing... With all the add-ons... my system running great...I'm a happy camper with FS2004. Plus, you can already delete the 2-D panel in your craft and there are already add-ons for better weather.(As from a quate from a famous movie:"FS2006 - We don't need no stinkin' FS2006")

Weather, weather, and finally weather! This is a FLIGHT simulator, and with the exception of the screen shot takers that don't really make any acutal take-off to landing flights, the atmosphere should be the most important thing going. Up until FS2004, we had a relatively poor excuse for weather. I would like to see them take this first attempt at dynamic weather, and really improve on it.Tim13

Tim,Could not agree more. But I would also like to see continuing improvement in the ATC functon. For one thing, make the menus easier to use. If, for example, you are on an IFR flight, the #1 selection should always be the most probable (likely) radio call you would next be making. You would NOT, when arriving at the hold short (yellow) line, ready for takeoff, be checking ATIS, you would be calling tower for takeoff clearance, which is currently #3 in the selection list. And Tower would/should be telling you what the present wind is at that moment as part of the takeoff clearance (same for landing clearance--right now, you don't get that). Another pet peeve is the complexity of getting a change of runway and approach. Why should we have to make two calls? In the real world, I could always do it with one call, request both a runway change AND, for example, the ILS or any other published approach for that requested runway.Paul

I demand a better graphicengine :D I think you all agree! Better performance would not hurt at all......And better ATC, with "european style" and more choices to choose from...CheersJohan "Whats VNAV?!?!" Adolfsson

An update to the ATC system and weather (which already was a god-send for the FS2002/FS2004 transition), and more detail to gate operations (gate numbers, ground traffic, and marshallers). Also, perhaps more integrated systems that panel makers can create ultra-realistic panels in which every switch does something and a better method of toggling failures in-flight ;)

1. Updated fully DX9(might even be 10 at that point) capable graphics renderer.2. An end to the sudden visibility and wind shifts.3. Give ATC the ability to use speed and actual vectoring techniques to space the AI...

Among other things that have already been mentioned I

I wonder whether Microsoft should look at scenery on demand which unpacks in an area of 150 miles around the plane as you go.The 2D panels VCs and numerous popups seem a really mix match in dealing with the way instrument panels are displayed and accessed.The tunnel vision screens even using a VC dont give any sort of realistic spatial awareness.Microsoft really do need a much cleverer way of dealing with the cockpit invironment and handling framerates in a smooth fluid way.As for weather I am with you with that. A fully dynamic weather system which is alive and moving and unpredictable should be the flagstaff of the next release.Peter

So Peter, a couple of years ago I mourned - in this very forum - the lack of peripheral view You then replied with this story, including picture, of how you landed your plane once with a completely frozen windshield, safe for a very small area, claiming that was all you needed to land safelyI guess

I want things to appear realistic up close, from clouds to skyscrapers to autogen buildings to fields and grassland. In particular I'd like the low-level experience to be vastly improved.I think simulation in general will be making huge strides in the years ahead. Just the other day I read a report in Wired News about the US Army setting up a video game studio to provide simulation technology to the military and other agencies, such as the Secret Service; apparently there's enormous interest and they're having trouble keeping up with the demand. I hope and expect that MS will stay in the forefront. But I'm also looking forward to Oleg Maddox's Battle of Britain sim (due in 2005) as the next big step forward.

HiI am sure you are talking about this picture ;-)But I wouldnt like to fly a circuit through that little panel visually.Its a bit different on an instrument approach where the runway lights pop out of the clouds right in front at 200 feet to flying visually.In clouds you have no visual reference only instrument indications.Best wishesPeter ;-)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/82813.jpg

that's the one ! :-smile12 in the old days IFR was about the only sensible thing you could do with FS - never managed a decent circuit in FS II / 3 (opening a second window did help some)So, I second the smooth VC and peripheral view :-beerchug