FSX. Almost, but not quite.

[StormVR6 30]

FSX. Even X-Plane aficionados would agree, that with several choice add-ons, it's still the flight sim. Bung a few quid (well actually I've spent over £1000, but don't tell my wife, she'd go completely nuts......well actually she wouldn't, but I thought I'd just throw a bit of lame, comedy club humour in there) in to it and after transforming an area of your home into an Airbus cockpit - well at least that's what you believe whilst sat in a knackered old chair, behind a desk, covered in paperwork and half drunk mugs of coffee - you can be part of a simulated world that is still capable of letting you take to the skies in a reasonably convincing manner.

 

If you're fortunate enough to have the likes of REX, FTX, MyTraffic, Carenado, RealAir, PMDG, A2A and maybe even a TrackIR setup, then FSX is very good.

 

But let's be honest, many areas of it could be better, especially with modern hardware running the show. P3D V2 is on the horizon, but from what I've seen, it doesn't look like it's pushing any particular boundaries. DX11? Give me a break; I've been into bleeding-edge graphics (every rig I've built was for high resolution, maxed out gaming) for years and the DX11 implementation in P3D V2 looks average at best.

 

Anyway, I digress, again. So, you FSX pilots out there. You've got the best already, but if something "new" was to come along, what is the one thing that really has to show an appearance? For me, personally, I'd like it all, but I'm what's often crudely labelled a "graphics wh*re". So for me, cutting-edge visuals are top of the list.

[wlix261 79]

I also like good graphics and good real world scenery particularly.

[simmerhead 885]

Immersion is everything to me, so improved graphics would be my #1 choice.

 

Improved flight dynamics would only improve immersion on paper. Flying a real Cessna 172 is so different to flying even the A2A 172 that it really doesn't matter to me.

 

My second request would be more missions and gameplay (career modes etc.). Really loved the direction the FS series was taking with mission and reward implementation in FSX.

[StormVR6 30]

Immersion is everything to me, so improved graphics would be my #1 choice....

 

I'm with you all the way on the graphics front, simmerhead, but early feedback is already showing a massive lean towards smooth frame rates. And actually, when you think about, a completely smooth experience is what gives true immersion, don't you think? Although I'd love to see an FS that, when I glance out of the window, looks as good as it does in real life, if it was stuttering and lagging the immersion would be gone.

 

For true immersion (not considering crazy VR tech) I suppose both visuals and performance are needed. But this poll is all about what one feature people would place at the top of their list ....and I'll stick with visual fidelity.   

[bonchie 2,305]

 

I think the smooth framerate thing is a bit like chasing a white whale. 

Once you tweak for days, balance your sliders just right, install a half dozen different "fixes" and finally get smooth performance it's still clear FSX is dated and missing something in many areas. And those areas can't be fixed by third parties. 

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

 the DX11 implementation in P3D V2 looks average at best.

 

Based on what? There have only been a few screenshots published so far that don't show much.

[metalmike 34]

Performance, easily. The graphics already look pretty awesome assuming you've got the latest addons and such. The problem is most people have to put together a fairly pricy rig to run it all. 

[StormVR6 30]

Based on what? There have only been a few screenshots published so far that don't show much.

 

Heh, exactly, like I said, "from what I've seen".

 

I'm just doubtful that P3D V2 is going to look a huge amount better, DX11 or not. I might be wrong and I hope I am.  

[wlix261 79]

I also like good graphics and good real world scenery particularly.

But the issue is that FSX is stuck with WIN7. Windows will continue to evolve through 8, 9, 10 etc and FSX will eventually fall through the cracks...

[ryanbatc 12,770]

I voted for the visuals.  FSX looks pretty dang good most of the time.  But nighttime - it really needs work.  Lately I've been flying XP10 HDR at night.  It smokes FSX.  Even with Orbx lights or UTX (which are definitly better than stock), it's still nothing compared to XP at night.

 

If FSX had superior night lighting, I'd put XP away for good.

[thepitts 30]

Not an aficionado, but still wouldn't agree (and for far more than just night textures)

. Have both FSX and XP10 and play both. Fsx is a ten colour paint set used by great artists with years of practice. XP10  is a hundred colour paint set used by a few great artists who have by comparison just started.

If your a pure flight sim fan and not wedded ideologically or financially to any platform (I wouldn't want the poster to run the risk of marital disharmony a second time) I know where I would prefer good 3PD to be directed.

[brucewtb 246]

64 bit support, it has to come from somwhere over the next 3- 4 years otherwise this hobby is just going to die.

 

Bruceb

[simmerhead 885]

Heh, exactly, like I said, "from what I've seen".

 

I'm just doubtful that P3D V2 is going to look a huge amount better, DX11 or not. I might be wrong and I hope I am.  

 

I agree with you. I am sure it will be an improvement, but not revolutionary. It reminds me of how dissapointed I was with FLIGHT when I saw it used the same landclass textures as FSX in places (not saying I'm not gonna love P3D 2.0). P3D brings DX11, better shadows, fog, and less autogen popping, but we're still stuck with the same old terrain engine that uses vintage 2006 graphics. Again, I dig that P3D is steeping things up a notch, but compared to FSX with REX installed I don't think the looks (from the screenshots) is a huge leap forward.

 

As for stutters, alongside autogen popping and flashing textures it is an annoying "bug", but given an ultimatum, graphics would still be my first priority.

[FloG 148]

All of your suggestions, in the following order, starting with the msot important one:

1) good performance (and stability), which is what I voted for

2) visuals

3) a more animated world

4) improved FDE

 

The reason I put the flight dynamics in the last place is that certain developers have achieved a quite amazing level of realism already (as far as I can judge it), e.g. with an external flight dynamics engine. Furthermore, I don't believe that many developers (especailly freeware developers) could take advantage of an improved FDE, unless that engine would "read" the model and computes an airflow around that model, which would result in a realistic flow simulation (but that would most likely bring our computers to their knees again).

[ArjenVdv 190]

In every aspect of FSX, we've got something missing. The technology is there to create the perfect flightsim, it's just a matter of "who is gonna do it". 

For graphics, I'd love to have dynamic shadows, lighting effects, lightbloom and reflections like in modern day games. It adds a lot more to the immersion than you might think.

For flight dynamics, we are missing a lot. No ground effect, in FSX the aircraft does the exact opposite when flaring, it just wants to sink and the default planes want to stall. We don't have realistic turbulence, no wind shear, barely any wind variance, no volumetric clouds, no weather radar, no realistic ground friction model.

I'd also love to have more add-ons built-in: a performance calculation tool, realistic flight planner like PFPX, checklists on screen, one big online network like IVAO or VATSIM and ACARS to communicate with ATC. 

We could have all of this in combination with good 60+ FPS performance if modern technology is used. 

My guess is this will never happen. Let's just hope XPlane will get up to this level one day. Otherwise, my hope is Aerosoft.