There was an interesting thread below regarding what you would do if there was no more MSFS.Most appear happy with what they have now and are confident that with third party help they could blissfully carry on with the existing platform as it stands for many years to come.I cannot agree as I personally feel there is a long way to go before MSFS is complete enough.For me MSFS scores high in the visual delights department. What we once referred to as "candy".In some ways it has the Candy without the structure to support that Candy and that needs to be added before the sim is complete enough to stand alone and to stand the test of time as a complete sim.Take what we have behind the pretty clouds and weather system.Again not a patch on the the old weather system supplied by FU3.I really hope that we have a weather structure in the next MSFS.By that I mean properly structured high and low pressure systems which move and change. Winds which are relective of those isobars and move in the correct direction in relationship to those lows or highs.I would like winds which react to terrain following mountain contours, creating mountain wave with their relevant clouds.I would like jetstreams which follow real world patterns and clear air turbulence which marks their boundaries.I would like fronts of all types with pre and post frontal effects.I would like instability and each frontal system marked by its relevant clouds and formations.I would like unstable cumulous and Cumulo Nimbus clouds, growing and moving with their relevant winds and icing turbulence and electricity.Above all I would like to see real weather. The one thing that challenges the real world pilot.Maybe an interface where we can download real world weather sytems modelling what happens on the day.Icing, freezing rain, turbulence, windshear, rising hot air pockets. Falling air which causes the aircraft to pitch on autopilot and the speed to decay as it tries to maintain altitude.Snow, fog.........I could go on and usually do ;-)Dont say it cant be done because FU3 had a pretty good structure but without the Candy. MSFS has the Candy without the structure.This is just one example where MSFS is weak. There are other areas which are equally weak and where structure needs to be placed before we have a sim which is complete in my eyes.And not forgetting a fluid sim without the stutters and crawler frame rates.What do you think?Peterhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/102763.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/102764.jpg

You just said it all! :DBesides that --the lighting, it would be interesting to fly near CB's that look really dark and scary, lightning that ilumminates(sp?) the environment instead of only the plane.but just that what you mentioned above would satisfy me enough to enjoy FS to the fullest :-) :-waveshocky :-hah

http://img7.exs.cx/img7/5379/Banner21.jpg

The Jet Stream can be simulated in MSFS today, but it would take an add-on developer to really make it work. Since FS2004 supports setting weather parameters at each station, the winds aloft can be controlled to within some degree of accuracy.I would love to see mountain waves, rotors, and other items a pilot has to contend with. Seeing Lenticular clouds in tandem with mountain waves or a high jet would be a very nice feature or as you mention, cloud formations relavant to the weather as it happens.Imagine receiving a weather briefing prior to flight--and planning accordingly so you can sneak in before the destination weather closes in. A front can be set up or at least simulated in FS2004 using the weather stations, but it is pretty static and dynamic weather is more a fudge than anything else.Getting rid of stutters will be more of a challenge--most are induced by those moments the hard drive needs to load data. We're asking for even greater resolution in the ground textures than we have now, and all that data has to get fetched from the weakest and slowest link--our hard drives. -John

ShockyTucked under the dark clouds in the pic is Charleroi(Europe) I had to dive in there on a fuel diversion because of 80 kt headwinds.I landed just as the runway disappeared under torrential rain :-(Shot 2 was a night takeoff bound for the UK. My route through DVR dover was blocked by a wall of thunderstorms and I had to fly down the English channel as far as southampton before I could find a way through.The flashing clouds were not only frightening but awesome in the complete dark maybe half an hour after this takeoff.The sim needs that adrenaline rush which unpredictability in weather adds.I have pointed out weather but there are many other areas where structure under the candy needs looking at ;-)Any ideas anyone?Peter

John What you are talking about would indeed be awesome flying in unpredictable living weather.I really hope the brilliant guys at MS make a new weather engine the pinnacle of the next version :-)Peter

Peter and John,Couldn't agree with you more . . . although I'm wondering if we should order the new Intel 6.5 chip today in order to get it in time along with the new ATI XX28000XTS vid cards .It will be most interesting to see the new developments and what new tech it will take to get us there . . . a job, no doubt, but boy! What a ride.Great pics Peter, frightening weather always excites me to no end.(saying that It also has my TOTAL respect . . .guess that's why I've stayed alive this long LOL.Best to bothClayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Before all this fun stuff I would first like Microsoft to fix some big and much more basic ticket items - like for example very flaky visibility issues/transitions that plague current weather right now. And then proper sunsets with enough time gradation so for example we won't have sunset to darkness transition in one second!Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

I think that simulating the weather would be easier than showing it. From a programmer's perspective fluid dynamics have come a long way, and some realistic weather would definately be doable with the right particle physics. The nice thing is that if they did it that way, it would be TRULY scalable and dynamic. Maybe on today's systems we'd still have to deal with some abrupt/unrealistic weather changes, but in a few years you be able to gradually increase the fidelity of the fluid dynamics engine to one which still ran well on you P6 8.0, and you'd probably see some unforeseen but realistic phenomenon. Much like the way X-Plane models flight dynamics, but using the ground as the airfoil.Displaying the weather is always going to be tough. To display ultra realistic weather you'd just shade the particles based on their current states- which, if the fluid dynamics engine was good enough, would create the clouds, vapor trails, etc- much like a 3D package renders smoke- but doing it on a large skill is way out of sight for realtime- especially to model an entire airspace. I'm sure the 3D clouds will get better, but they won't be truly volumetric without a miracle in processing power. I mean to render the clouds in those pictures, moving, and reshaping realistically in true 3D is a long way off.There will be huge leaps though, and if you look at FS now compared to FS4 (the clouds were a bunch of balls). It has come a LONG way. Ironically, I think the future will be going back to rendering balls instead of pretty pre-shaped clouds.When Looking Glass Studios closed up shop, I was very sad. They were a genre-bending, ground breaking studio. Almost everything they ever made is in a hall of fame somewhere. I could only imagine what the weather in Flight Unlimited 6 would have been. Maybe MS will really go all out in the next version and suprise us all.

Clay,I don't believe that such a processor would be required... I feel that should MS take the "brave" step of foregoing any semblance of backward compatibility, and taking into account the capabilities when using the latest in the series of dx 9 toolset, much more of the graphics processing task could be offloaded to the GPU as opposed to the somewhat archaic method of getting the main processor to do it.I for one would be more than happy to miss the next release cycle if MS went down that path so that a whole new experience would be arrived at in a couple more years.CheersChris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

ChrisI would also like to see a complete redesign rather than yet more frame rate smashing Candy and gimmicks.We still have the silly scenario of two panels, 2D and VC. We still have altimeters climbing in jerks.We still have a flight dynamics engine which needs a complete overhaul.But mainly we shouldnt be in a position where we are making loads of adjustments and visual sacrifices in the sim to get it to operate at anything above a snails pace.Maybe MS should look at some sort of texture management only loading textures on demand.I am no expert but I feel the sim has a way to go before I would be satisfied with what we have.Really FU3 was way ahead of its time it had the meat MSFS has the skin.MS really need to make the whole experience a lot more dynamic a lot more fluid and they wont achieve that with more Candy updates.Peter

>We still have altimeters climbing in jerks.This is my biggest gripe with FS2004; the instrument refresh rate especially in the virtual cockpit. A low refresh rate makes it difficult to perform precise climbs, banks, turns and maintain attitude.

Active Sky does a pretty good job of making the weather look realistic enough for me.

Active Sky does a pretty good job of making the weather look realistic enough for me.

Nice pictures! I like the runway one.May I ask what plane that is you fly? :)

Chris,Well, I for one sure hope you are right. It would be nice to have all those things and a 'new' engine which was up to date and making use of the processing power we NOW have.Best,Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"