Name one bug you want fixed for FS10...

[Guest LonelyplanetXO]

Actually I think the sim's pretty darned good for what it is ;)but it can always be improved...I'd go with fixing stutters & photorealistic terrain (hehe sure, I can load 18 DVD's!).also Runways that aren't so well defined and not always dead flatFix the wind layer transitions & haze (I use activesky anyway)Battery bugFix the gauge update rateInclude an online option to allow two or more users to share the same aircraft (see http://www.gates.to/ for a beta version of this)Include activecamera as default - so many great featuresA better flightplanner such as FSNavMaybe make the flight dynamics engine more flexible - eg include a Bell Boeing BB609 as a default aircraftDid anyone mention those blimmin stutters?Better helicopter dynamicsOh, and all for less than a hundred bucks, and can I run it on my current PC with full options on? Please? :)All the best LPXO

[Guest detector]

Fix the ground physics. Someone said "Learn to taxi properly and you have no such problems."...thats BS.Fix the "rim" that goes along the borders in full screen mode. They are there, but can`t be seen on a screenshot unfortunately.

[Hakkie 0]

Just a remark, not meant to offend/upset anybody!!!Browsing through this thread I can not help but to note the following: the number of posted bugfixes related to actually flying an aircraft is very low. Most are related to stutters, weather/visibility, ATC and scenery. Can we conclude that Microsoft succeeded in making flying 'as real as it gets?' Being a virtual pilot only, I can not judge this.Please note: I agree with many things posted here. Fixing those would make FS even better. But we must not forget how good it already is. I've been a fan of flightsim since version II in the mid 80s on a Commodore 64. If the (hard- and software) trend continues at the same speed, I can hardly imagine how good it will become!

[Guest MattNW]

>3. Very simple: When assigned a descent below FL180, center>controller never gives local altimeter setting. Altimeter>setting is eventually given by approach, but a descent below>FL180 should always be accompanied by altimeter setting.I'd also like to hear a barometric pressure prior to taxi. I hate that "B" thing.

[Dillon 2,197]

"Runways that aren't so well defined and not always dead flat"You mean like this??? This is what I feel FS10 should evolve into if the topography called for it at a particular airport... :-wave http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/109529.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

Agreed Hakki, let's just hope Microsoft continues with this awesome trend for years to come...

[Guest MattNW]

>Just a remark, not meant to offend/upset anybody!!!>>Browsing through this thread I can not help but to note the>following: the number of posted bugfixes related to actually>flying an aircraft is very low. Most are related to stutters,>weather/visibility, ATC and scenery. Can we conclude that>Microsoft succeeded in making flying 'as real as it gets?'>Being a virtual pilot only, I can not judge this.>Please note: I agree with many things posted here. Fixing>those would make FS even better. But we must not forget how>good it already is. I've been a fan of flightsim since version>II in the mid 80s on a Commodore 64. If the (hard- and>software) trend continues at the same speed, I can hardly>imagine how good it will become!>They did a good job with the smaller airplanes like the Cessna but there's still some room for improvement. I doubt thought that you'll see a whole lot of improvement in this because of the way FS controls the flight model. At present the sim just doesn't model all the dynamics involved in flight.Can't say personally (like I can for the Cessnas) but I've heard from others who have flown large jets that the flight model is way out of line there. Again until they change their whole flight modeling engine there's not a whole lot that can be done except tweak the existing model for each airplane like the payware authors do.As for what I'd like to see changed, there isn't any ONE thing I could pick. If I heard that FS 10 was released today and they only fixed one bug or inaccuracy I doubt I'd be buying it. A lot of things need to be fixed and hopefully FS 10 will come out with fixes for many of the suggestions above instead of a bunch of new eye candy enhancements that will add additional bugs and hits on performance.From a personal standpoint however I agree with the people above who'd like to see better taxi charcteristics. Along with that I'd love to see different taxi characteristics depending on the surface you are taxiing on. IE, less traction on dirt, grass and gravel with even less when raining. I'd also like to see a much better model for float planes on water. At present it's like trying to taxi in molases.

[Guest garymccl]

I find it strange that the topic of this thread is essentially *bugs*, yet most of what people have asked for aren't *bug* fixes - they're enhancements to the specification.For example, everyone wants the ATC to work better, and handle approaches/speed better. It is not a bug that it doesn't do this - it's by design. A bug is something that makes the application not do what it was designed to do in the specification.I don't know of any real BUGS (although the original poster seems to have found one I haven't personally experienced), I have lots of requests for enhancements, but that's another thread (actually - it's several other threads...)Gary

[Guest BeachComer]

Re: my own pet ox here...I'd respectfully submit that when an overcast is reported by the weather engine, but you can see blue sky, that it should be considered a bug. Not blue sky at the cloud draw limit, mind you, but right overhead.KGGG 202153Z 18021G28KT 10SM SCT040 OVC120 24/17 A2984 RMK A02Now, I'm aware of how observations are reported -- i.e., a 4/10ths layer, plus a 6/10ths layer, could result in the top layer being reported as overcast, if the layers were arranged such that the top layer made a < 9/10ths occlusion, even by a human observer. Realizing that, plus wanting to get the WX downloader out of the equation, I went in and manually set the top layer to 10/10ths, 2000' thick. This is the scene I got:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/109577.jpgThe issue of rain out of a sunny clear blue sky, when the RW ceiling is 14,000', is obviously not MS' problem. However, a 10/10ths overcast should appear solid in the sim. While it's not a code error, but rather an implementation error, I offer my opinion that it is still a bug.

[Guest QFA001]

Spacing on final.Quantasluver

[Guest Traffic]

Totally agree with BeachComer.This is a bug for sure. As part of my job, they also trained us to be licensed weather observers and an Overcast sky by definition, at least in Canada, is Zero Blue visible. However if there is Blue visible through a layer, as in Opacity is not 100%, it can still be overcast. But when 10/10 Coverage/Opacity is present, there should be NO blue to be seen, through layers or otherwise. FS doesn't seem to model 10 Opacity.

[Guest jason2112]

I agree that a lot of things mentioned in this thread cannot be considered bugs, but rather proposed enhancements or improvements. On thing I'd definitely call a bug, and a big one, is multi monitor handling. The announcements for FS2004 promised enhanced multi monitor capabilities, but the feature is unusable (from a handling point of view) and unstable (at least with my setup, nVidia Ti4200 with to monitors attached). I really loved two screens in FS2002, and I hope that this will be addressed by FS10.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]