So basically what you're saying is that FSX isnt realistic on crash damage modelling because the aircraft manufacturers want it dumbed down.

 

It is not what I am saying...it is what the manufactures told MS to do. If you were to spend billions on a product line how would you feel if someone else simulated your product being damaged and destroyed in a simulator that is completely outside of your control over your product. Even Car Companies crash test their vehicles and don't release those results entirely to the public, they control the release of that data through approved reports.

 

Aircraft companies have the confidence of the flying public in mind and don't want mothers to see their 12 year old sons crashing Cessna's and Boeings into things and laughng at it (which would happen if Flight Sim had Crash Modeling). 

 

Also it would effect the ESRB rating which FSX is rated 'E' for Everyone....If you stick Crash Modeling in then that rating most likely would change. I can't remember which release it was removed but it was probably FS95 going from memory.

 

 

we all know that basic crash damage was available in earlier versions of MSFS, and that a simple config.file edit could enable it again in later versions.

Again, whatever was available was an arcade, cartoonish version, not real crash modelling.

You would need a Cray computer and huge amount of ground work to do any realistic crash modelling, it is beyond reach of consumer software products.

Back to the title of the post:

 

- Better ATC

 

- Fading in of autogen (houses, trees, all of it)

For me ATC is a big one.....I can't stand hearing stuff like 'Cleared to land runway 5, caution the airbus on the runway' etc

 

Performance needs an overhaul and 64-bit would help that considerably.

 

Problem with going to 64-bit is it would take 4 years for third party development to catch up so in the beginning it would be mostly default and a trickle of new stuff coming out over time. Short term pain and long term gain

 

Would be awesome to step outside the aircraft and be able to do a walk-around and stuff like that. the one thing missing from an FSX session compared to renting a real world Cessna is the walk-around.  It would be a great learning tool.

 

To make it even more real world you could go from Dispatch, then out to the tarmac to your aircraft and do a walk-around before getting in and starting it up. 

 

 

Would be awesome to step outside the aircraft and be able to do a walk-around and stuff like that. the one thing missing from an FSX session compared to renting a real world Cessna is the walk-around.  It would be a great learning tool.

That's actually a pretty good idea.

I'm not into GA as far as the sim goes, but from my RW flight experiences (flying and observing) the walk around is mandatory. Again, not into GA, but how cool would it be to have the C182 (I think that's A2A) and do a walk around. Undo the tie downs, check the fuel for water. Oil level, etc... I'd do it!

 

 

Fix the mixture bug.
Fix the turbine model.

 

More damage and maintenance, wear and tear.

 

 

Most wanted-

 

Bikini Plane wash in every airport.

Free Beer for life.

I'm not sure if wishing for something that will never happen is a good idea.

I'm not sure if wishing for something that will never happen is a good idea.

 

Go back and play the original Flight Simulator 1 again today....Now by your logic we would still have that today

 

Or continue to go along with this ride that has started almost 40 years ago now and see what happens over the next 40 years and more, or did you think Computers have just reached peak and are not moving forward anymore  :rolleyes:

To summarize:

 

- better code base (for far better performance and more stability)

- improved physics engine (for better flight dynamics and damage modelling)

- advanced sdk (for addon devs to be able to make better ATC, weather, aircraft addons, etc.)

 

May I add one more wish:

 

- lower prices for software addons and hardware stuff (yokes, etc.) [not blaming the dev companies here. The only way to get their products cheaper is a larger customer base, which is why I think FSX:SE is a good thing to happen to us all]

A couple of other things...

 

• Passengers
• More interaction on the ground with folks...marshallers, refuelers, etc.

Aircraft companies have the confidence of the flying public in mind and don't want mothers to see their 12 year old sons crashing Cessna's and Boeings into things and laughng at it (which would happen if Flight Sim had Crash Modeling).

 

Fair comment. But the very nature of FSX involves occasional? hard landings and crashes resulting in moderate to severe damage to branded aircraft and so we do see crashes happen in FSX, albeit with a  largely static 'crash' screen with loud noises of aircraft destruction.

..If aircraft manufacturers were so concerned about this issue they'd demand that FSX should have a blank screen appear with the word 'crash' over it with no crashing sounds or image depiction of their aircraft being destroyed or damaged.

 

Also, the Internet is filled with FS9/FSX videos dating back 10 years or more showing commercial planes crashing into runways and buildings etc (with add-ons) - including several of the Twin Towers attacks.  These videos would have been removed years ago if the aircraft manufacturers were so concerned about this issue reflecting on their public image. - and who could forget the FS Passengers add-on where passengers screamed in terror during steep descents in Boeings etc..

 

So to sum up: More realistic damage modelling could be implemented into a revamped FSX by way of third party plug-in modules/addons. 

 

....The 'one-man-band' physics engine BeamNG has demonstrated how realistic physics modelling can be implemented without having to resort to the likes of a Cray computer or GTA's complex physics modelling.  .e.g......

 

BeamNG Drive Experimental Random Vehicle #12 Crash Testing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwf0SqeGw9k#t=0m19s

 

BeamNG. Touchdown...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwf0SqeGw9k#t=5m34s

 

Arcade-style crash FSX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8p6G2nrVmQ#t=2m27s

Again, whatever was available was an arcade, cartoonish version, not real crash modelling.

You would need a Cray computer and huge amount of ground work to do any realistic crash modelling, it is beyond reach of consumer software products.

 

Perhaps come away from the ageing MSFS for an hour or so and see what next gen physics engines are available now..and able to run on even modest gaming PCs to simulate real-world physics damage modelling. (See my links above to BeamNG)

 

BTW. I know what you mean by cartoonish...;-)

 

FSX cartoon flight - 1 (ThunderBirds are Go)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sql7Fb3518g#t=0m06s

 

FSX cartoon flight - 2  (Airport drama)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Zcuu7jM4g#t=0m16s

 

FSX cartoon flight - 3 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSn-jaGlso0#t=0m1s

 

FSX - 2015 OrbX -'cartoonish'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCl2KcKmy0A#t=1m28s

 It is what it is with FSX. If you re-post this thread a year from now, we'll most likely have the same wishlist we have had for years in the first place. Sure we'll hear  from developers(mainly updates), but I can't see anything that would "revolutionize" Fsx for me. Nine years later and we are still asking for a better ATC,etc,etc.To each their own, but I don't think is "realistic" to fly the great PMDG T7,  without ai traffic at the airport and also have empty skies mainly because the software limitation of FSX . What I'd love to see happen this year is an announcement that  a brand new and better platform is being developed. cheers

Fair comment. But the very nature of FSX involves occasional? hard landings and crashes resulting in moderate to severe damage to branded aircraft and so we do see crashes happen in FSX, albeit with a  largely static 'crash' screen with loud noises of aircraft destruction.

..If aircraft manufacturers were so concerned about this issue they'd demand that FSX should have a blank screen appear with the word 'crash' over it with no crashing sounds or image depiction of their aircraft being destroyed or damaged.

 

I used to work for the supplier that supplied the B737 landing gears to Boeing on their conveyor and paint systems back in my Manufacturing Engineering days and those landing gears are something they pride themselves on, just one tour of the factory with them and they do put a lot of pride into their work. I get the impression that if someone released a commercial simulator like FSX showing their products collapsing or being damaged on hard landing I could even see them having a big issue with that. These companies rigorously test those components and that data isn't for public access. Someone creating crash damage based on nothing would be an issue for them as it shows their product behaving in ways that isn't accurate or based on any real world testing, a video game developer imagineering how it may happen isn't crash modeling at all. 

 

The developers for Grand Theft Auto have to show generic looking cars and aircraft for these reasons because if they modeled accurate looking Fords or GMC's or Boeing's in that game you bet they would end up in court. This is because their is a limit as to what a company will allow you to show with their products.

 

But what is funny about this debate is.....a simple wish for crash damage on your part would suffice so I don't understand why you are so passionate about the issue that most likely won't happen for numerous reasons. 

 

Some people just say 'FIx ATC' and move on....etc 

Go back and play the original Flight Simulator 1 again today....Now by your logic we would still have that today

 

Or continue to go along with this ride that has started almost 40 years ago now and see what happens over the next 40 years and more, or did you think Computers have just reached peak and are not moving forward anymore  :rolleyes:

I meant that we're never going to get MS FSXI.