I don't remember where, but I could swear there's at least one plane out there that removes the rain with the wipers.

for slightly more than $50 dollars for a 16X DVD writer these days, why doesn't everyone have a DVD?

I find it interesting that most of the features being asked for are lighting effects (shadows, reflections, etc.).For me, I'd like to see a continuation of what was started in FlyII, which was realism of systems. I'm a VC/TrackIR kind of guy who wants to control his airplane like I control my airplane. So some sort of interface mechanisms which ease controlling knobs and buttons would be key, and of course clear, easy to read gauges are a must (though at 1920 x 1200 I can't really complain about gauge clarity in FS today). I want to be able to go through the whole checklist, including all the buttons overhead, as a previous poster noted, and have the systems respond appropriatelySecond an open, fully documented programming interface is key.Third, the ability to create and place scenery within the program is very important to me. I hate having to go back and forth between all the different scenery programs that are available and having to restart FS all the time to see it. I want to be able to edit in real time.Fourth, I did not like how FlyII cockpits were display size dependent (as are 2D cockpits in FS). VC is key.And, of course, all this has to be done with fluid motion.Thomas

A tall order Thomas but some of it may be possilble. But if we don't ask we don't get.Personally, I'm not in to the VC thing as I think this distracts from realism. That said for feel it can be very good. I just find it odd changing from one type of panel for opperating the aircraft to another for hand flying it. I also prefer a large full screen for landing to enhance realism.But really, VC is something I know people have got used to and like.

Now some of those ideas are really cool. I love the idea of smoke and yes you are right. Forest fires are rampent in some areas and times of year.Also, some farming techniues burn of grass or hay etc. So it's not a silly idea but really an inspired one.

All I want is moving people and cars.I especially want a "visible" FO or Passengers whose arms and hands move; even better, I want to be able to control their hands so I can make them flip switches, etc. I've seen this done in a helicopter type sim (forget the name) and it worked quite well.. just hope it could be done without killing the frames.-Bryan

> I also>prefer a large full screen for landing to enhance realism.>>But really, VC is something I know people have got used to and>like.In the old day's, I'd often use full screen for landing, to do away with "in my face" panels. But these day's the plane I have the most fun ever for landing, is the RealAir Spitfire which is a VC. The sight line above the glareshield is perfect, which allows visual attention to be out the windscreens, with downward glances for the panel. I also use shiftZ for constant & easy to see airspeed readouts.Considering how this airplane has some great reference points for getting that "perfect" landing attitude, it's a real "letdown" if going to full screen & just a mini-panel. Basically takes all the fun out of it for me, as numerous sensations such as "yaw" seem to vanish! I'd call this "de-hanced realism" and might as well junk the rudder pedals along with the stick, to go just keyboard! :DBut seriously, what I've just described does not apply to all simulated airplanes. But in this case, which is taking off or landing a high powered taildragger, this particular VC is the only way to go!L.Adamson

Combined with TrackIR I find VC much more realistic than 2D. I can't see the whole panel in my plane without turning my head. With the vector expansion, it's really cool being able to move your head and look around the steering wheel. Certainly, as has been discussed before, due to the interface, 2D is a compromise for ease of use compared to sitting in a real cockpit and being able to use your hands. Hence my suggestion that we find ways to improve the interface given the tools at hand. I'm sure somebody can think of something to improve on what we have. Perhaps it's already there. For instance, maybe, when the mouse is over a knob, allow the wheel to control the knob without having to click. Can you do this today? (I use a laptop with a trakstick most of the time, so I can't check this out at the moment). I think that would about do it for me.I do believe FlyII had all these features except the VC. It was mostly a matter of finishing the product.Thomas

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!How about a radical new aproach to graphics, maybe monitoring of the available resources, load, anticipated load and if what you are calling for is gonna be too much, or extra resouces are available, CHOICES as to what to decrease or increase. As part of setup, set priorities.Easy setup/optimisation an idiot like me can do, that would be nice.Barring that, if a flight simulator came out that would do everything that FLY II promised but did not deliver on because it was pushed out the door too quickly, I would be wiling to pay at LEAST $150.Systems, systems, systems.And engine start SNAFUS modeled for all default- like frying a turboprop if started improperly. Eye candy isn't quite as important, being forced to realise I NEED a power cart and use it or else is MUCH more important than a static or dynamic model of one.How pretty the clouds work is secondary to not being able to see thru them on an IFR aproach.In some ways I like the freeware ATC addon C4TO for FLY II better than even FS9 default.Updateable dateabase, and support so different regions of the world CAN have different ATC procedures. Even if all but one or a few countries aren't included at first...The more is modeled in the default, the easier realistic addon planes can be built.I haven't even tried X-Plane yet, but there has to be a better way. There are plenty of twin prop planes in sims using lookup tables that can fly with one engine out with various degrees of realism, does anyone know one that can TAXI??? You make it to a runway, then what? Apparently it is a lot of trouble to input the data necessary since so few planes can, which is a strong argument for something like the X-plane aproach. The ATR-42-500 by ROTW for FLY II is the only prop job I know of that can turn into the operating engine from a dead stop on the ground.The dominance of one shell is a major factor in the lack of enthusiasm to pour a lot of capital into a rival, and the limited support of that shell is a major factor in the cost of addons. For a while I have thought further development of freeware shells are the best hope of the future, but collaboration among top devs for a better commercial one has potential to happen quicker.BTW, if you check on the FLY forums, there is a freeware shell fully compatible with FLY II in an early stage of development. FLY II itself is about the price of three combos at Mcdonald's.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Ray,Nice to here from you!Radar Contact...how long is 'wont be too far away'(loL)RonMacGlasgow

>>Personally, I'm not in to the VC thing as I think this>distracts from realism. I know this topic has been beaten to death, but what is exactly realistic about having every single gauge and switch infront of you in a 2d postcard?

Very interesting indeed Thomas that lighting effects are prominant. It looks like people have begun to realize that there are limits to the current simulation in this area and that it's something in need of improvements.

Thanks for those comments sir, very well made and I completely agree with you.

You forgot to read the rest of that section Alex as I said I know people like it; VC I mean.

Horses for courses I suppose.I use a 737 that I added Co-Pilot to, which is handy for push back and time settings etc. However, my biggest buzz was the VC Head effect when turning. This was something I had not realised I was missing!It actually reminded me of the time I had an Audi Quattro, and it took me three months to realise that I was the one bending my head into fast bends, and not the Audi! It went round bends straight up on its suspension!Anyway, I use 2D for approach and landings (limitations of 15" Flat screen and ageing eyesight) and change to VC on the ground and in turns.I just like to watch instruments on approach, saves deep earth gardening for me!regards,