Higher res ground textures, smarter ATC and true systems modelling where changes in operating parameters and environmental conditions have a real effect on the entire "system".Fly 3,4,5...? now I would really go for that. Richard H would be really proud :-beerchugCheersChris Porter:-outta

HI PeterHere`s the dreamlist for me:Weather effects. E.g. contaminated runways, decent heavy rain / snow. Convincing turbulence would be nice - though I`m not sure how this could be achieved without a motion platform - in the 152`s I fly its often a tiny movement of the a/c but an abrupt one which is the most noticeable. Also ice accretion, with both aerodynamic and visual impact on the sim.I would also like to see much more integral failure modelling - engines wearing, overheating, bulbs blowing, radios dying. I am talking about realistic failure modes here - for example climb at too low a speed and then overheat. Do it enough times and the engine dies (partial failures even - a burnt valve or equivalent). Stuck mic would be entertaining (!). Burst tyres. Plausible failures. Some add on aircraft do have some nice failure modes - I seem to recall even the venerable Allied FS YS-11 would blow engines if pushed too hard taking off and as far as I know the latest heavy metal addons (PMDG LDS RFP) have good failure modes. It would be good to see this in the core systems model within the sim.Photographic base runway textures would be good. Even the best photo-scenery for FS generally has the standard runway plonked on it. It would be nice to have a photo runway but not constrained to the current 4m per pixel or whatever the photosceneries are limited too. I am actually pretty happy with the current FS scenery engine, apart from the runways themselves. Sure it would be nice to have every blade of grass modelled, but I`d much rather see the processor cycles go into improving physics and making the sim-world less perfect. I think your NOTAM idea is a great one - those kind of things are what make flying a regular route interesting.Thanks for listening to my loquacious babble!Lungs

My Dreamlist.1. Ability for MSFSim to utilize Multi core, Multi Processor and even Multi computers in a network. (this way..I don't have to keep replacing my PC,s instead I can add on to my PC with another PC.2. To be able to use better resolution for scenaries than what is currently available. IF the user can afford better processor more capacity.. then that should be the limiting factor.3. Better flight dynamic architecture for addon vendors to build more realistic flight dynamics on their planes without handicapping them.4. More realistic and flexibile ATCs, STARs and SID in your flight plan.5. Realistic (crowded) trees and forests.6. Realistic looking water and animation of water.7. Better highways.8. Ability to have Multiple screen Views thats seamless (using networked PC's ref #1).Thats a start.:)

Hi Peter,Yes, absolutely. We've been testing it with Ultimate Traffic at 100% for months now. Actually, probably closer to a year! You'll just love hearing RC calls to other aircraft wherever you are in the world. Some of those centre names in former Soviet bloc countries were fun pronouncing! :-)Although many of use UT RC will work equally well with any Ai traffic program.Cheers,

Hi Ronald,I honestly don't know but if I tell you that the tutorials are being written and test flown and we're closing the door to volunteers for recording it is quite close.All the CDs have to be burnt of course and that aspect is outside my area which is why I don't know about a release date. Check the Radar Contact forum for announcements or news.Cheers,

Ouch, that's like eveything made better. Well you can always ask I guess. G

Peter,I would like to touch on the "online" flying that you mentioned back in post one. I fly everytime on VATSIM. The one drawback is that many times, you land and takeoff at airports that usually have maybe one or two other pilots there. When flying online, you don't use AI planes either. That is unfortunate due to the way AI planes and AFCADS are nowadays, one can make an aiport "come alive"! There should be a way to make this feeling occur when flying online. Sure we have static aircraft that third party dev's put in the scenery such as Simflyers, Fly-Tampa and the like but they are usually looking like planes from FS98! Mind you I am grateful of what we have but I think more can be done. My idea would be to have a program for online flyers that builds on the premise of what Lago did with there FSE program. Have a program that would allow the end-user to select from a large library of aircraft models/liveries that are on par with the top AI models currently available and have the user be able to select whatever airport they have within FS and place static aircraft where they want them at. The user could fill up his airport with static aircraft to make it look very busy or leave many out to give it a look of little useage. If after a month or two of flying into that airport, the user can re-arrange the static planes to put different types or airlines at different gates. This way, you can constantly change the look and feel of the airports you have within FS. Have it so the planes look like they are is use with nav lights on at night and the like. Now going off the AFCAD premise, why is it not possible using the same program to create lanes of travel around the terminal for ground handling traffic? People can customize what taxiways there AI planes use, we could customize the routes that the ground handling equipment would travel on. It could then be played in a loop fashion when inside the sim. Imagine say at Delta's base in Atlanta to program a route so a tug is towing a 767 from the maint. base to a particular gate to put the aircraft in service? Or at the cargo ramp, place your static cargo aircraft in there spots and create routes around them for the frieght containers. Anyway, that is what I think would enhance the online flying.

That's really great to hear Ray,I'll have to get myself a copy of that.

I was thinking not specifically about Fly really, it was something that just entered my head to try and trigger a new kind of thinking. I have no plans to bring it back. It would be fun to help develop a new simulator though with some of these ideas.

Thanks Eric,Really intresting comments here and I feel this is something that has got some real merit.I too use Vatsim and find it can be very sterile and considering it should do the oposite and make things seem more busy and more active it seems pretty crazy it can feel so sterile.One problem Vatsim have is it's Freeware and you can't make people do things and you can't for example make all the controllers stay in one area to give good coverage or make people fly in a localized area to make it feel busy.Something very odd to me that it's spead out so thinly. Often it's dead even in B class airports like Heathrow or Miami. Crazy really.

Nice topic Peter!All I want in a future version of MS FS is a graphics (lighting) engine that will allow true light reflections/luminosity of any object. That is, at night, when my Mooney Bravo's taxi light is pointed at an object (e.g. aircraft), I should see the illiminated object, not a darken silhouette! I noticed this in previous version of FS.Also, when you fly in FS2004 with low fog, the taxi and landing lights of aircrafts on the ground look very unrealistic. Often, all I see is a triangular white sheet moving on the ground!For those reasons alone, I recommend a new 3D lighting engine for the next FS.David

If FLY came back I would by it in a heartbeat.It was the best flight simulator of its time. What a shame it fell into the hands of the wrong publisher, especially given the effort put forth by the developers.If that is what you have up your sleeve, Peter, tell me what I can do to help.Wilson

Birds! (and the occasional bird strike) Cars! Traffic lights at roads. Sloped runways etc etc etc.Jeff

PeterTake a look at the old FU3 a programme so way ahead of its time with immersion value and interactivity.I often wonder how a modern version of FU3 would have looked like if it had continued to be developed with global coverage.Its dynamic weather sytems with active fronts was amazing but sadly visually lacking.If I was to produce a new sim it would be along those lines but a visual feast using todays technology with global coverage or at least the USA and Europe with Iceland and Greenland to bridge.There would be superb adventures to interact with the dynamic unpredictable weather.Ferry pilots battling changing winds and realistic storm cells with real weather hazards of turbulence, icing, rain showers and developing fog.I would bring the word fun and fear into the sim sadly still lacking in MSFSPeter

I find it quite interesting that almost all the features everyone wants are already available in x-plane.Great flight modelling with a superb rendition of turbulence unlike the MS one.Contaminated rwys with spray and snow which blow.Great weather etc etc.ALl xplane needs is the support of the developers to make a great addon like the LDS767 or PMDG744 and i would never return to the unrealistic flight environment that we have in FS9.At the end of the day FS( is a pretty poor simulator of flight itself and that is its biggest letdown.SLow gauge refresh rates and its poor aerodynamic model.Personally if MS threw the whiole thing away and started again with an x-plane like aero model we'd be a lot better off.Darren