$100 Sim?? Yeah, and I'll have $50 worth of frames with that, thanks.Keith

yes, it's a combination of things for sure; rendering is one but the cost is frames. Persoanlly, I want to see more realisim in the flight experience; including good coverage realistic real ATC; real cockpit interaction.I mean, one thing a high ranking ATC director told me was the biggest problem with commercial airline pilots was that they spend too little time looking out of the window. In our game people actually look at the aircraft model and count the screws that show and deatails that even real pilots don't see in a ten million dollar simulator. Outside there sim is a garage or a steel box. The outside graphics are minimal.I'm thinking maybe the gaming market is bigger here that the serious simmming market.Frame rates and photo realism does not go together.vitual gaming style cockpits for example cost frame rates. People love VC's I don'tSo really it's probably still more a gaming market than a real world simulation market.It's probably down to style of flying. For example more than 60% of simmers don't even use flaps.most I know don't use or know how to use vatsim and real atc.It's still more a gamers market than anything else and this thread is indicating that; so that's the market that still needs to be serviced.

I agree, the money is coming from a gaming market. So any new release from MS or a new player, must address that in order to make profit.

>yes, it's a combination of things for sure; rendering is one>but the cost is frames. Persoanlly, I want to see more>realisim in the flight experience; including good coverage>realistic real ATC; real cockpit interaction.>>In our game people actually look at the aircraft model and>count the screws that show and deatails that even real pilots>don't see in a ten million dollar simulator. Outside there sim>is a garage or a steel box. The outside graphics are minimal.Perhaps I've been in the Experimental Aircraft Association too long. Too much Oshkosh & other airshows around the country. :) Half the fun of the sim experience for me, is recreations of aircraft you seldom see anymore. A Connie is an example, as well as some of the wonderful simulated B-25's available. And of course this applies to many examples of aircraft. It's all an "illusion" of flight, and I personally count the "outside" as important as "faking" flight on a desktop...Sometimes even more! >vitual gaming style cockpits for example cost frame rates.>People love VC's I don'tLike I said previously, sometimes a VC add's immensly to the illusion & feel of real flight. I never really enjoyed pattern work or landing, until the VC's came along. I really think you're too much into the "game" mentality, when it comes to VC's. Although, at this point, I'm not a fan of VC's for commercial jets.....yet.>It's probably down to style of flying. For example more than>60% of simmers don't even use flaps.I always use them when required, as well as trimming. So take my above thoughts, as serious simming, and not "gaming" :DL.Adamson

right on the ball buddy,I agree that VC's for VFR are great for pattern work and jets as a rule work better in 2D cockpits

I think for most users here the high priority would be the graphics engine and the environment, because you can buy the planes, Radar Contact, Ultimate Traffic, use Vatsim etc etc. It seems the biggest problem is that the same textures you see at ground level are the same ones you see at 40,000ft. The graphics engine should display a different level of detail depending on the altitude. Close to the ground you should be able to see proper grass, roads, cars/trucks driving along, buildings, trees that sway in the wind, and moving people.You can give all these objects properties and define them all say in XML file(s). Then let sceneries be created using those files. It will be more generic and easier for developers.John.

Below is a list I made after FS9 was releasedFix the default.xml bug.Fix the Seasonal CTD bug. Performance improvement suggestions: 1) Allow Hyper Thread technology to be used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AI improvement suggestions: 1) AI aircraft can fly non-direct routes and use STARs and DP

http://www.exn.ca/mini/startrek/holodeck.cfm:-)

>http://www.exn.ca/mini/startrek/holodeck.cfm:-) Something like that, but not everything would need be generated by data. The XML files could contain the file paths to textures and animation files.John.

Late on the thread... But has anyone seen this?http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/vue5infinite/?Page=2This thing is also responding to python language. I am wondering how such a visual representation can exist on one side and the cartoonish stuff on the other... Technology is not that different.

I would:* imitate LOCKON, which is the closest I have been to a real aircraft on a PC in my opinion. That is, the graphics and flight models/effects, but make it a Civ flight sim. I would make sure there was severe turbulence, storms and cross wind effects modelled, something I think has always been lacking on the PC.* re-create one region, similar to the Flight Unlimited/LOCKON approach. The advantage is super accurate scenery. Make it as accurate as possible within the limits of the PC (ie proper regional accents, scenery, traffic including military traffic and airports). That is, what you would expect if you were to fly there in the real world. I would also have civilian ground traffic, like is found in LOCKON. I would prefer to re-create a region, than try to re-create the whole world (a lost cause in my opinion in terms of realism).* I would re-create a region that hasn't been done before, meaning I would not recreate Washington state in the USA :)* after completing it I would work on an addon. This would be another highly detailed region. My focus would be quality rather than quantity.* model the traffic in the sim with real world traffic, with an internal schedule that the AI follow. Then allow the user to fly one of these scheduled flights, instead of the AI (ie to arrive or depart the region that is simulated). This way it would be possible for the user to see the AI performing the same flight another time within the sim.If I had the time, money and programming ability this would be my approach. The aim would be to make money of course.

If there is one thing that I would like to see it would be this. Someone out there is a programming genious and could make some kind of program to create AI Traffic while flying in multiplayer. I know that todays knowledge says that the computers today just cannot handle it. But then look how far they have come in ten years !.

I would uninstall FS9 and all my addons, chuck 'em all in the bin. Wait 10 to 15 years by which time FS23 might look like vue5 infinite.

$1,000,000,000.00 for you if you can actually wait that long !!!!!!!(lol):-rotor :-lol :-lol :-lol

>Late on the thread... But has anyone seen this?>>http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/vue5infinite/?Page=2>>This thing is also responding to python language. I am>wondering how such a visual representation can exist on one>side and the cartoonish stuff on the other... Technology is>not that different.One Frame in FS takes about 0.04 Seconds to render (Assuming 25fps).One Frame in Vue5 at 1025x768 with full quality settings (like the ones on the website) could take hours to render.How's that for a frame rate? ;)Paul