Apart from the usual graphics and performance frustrations, my main gripe goes to the lack of expandability of the ESP engine.

 

1. Custom ground polygons must be written using FS2002-style SCASM code.

2. There is no way to recreate switch and lever sounds without using a custom .dll gauge.

3. Turboprop engine start timing sequences can't be modified because the start animation is built into the .mdl file.

4. Again, in turboprops, the propeller doesn't start turning until combustion starts, which is unrealistic, especially for a free turbine like the PT6.

5. Flight dynamics have limited functionality and proper spins are very hard to come by.

6. Default GPS nav data is set to what it looked like in 2005-2006 and it's locked there. There is no way (as far as I know) that a user or 3rd party dev could completely overhaul the sim's native navaid, waypoint, airway, SID/STAR and approach databases.

7. Stock airports cannot be deleted or given a different ICAO code.

8. Airports must lie on an airport flatten polygon unless the dev is willing to spend time modelling each undulation of the surfaces.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love flight sim (I'm using P3D3 right now). However, compared to other current game technologies (just look at how the cityscape looks like at sunset in GTA5, and all this presented to you in 60+fps!), flight sim tech leaves a lot to be desired.

For me it would have to be OOM, that's at the top of my list. If that problem alone was completely resolved, I'd be extremely happy.

 

The other stuff would be texture loading and popping in, this really takes away from the immersion. The inconsistent runway lighting and how at some airports the lights seem to be floating and not connected to the groud.

 

The limited 32bit VAS which in turns limits the sim visually, such as panning around the scenery and then back to a heavy add-on scenery or airport will show up black as it continues to load in the textures. Another eyesore.

The ground friction model

 

Lack of rwy slopes and states

FSX can easily get 60+ FPS without add-ons on today's computers. 

But then what's the point? It's ugly without add-ons.

When you compare the performance of FSX to a different game, you should do a GTA V stock install to a FSX stock install. Not a GTA V without addons to FSX with addons. 

There are absolutely many enjoyable add-ons that get modeling, visuals, and systems right...or is that a product plug? lol

 

More a recommendation than a plug. :wink:  I'm just a beta tester - I don't benefit financially from any sales. I just wanted to point out the excellence of the aircraft which is definitely wheat, not chaff. :smile:

But then what's the point? It's ugly without add-ons.

 

Most visual add-ons don't have much impact on the framerate on modern computers, and most non-airliner add-on planes don't either. With airliners I agree that 30 FPS is ok.

Does this include P3D v3?

 

Apart from the usual graphics and performance frustrations, my main gripe goes to the lack of expandability of the ESP engine.

 

1. Custom ground polygons must be written using FS2002-style SCASM code.

2. There is no way to recreate switch and lever sounds without using a custom .dll gauge.

3. Turboprop engine start timing sequences can't be modified because the start animation is built into the .mdl file.

4. Again, in turboprops, the propeller doesn't start turning until combustion starts, which is unrealistic, especially for a free turbine like the PT6.

5. Flight dynamics have limited functionality and proper spins are very hard to come by.

6. Default GPS nav data is set to what it looked like in 2005-2006 and it's locked there. There is no way (as far as I know) that a user or 3rd party dev could completely overhaul the sim's native navaid, waypoint, airway, SID/STAR and approach databases.

7. Stock airports cannot be deleted or given a different ICAO code.

8. Airports must lie on an airport flatten polygon unless the dev is willing to spend time modelling each undulation of the surfaces.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love flight sim (I'm using P3D3 right now). However, compared to other current game technologies (just look at how the cityscape looks like at sunset in GTA5, and all this presented to you in 60+fps!), flight sim tech leaves a lot to be desired.

More a recommendation than a plug

This confused me since the thread title says what frustrates you the most about todays sims?   so I guess the concorde  frustrates you than :wink:

My list is similar to everyone else's with CTDs and OOMs being at the top of the list.  There's not much more frustrating than planning an entire flight only to get a cold stop along the way. 

As someone who started simming in the Bruce Artwick days, the thing that frustrates me most about today's flight sims are the people that are constantly complaining about them. Frankly, we have never had it so good.

This confused me since the thread title says what frustrates you the most about todays sims?   so I guess the concorde  frustrates you than :wink:

 

I was responding to a post about some aircraft being all eye candy but without substance. But having read all the posts you probably knew that.

Right now it's scenery incompatibility caused by a certain developer.

Lack of a 0.6m per pixel consistent texture quality and colouration upgrade version of PlayHorizon VFR Photographic Scenery England & Wales.

Lack of decent high quality photoscenery of Northern Ireland.