<>Unfortunately that will probably never happen. The work which went into the FS, is the result of about 20 years of development. For anyone else to begin from scratch to create the same, without infringing on MS copyrights would probably be financially prohibitive.In successive versions, since the days of Bruce, we have paid for the development of each version. As long as we continue to buy it or new users do, MS can continue doing more research to upgrade the FS.

Thanks for posting that. Ive been using FSUIPC for so long, totally forgot that it did this, and have been wondering why some complain about the Vis. changes.

We may not have a FS10 this year. In the past, MS has always brought out the new version of FS, earlier in the year, so it is available for Christmas Gifts. Some years it has been released later than they planned, but always early enough. Without even an announcement its in the works, it may be next Fall before there is a new version.

><ahead of fs9, is would force Mircosoft to compete. >>>>Unfortunately that will probably never happen. The work which>went into the FS, is the result of about 20 years of>development. For anyone else to begin from scratch to create>the same, without infringing on MS copyrights would probably>be financially prohibitive.I disagree. There have been in the past several examples of Flight Simulators started "from scratch" and overall comparable with MSFS, although in the long run they failed for one reason or the other. But don't forget that out of the box FS is quite bare: a software house wouldn't need excessive resources to build a simulator like that.Marco

>I disagree. There have been in the past several examples of>Flight Simulators started "from scratch" and overall>comparable with MSFS, although in the long run they failed for>one reason or the other. But don't forget that out of the box>FS is quite bare: a software house wouldn't need excessive>resources to build a simulator like that.>No one else has come close to including the data-bases, that come as stock with MSFS. This includes stock topography mesh, and the Jeppeson navigation data-bases which cover airports, runways, and building layouts in addition to navaids. I don't believe MSFS is anyware close to as "bare" as you've stated.L.Adamson

>No one else has come close to including the data-bases, that>come as stock with MSFS. This includes stock topography mesh,>and the Jeppeson navigation data-bases which cover airports,>runways, and building layouts in addition to navaids. I don't>believe MSFS is anyware close to as "bare" as you've stated.>>L.AdamsonI admit the term "bare" is excessive. And you're right, actually MSFS did a very good job with that, preceding others. But I think, today a good software house (and good developers!) could produce from scratch a flight simulator with those features (mesh, navaids, etc). I just don't agree with Bob saying it would be financially prohibitive for everyone else than Microsoft, to do that.Marco

I think MS could do wonders by enhancing the viewing system. Specifically the functionality of Active Camera type things should be native to the sim. I also think that certain things can be learned from military combat sims...such as "padlock". The ability to padlock the end of a runway or point on the ground and have the sim move around that point..as would happen with your eyes in a moving airplane..would greatly enhance the sim.They also should license and embed FSUIPC from Peter Dowson. Extensibility is the key to life in FS so extensions should be fostered and aggressively encouraged.I'd also like to see them ship either a land vehicle or a human figure as a drivable, walkable figure...suitable for exploring the FS world. Moving traffic on the roads would also be nice.Of course there are things I'd like to do with Catherine Zeta Jones as well...so I can dream!Eric

>>Just thought of a "motto" myself......>>I used to fly a real life Pitt's S2-B, but for simming, I fly>the RealAir Simulations Marchetti! :D >>L.AdamsonHi L.!Ok, actually my signature is just a provocation :) Honestly, I am well aware that at the moment, FS9 with a few aimed add-ons is what comes closest to a real flight experience as an overall (mainly scenery, ATC, weather).I just have this grievance with its FM. MSFS always lagged a bit with its competitors (Flight Unlimited, Fly!, X-Plane) who always pushed harder than MSFS to give some more complexity in their FM's.For example, FS9 Flight Model allegedly runs at 16/32 Hz: they keep it at the bare minimum to let more CPU power to other intensive tasks (graphics etc.). But this has the side effect of giving inaccuracies or instability at high dynamic maneuvers (I experienced it sometimes with SF260 as well).Another example: helicopters (default or payware) exhibit atrocious behaviours in some circumstances: often when the engine/rotor stops, they start developing improbable paths, and may end up climbing up to 100.000ft! Probably this is not due to the "FM based on tables" issue, but to the aforementioned low frequency of FM (but it's a supposition of mine).There are other little and not-so little details that lately made me lean towards, and spent more hours in X-Plane than MSFS.For example, take the prop modeling: in MSFS it's sort of "faked"; if you let the prop come to an halt, it becomes kinda "clamped", and you can dive to Mach 1 without the prop moving an inch. on X-Plane (or IL-2 series, and probably others sims as a matter of fact) the effect of the airflow on props is implemented in a much more realistic way.Same thing with helicopter's main rotor behaviour in autorotations. Sure, X-Plane too has some troubles modeling helicopters (I think they're inherently harder to model) but e.g., during autorotations you can feel the different and more plausible modeling of rotor behaviour.More: from FS2000 to FS2004, the effect of propeller slipstream on vertical and horizontal tail has been removed. This rules out some aerobatic maneuvers, that a/c's like Extra300, Su31, Edge540 are capable of (unless a developer adds a custom effect, but I don't know if it's achievable).X-Plane has some little details on his side. Landings are generally more challenging; landing on wet runways at high speed results in aquaplaning; prolongate braking action or tire skidding from high speed results in blown tires (maybe these effects can be custom modeled in MSFS 3rd party a/c's). I find crosswind landings much more difficult in X-Plane (although probably over-modeled, since a 30kts x-wind can easily led to wing or engine scrape even on airliners).Of course, it has shortcomings in FM as well, but knowing what lies beneath the two, I still get more satisfaction flying X-Plane, regardless of the great 3rd party a/c's MSFS has.Bottom line, I think realism can have a certain degree of subjectivity: I may consider poor prop/rotor modeling, lacking of slipstream effects on tail, FM instabilities in some maneuvers, as more serious lacks in realism than poor scenery, weather, etc. but it's just my biased view as an aerospace engineer.I would like to add, probably I gave you the impression of a person who bashes on MSFS regardless of all, well that's not :) Actually I used to, but I found FS9 a big improvement in all areas and really appreciate its capabilities. Just, I have this big professional bias on flight models, and those things like the ones I described, I consider of utmost priority in my personal rating of realism. And I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, in fact probably most simmers don't even realize or discover the things I described, just because those things are in fact not very important or noticeable in regular flying. After all MSFS flight model is not garbage or arcade, and it's fully capable of what is needed from a simulator (with outstanding achievements too, as RealAir SF260, etc.), and I understand your points on the subject :)Just, as long as they're keeping FM development and resources to the minimum necessary and shortcomings like the above described are present, personally I will still get more enjoyment in flying X-plane.Marco

I would like to see the following things in the next FS.Photorealistic addon scenery not getting blurred when flying over 100 mph.Better ATC with more than one ATC'er at busy airports and improved handling of AI traffic.Multithreading support and SLI suppport.Support for 64-bit CPUsMore forgiving examiners during checkrides.

>>Just, as long as they're keeping FM development and resources>to the minimum necessary and shortcomings like the above>described are present, personally I will still get more>enjoyment in flying X-plane.>He,he, ....... I'm a mountain flyer, but actually did fly the Pitts. Up until now, I've always thought X-Plane as being "sterile" due to it's lack of authentic topography, as many X-Plane users often call MSFS :) But with the new global scenery, things could change!BTW-- as to MSFS removing prop slipstream effects across the horizontal stab, it's while on the ground. Makes it difficult to raise the tail by throttleing up the engine. Still haven't found an X-Plane that "slips" nearly as realisticlly as the RealAir.L.Adamson

I got it.WE NEED A MS FLIGHT SIM OPERATING SYSTEM.

This list goes on,and on.Reflective of all the interest and wishes for the "Coming" new FS.( The Messiah version) Or is it?.Hate to be contrary about this,"BUT WHERE'S THE BEEF" "The next most needed improvement to the next version" is of course just that,"The next version!" Then this forum would lite up! Something "real" to explore,and sink your teeth in, and discus.I sincerely hope it does!I can't wait!! Till then, I'll sip the "KOOL-AID" ,slowly,hopeing it don't kill me first! And of course continue to enjoy this FS9,the "greatest", until.... VIN :-roll PS Did ya hear the rumor...............?:+

>I disagree. There have been in the past several examples of>Flight Simulators started "from scratch" and overall>comparable with MSFS, although in the long run they failed for>one reason or the other.>MarcoThe word 'past' is a key word here, it has been a long time since any new different brand started. Even when they did, they never had the addon support of MSFS, and the majority were not satisfied with less, which is one reason they failed. Then, MS has improved over the years since they existed, which makes it even more difficult.This FS began as a one man operation by Bruce Artwick, but even he got it to where he sold it to MS to carry on the job, and went to work for them.

Realistic Flight DynamicsI mean it's supposed to be a 'Flight Simulator', they need to get this right before anything else!.