>Realistic Flight Dynamics>>I mean it's supposed to be a 'Flight Simulator', they need to>get this right before anything else!.IMO, the statement of "Realistic Flight Dynamics" is far too broad. Could apply to thousands of types of aircraft, yet the in the box, default 172 will fly with real pilot yoke and throttle inputs from point A to B. I figure it would take hundreds of software designers with real time in type, to even put a dent in the "Realistic Flight Dynamics" of all aircraft, of all time. Again, IMO, I believe that many 3rd party addon designers, who put a lot of time and effort into "one" specific aircraft, do a pretty good job.I often hear the term "Realistic Flight Dynamics" being promoted by a competive flight sim developer. But there, as well as with MSFS, the range is far too broad to be covered in every aspect. If MS has to get "all" the flight dynamics correct, then it will never be done, nor released. Personally, I'm more interested in the included data-bases, and am quite content to let third parties dig into the best possible flight dynamic design.L.Adamson

>I often hear the term "Realistic Flight Dynamics" being>promoted by a competive flight sim developer.Really? Who??? :( :( :(I pretty much agree on the rest of your post.Marco

Dear Mirosoft,1/ I would LOVE to be able to fly in and out of Heathrow/JFK with perfect smoothness in frame rates and ai at 100%2/ Differant accents for differant parts of the world.That's it Microsoft baby! THAT'S IT!! Please please please!JamesI mean EGLL and KJFK may as well not exist! They're only there so my ai has somewhere to go.

Plain and simple, the FS flight dynamics engine stinks. It should be better. Expensive hardware dampens the effects of poor programming, not solve.I'd like to know what the RealAir, FSD, etc. flight model designers think of X-plane. It'd be nice to see the best of what we have in terms of flight dynamics employed into the current best sim for flight dynamic testing. Just to see, you know? Maybe give the FS team a few ideas? *HINT*Weather would have to be high priority for the next sim. I've always thought it'd be cool to have proper lighting conditions influenced by weather. E.g, Broken/overcast with a mid day sun. Dull in some parts, bright in others. Imagine watching traffic rotate and then get lit up by the sun as it climbs away. Precipitation getting lit by the sunset/sunrise, fog, highly reflective snow etc.As others have said, the folks at Looking Glass got it right with Flight Unlimited 3. (Where did they go!?). Their weather was way ahead of what Flight sim has ever done. It's a shame really. What was it, 4-5 years before FS 2004?In saying that, I still love FS. I appreciate what I have but I'd be nice if it worked "from the box" instead of requiring a lot of add on software, tweaking etc. If I had to choose between realistic weather and realistic flight dynamics I'd cry. Compromise between the two would be tough. If they're going to do anything, I'd say it'll be more eye-candy, less in terms of improving realism.IMAGINE, a sim with X-plane "under the hood" programming, FU3 weather and MS FS eye candy. I guarantee there'd be a lot less children trying to land during thunderstorms with windsheer and lightning in visibility below a few hundred meters.You'd quite literally, poop your pants. :(Pyjamas

They should hire some add-on developers and get the job done right. Namely VC and overall refresh rates. I also hope it will be an all new version but i doubt it. They way i see it MS FS is like the space shuttle. It

Improved ATC and handling of AI. Less go-arounds! Improved default scenery.jim

>Plain and simple, the FS flight dynamics engine stinks. It>should be better. Expensive hardware dampens the effects of>poor programming, not solve.>>I'd like to know what the RealAir, FSD, etc. flight model>designers think of X-plane. It'd be nice to see the best of>what we have in terms of flight dynamics employed into the>current best sim for flight dynamic testing. Just to see, you>know? Maybe give the FS team a few ideas? *HINT*>>Weather would have to be high priority for the next sim. >>I've always thought it'd be cool to have proper lighting>conditions influenced by weather. E.g, Broken/overcast with a>mid day sun. Dull in some parts, bright in others. Imagine>watching traffic rotate and then get lit up by the sun as it>climbs away. Precipitation getting lit by the sunset/sunrise,>fog, highly reflective snow etc.>>As others have said, the folks at Looking Glass got it right>with Flight Unlimited 3. (Where did they go!?). Their weather>was way ahead of what Flight sim has ever done. It's a shame>really. What was it, 4-5 years before FS 2004?>>In saying that, I still love FS. I appreciate what I have but>I'd be nice if it worked "from the box" instead of requiring a>lot of add on software, tweaking etc. If I had to choose>between realistic weather and realistic flight dynamics I'd>cry. Compromise between the two would be tough. If they're>going to do anything, I'd say it'll be more eye-candy, less in>terms of improving realism.>>IMAGINE, a sim with X-plane "under the hood" programming, FU3>weather and MS FS eye candy. I guarantee there'd be a lot less>children trying to land during thunderstorms with windsheer>and lightning in visibility below a few hundred meters.>>You'd quite literally, poop your pants. :(>>PyjamasThe problem with that is if the guys that created the Realair did the dynamics, then all AC would fly like sport planes, eventhe airlienrs. I agree with the above posts mentioning that 3rd party developers can do their own dynamics, which so far they have done a WONDERFUL job of doing so.Each individual aircraft has it's OWN set of dynamics, so let each developer concentrate on their own art. If Microsoft starts mucking with the dynamics, they might actually INHIBIT 3rd party developers being able to tweak their aircraft to fly realistically.Note how few add-ons there are for X-Plane -- mainly because X-Plane is not easy at all to make an add-on for.

>I'd like to know what the RealAir, FSD, etc. flight model>designers think of X-plane. It'd be nice to see the best of>what we have in terms of flight dynamics employed into the>current best sim for flight dynamic testing. Just to see, you>know? Maybe give the FS team a few ideas? *HINT*They "Don't" think that much of it. I've already asked. X-Plane actually requires a lot of tweaking with hidden wings, etc. to achieve known numbers that a real airplane fly's by. X-Plane flight dynamic "hype" is an old statement from over 10 years ago. It does not apply today!What DO I NOT LIKE about X-Plane? Little "feel" of intertia, weight, and momentum. Larger commercial aircraft seem to feel much as the smaller planes. Something like a yo-yo or puppet tied to my control sticks. If you do fly real airplanes, then much of the "feel" can be transferred to desktop controls, combined with what we see on the screen. It's a "mind game" and X-Plane models seem to lack here. BTW-- the weather fronts in FU3 were nice, the cloud graphics sucked!FWIW--- the most realistic high altitude screenshots I ever took, was with FLYII and an addon photo-real So-Cal scenery.L.Adamson

I pretty much only fly VFR, so my wishlist has a distinct VFR (and UK-centric!) slant to it. :-)* Airfields that follow the ground contours, not just "sloping" - I want to not be able to see the far end of the runway because of the hump in the middle, for instance.* Get rid of "the blurries" with with photo scenery.* Solid overcast from above* Graphical representation of cities in the flight planner.* Support for VRPs as turning points in VFR flight planning (and possibly a VRP editor)* User waypoints in the default flight planner.* Correct transition altitudes according to where you are.* Better regionalisation for ATC, particularly VFR: No flight following where inappropriate, support for FIS, RIS and RAS services, AFIS and A/G "controlled" airfields, Support for requests to "backtrack" a runway, Support for late clearances (I hate being told to go around when it's patently obvious the aircraft in front will have vacated before I reach the runway!)* Support for QFE (and QFE/QNH as alternate "altimeter" terms)* Support for Barometric pressure given in millibars.* Pilot controlled airfield lighting (including the ability to request the PAPIs are turned off. Guess who's just been doing RW night training, LOL!)

>The problem with that is if the guys that created the Realair>did the dynamics, then all AC would fly like sport planes,>eventhe airlienrsSorry, I meant those guys should try out their particular aircraft for X-plane, in comparison to FS. I've read posts about flight models having to be tweaked for FS so much that it becomes unrealistic, having to make exceptions etc. I can only image how hard it must have been to get the RealAir Marchetti to spin!!>X-Plane actually requires a lot of tweaking with hidden wings,>etc. to achieve known numbers that a real airplane fly's by. I could imagine that. They dumb it down other wise it would be calculating data for ages. I'm no developer so I haven't a clue about how difficult it would be to create aircraft for X-plane, but the community exists, albeit a small one.>X-Plane flight dynamic "hype" is an old statement from over 10>years ago. It does not apply today!The hype might be gone, but the physics still applies. X-plane feels 100 times better than flight sim! :( Everyone i've asked about it say it's great! The only thing holding it back in my opinion is that it doesn't look as good as MSFS, thankfully improving. As more people try it, more aircraft and scenery etc will appear.>BTW-- the weather fronts in FU3 were nice, the cloud graphics sucked!Oh yeah, but if the basis of the weather engine from FU3 was used with MSFS eye-candy, you'd have some experience! FU3 is old but it was better than 2000/early 2002. Sad it was limited to the Seattle area as well. FS2002 wasn't much of an upgrade from 2000 but it was helped by outside development. Then 2004 came; "#####? .. Is this an upgrade or a full version?"I'd love to see 2006 or whatever it's called, shock us all. If they worked on it properly instead of the apparent lacklustre approach. One update? Oh Please!I suppose its a "balance" of work input versus the smaller sales of the sim. MS developers could learn a bit from the other two in order to improve flight sim. Not a complete rewrite. (Would be nice though) :(Pyjamas

There just seems to be a lot of superficial requests here. Not saying its bad but some could be remedied with some nice freeware products that these talented authors have provided us.I want to see core things vastly improved like others have stated. The biggest one I hope to see is the use of 64bit and dual core and sli usage and hopefully future hardware in the pipeline in the next few years.I could not image how FS would be if AI was able to be control by one core and the systems and what's left by another core. Also able to split graphics cards to render different parts of the view. (just general uses imo).The graphics engine needs to be upgraded and optimized a lot more. Can't wait to see what people can do with bump maps and the lighting effect like in Microsoft

I know number 1 has been addressed by Radar Contact, but I'd like it addressed in the default ATC:1) The ability to request a direct to waypoint in the middle of your flight plan and not having to do a whole new flight plan.2) More accurate taxi instructions: left on bravo, right on tango.3) Make it usable without requiring me to buy a new computer since I know I won't be able to afford a new one :).4) The ability to update the VORs with more current names since they seem to change a few times. For example, change FMN (115.3) to RSK since that's the current name.

Ok, it's me again :)>They "Don't" think that much of it. I've already asked.>X-Plane actually requires a lot of tweaking with hidden wings,>etc. to achieve known numbers that a real airplane fly's by.Well, if any a/c's created in X-Plane using real figures, would match it's real counterpart by the numbers, Austin Meyer would be multi-billionair! Of course X-Plane's FM too, makes a lot of simplified assumptions. So a certain degree of tweaking is obviously necessary. Probably also RealAir and the alike require lots of tweaking and some departing from real world figures in certain areas. Personally, I doubt that X-P requires more tweaking than MSFS.>X-Plane flight dynamic "hype" is an old statement from over 10>years ago. It does not apply today!Well there may be some hype, certainly MSFS FM does not "suck", looking at what it can do e.g. in spins etc, an area where X-P may currently have issues (but how many developers, compared to MSFS ones, experimented deep in that area?).>What DO I NOT LIKE about X-Plane? Little "feel" of intertia,>weight, and momentum. Larger commercial aircraft seem to feel>much as the smaller planes. Something like a yo-yo or puppet>tied to my control sticks.Although I never held the controls of a heavy, I fully agree on that.Neverthless, I noticed that even the top freeware and payware X-Plane heavies (and not only) use default (i.e. figured out by X-Plane itself) and not custom Moments Of Inertia values.This could explain the "light" feeling of those heavies (although not 100% sure).Marco

>I want to see core things vastly improved like others have>stated. The biggest one I hope to see is the use of 64bit and>dual core and sli usage and hopefully future hardware in the>pipeline in the next few years.I understand your point, but I know little about cores and slis and things and wouldn't know what to ask for. As far as I'm concerned the FS "engine" is a means to an end and not an end in itself.>I could not image how FS would be if AI was able to be control>by one core and the systems and what's left by another core. >Also able to split graphics cards to render different parts of>the view. (just general uses imo).If by that you mean distributed processing, I have 2 PCs and a laptop on a LAN here, and it would be really cool if one could drive the AI, another the weather, and so on. Similar with multiple processors in a single box (although I don't have such a machine). Don't know how feasable that would be though.>The graphics engine needs to be upgraded and optimized a lot>more. Can't wait to see what people can do with bump maps and>the lighting effect like in Microsoft

Taxi signs that have writing on both sides, and preferably that would not be done away with when scenery intensity is loweredRTH