More FSX brainstorming

[Djang0 1]

Hi everyone this is a summary of my own FSX brainstorming

[cat 2]

Good post! They're terrified of improvingyour point: Terrain 02)!Peter Sydney Australia

[Guest Andre_Hedegaard]

>Good post! They're terrified of improving>your point: Terrain 02)!>Peter Sydney AustraliaI agree, good post with some great points.However, why are 'they' terrified of improving?If that were the case, you'd still be flying FS.3

[Guest tdragger]

FWIW I counted 7 things on the list that will be in FSX. There could be more. We'll see.

[cat 2]

I'm terrified to say Andre, because they maynot give me Australian winter default textures forFSX!!!!!Peter Sydney Australia

[RobbieHe 0]

Anyone what to guess what those six are?RH

[Guest]

04) Improved airport specific AI logic (e.g. like features seen in AISmooth):- AI holding patterns- AI follow SIDS and STARS- AI can declare emergencies (user can configure how often) and divert03) ATC interacts with SIDS and STARS04) An updatable navigation database (like Navdata but for FS). 07) Region specific ATC accents!!!01) More dynamic scenery, e.g. ground vehicles at airports, vehicles on main roads (or at least the illusion of ground traffic from a height), and trains.02) Improve scenery view from high altitude (i.e. not just big squares).01) Improved graphics configuration to reflect current graphics hardware.Whats my score?

[frankla 44]

Improving terrain from high altitute has been done. Look at some high altitute pictures so far!

[Mace 1,929]

DjangoWith all due respect, I like your suggestions for the most part, BUT I assume that the vast majority of them will and rightly should be left to the 3rd party.The fact that mike/tdrag says that only 7 of them are in, seems to give weight to that assumption.I really like this one: (Good suggestion!):05) user can have complete control of the file locations of different FS elements.Rhett

[Djang0 1]

>Django>>I like your suggestions for the most>part, BUT I assume that the vast majority of them will and>rightly should be left to the 3rd party.Thanks for your reply. Yeah, that may well be the case, however I tend to feel that good enviromental/weather effects should be part of the main sim as they are so fundamental to simulating any kind of flight.

[Djang0 1]

Does anyone have any thoughts about these ideas?>Realism:>12) Include a water bomber model for flying fire fighting>missions>13) Include a rocket flight model:>- For rocket powered aircraft>- For flights into Earth orbit and space >General:>07) Integrate combat FS into FS?I guess it might be a bit of a tall order to expect FSX to be a space simulation! But I think orbital flight is within the context.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,We know the team's response to 07: no, no, no, and once again, no.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development TeamActive Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter

[Guest tdragger]

You got at least one, maybe two. ;)

[Guest]

I think I got at least 6 maybe 7 :)

[Mace 1,929]

>Does anyone have any thoughts about these ideas?>>>Realism:>>12) Include a water bomber model for flying fire fighting>>missions>>13) Include a rocket flight model:>>- For rocket powered aircraft>>- For flights into Earth orbit and space >Might be neat. Of course maybe a jet flight model could be modded to the extent that such flight is possible. (Give it 200,000+ lbs of thrust, etc.) I hear in another thread that the ceiling of 100,000 feet is going to disappear in FSX?? I'll have to check on that to verify though.>>General:>>07) Integrate combat FS into FS?>There is a big long thread about that exact topic in this forum (I'm sure a search will find it).Heh. Some simmers act like mixing guns and civil fs is like profaning religion. I don't have a problem with the concept, per se. But I do think it would add at least a year to the development time, and I'd rather the sim do civilian stuff very well, rather than do guns and civilian together just ok.Rhett