The phrase detailed airports almost goes hand in hand with eye candy but how about default detail airports offering something new like aircraft movement procedures.This would involve a controllers approach and how they keep a/c flowing on the ground best as possible. It would be great if we could still use AFCAD to set parking and taxiways but "actives" are set not by just wind direction but all factors that the real controllers use to determine which are the actives.What I'm getting at is the ability to have crossing runways active, ILS in use when needed etc all hard coded to that field. For ACES to get intouch with the actual field admins and listen to how the determine actives and replicate that. That way low vis with a slight tail wind to land and ILS instead of a LOC backcourse. Slight tailwinds/crosswinds for takeoffs to comply with noise abate over cities instead of flying over them.Even prefered taxi routes handled like how they are for real at each airport instead of the system we have in FS9 (not complaining because although we do get bottle necks its only at a few major fields and that where I talking about).Any thoughts?Jack

>For ACES to get intouch with the actual field admins>and listen to how the determine actives and replicate that. I don't think ACES would necessarily need to do this themselves, just give us the ability to set certain rules for specific airports and then we could do it ourselves.>...Even prefered taxi routes handled like how they are for real>at each airport...I'd love to see this. Again, ACES doesn't need to create the routes, just give us the ability to make certain rules for specific airports.

Hmm. Interesting but it sounds like a pretty advanced feature to me. How would an average user even understand how to use it? (BTW, no need to answer. It was a rhetorical question. )Seriously though, I would look to third-party developers to build on FS to provide features like these. Hopefully *we* can provide a platform that will enable them to do that.

Hi,I have noticed recently, but maybe I am wrong, that people always refer to third party developpers.To me that is a huge mistake: third party developpers are here because of the shortcomings of Flight Simulator, but in no way should the development team always rely on Third party developpers from the beggining to add this and to add that at a latter time and even to add essential features (true flight planning utilities like FSNAV, true weather utilities like Activesky...).What we are buying is a whole Flight Simulator as its name suggests and not a semi complete Flight Simulator Platform.This not even taking into account that the whole price will be obviously much larger if we are supposed to buy this and this and that here and here and there compared to have a wholly integrated product from the beginning.I understand that MS cannot fully render every single bit of the Earth and I am very happy with what they provide up to now. But relying too much on hypothetic developpers seems to me not very respectful of the consumer. In other word buy our platform and then add 500 US$ to complete it. (reference to a former message stipulating FS developper should let some work to 3rd party developpers...)Just my own views, no need to flame me for writting what I feel.Minos

Hi,There is no need to purchase anything, ever. FS04 will run just fine right out of the box. The situation then arises when users wish to improve upon the "out of the box" experience. Then, that is where the 3rd party developers step in.I would say that FSX will be the same. The features have been developed, re-worked, re-designed for the "out of the box" product. This will be fine for the 98% of all users. Then the 2% will start to look for their enhancements. And now MS may be making this a bit easier then in the past.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

>I would look to third-party developers to>build on FS to provide features like these. Hopefully *we* can>provide a platform that will enable them to do that.That is the mantra. I would not be disapointed if something does not come in the default package... I judge the FSim based on the pontential of the FSim.i.e. Default FSim + Addons that are possible.FS9 for me is = The Default FS9 + Flight scenary (and fly Tampa) + Megascenary + Flight1 + Dreamfleet + PMDG + Eaglesoft + Realair + Active Camera + Active Sky + WideFS + FSUIPC ...... well... you get the picture.I would like to add Wide view in there...except I would prefer a better Client Server Architecture within FS9. That way I can sync up the external views running on multiple computers much better. Scalabilty by using old computers as you purchase new computer... FS9 and Distributed computing. :)Manny

>Hmm. Interesting but it sounds like a pretty advanced feature>to me. How would an average user even understand how to use>it? (BTW, no need to answer. It was a rhetorical question.>)>>Seriously though, I would look to third-party developers to>build on FS to provide features like these. Hopefully *we* can>provide a platform that will enable them to do that.I shall chant the mantra of KBOS :)4 basic operating modes depending on the winds. They're even on massport's website.That and one of the below-One-way taxiways and preferred taxi routes'Intelligent' Ground ai that will keep things flowing as much as possible- no head to head meets.Of course, make this part of the next generation of AFCAD or at least the file formats!