What We Want (Part 1)

[Dominique_K 10,138]

Re :SDK

Making some amateur sceneries, correcting/enhancing airports etc, I would very much welcome an all-in-one SDK tool which would integrate the functionalities of some  abandonned software like SbuilderX for terrain modeling, Instant Scenery and some of the wonderful tools provided the FSDeveloper community.

 

[ErichB 3,642]

Frankly, if by now, developers of any sim (particularly Microsoft) do not know the 'What we Want/What Developers Want' list off by heart, then...

It was the same list expressed for the shortcomings of FSX, the same list for P3D, the same list for Dovetails version -  and it's the same list again.  Pages and pages and pages of the same requests list for years, summed up in two lines:

Much better SDK's, better scenery tools, better friction models, better flight dynamics, better animation modeling, better weather engine, better AI engines, better turboprop modelling, better helicopter modelling. 

Basically, everything P3D/FSX does not/did not have - and incidentally, what it did have, make that better too..

Edited July 26, 2019 by ErichB

[LHookins 3,103]

11 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Much better SDK's, better scenery tools, better friction models, better flight dynamics, better animation modeling, better weather engine, better AI engines, better turboprop modelling, better helicopter modelling. 

Basically, everything P3D/FSX does not/did not have - and incidentally, what it did have, make that better too..

It would be kind of hard to write a design spec with no more detail than that. 🙂  It might also help to have that list prioritized as the priorities change over time.

There are also a few new ideas in these threads not included in the list you posted.

I'm just saying that there is enough signal in the noise to make the threads worthwhile.

Hook

[ErichB 3,642]

23 minutes ago, LHookins said:

It would be kind of hard to write a design spec with no more detail than that. 🙂  It might also help to have that list prioritized as the priorities change over time.

There are also a few new ideas in these threads not included in the list you posted.

I'm just saying that there is enough signal in the noise to make the threads worthwhile.

Hook

I was paraphrasing of course.  But that's essentially what it boils down to.

It is of course worthwhile, but hopefully this time, it will actually get some traction.

Edited July 26, 2019 by ErichB

[ziomalnik 7]

Just realistic flight model as possible

[AutoPylit 7]

Realistic flight models and accurate internal cockpit/external aircraft models, Boeing 737 / 787 in addition to the airbus a320 shown in the trailer, and sloped runways are a huge feature needed also. 

And because I run a home cockpit, the ability to load the FMS/FMC on a kindle or iPad mini for touchscreen use. (Currently running xplane 11 and using WebFMCpro to get the FMC on the iPad mini/kindle)

https://youtu.be/hLKTfYjM23c

Edited July 26, 2019 by B1688J

[BaronKen 144]

I mentioned this in another thread but it deserves a mention here. I would like to see an auto feature similar to Forza where the new sim detects a user's hardware and automatically optimizes the graphics and frame rates for best overall results, while still leaving the user the option of fine-tuning some settings to individual tastes if desired. In Forza this works very well and I am amazed at how well it runs and looks on my system, which is over 5 years old now. I hope the era of editing, tweaking and fooling with configuration files is over...

[MikeT707 1,181]

Voice-enabled ATC. I would love to respond to ATC with my voice rather than clicking a key on the keyboard. This is especially important for VR users, whose population continues to grow and grow.

[Paraffin 2,197]

This was mentioned above, but another request here for something more than binary damage modeling for aircraft, where there is either no damage at all, or it's a full crash.

There is a little of that in XP11 where you can get a "blown tire" instead of full crash, although I haven't seen that lately and it might have been disabled. We do see smoke and flames from the engines on a wheels-up landing or hard helicopter landing, but it's a very generic single effect. It would be nice to have more specific feedback about what happened, like collapsed landing gear, or a dinged a wingtip on a crosswind landing where the bank angle wasn't controlled well enough. Tail strikes should be modeled for airliners too.

There is also the somewhat fraught issue of aircraft vs. object collisions. There have been heated arguments before on Avsim about that ("it's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator!"), but again, there is an important training element in learning how to avoid obstacles.

It's especially important for bush planes that have to clear nearby tree lines on both takeoff and landing. Helicopters often need to operate out of confined areas surrounded by buildings, and have to be careful about hitting power lines and radio towers. It always feels weird when I blow the takeoff in a confined area in a helicopter, and just slide through a building like it's not even there. Ghost buildings and ghost tree lines encourage sloppy technique.

If the sim disallows crashing into every building for reasons of performance -- because collision detection is CPU-intensive -- or to avoid the stigma of being a "crash simulator," I would understand that. However, please allow airport designers to selectively include crash detection on hangars and other airport objects, and for the tree line surrounding a bush plane strip. If it isn't too CPU-intensive, all power lines and radio towers should probably have collision detection by default. There is a reason they're shown on the charts.

[micstatic 4,319]

VATSIM integration so people using this simulator can also share the skies with others.  

[Deleted 250]

Closer release date. Even if only a quarter is called. But 2020 makes me look very long. 

[ibanez737 2]

14 hours ago, 3d102 said:

Hi Microsoft team

 

Very pleased to know that you guys are monitoring this thread. Your community engagement has been spot on.

 

I’m a real world A320 Pilot. I used MSFS as a kid growing up and I occasionally use P3D to this day to refresh on the nastier and more obscure failures and failure management before heading into the sim every six months. 

 

On that note, I’m not going to wax lyrical about wanting study level aircraft because that would be something far exceeding your development remit. Instead I’ve been considering annoyances/content gaps in FSX/P3D in terms of the base application, and what things I deal with in day to day real world flying that don’t really pop up too often in game.

THIS.  Especially #1; icing is one of the greatest dangers for aircraft of all sizes, and an accurate simulation of it would bring the realism factor up immensely.  Visual effects such as ice forming on the leading edges and windscreen, associated increase in weight and performance degradation, accurate de-icing and anti-icing effects (boots, hot wing, TKS, windshield heat, pitot/stall warning/probes with realistic degrees of success depending on conditions)...  This would be awesome and, as in real life, would cause you to think twice before entering that area of freezing visible moisture.

Edited July 26, 2019 by 188AHC
Pruned extremely long quote

[Duncan Odgers 131]

Dear Microsoft, 

As many have already voiced, please please for the love of everything flight sim do not make it backwards compatible, the community has always complained about the old engine and its performance. LM struggle because they are using an old engine and trying to fit new parts and maintain compatibility.  It doesn't matter if devs take a while to develop, what I don't want is an addon developed that is marketed for FSX, All Prepar3d versions and Microsoft Flight Simulator just because devs can be lazy and do very little changes. I dont want old code in flight models or gauges. Devs hack it and develop outside the sim anyway! So please no compatibility just like i wouldn't expect OR want for that matter an FS1995 add on to work in FSX with just a simple compatibility update

The community want new and next generation!  This i believe is what you are offering. Dovetail Games version suffered because the community rejected it because of many stripped back features and lack of functionality that even FSX had, P3D was also well advanced. 

1) A realistic and modern flight model is a must, one that takes into account proper drag, propwash and lift calculations in regards to Jet and Prop aircraft. Has realistic start up engine spool times, engine thrust parameters and a flight model that is fluid and you can feel all effects of weather. For example in my PA28 coming into land at 1500ft you feel the buffets of the wind, on final at 70kts the plane can be blown left and right and its a fight to stay on the centre line. That also is the realism we crave. The 'feel' of flight! 

2) Ground friction modelling, oh boy yes please sort this out. At the mo all add on devs have had to hack it in P3D and FSX, its like treacle and an unreasonable amount of thrust is needed to move and you stop pretty quick as a result. LOL who needs airline brakes. 

3) Performance performance performance need i say more. 

4) New way of scenery design and performance. No stuttering as we fly over scenery. 

5) Overhauled AI and ATC! Not only would it be good to have great perfomance models but also AI that could land on sloped runways. ATC needs to give realistic calls for both VFR and IFR also assign SIDS and STARS, handle emergencies, runway and airport diversions due to weather or other situations. ATC to handle holds and have better control over AI to get them to follow IFR VFR SIDS and STARs as well as holds. 

6) Sloper runways with the ability for AI to be able to use them

7) Up to date AIRAC data and Navigation data for the world including navaids, vor and ils info. 

😎 Updated airports as in point 7, some runways have closed and others open since FSX. 

9) VR support

10) Career mode could be good as well having a free flight mode. A career mode could take you through your PPL to your first Airliner and then moving through the ranks, a point to the Simulator. Also a free flight with decent flight planner that takes into account payload, fuel, alternative airports and using up to date nav data and waypoints. 

11) A robust and comprehensive SDK which allows devs to build a fantastic ecosystem on your solid base platform. SDK to include accurate and detailed instructions and samples. A great scenery editor, mission editor, weather editor allowing for historical as well as live and aircraft SDK allowing for a wide variety of aircraft systems and flight modelling to an extremely high fidelity. 

12) To end it all we want support, continued development and a listening ear. Microsoft you are doing a great job so far long may it continue. 

 

Kind regards 

 

Duncan Odgers 

[fs4fun 366]

14 hours ago, TuFun said:

Be able to model in Blender, please! 

Just make the SDK work with standard export formats. Then we can use any 3D tool we please. Get rid of the old-school .X/MDL export plugin rubbish. Also, support PBR workflows in tools like Substance and Quixel.

Script in a decent language like Python or C#. With proper logging and a debugger please. Support plugins written in C++.

Get rid of all closed proprietary binary formats. Make config files use JSON or YAML. Please no more yucky XML.

Edited July 26, 2019 by fs4fun

[Trevor2497 19]

I know this is not really a necessity and would be purely for entertainment buuuuuut. I would like to see some more Immersive missions like we have seen in FSX and especially ones with multiple outcomes! It would be cool to have a mission where you fly to the Oshkosh Airshow and have to follow all the arrival procedures and then have a departure mission. that would actually help more people get familiar with the real world arrival/ departure procedures and also be super fun for any aviation enthusiast!