31 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

You're assuming that there is a large untapped market of people who would be interested in the complexity of a study-level PMDG style aircraft, and they just don't know that this kind of thing exists because they're busy playing games. 

An alternative view would be that anyone interested in that kind of thing is already flying those aircraft in the current sim platforms, and there actually *is* no untapped market for aircraft models at that level of realism and complexity.

That's basically my personal view -- that flight sims are in a steady-state period of neutral growth. We lose some at the back end as we age out of the hobby and die off, and we get a small but steady flow of young people entering the hobby at the front end. There isn't actually much potential for growth at the level of a PMDG product, because it's a very niche area of interest. It always has been. And that's okay, as long as the hobby doesn't die completely.

In short, I think it may be wishful thinking to believe there are thousands more people out there who would gladly jump into a PMDG level aircraft and have fun with it, and they just don't know that such a thing exists. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

IIRC, you believe that only people with direct contact with flying (whether 1st- or 2nd-hand) have any interest in the more technical side. I disagree.
While it's true that an affinity for aviation is stronger if there is direct exposure, I believe that aviation is such a different experience, that it interests and excites a wider audience who because of the initial complexity and cost are excluded both IRL and from simming.
Anecdotally (I know), I took up flight sims after a childhood and adolescence of about 4 combat flight games - played and fairly quickly discarded. Only when FS2002 came out did an interest in aviation develop. My first sim FS95 was too technical and wasn't visually appealing to maintain any real interest.
At university, with the release of the more interesting FS2002 and then FS9, did a few of my friends become interested. Two of us then took on the more technical PMDG 737 and 747. None of the 6 of us that picked-up Flight Sim had any contact with aviation prior to that point.

As I've said previously, I don't think this hobby is in a healthy place. Too many repeated scenery locations, similar aircraft, prices that make a lot of people think twice before buying and all beholden to two sims that aren't being developed with the mass user profile at the core of what they are trying to achieve.

Beyond the initial vanilla experience of FS2020, HD cityscapes, the flamingoes, flying over one's own house, something needs to exist to capture and maintain levels of interest. I've said scenarios such as fire-fighting, Red Bull Air Race, Aircraft Carrier landings are one aspect.
The other is to price add-on aircraft or sceneries at a more mainstream level, put up the best pictures and videos on a much bigger store and I think that the allure of replicating what people know, e.g. an American Airlines 737 departing JFK towards Manhattan, a Lufthansa A320 arriving at FRA with the city on display, or a EMB-170 on a 09 approach into LCY 2,000 feet over London, will bring in swathes of interest.

But we (well, the developers actually) won't ever know if that's true or not if they continue to charge prices well above average for DLC and passes on Steam and the like.

2 hours ago, skully said:

Dynamic weather- Snow- This is how it can be done without using shaders and such to simulate the effect.

 A game I play- 'The Hunter- Call of the Wild' will be releasing a new map tomorrow with an upgraded dynamic weather system.

 The Yukon Valley map uses a new method for snow where it gradually accumulates on the ground.

 For those not familiar with the game, the graphics and immersion are state of the art and about as realistic as you can get.

 See at about the 5:45 mark of the video.

The trailer for the new map showing the varied environments and atmospherics

 

This is done with shaders. Shaders are just masks over the textures.

 

 

Edited June 24, 20196 yr by ca_metal

8 hours ago, MDFlier said:

The baseline for the cost of any software is the base cost of all custom software.

Forget the fact that the end product is used in a game. That is irrelevant. It costs exactly the same to produce a an aircraft of any quality as it does to write an operating system, a new database, or a new word processor. The only difference is the number of man hours it takes to create them. The labor and infrastructure requirements are exactly the same (not talking about the folks developing from home, I'm talking about the ones with an actual buisness "footprint").

Writing quality software involves spending boatloads of money and time before you make the first nickle. It is a tremendous risk, and has huge potential downsides. There's a price to that as well.

 

An OS is almost infinitely more complicated to produce (I worked on Win XP Pro) than editing an already existing .air file and a .cfg file and then getting some painters to knock themselves out in Photoshop to produce some .dds files.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ganter said:

An OS is almost infinitely more complicated to produce (I worked on Win XP Pro) than editing an already existing .air file and a .cfg file and then getting some painters to knock themselves out in Photoshop to produce some .dds files.

Er... which addons are you talking about here, exactly?

Are we still listing desired features, or the discussion has drifted off tangent again...?

 

My list:

- best possible physics and flight model (e.g. buffering before stall, correct spin recovery, etc)

- live, realistic weather (shadows, rain, etc)

- ATC with voice recognition; both IFR and VFR (flight following?)

- Native integration with VATSIM?

- Track-IR and VR compatible 

- AI traffic, with GA as well (especially for small GA airports)

- customisable cameras

- in-game pull-out of real approach charts (IFR) and sectional charts (VFR), where available

- Compatibility with existing add-ons: A2A, ORBX, REX, etc. to give user options (default vs add-on)

- Compatibility with existing hardware (Saitek, etc)

 

Edited June 25, 20196 yr by Kermit_70

So there's a lot of obvious stuff like better weather, scenery, lighting, flight dynamics, ATC etc that have already been covered at length by others. So here's a few rather specific things I'd like to see improved that I feel have lagged behind for far too long:

- Turboprop engine simulation, both geared type (TPE331, Dart) and free turbine type (PW120 et al) including start up, hot starts, spool up times, NTS partial feathering. The current turboprop simulation in FSX and P3D is dreadful

- Simulation of common piston engine issues/behaviour such as spark plug fouling, vapour lock

- Icing accumulation on the airframe and engines, that both affects aircraft performance and is visible in typical areas such as leading edges, ice probs and the windscreen wiper spindles. Asociated systems to deal with ice such as pneumatic boots, electric mats and bleed air heated edges, including the performance penalties for using these. Icing is a big factor in many aircraft operations but sim pilots barely consider it because there are no consequences.

- More realistic ground handling, including reaction to contaminated surfaces

- Native support for more complex systems found in airliners such as EGPWS, TCAS, multiple hydraulic circuits, so these don't have to be "hacked in".

- Central navigation/AIP database that addon FMS and FPS can use that includes SIDs and STARs at least, ideally procedure plates too

 

Edited June 26, 20196 yr by ckyliu

>An ARINC400\700-ish common data bus, thus add-on airliner don't need to creat their very own one.

benefits:

   -I wish I only need to download ONE navdata file pre 28-day cycle

   -and some "add-on of add-ons" (liks FS2C, FSC, etc...) could read needed data more easily 

Edited June 26, 20196 yr by C2615

On 6/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, andyjohnston.net said:

I hope to see some of what we had before but was dropped in P3D, namely jets from Boeing and little guys like the Cessnas.  It would be great (if unexpected) if MS were to provide a ton of aircraft as default models.

There's two Cessnas in the trailer, so there's hope! 

I thought about it for a long time and tried to compose a post, but it all boils down to this: "I want what I already have in P3Dv4 with more eyecandy."

I've got payware aircraft, Accu-Feel and Active Sky.  I don't have any scenery.  

I'm hoping for an improved flight model in addition to the things we see in the trailer.  It would be nice if the incredible things we see can run on my system.  I'm hoping for some interesting beginner activities like we had in Flight for those times when I want to fly but don't feel like doing a full flight (flight planning can take up to an hour, for example).

Interesting planes, interesting places to fly them, interesting conditions to fly in (preferably real world weather downloaded from the Internet).  The usual. 🙂

Hook

Two 'simple' request. Just two. Two. 2. t.w.o. only:

1. realistic raindrops hitting the ground, water puddles and reflections

2. realistic waves on rivers and lakes and when they hit the seashore

- Select time of day fast forward or backward in-game with a hotkey like in XPlane

Here is what I would like to see (in no particular order):

- Realistic flight model.
- Crash model.  
- A good flight planner.
- A fully functional G1000 with Synthetic Vision.  
- Regularly updated Navdata.
- ATC with voice recognition...no more robotic voices.  
- Voice controls.  
- Pilots sitting in their seats.  I want to see my first officer setting the flaps, moving the landing gear lever, etc. when I call for it.
- An iPAD(tablet) available in all aircraft.  Similar to the one in the Flight Factor a320 for X-Plane.
- A flashlight for cold and dark starts.
- GSX-like ground services.
- Career mode.
- In-game store to buy all add-ons.
- Game and add-ons automatically kept up to date.

 

 

2019 performance levels.

2 hours ago, Montie said:

2019 performance levels.

2020 performance levels 

mostly its a realistic weather environment thats been talked about before in this thread but also I really hope for a non tail dragger cessna like a 172 or 182 because thats what I've been flying most for decades now.

I hope for something familiar.