What We Want (Part 1)

[skully 1,045]

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 9:55 AM, ca_metal said:

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

@ca_metal

You called it sir.

I installed the new Yukon Valley map at it indeed done with shaders and beautifully so.

I was under the assumption that it used a method of actually building up the snow but in the game it is indeed stunning  how they pulled off the effect..

Very cool to watch it accumulate and how Avalanche Studios and Expansive worlds have done the weather / clouds and how the snow doesn't accumulate under tress and other areas where it typically wouldn't.

Would love to see these effects in the new sim.

 

 

 

 

[ca_metal 2,025]

16 hours ago, skully said:

@ca_metal

You called it sir.

I installed the new Yukon Valley map at it indeed done with shaders and beautifully so.

I was under the assumption that it used a method of actually building up the snow but in the game it is indeed stunning  how they pulled off the effect..

Very cool to watch it accumulate and how Avalanche Studios and Expansive worlds have done the weather / clouds and how the snow doesn't accumulate under tress and other areas where it typically wouldn't.

Would love to see these effects in the new sim.

The hunter is a really nice hunting game. This new map seems amazing.

About the shaders, as far as I know, they don't cost a lot on the GPU performance. That said, I still don't think we will have this same level of immersion on MSFS if they decide to do the seasons using shaders (which would be nice, in my opinion. Using textures for each season is old tech). The reason I think that is they can use the time they would be trying to get better shaders on other important stuff (weather, terrain, autogen etc). 

I think they would tune the shaders to be good enought for a flight simulator, as you would be on the skies most of the time (not on the ground looking for the details). IF (big if here) they decide to implement seasons with shaders (which, again, I think is the way to go).

[188AHC 2,138]

Please keep this on topic.

 

[Superdelphinus 718]

I hope (but don’t expect) there to be an option to have the planes ‘live’, i.e. require maintenance. Sure we’ll have that if and when a2a join the party but it would be nice if there was a basic level in as standard, even if just on a small number of planes. And then why not go the whole hog and add a plane mechanic module 🙂

[acarvaja 1]

Easy move to a new CPU. I spent 40 hours to move and configure my FSX due to a lot of addon that required upgrade licences.

A new FS shoul have all addons included in a professional version.

I hope Microsoft include this idea.

Arturo Carvajal

[Dominique_K 10,149]

On 7/2/2019 at 8:04 AM, Superdelphinus said:

I hope (but don’t expect) there to be an option to have the planes ‘live’, i.e. require maintenance. Sure we’ll have that if and when a2a join the party but it would be nice if there was a basic level in as standard, even if just on a small number of planes. And then why not go the whole hog and add a plane mechanic module 🙂

I'd say this is typically something that should be left to outside developments. We've had since the early days,  a core on which people have built great addons. A winning combination for us. 

[SteveW 1,792]

Generally screen readers have to work out things for themselves, what label describes which control and when not inside a control there's nothing to read. Accessibility requires extending to 'integrated' screen reader support at least at the user menu descriptions and fully handling screens and descriptions. Possibility of an interface to read text displays anywhere in the sim fully Tab navigable. Call outs on messages and whatever else can be done to support poor eyesight and blind pilots.

Programmatic interface to navigation data and airport accoutrements information. Data schemas for interrogating the data when the sim is not operational.

The solar system. I might like to try plummeting into the atmosphere on Jupiter in a probe.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by SteveW

[Dominique_K 10,149]

19 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

The less add ons needed, the better, imho. Of course the core sim idea is great (unfortunately you can't expect a specialized sim like Deadstick to be created for every possible way of flying) but it's not always ideal. The fact that we had this since the early days doesn't mean it's the best option. But well, we can't expect MS to add absolutely everything we want to MFS. And even of MS does that we'd probably want add ons to improve things. 😉 Still, I don't hope MS is relying too much on add ons for it's core sim. As in 'We'll make a sloppy product and hope add on developers will fix it'. I think what everyone wants in the end is the perfect sim out of the box! Which won't happen but it is what we want and prefer, right? 😉 

Not disagreeing with the necessity to significantly enhance the core. But the sim has to leave the door open to the imagination of developers.  There is a balance to find. And everybody has an idea where the borderline is 😉. But destroying the ecosystem woudl be a bad idea. 

A maintenace hangar à la A2A or a mechanical module belong more to outside devs IMO. On the other hand, Majestic or A2A shouldn't have to externalize the turbine or piston engines to get us a decent simulation.

On the scenery side, a better terrain resolution, elimination of texture/mesh morphing, a decent autogen (including batch processing)  and so on and so forth but  let the developers bring nice sceneries where the FS won't.

 

[simmerhead 885]

30 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

The less add ons needed, the better, imho. 

Agree, but that would probably only happen in Utopia Simulator. 

Instead, lets hope some smart people over at Microsoft can figure out how to make addons a smoother experience than what we have currently. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by simmerhead

[rocketlaunch 614]

When you are flying at 38,000 feet it actually looks and feels like you are at 38,000 feet.

[Squatdrop 25]

I also want flight attendant & service management, to make long haul flights less boring...

[HUSSAR 272]

Improve networking abilities, a new "SimConnect" module that allows multi client (PC) connection.

[Noooch 1,084]

- an EFB or at least a tablet in each cockpit, like in XP (don't know if in P3D too) to visualize charts and the possibility to drag and drop them from the internet in a folder or the possibility to download them directly into the tablet like the "Charts Finder" plugin does in one click in XPlane  https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/50991-charts-finder-2/

I know this freeware does not download only the latest charts but at least these are free, I never had any problem using them in my FMC and cannot fly without now

Edited July 13, 2019 by Noooch

[jymp 168]

1. No Subscription of any type

2. Complete open SDK on release

3. Realistic lighting, graphics-no jagged edges, no shimmering

4. Realistic ATC

5. Realistic AI aircraft

6. Realistic physics

7. Simple way to install addon aircraft

8. Runs smooth out of the box 

[ricka47 611]

On 7/3/2019 at 5:30 AM, Flamingpie said:

The less add ons needed, the better, imho. Of course the core sim idea is great (unfortunately you can't expect a specialized sim like Deadstick to be created for every possible way of flying) but it's not always ideal. The fact that we had this since the early days doesn't mean it's the best option. But well, we can't expect MS to add absolutely everything we want to MFS. And even of MS does that we'd probably want add ons to improve things. 😉 Still, I don't hope MS is relying too much on add ons for it's core sim. As in 'We'll make a sloppy product and hope add on developers will fix it'. I think what everyone wants in the end is the perfect sim out of the box! Which won't happen but it is what we want and prefer, right? 😉 

I want more that just base sim that can't be used without spending time (and money) buying, installing, tweaking and updating add ons. I'll pay a monthly charge for a solid next gen flight sim with good scenery, weather, ATC, traffic and aircraft out-of-the-box.  Why spend the time with all of that instead of flying?

There will always be a market for add on aircraft, programs like FSPassengers or PACX and other enhancements.  But, these should not be required to make the base program usable as has been the case for too long.  No longer do I want to buy (or maybe rent?) a sim and then spend thousands to make it look and work well.