What We Want (Part 1)

[G-RFRY 1,712]

Most modern games have auto detect system that gives you the best setting for your specs, but we know simmers will go to options and crank the sliders to full then scream just like FSX when it came out.😫 

[martin-w 3,235]

11 hours ago, SteveW said:

That's what I was saying. To keep within the fps there will be decisions such as less shadows or something else has to give depending on a scene. And so that becomes a new set of sliders I mentioned, where we choose the preference of what detail we want to lose when a scene becomes too complex to maintain the fps we chose or require for the monitor.

 

Respect brother! 🙂 

[martin-w 3,235]

14 hours ago, marcus11 said:

Yes, that's exactly what I would like to have.

Thank you for mentioning it.

 

Yep, I'm not simming at the moment, haven't done so for quite a while, that will change if the new sim is what I think it will be. But when I was simming, I spent plenty of time  correcting dodgy pitch on approach and other issues. Nothing irritates me more than having to put up with characteristics of a flight model that are demonstrably wrong. 

[martin-w 3,235]

A few more addition, some of which will be controversial.

 

1.  Proper simulation of fly by wire. So many aircraft these days are fly by wire. Thus its essential that the new sim properly simulate fly by wire.

2. Auto-trim. Now this will be controversial. Many will scream "but we want realism". Well I recall way back when we were enjoying Flight Unlimited III, that this was a feature.  At the time I found it quite useful when cockpit workload was high. And given that most of us will be flying aircraft intended for two man operation, a useful feature. Realism is great, but that doesn't mean we cant sacrifice a little realism from time to time.

3. Proper Turboprop modelling. Traditionally not done well in flight sim, especially taxiing. Apologies if the situation has improved since I've been out of the game.

4. Rather than an instrument only view,  what about a well simulated Head Up Display. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by martin-w

[bashope 112]

41 minutes ago, martin-w said:

2. Auto-trim. Now this will be controversial.

Personally, I have no issue with unrealistic features as long as it's easy to have full realism.

As I recall, FSX had a tab for realism options, and simply having max realism was as easy as ticking a checkbox. And I don't think I've ever seen a person complain about the ability of not having full realism 🙂

In fact, with some sceneries, the crash detection had to be turned off because they had "invisible" buildings sitting on the runway. One of which ruined a 2 hour flight of mine (thanks, TropicalSim).

Cheers!

[djbully 210]

58 minutes ago, bashope said:

the crash detection had to be turned off because they had "invisible" buildings sitting on the runway.

Yes, no more invisible buildings would be nice. so you can actually have crash detection turned on! 

 

[188AHC 2,138]

I'm sure everyone remembers the trees in the runways in FSX. Please no repeat. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

Has anyone mentioned the ability to close one end of a runway for take-off / landing whilst leaving the other end open.

The classic example in the UK being 05R/23L at EGCC where 05R is used only for landings and 23L used only for take-off.

Currently impossible to configure this way using the ESP engine and a AFCAD utility such as ADE.

[bashope 112]

27 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

The constant gentle bouncing around in flight, which most people seem to thinks is so realistic in XP, is much less common in the real world. Most full-sized flight sims use table-based flight models rather than the system that XP uses because it's easier to exactly model the response you want. 

To each his own. I guess everyone has different opinions due also to different experience. You say "contant gentle bouncing around" is much less common in the real world... in my experience I get this constant bouncing around at least 90% of the time. Maybe it's orographic... Maybe your neck of the woods winds are smoother... maybe in my neck of the woods (and of Laminar Research) the "bumps" are pretty much always there. Who knows? But my opinion remains, flying feels much more realistic in X-Plane compared to ESP based simulators, even with high-quality payware add-ons.

PS: If I may, I have proof. Here's a recent real life flight I have recorded with a couple of colleagues. I'm holding the camera with my hand. You will notice easily the constant, gentle bouncing around. Cheers.

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by bashope

[aleex 551]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Has anyone mentioned the ability to close one end of a runway for take-off / landing whilst leaving the other end open.

The classic example in the UK being 05R/23L at EGCC where 05R is used only for landings and 23L used only for take-off.

Currently impossible to configure this way using the ESP engine and a AFCAD utility such as ADE.

I was to open a topic regarding this. 

LEMD has 4 runways, and two configurations, north and south. On those configurations 2 parallel runways are used for TO and the other 2 for landings.  

In FSX aerosoft LEMD scenery has issues with this, having to use an external app before starting the sim... and even with that it had some problems. And I think I'm XP is almost the same. No way of change that. 

So an option regarding the posible configuration (Idk, from X to Y wind degrees one config, from X+1 to Y-1 the other one) and the option to set the open/close runway or runways for TO and for Landings could be fine... 

[Drumcode 1,893]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Has anyone mentioned the ability to close one end of a runway for take-off / landing whilst leaving the other end open.

The classic example in the UK being 05R/23L at EGCC where 05R is used only for landings and 23L used only for take-off.

Currently impossible to configure this way using the ESP engine and a AFCAD utility such as ADE.

I mean there should be a utility to control AI in general, period. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

9 minutes ago, aleex said:

I was to open a topic regarding this. 

LEMD has 4 runways, and two configurations, north and south. On those configurations 2 parallel runways are used for TO and the other 2 for landings.  

In FSX aerosoft LEMD scenery has issues with this, having to use an external app before starting the sim... and even with that it had some problems. And I think I'm XP is almost the same. No way of change that. 

So an option regarding the posible configuration (Idk, from X to Y wind degrees one config, from X+1 to Y-1 the other one) and the option to set the open/close runway or runways for TO and for Landings could be fine... 

I think we’re talking about different scenarios but the issue is still relevant. More control over AFCADs.

7 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

I mean there should be a utility to control AI in general, period. 

Hmm, not sure how that will work.

[Paraffin 2,197]

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

A few more addition, some of which will be controversial.

1.  Proper simulation of fly by wire. So many aircraft these days are fly by wire. Thus its essential that the new sim properly simulate fly by wire.

In my opinion this should be modeled separately by each aircraft developer, assuming there are enough programming hooks to make it possible.

There are just too many different FBW systems between different airliners and military jets. A generic FBW within the base sim would have to anticipate every single variation, in software that can be very complicated. I can't see it working well.

If it's modeled by the aircraft developers, they can also choose to include either more basic or more advanced/realistic FBW versions at different price points for different models, i.e. "basic" airliner vs. study model.

 

Quote

2. Auto-trim. 

I don't see a problem with that, as long as it can be turned off and it's made clear to the user that this is an unrealistic mode. It could be linked to a choice of presets for realism, ranging from Arcade to Full Realism.

Quote

3. Proper Turboprop modelling. Traditionally not done well in flight sim, especially taxiing. Apologies if the situation has improved since I've been out of the game.

Turboprops are now very good in XP11. It got better after Austin bought his Lancair and got interested in how a PT-6 worked. 🙂 The tweaks in the REP addons for individual aircraft models are also great.

Quote

4. Rather than an instrument only view,  what about a well simulated Head Up Display. 

Ideally, let's have both. 

[steffanan 5]

Like many of us here, I developed a love for aviation with a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator from the 90's. I used FSX throughout all of my flight training and now as a commercial pilot and a flight instructor I still use the same program to keep excited about aviation.

Before a quick list of specific desires, I want to mention a few things that are more just basic hopes I have.

 

-The reason that FSX has earned a cult following is because they did so many things correctly, and emphasis should be to improve and redesign a simulator with mostly the same core feature set, while improving the recipe by dumping in modern graphics, hardware utilization, expanded and polished ATC, artificial intelligence, etc.

(No offense to the desires listed by anyone but i'm seeing people mention "ability to preflight the plane","accents from all different air traffic controllers" and things like that which I believe to be a waste of time and resources from the Microsoft team.) Icarus flew too close to the sun, and so do a ton of overly ambitious game developers. Microsoft can stay out of that trap by using their pre-existing winning formula.

-I hope they keep in mind that at the core of our desires, as we play FSX we MOSTLY just wish it was the same thing just better in realism and graphics. Most of us just want to do a VFR or IFR flight without being distracted by specific shortcomings of the simulator, and don't need a ton of new exciting features. Nobody is like "well I love Vanilla FSX but shoot, the cessna 172 doesn't have a Heads Up Display"

-I believe its a natural progression of a serious flight simmer to want to get into IFR flying after playing around vfr for a while, and though the polls might currently show some close-ish ratio of VFR to IFR sim pilots, it's only because using vanilla FSX to learn IFR operations was too difficult and it was a barrier to those pilots learning anything more.

 

Specific desires:

- ability to hook up to an ipad running foreflight (no fancy integration, just the simple output that xplane currently has to show position and traffic)

-Be profitable enough so that we see this version of Flight Simulator stick around. I know we all love getting fsx cheap and modding it for next to nothing but if the company doesn't figure out some way to sell us something this equation isn't going to keep working and we'll be in the same boat again.

-ATC that has been tested out by actual commercial rated real world pilots. The common thing everyone wants is great ATC but I can already see the hoards of flight simmers creating a ton of white noise about what the ATC "should do" but I believe the input of a small group of real pilots could help with the direction and Microsoft could have a concise path forward. And yes, I volunteer. Thanks for asking.

-some sort of integrated system to include unofficial missions in the main program if they make it through some sort of quality control standards. Everyone loves missions but it'll not be fun to sort through thousands of fan-made missions and hopefully not be let down by half of them. (I would certainly pay for official mission packs done really well by microsoft.

-a store for mission packs, official aircraft, add-on scenery, etc. Again, I really want microsoft to be profitable from this so FIND WAYS TO TAKE OUR MONEY! (obviously without limiting the core experience if we don't pay)

[vortex681 806]

Just now, bashope said:

So it's not a matter of the aircraft, but it's a matter of the weather engine, is it not?

From my experience, aircraft do constantly bounce around. What can I say? To me, the part that pertains to the flight model, is how the aircraft responds to rough air. Where and how often there is rough air, belongs to the weather engine.

To prevent this going any more off-topic, PM me if you want to know why I'm so sure.