21 minutes ago, bashope said:

Like I (tried to) say, it probably depends on location (as long as weather conditions and time of day, of course). I only have around 50 flights, always in the same location. I remember about 2 or 3 perfectly smooth flights. Everything else was constantly bouncing.

I'm not saying this is a general truth. But I'm saying that, from where I'm standing, having this constant bouncing is a lot more realistic than constant perfect smoothness. That's it.

My experience in real GA aircraft was years ago, but I have many non-pilot hours in small Cessnas and helicopters as a commercial photographer. Mostly in South Florida and the Caribbean, but also some aerial work in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Brazil. 

Some flights were smooth, some were turbulent, so it does depend a great deal on location and weather conditions. The only thing I'd take exception to is the idea of "constant bouncing." That's the wrong way to model it in a simulator, and one of the flaws of default turbulence in XP11. It's either on or off with no variation, and constant when it's in effect. The ActiveSkyX plugin does a better job of modeling it realistically. 

So if I was putting this in "what we want " terms, it would be to model turbulence in a way that varies by location and according to current (or historical) METAR and other data sources. Varying by location should also include local terrain effects, as mentioned in another thread. Sometimes smooth, sometimes bumpy. Never a constant turbulence when flying over a large enough distance, where you'd be moving through different weather systems and terrain.

7 minutes ago, simmerhead said:

But my experience in FSX and P3D with various weather addons is that the air is mostly too stable, especially when flying small AC. 

Yes. There's a way to use FS weather to modulate air currents which Ideal Flight uses throughout all weather environments. That way the movement of the aircraft due to wind moves the view In a quite natural way.

An improvement to the weather might be an object that can 'blow' in a certain direction, or modulate the air current in a certain direction and distance.

2 hours ago, Paraffin said:

 

Turboprops are now very good in XP11. It got better after Austin bought his Lancair and got interested in how a PT-6 worked. 🙂

 

I wasn't referring to  XP11. I was referring to Microsoft's offerings.  We are offering suggestions to Microsoft here, re the new sim. Hence why I added the caveat that turboprop modelling may have improved in Microsoft derived sims since I last was simming.

 

Quote

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.

 

Developers who have attempted to model fly by wire in the sim have a had a hard time due to the limitations of the sim in this respect, and it has never been done as well as it could if the sim had been designed with this in mind from the onset. The default Microsoft A321 is an example, as good as MS could get it but pretty dodgy. PMDG did a reasonable job with the 777, but not perfect. Not sure about FS Labs attempt. Developers have to code outside the sim to achieve anything like a reasonable representation. Will be a lot  easier if Microsoft decide to consider this for the new sim. It's about making developers lives easier not harder. 

Edited August 1, 20196 yr by martin-w

11 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I wasn't referring to  XP11. I was referring to Microsoft's offerings.  We are offering suggestions to Microsoft here, re the new sim. Hence why I added the caveat that turboprop modelling may have improved in Microsoft derived sims since I last was simming.

Well, one would hope that the MS team are taking a look at the advances that have been made in other civilian flight sims since FSX was abandoned. The state of the art has advanced since then, and the new sim needs to be competitive.

 

Quote

Developers who have attempted to model fly by wire in the sim have a had a hard time due to the limitations of the sim in this respect, and it has never been done as well as it could if the sim had been designed with this in mind from the onset. The default Microsoft A321 is an example, as good as MS could get it but pretty dodgy. PMDG did a reasonable job with the 777, but not perfect. Not sure about FS Labs attempt. Developers have to code outside the sim to achieve anything like a reasonable representation. Will be a lot  easier if Microsoft decide to consider this for the new sim. It's about making developers lives easier not harder. 

If developers have had a hard time in FSX, then sure, make it easier in the new sim. It should at least be possible for a developer to code a realistic study-level FBW system without constraints when using outside code. If not exactly easy.

Coding a FBW system that acts like the real thing when driving a specific simulated aircraft model is never going to be plug 'n play easy.

The variety of systems is the problem. I don't see how anyone could expect the MS team to include every possible FBW system out there. Even a single aircraft manufacturer can have significant changes in the evolution of their FBW systems from the earliest models to the present day. There are also mixed or "partial FBW" systems, where the electronics only drive part of the flight controls and the rest is conventional direct cable + hydraulics. 

16 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

With regards to the sim, ESP-based sims tend to under and X-Plane tends to over represent the effects of turbulence on light airplanes

I would add not only just light airplanes, but all airplanes.  This is one of the most well documented issue/difference in and between both sims.  One doesn't give us the feel of flying through air at all, or hardly at all(P3D, FSX) and one allows you to feel that a little too much(XP).

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

I don't see how anyone could expect the MS team to include every possible FBW system out there. 

 

They don't have to. But the base needs to be there, the foundation for modelling fly by wire. Neither of us are experts when it comes to coding aircraft for the sim, but what we can say is that it has been well known for  a long time that the way the sim is currently coded isn't ideal for modelling fly by wire. 

It seems this thread has drifted away from "suggesting features we would like" in the new sim and has become a debate about whether suggested features are required, feasible or already there. So lets leave it at that. 🙂 

8 hours ago, vortex681 said:

What about a GA pilot? There are probably far more GA aircraft and pilots around than airline and glider pilots combined.

True. It is an attempt to limit the input from real pilots, otherwise you could get dozens of different answers of what is important to replicate based upon where GA pilots do their flying and in what type of aircraft - should the developers talk to Paragliders, Microlight, Blimp and Hot Air Balloon pilots? Should they be located in temperate, tropical, or polar climes?
Already we have disagreement on whether XP or P3D comes closest to replicating real world turbulent air from people that have first-hand experience.

Glider pilots have an acute awareness of air movement, full stop.
Certain airline pilots have a wealth of experience from near continual exposure to turbulence caused by airport buildings, nearby high terrain, high and gusting wind conditions during critical phases of flight.

I should also include turboprop and helicopter pilots to be asked for their opinions so as to have their aircraft's unique mechanical characteristics, for so long missing from ESP-based sims, to be reproduced.

Finally, there's breakaway thrust to overcome ground and water friction, plus ground effect that should also be considered.

I really hope that the flight model in MFS receives a lot of attention.

Have trains been mentioned?

Is it about time to, at the least, stick some trains on tracks similar to cars on roads?

 

42 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Have trains been mentioned?

Is it about time to, at the least, stick some trains on tracks similar to cars on roads?

Yes, XP11 does that. The new MSFS should do it too.

It helps with immersion when you're flying VFR at low altitude using roads and train tracks for navigation reference, and see something actually moving on those tracks.

There should be enough hooks in the sim to modify the trains too, for add-ons. The free Japan Pro scenery for XP11 includes "bullet trains" and it's cool to see those.

Would be awesome taken a little further than cars at present. Railway yards and sidings, mines and quarries, keeping up with the Bullet, following old trains across India or Africa, massive long cargo monsters in Canada, something ornate puffing up a Welsh valley...

Then we have docks and shipping...which was sort of coming along in FSX.

 

 

19 minutes ago, aleex said:

Yeah, but if some work is made by the MS team, why not?

Does FSX included some ferry routes by default? Or I'm wrong and that was made by 3rd parties? If so, there was an option to made easy routes (just as AI aircraft traffic where you put the origin, destination, date and so on...) or was also made by 3rd parties? 

This is exactly the point. MS should bring the core functionalities (how to program traffic) and let 3rd parties dress them up. Why ? Because there is a lot to do elsewhere and they should concentrate on core issues. Like AI aircraft traffic : I'd prefer to see them reprogram how AI aircraft behave and not just fly grand circle poit to point  trajectories than bring the AI traffic itself.

 

19 minutes ago, sightseer said:

What I want is an OFFLINE version that does NOT make me prove I bought the dang software before it will even run like Laminar Reasearch's XPlane does.

Off-topic (or is it?) but if that was a deal breaker for you, you should have bought the DVD version. All you have to do is have the DVD in the drive.

Maybe this is actually on-topic as MSFS could have a DVD version for those who want to be secluded from the (internet) world.

EDIT: But wait, isn't it the idea that scenery will be loading on-the-fly (pun intended) with MSFS? So not sure if it will work well with offline...

Edited August 2, 20196 yr by bashope

Ok, let's try to put this thread back on track ...

What I would like to see in the new sim:

- Accurate earth gravity: Moon cycles affect ocean and sea tides. High altitude flying has less resistance and saves fuel due to "thin" air.

- Dual and Triple monitor support: Ability to spread cockpit and views across multiple monitors. Split cockpit.

- Fully functional 3D cockpit as default while still preserving 2D panel if prefered.

- Default aircrafts should represent most types of engine types and configurations out of the box.

- Default aircrafts should includes wheel, float, ski and setting options for special aircrafts like water bombers and re-fuelling tankers.

- Support for 8 engine aircrafts would be good (currently only 4 engines in FSX).

- Better fuel tank transfers, crossfeed. At least support for 5 fuel tanks/ fuel valves.

- Please bring back Concorde!

 

Ok that's all for now.

Cheers!

Edited August 2, 20196 yr by Villagedefrance
minor correction

I have just deleted at least 4 pages of off topic and trolling posts in this topic.

Gracious guys, please stay on topic.  I've seen some very good comments, explanations, and off topic but interesting posts but this isn't the right thread for them.

This thread is strictly for what we would like to see in the new MSFS. Keep it concise and simple and don't go into lengthy discussions. If you want to discuss a particular subject, the please start another topic.

Thanks for your cooperation.

7 hours ago, domkle said:

This is exactly the point. MS should bring the core functionalities (how to program traffic) and let 3rd parties dress them up. Why ? Because there is a lot to do elsewhere and they should concentrate on core issues. Like AI aircraft traffic : I'd prefer to see them reprogram how AI aircraft behave and not just fly grand circle poit to point  trajectories than bring the AI traffic itself.

 

The sim has always done that more or less, provide fancy functions, they might not be utilised by the sim. Some weather features and AI features are left to developers, for example AI traffic can follow intricate flight plans when they are provided in the schedule so they need not fly along great circles.

As you say that's the spirit of the simulator. They put in the facilities, maybe make some use of them in the game, but mainly leave the devs and the tinkerers to play and come up with some good stuff with it.

I think has been mentioned. Improving the ability for every day users and casual tinkerers to create scenarios and other clever stuff, with simple readily available tools and control things as they would like. Rather than being the exclusive domain of developers, would be welcome.

 

Edited August 2, 20196 yr by SteveW