What We Want (Part 1)

[skully 1,045]

This- Scroll about halfway down to see the takeoff photo. 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/voodoo-speed-record/

To this day we've never had a proper Reno P-51- we know Asobo makes them for The Crew 2.

https://youtu.be/j8W4WgnpGdw

C'mon MS make it happen! 

 

[Superdelphinus 718]

A single, persistent world run off a server farm would be nice.

[thetford569 104]

Throw the military pilots a bone!

Historically in FS and P3D I don't fly airliners but stick strictly to Bizjets, GA, and also Military Aircraft.  I know there are many more pilots out there that do the same.  There are several military aircraft for FS and even though it's not a combat simulator there are plenty of enhancements that could be made to make the military aircraft more realistic in FS.  I like all of the above suggestions to improve the realistic flight environment like weather, ATC with SID/STAR Support, etc. but here are some other suggestions:

• UHF Radios - Someone mentioned this a ways back (thanks) but we need UHF radios/frequencies (these are published data so should be easy to get) for ATC.  Military aircraft use both VHF and UHF and fighters/bombers usually stay strictly on UHF most of the time.  The UHF frequencies are paired with their VHF counterparts so realistically you should hear the controller talking to other aircraft that are on VHF but not hear those aircraft respond.
• TACAN - In addition to VOR/DME we need TACAN support for TACAN approaches to military airfields.  PAR and GCA Approaches would be awesome at military airfields as well if that is possible through a newer ATC system somehow
• Overhead Approaches - Have ATC support an overhead approach pattern for military aircraft at all airports - I should be able to request an overhead approach pattern just as I can request an ILS, GPS, Visual Approach, etc. - AI support for overhead approaches would be great to add to this as well so military AI aircraft can also fly the overhead pattern
• Unrestricted Climb - Ability to request an unrestricted climb from an airport so those afterburners can take us closer to cruising altitude sooner.  For realism this could be randomly denied by ATC or assigned to a lower altitude than requested but higher than airliner/GA traffic to simulate traffic flows and controller workload

Finally here are some suggestions that could be implemented with readily available data that would work for all aircraft and not just military:

• NOTAM Support for closed runways/taxiways - NOTAMs are published data and when a runway is closed either temporarily or for longer periods of time this should reflect in the sim.  Same thing with taxiways.  Check the NOTAMs before your flight or be surprised if you don't!  It would be great to arrive at an airport and have to get a runway change because a runway became NOTAM closed for an inspection.  Gives some variation to your flights.  This could be an option that maybe you could also turn on/off for those that don't want to check NOTAMs.
• Ability to request specific parking spots/ramps by name instead of parking numbers.  With the number system you have no idea where those parking spots exist on the airport in most cases.  The gates are fine for the airliner sim pilots but for GA, Bizjets, and Military looking to park on a specific ramp (like the FBO) it's complete guesswork and usually it's wrong.  I resorted to using Airport Design Editor to load the bgl for the airport at times to figure out what parking spot to request but what a pain!  I should just be able to request parking at the FBO or a specific FBO/Ramp by name and get taxi instructions there.

For now I have been only flying DCS for months because I wanted to learn it and P3D was becoming stale to me.  I'm as excited as most everyone else here at the prospect of a newer, modern Microsoft Flight Simulator.  I hope that many of the suggestions made in this thread are either already implemented or can be implemented over time.  I also hope that this version will be continually supported and updated so we can add as many things possible to make the sim truly "As Real As It Gets" just like we've always expected in the past!

 

Brandon

[martin-w 3,235]

4 hours ago, vortex681 said:

I'm not really sure there have been any awesome ideas so far, in the truest meaning of the (very overused) word. Lots of evolutionary suggestions but nothing revolutionary.

 

Obviously i didn't mean awesome in that sense. In the common vernacular these days it means anything good. 🙄

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Wobbie said:

I stand corrected, but FSX is still regarded as a game, & is not licensed for commercial use, whereas ESP was. P3D, with the correct hardware, is licenced for use at flying schools etc, whereas FSX schould not be sold as a professional commercial product. You HAVE read the EULA's? 

My sims aren't running FSX - they're running the latest iteration of it - P3D - which is essentially the same. Sorry I didn't make that clear but honestly? - you couldn't get a knife between them. Let's not go there with the Prepar3D License system (as it's not allowed on this Forum) safe to say I'm legal and good.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Guest

[kelvinr 58]

5 hours ago, vortex681 said:

I'm not really sure there have been any awesome ideas so far, in the truest meaning of the (very overused) word. Lots of evolutionary suggestions but nothing revolutionary.

Feel free to do some creative thing yourself. What are your expectations? If nothing excites you enough to classify the feature list as awesome then I would like to know what you see taking the sim to the next level? 

[Noooch 1,084]

Microsoft already showned us something revolutionary in the trailer, I can't imagine anything beyond that.

[MartinH 5]

10 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I suggested earlier a capable flight dynamics editor with modern easy to navigate UI. Maybe your module analogous to FSUIPC  could be part of that. 

Good point, which for some reason also leads me to wonder; based on the many comments about a desire for impresive graphics, smooth performance, and complex simulation whether there could be a way to compromise on graphics against the complexity of the sim to allow fine tuning of performance. I doubt it's unreasonable to think that being able to run a next gen sim with both ultra graphics, good performance and complexity would be like having your cake and eating it, and it's possible users wanting complex simulation may be happy to compromise on the eye candy, but I'd imagine everyone would at least want a smooth experience.

Edited August 9, 2019 by MartinH

[MatthewS 761]

Correctly scaled autogen houses and trees. Not a repeat of the comical warehouse sized houses and redwood sized trees that exist in FSX (and P3D).

Edited August 10, 2019 by MatthewS

[David Mills 4,754]

I would like to see a moving map within the program that actually looks like a regular, geographical map, like Google Maps or Bing Maps. In other words, if I'm flying over Cincinnati, I want to see a map that says "Cincinnati" and "Ohio River" instead of only cryptic VOR or airport abbreviations.

 

[Farlis 2,285]

12 hours ago, David Mills said:

I would like to see a moving map within the program that actually looks like a regular, geographical map, like Google Maps or Bing Maps. In other words, if I'm flying over Cincinnati, I want to see a map that says "Cincinnati" and "Ohio River" instead of only cryptic VOR or airport abbreviations.

 

I'd love to see something like what Navigraph Charts does and where you can switch between Low Enroute, High Enroute and your suggested map function.

[HGNK 20]

Would like to see:

* High resolution ground textures around certain detailed airports, say 20-30 (like Edwards and TNCM Princess Juliana got in FSX) to permit using some areas without generic autogen etc... By focusing on key select airports, the generic treatment can be given to the rest. I always felt that Edwards Air Force Base was the only airport given justice in FSX. It looked real 'out of the box', no custom downloads necessary.

* An ability to control the density of Trees and Buildings separately in autogen. This would allow a user to remove all trees for example in areas they consider mostly treeless. Coastal Scotland comes to mind.

* Green trees foliage in snow covered areas. Snow tends to melt off trees first before the ground.

* Oceanic frequencies handling in ATC. Personally I would go completely text ATC with chimes (like the early days of VATSIM) with a 'text' menu to save time, and leave out voice comms altogether (I expect most simmers would strongly disagree with me 🙂 ) Reason - its a lot easier to implement (no regional accents) and real world aviation is going that way - no voice comms eventually. At major airports its getting rare to hear a voice clearance.  Changes are coming.

[threexgreen 3,139]

13 hours ago, HGNK said:

* An ability to control the density of Trees and Buildings separately in autogen.

As an example, P3D has that option.

[sightseer 895]

the ability to control all those things separately is one thing that caused bad game performance.

We dont need that.

If anyone thinks an area shouldn't have trees then they should use the SDK to recompile the scenery and not expect the game engine to check on every single frame whether a user has decided that 'this trees doesnt belong but that one does'.

Edited August 11, 2019 by sightseer

[mccracken 26]

Much of the visuals and flight dynamics etc has been covered already, so as far as game play simulator usage goes, it's been previously mentioned that in addition to missions an ongoing career mode would be cool. I know personally I'm a creature of habit so it would encourage me to fly a larger variety of aircraft and fly to different regions than I probably normally would. Maybe some features such as:

• Progression through different licences. Practical flight examination/performance scoring.
• Flying jobs for other owners to accumulate enough funds to buy your own aircraft and hangar space etc.
• Aircraft accumulating damage/wear so you need to perform maintenance (similar to A2A aircraft)
• Taxiing to maintenance hangars for repairs, refueling areas to refuel. Upgrades/repairs/fuel costs come out of your virtual bankroll.
• Flight performance being rated according to things like sticking to schedules, landing quality etc. Higher ratings leads to more future passengers and income.