I TOTALLY disagree with some of these.

No one should have to go out and buy third party software to make MSFS work.  So give us a flight planner and super detailed default planes.  The more of them the better!

2 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

No one should have to go out and buy third party software to make MSFS work.

+10 on that.

The project is somewhat of a failure in my view if core things aren't covered by the first party release itself.  This "add-ons required" (essentially) world that developed since the last FSX release is not ideal, healthy, fun or desirable at all.

#1 and #5 are some kind of contradictory. Core sim things and driving to the airport... I prefer those resources on other things. 

#2... well... if I can get good default planes I prefer them to an "autostart and fly with four basic buttons working". There is always an option for an autostart, but forcing default planes to the most simple thing? No thanks. 

Disagree with several of these but #1 in particular.  You need a good built-in flight planner with a good map containing all the airports and navaids.  Another important thing is that we be able to easily update the airac data.

What we need is a good poll with a list of say 50 or so requested features and the total number of votes for each requested feature. This way the MS devs can easily see what's most requested.  I know that the MS devs stated that they monitor these forums but it is not easy to clearly see what features and bug fixes are the most popular.  Just look at the "What We Want" thread with all of the back and forth and it's easy to just give up on trying to find anything resembling a consensus.

Dave

6 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

What we need is a good poll with a list of say 50 or so requested features and the total number of votes for each requested feature. This way the MS devs can easily see what's most requested.

That's probably not very helpful because many here will just tick off every box. 

If you wanted to drill down into that kind of information, the best approach (IMO) is a budget-driven poll, where each person has a set number of points, say 25 points in a poll with 50 options, and they can put any number of points into any one choice.

That way you can weight the things that are most important more heavily in your response. I'd put about 20 points in that kind of poll into the flight model, for example. 🙂

I don't think that kind of poll is available on Avsim, but MS could set it up in the Insider forum if they wanted to.

52 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

That's probably not very helpful because many here will just tick off every box. 

If you wanted to drill down into that kind of information, the best approach (IMO) is a budget-driven poll, where each person has a set number of points, say 25 points in a poll with 50 options, and they can put any number of points into any one choice.

That way you can weight the things that are most important more heavily in your response. I'd put about 20 points in that kind of poll into the flight model, for example. 🙂

I don't think that kind of poll is available on Avsim, but MS could set it up in the Insider forum if they wanted to.

Agreed.  That's a good idea.

Dave

I suspect it`s to late for totally new features to be added and will now be more about testing what`s in the sim and bug fixing, that alone could be 6 months or more. 

I bet $100 MS will once again perpetrate the crime against simmers gifting us another semi-arcade toy with no SID and STARS .....a dumb ATC ..etc

Edited July 29, 20196 yr by Guest

I'm pretty sure that the above isn't going to happen...

Some of those are a bit odd but eh. 

#1 Flight planning is at the very core of flying, the fact that we have to look outwards to find a good one, is disappointing. 

#2 It depends, every flight simulation needs a few advanced aircraft to teach the pilot in the genre they are interested in. ie. Props, Jets, etc. I guess the loaded word here is "advanced", and what it means. 

#4 People, walking around the terminal? Unnecessary. I could see the value in a walk around mode however. 

#5 You say no "Sims" but go onto name a very "Sims" like feature. No need to waste dev time and money on driving to the airport. 

#8 You can have both of these graphical features with modern day CPU's/GPU's, no need to sacrifice one for the other, they are both very important depending on the type of flying. This goes to you #7 point. 

58 minutes ago, Mark II said:

I bet $100 MS will once again perpetrate the crime against simmers gifting us another semi-arcade toy with no SID and STARS .....a dumb ATC ..etc

LOL, they will not be gifting us, we will have to buy it, if we want to!... Buying is actually optional.

13 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

LOL, they will not be gifting us, we will have to buy it, if we want to!... Buying is actually optional.

He got ridiculed on FSElite comment section already, looks like he came here for more...

17 hours ago, andyjohnston.net said:

No one should have to go out and buy third party software to make MSFS work.

Define "work"? People buy third party add-ons to enhance the basic sim functionality. Not everyone wants (or needs) the things they add.

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What we need is a good poll with a list of say 50 or so requested features and the total number of votes for each requested feature.

That simply wouldn't work. Who would pick the list? What if they're not the 50 features I want? Please don't do this as it would give the impression that only the things on the list are important.

20 hours ago, Greazer said:

3. Release one patch like FSX then disappear. It's called proper product support. 

4. Skip people like FSX did. There is some evidence of walking people in the trailer. We also need a first person walk mode for instance when inside the terminal or to do the walk around etc. 

5. Turn this into the sims. No choosing shirts and sneakers, however, it would be ok to have a house location to start from there (if you want), and drive to the airport etc.

3 - FSX had SP1, SP2 and Acceleration.

4 - maybe a walkround option, but I don't want my system resources being wasted on generating AI people!

5 - and let's make sure it incorporates texting, Facebook, Twitter and all of the other social media apps. NO!!! See above. IMHO this would be a complete waste of code and the developer's time. This is supposed to be a flight sim, not a life sim.

Edited July 29, 20196 yr by vortex681

It also must be accessible for newbies and gamers. That, via Xbox, is a huge target market for Microsoft. 

If they could do it without draining resources, why not add people?

People walking around the terminals, people carrying their luggage in from the parking lot, people getting into their cars then pulling out and making a trip to the grocery store before heading home to catch up on their tv shows they had missed during the time they were away.

Hmmm...maybe I'm getting carried away...