Here is much of what I would like to see in FS2020 to improve it’s feeling of realism:

• Improved flight modeling for aircraft, preferably on the level of the A2A planes.
• More realistic graphics over FSX/P3D.
• Realistic and dynamic weather with volumetric clouds and excellent precipitation simulation (including icing).
• High levels of ground auto & water traffic, I want to see busy highways on landing approach.
• Detailed AI for air traffic, have them doing patterns and behaving realistically.
• Much improved ATC over FSX, greater degrees of interaction and chatter.
• Greater ground detail and texture resolution at low altitudes. 
• Tree/brush/water movement due to wind.
• Head shaking and movements impacted by flight forces like turbulence, acceleration, and maneuvering.

2 hours ago, DaWu said:

it is unplayable when talking about gaming. You cant even read the instruments cos of the shaking. I get a headache out of this

Even just driving down a bumpy road, it can be hard to read the gauges or interact with buttons. And that's just shaking up and down. In a decent amount of chop, it really is hard to see gauges and get to controls, which is why I don't get too annoyed when I'm trying to hit a switch with the mouse and it bounces away from the pointer.

 

2 hours ago, DaWu said:

While this may look realistic and something that could be used in a movie it is unplayable when talking about gaming. You cant even read the instruments cos of the shaking. I get a headache out of this

in real terms, I have to make an effort to recognize something. Maybe you can disable this at short notice if necessary.

Realism to me, in relation to flight sims, is just one of the overused words in the community, in addition to hobby, custom, hand-placed and photoreal. 

21 hours ago, Noodle said:

It's a flight simulator, not a maintenance simulator. 😉

This is one of the reason why i start scripting my own panels, because i want an "aircraft simulator"!

Quote

High levels of ground auto & water traffic, I want to see busy highways on landing approach.

I only want to see road traffic when it is realistically simulated. That is most definitely not the case in P3D at the moment. Cars moving at supersonic speeds, jerking around, jumping position when cornering or turning, and moving along either poorly rendered landclass roads (that always look completely out of place with respect to other ground features) or photoscenery roads that include static images of real world cars that have not been removed!!

Edited August 15, 20196 yr by Christopher Low

4 hours ago, Andiroto said:

This is one of the reason why i start scripting my own panels, because i want an "aircraft simulator"!

Heck yeah! You do you! But it's just a fringe case within a niche market within a niche genre, so it's difficult to advocate for "factory" support.

Still, the lengths to which enterprising developers have managed to stretch the FSX/P3D SDK is amazing, and I don't expect anything less going forward.

On 8/15/2019 at 5:06 PM, eslader said:

Even just driving down a bumpy road, it can be hard to read the gauges or interact with buttons. And that's just shaking up and down. In a decent amount of chop, it really is hard to see gauges and get to controls, which is why I don't get too annoyed when I'm trying to hit a switch with the mouse and it bounces away from the pointer.

 

As long as you can kind of grab the switch (especially with rotary knobs) by clicking it and dragging the mouse (or use the mouse wheel like I prefer), setting a new heading can otherwise become a nightmare in bad weather

Good post.

I vote for VR, real ground texture and 3d models.

For me, having flown light airplanes in real life, good VR (FOV, resolution, performance), realistic weather, especially wind effects (also on the surface), and the effect of different runway surfaces is what I am missing most in the current sims.

 

 

Edited August 22, 20196 yr by dilore

That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how we will handle VR if turbulence is modeled well. I can imagine a not-insignificant percentage of us losing our lunch.

 

I’d like to refine my definition of realism to include dropping $135/hr wet on a ratted out ‘68 C172H trainer, VFR only with a HI that precesses 15 degrees every 5 mins and a com2 that works 45% of the time 🤦🏼‍♂️

...ok, reality is overrated sometimes 🤣

9 hours ago, eslader said:

I wonder how we will handle VR if turbulence is modeled well. I can imagine a not-insignificant percentage of us losing our lunch.

XPlane has modeled turbulence. It's said to be overdone for GA aircraft (I'm a P3D user).

Can any XPlane & VR user enlighten us regarding the 'lunch' issue, please?

On 8/22/2019 at 9:51 PM, eslader said:

That brings up an interesting question. I wonder how we will handle VR if turbulence is modeled well. I can imagine a not-insignificant percentage of us losing our lunch.

I asked in XPlane.org and got among others (no motion sickness) the following answer:

"I get more sick in a real plane even though the turbulence in XP is way overdone. Feels good to get a little bit sick. Adds to the realism."