Having looked at the screenshots of FSX I am highly impressed. However, we must remember that MS will be showing off the best of FSX and certainly not the worst, which I am sure is not as flashy as what we see in the current shots. After all, whenever have we the community been totally happy with what we have once a version of FS is released? There is always some parts that we go, "Yes but".Here is the place where we can raise our concerns about those not so good features that evidently arise with a new FS or basically do not even make it in to the final release.Here is my list:1. Weather radar and structured for SDK Dev's2. Aircraft should turn left or right when REVERSING3. Aircraft wheels should NOT sink into the runway under heavy breaking4. Fully capable SDK that allows developers to tap into the internal structure of FS, which means stop relying on great developers like Pete Dowson making utils like FSUIPC to bridge the gap between what we want and what you (MS) provide. MS should look after the developers and long-term users that have given them such wealth and longetivity from FS over the years.5. VTOL dynamics so that we can finally create Harriers and alike, instead of highly pumped air files with unrealistic flap lift properties! I mean actually THRUST VECTORING!6. Failures is a big part of flying. Therefore, please allow aircraft to develope problems like:- A. Engine fires with smoke and flames- B. Structure damage from bird strikes and heavy landings or stress- C. Flat tires that actually look deflated- D. Brake failures with smoke and fire (we want to FEEL and visually see that we are flying poorly or not)- E. Depressurization- F. Take a leaf out of Flight1's 767 and come up with the correct failures to include.7. The physics engine should be greatly improved so that you can affect things in the FS world. Like:- A. Supplies dropped from a C-130 should sway and parachute to the ground- B. Underslung water carriers from fire rescue helicopters should move under the chopper and perhaps weigh it down, which inturn changes the flight dynamics and performance8. Multiplayer should be greatly expanded to more people in one game and aircraft should not jump around like in the past. In the current FS it is near on impossible to do formation flying and I have a 10mb connection.9. Airport ground traffic so that we actually feel like we are at an airport instead of some distant blank piece of concrete. Even at Heathrow in FS2004 I feel like I may as well be in the middle of the antarctic, because absolutely NOTHING interacts with you.10. Country based ATC voices. There is nothing more annoying than hearing American voices at a UK airport like Heathrow (no offence to Americans). I should imagine Americans would feel the same if British accents were all you heard at KLAX! FS2004 ATC simply that bad that I turned if off many moons ago!11. Currect visibility within the atmosphere. Therefore, if you are above fog you should see the fog below (i.e. not see the ground) and then if you decend into or out of the fog you should gradually see and feel that you are actually transitioning into something that matters.Please add whatever you want... more to follow!

How about much more basic items than VTOL and parachute drops from C-130:1. correct coefficients of friction - forward (rolling) and lateral.2. visibility discontinuities in the atmosphere (sudden jumps in visibility).3. overcast4. checkerboard tiles on waterMichael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Well i agree, certainly with the multiplayer part.What i would like to see too is a voice-recognition system for atc.A radar for online ATC and like i said in an ohter topic ability when you change frequency online you change the actually speak channel, so we dont have to go to teamspeak anymore.The graphics are good, now edit the interface.Keep up the good work!

<>Reality XP already makes one.<<2. Aircraft should turn left or right when REVERSING>>Been possible since at least fs2002. 3. Aircraft wheels should NOT sink into the runway under heavy breakingMy payware addons dont sink, and thats all I care about.<<4. Fully capable SDK that allows developers to tap into the internal structure of FS, which means stop relying on great developers like Pete Dowson making utils like FSUIPC to bridge the gap between what we want and what you (MS) provide. MS should look after the developers and long-term users that have given them such wealth and longetivity from FS over the years.>>So lets not only allow a careless 3rd party developer the ability to totally screw up our sim, but send Pete Dowson his pink slip as well. Not sure if that is what you mean or not. I WANT Pete Dowson to develop FSUIPC. He updates it all the time. MS wouldn't do this, nor has time. <<5. VTOL dynamics so that we can finally create Harriers and alike, instead of highly pumped air files with unrealistic flap lift properties! I mean actually THRUST VECTORING!>>This one I happen to agree with.<<6. Failures is a big part of flying. Therefore, please allow aircraft to develope problems like:- A. Engine fires with smoke and flames- B. Structure damage from bird strikes and heavy landings or stress- C. Flat tires that actually look deflated- D. Brake failures with smoke and fire (we want to FEEL and visually see that we are flying poorly or not)- E. Depressurization- F. Take a leaf out of Flight1's 767 and come up with the correct failures to include.>>Just allow enough channels for 3rd party devs to develop. Some have been able to fit these in. As for flat tires, depressurization, etc..Nahhhh who cares, I would rather them put their time in to other stuff.<<7. The physics engine should be greatly improved so that you can affect things in the FS world. Like:- A. Supplies dropped from a C-130 should sway and parachute to the ground- B. Underslung water carriers from fire rescue helicopters should move under the chopper and perhaps weigh it down, which inturn changes the flight dynamics and performance>>You dont want much...do you?<<8. Multiplayer should be greatly expanded to more people in one game and aircraft should not jump around like in the past. In the current FS it is near on impossible to do formation flying and I have a 10mb connection.>>Ever try VATSIM? Formation flying is possible there.<<9. Airport ground traffic so that we actually feel like we are at an airport instead of some distant blank piece of concrete. Even at Heathrow in FS2004 I feel like I may as well be in the middle of the antarctic, because absolutely NOTHING interacts with you.>>Are you sure this hasnt been implemented in the new FS?<<10. Country based ATC voices. There is nothing more annoying than hearing American voices at a UK airport like Heathrow (no offence to Americans). I should imagine Americans would feel the same if British accents were all you heard at KLAX! FS2004 ATC simply that bad that I turned if off many moons ago!>>Something else I care nothing about, but I am sure they will implement it eventually, just feel there are squeakier wheels to oil.<<11. Currect visibility within the atmosphere. Therefore, if you are above fog you should see the fog below (i.e. not see the ground) and then if you decend into or out of the fog you should gradually see and feel that you are actually transitioning into something that matters.>>This is the only one out of all the things you listed that would be considered a high priority for me.One last thing. Ever think about giving XPlane a try?Scott

x(

I wish in FSX that there won't be any crashes when the plane is like 50ft away from the ground or an other plane. Also I thing belly landings sould be possible with any aircraft.

<<4. Fully capable SDK that allows developers to tap into the internal structure of FS, which means stop relying on great developers like Pete Dowson making utils like FSUIPC to bridge the gap between what we want and what you (MS) provide. MS should look after the developers and long-term users that have given them such wealth and longetivity from FS over the years.>>So lets not only allow a careless 3rd party developer the ability to totally screw up our sim, but send Pete Dowson his pink slip as well. Not sure if that is what you mean or not. I WANT Pete Dowson to develop FSUIPC. He updates it all the time. MS wouldn't do this, nor has time.Actually, fsxcess is right on this point. Microsoft MUST provide us better access to Flight Sim's engine. There are very few sceneries with complex interaction (Emma Field, to name one) between user and scenery objects. Why? Because to currently get into the depths of FS, custom modules (like FSUIPC) etc. are needed. Writing those modules requires very good knowledge of programming, which, of course, even most of scenery designers do not have. Instead of only some small number of well-animated sceneries, all sceneries could be that good if MS would provide better access and more options.Remember first aircraft with clickable cockpits that came just before FS004 and were developed using custom modules? If MS had not implemented easy to use technique to add clickable buttons, knobs etc. to community-made aircraft, we would still have to use 2D panels.It's not an argument that someone may create very bad addon based on methods and tools provided my Microsoft. It takes only seven fundamental scenery commands to make FS run out of memory and crash. Should MS forbid the use of these commands? Of course not! Without these seven commands it would be impossible to place a single house. Just look out for bad developers.The best information I have states that MS finally made drastic changes to animations system. I hope that's how it really is. Looks like one of my dreams is going to come true.

><<4. >The best information I have states that MS finally made>drastic changes to animations system. I hope that's how it>really is. Looks like one of my dreams is going to come true.>Animations system? Are you talking about the graphic engine? dynamic scenery? Anyway, I have to agree with you, FSUIPC is a great tool and it has delivered many great things to our community but if MS makes access to the inside of FS easier , I think many more developers could make use of it, which means more addons and so, better addons (a few bad ones too, of course).

> Reality XP already makes one....and I am sure it is great but as a gauge developer, have you ever tried programming a weather radar into a B757 flight display? Yes RealityXP will suffice for the majority but I don't want an "addon" in the cockpit that is NOT there in the real aircraft. If I develope a flight display with airports, TCAS, VORs etc... I also want to include weather. Therefore I would like access to the internal FS weather structures and properties by calling the functions within the FS dll's.> Been possible since at least fs2002This falls into, "the aircraft should be a physical object". By this I mean if you taxi it and you hit a building, it should react with that building or if you taxi and steer too sharply, it should leave marks on the concrete and then pull round once the tyres have gripped again. Take for example the C130. If you land the herc and fully feather an stop so that you go backwards, you should be able to turn the wheels and have those wheel use friction maths to calculate the grip in certain conditions, along with angles so that you correctly react with the surface you are on.> My payware addons dont sink, and thats all I care aboutALL aircraft should react correctly dependant on the hits points that are setup. Not just for well made addons.>Just allow enough channels for 3rd party devs to develop.>Some have been able to fit these in. As for flat tires,>depressurization, etc..Nahhhh who cares, I would rather>them put their time in to other stuff.Flying isn't all about going from one place to another. From time to time you need to keep sharp by training for the failures. I use FS as a tool to help me with my PPL. Therefore, I want a flightsim that can reproduce the problems I may face in the air so that I can practice without fear of the bad bit at the end.> You dont want much...do you?I want what should have been, many, many years ago. Ever played Battlefield 2. In that game you can be either a Soldier, Drive Vehicles or fly Jets or Choppers, all reacting with each other. MS is supposed to be a leader! All I see is it following...> Ever try VATSIM? Formation flying is possible thereYes I have and although you may a get a few minutes of flying without stuttering, try flying FA-18's at 20ft apart for 20minutes, you will struggle to keep together!Remember it is MS that holds all the keys to the doors, they just sit back while the lock pickers step forward! Instead they should hand some of the keys out so that we can make the sim what we want. This I am sure would earn MS some big points for listening to the community.

>I want what should have been, many, many years ago. Ever>played Battlefield 2. In that game you can be either a>Soldier, Drive Vehicles or fly Jets or Choppers, MSFS is not a Battlefield or Call-of-Duty or another shoot-them-up game. If you want to do parachute drops - there are other games where you can do that. This is a platform for civilian aviation only. Any mix with battlefiled and military will only cheapen this product. MS also makes combat simulators - this is your platform for things you want to have. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

No no no Michael, you have misread what I am trying to say. I don't want a Combat Sim. All I am trying to say is, look at the diversity that other developers are creating or have created in the past 12months. They have used the technology available to produce many amazing innovations. Battlefield 2 was an example of innovation not a cheap comparison! FS needs to be innovative instead of playing catchup all the time!

Animations system? Are you talking about the graphic engine? dynamic scenery?===========================I talking about animation system / dynamic scenery.PC Gamer wrote last year that there will be user controllable fuel trucks and so on. Well, it still is not possible to add this kind of interactivity to airports automatically, but Microsoft always has provided-custom made sceneries for about 10 or 20 airports (such as Schipol, Heathrow, JFK) and it may be that these airports will have custom-made complex animations. This is what they are probably talking about in their FAQ, where they write:We also focused a select number of high-detail airports and added a new level of "interactivity" that the add-on community will certainly expand upon.This sounds very much like upgraded communication between scenery and user, which will more complex and thereby better animations. All these hints make believe that they will really rewrite animations/dynamic scenery part in FS engine. Weak animations and no movement at airports (cars, service trucks etc.) is what separates most of sceneries from Emma Field. I know that one day I will be able to design realistic refueling animations for my local airport. Perhaps not in FSX, but I'm young, desperate and ready to wait even decades! : )

My list:1. Helicopter flight model2. there is no #2Dave Blevins

No no no Michael, you have misread what I am trying to say. I don't want a Combat Sim. All I am trying to say is, look at the diversity that other developers are creating or have created in the past 12months. They have used the technology available to produce many amazing innovations. Battlefield 2 was an example of innovation not a cheap comparison! FS needs to be innovative instead of playing catchup all the time!You're comparing two types of games that do NOT compare with one another. BF2 or COD have highly restrictive environments compared to FS. Unless MS figured out a way to fraction FS greatly, it could NEVER catch up to those graphically. Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

I will settle for a product with the image quality promised without needing a $6k computer to run it stutter-free. If they deliver that, then IMO its already a success.