There are some great suggetions here. Most have mentioned weather so I won't add my ideas. I think we really need aircraft mass. I believe most a/c feel and behave the same when it comes to mass. Just as an example: 10 knot quartering headwind with slight turbulence, a Boeing 747 will bounce and rock gently and just as easily as a Cessna 172. I'd really like to see/feel defintive flight charactoristic differences with regards to mass between a Cessna and a Boeing.Also, Increase the amount of sound sets FS can handle at one time and add slpash lighting to ramps, taxiways and runways.Just some ideas :)Bill

- Realistic weather dangers - any flight training book will have a large chapter on the dangers of different kinds of weather, especially t-storms. - Overcast - I want dull, grey overcast that is so common in many parts of the country. Not a bunch of 3d clouds patched together, but one solid dull layer. fs2002 did overcast much better. - Sloped runways - already mentioned. - FDE changes - already mentioned.

Hi Pieter!"(...) they should drop the planes built into the sim and let external parties create add-on planes ( fully simulated ) that just plug into the sim (...)"I fully understand your reasoning, but a plane-less FSX would be the most expensive simulation game in the world. Sales would drop around 95 percent (rough and UNeducated guess), which means that the remaining 5 percent of simmers (that's us: the "hard core") would have to make up for lost revenue. Now I really wouldn't mind paying let's say 500 US bucks for a GREAT flight simulator, but following the above guesstimate the final price would be more in the region of $ 5000... which is far too steep for me. Not to mention the necessity of actually buying at least one add-on just in order to be able to use the 5000 dollar sim! And we all know how add-ons tend to multiply, each new one making us loudly holler "I wanna! I wanna!"Anyway: we all will watch events unfold! Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

I just would like that they use current avaliable technologies fully, instead of some backward-comatibile with obsolete previous version 5 years old engine.If they do, FSX can easily look as good as this CAE simulator (which probably uses a couple of nvidias or ati cards anyway).I don't care about super realistic flight model or/and lengty startup procedures. This is boring for most of people, including me and it never be even close to reality.I'd be happy about a bit better airliners built in.and bit smarter ATC.I believe most of it will be adressed in FSX.

There are just a few requests:PLEASE!Make sure that FSX takes advantage of SLI (GPU) and not rely so much on CPU. Any program that does not take advantage of the latest technology, should not be released!PLEASE!Improve the graphics. Although some of the add-on sceneries for fs 2004 are beatiful, for the past two years, I've been dealing with an annoying graphics problem - sometimes when I look left, or right, scenery reloads. It reloads quickly, but this an annoyance that does not happen when reflections are off, and it never happened in FS 2002.PLEASE!Improve the ATC. I want real voices. I don't care how much room it takes up on my hard drive. Let's add voice commands. The reason why I do not buy RC 4 is because it does not take into account VFR, no voice command support, and I do not like their registration process.and PLEASE!Make sure that all my add-ons are supported. I've spend over $1000 in add-ons and over $6000 on my computer, and a couple of thousands on AETI YOKE, Cirrus Pedals and GO FLIGHT modules. I want to make ensure that I don't loose all that money.I DOUBT THAT FSX will honor my requests. Therefore, I will not get too excited. I'll enjoy FS 2004 and keep my fingers crossed.Jose OteroCFII

To add one more to this great list:Please allow clouds to cast shadows! This will increase realism dramatically all by itself. :)CheersTim

Nah, those already sorted by add-ons to a degree of excellence that MS would never achieve and anyway, I want real realism. I don't really care about lights and paint schemes. I want get an idea of how difficult flying from Courchevel is. I would like to see Farm Strips realistically set against the terrain. That simple change would add so much more to the currently absurdly simply act of taking-off and landing. Add to that different friction of grass, dirt and concrete depending on conditions (wet, dry, icy, etc).I suspect MS is worried that when people find they can't take-off or stop within the runway length that it'll be posted as a bug or something.http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26sa%3DNhttp://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26sa%3DNhttp://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26sa%3DN

AI AI AI I would really like to see the way FS handles AI done much better. I would think something as simple as not spawning all the AI at once would help aleviate the silly cases of 3 planes all trying to land at once on one runway. Or better yet, open up the AI methodology so the wizards who produce RC or AISmooth can really control the AI both on the ground and in the air in a better way. I'm perfectly happy with the weather I get from AS, so no complaints there. I tend to spend most of my flights above 10,000 AGL,so scenery is not a big issue for me. Mike

I agree with you (but just think of all the math involved for the weather alone) modeling truly dynamic weather is VERY hard on ones CPU and when you must add how that (the weather) effects just one type of aircraft in a "real" AND dynamic manner would be very hard on ones hardware. However I've read that the newest dual video cards(from ATI so far) will now allow one card to do the math behind the dynamics needed for things like the weather and the second card to render the visuals based on what the info that first card sends it. So we might be able to get somewhat closer to "as real as it gets" if they (Microsoft) could code that into the sim but I think that might have to wait for the next version of F.S. after FS10 when dual GPU card machines might be the "norm". That haveing been said they still can add a lot to both the flight dynamics and the weather by letting people get at the code that "does" the weather and flight dynamics through a more intergrated SDK. Dan Martin.

There are 2 main things I'd like to see..MORE LIFE!As what was hinted in the PCGamer article (whether true or not) - it would be great to have a living world to fly in - cars driving on roads (the lights at night of course), vehicles moving around the airports - big and small, some wildlife around the airports (deer, coyotes etc., have them walk onto the runway the odd time even (Odd time or it would get rather annoying after a bit lol)), it would be awesome to see the trees affected by the wind, have the ground get wet when it rains, snow when it snows, have those conditions effect aircraft performance on the ground.WEATHERA lot has been said already - the visuals of weather isn't as important to me as the actualy dynamics of it. I'd rather see more realistic winds - realistic interaction between wind layers (wind shear when there should be), thunderstorms that will teach you a good lesson for flying through them, have the aircraft performance effected by the weather (make that my top priority for the weather system). Also have weather updates change smoothly over time instead of the sudden jump. Activesky sort of does this but mainly by restricting any updates from happening where your aircraft is while letting the dynamic weather work in the meantime. Instead of this it would be great to see the weather slowly "morph" over 10-15 mins after an update to reflect the new conditions. Cloud shadows would be great as long as they don't hurt performance too much.One more thing would be a rework of the FD's to make them more realistic, and at the same time easier for people to make if possible.

>I agree with you (but just think of all the math involved for>the weather alone) modeling truly dynamic weather is VERY hard>on ones CPU and when you must add how that (the weather)>effects just one type of aircraft in a "real" AND dynamic>manner would be very hard on ones hardware.

>I don't care about super realistic flight model or/and lengty>startup procedures. This is boring for most of people,>including me and it never be even close to reality.You are obviously not a hrdcore-simmer. What are you doing in here making suggetions then? :(

Listen to Peter. He knows what he's talking about. If Microsoft scrapped their weather engine and reworked it from scratch like Fu3, I'd sing and dance on the streets for days. I can't remember how many times Fu3 had me on the edge of my seat. It was stunning in its day.Pyjamas

I wasn't going to reply to this at first, but after reading I think I will :-)I my short time flying real world aircraft, i'd like to see improvements in (no particular order);1 - Weather engine. One day during my training we took off in SVFR conditions, with the forecast to slowly improve, however on return, the skies closed in at an incredible rate. We need a truely dynamic atmosphere.2 - Vehicles on roads. I always notice them when departing and arriving.3 - Smoke stacks/chimneys. When on my first solo cross country I noticed the wind direction, by looking at the direction of the smoke.4 - Airport enviroment. Slopes and undulating taxiways/runways. Birds (a factor where i am at times). Service vehicles - how about if parked at a ga spot, a fuel truck pulls up and a window opens and you can select how much fuel you want, or if at a commercial gate a just the fuel window opens. Once you've selected the fuel, it takes a realistic time to load.5 - ATC. More international options. More flexible, allow or DPs and STARs, emergency options. Add delays to ATC replies if they are busy or if they miss a call. Perhaps add voice recognition.6 - AI. More models, more easily customisable, takes avoiding action by itself. Fly's non-direct routes.However, at the end of the day, FS is just a 'game' to 'average joe' and will all the features listed in this post really appeal to them and sell the product (I would hope so!). I think they should go back to releasing 2 versions like they did a few years back with FS2000. Have a default version for 'joe' and a pro version for us, with all the detail they can squeeze in.

You are (again) right of course FU3 even had deer on the runway! all I was yammering about was how much work it takes to "do" complex fluid dynamics but you are right about FU3 in manyways is was truly "ahead of it's time" in other words a great pice of code. But it's now 2006 and what people expect as far as the interaction between the weather and a aircraft really goes far beyond what could be coded into FU3 as good as FU3 was. Someone brought up the fact that in a commerical simulator you get far less "eye candy" out the vertual windows than in flight sim and that's true in fact they could learn a thing or two from the gameing end of things. In fact I've done some work for a commerical simulator and I beleve that the Open Flight graphics standard that commerical simulators use is in some ways totally out dated. And I like you think that both the visuals AND the physics behind it all can be done better. Dan