As a hardcore VATSIMmer I wish they would PLEASE make the default flight OFF THE RUNWAY !!!!I can't tell you how many times flying Seattle I've had newbies pop up on RWY34R while on finals or VR.Cheers

Sounds like more of a Vatsim problem to me. Personally, I like having it on the runway, so I can just throttle up and take-off.

>If you have ever had the chance to fly a Professional Flight>Sim like the Airlines use, that run around $30 Million for a>767 or 777, you would would be really disappointed with the>lack of almost any kind of eye candy, that so many people are>demanding for FSX. The only important criteria for the real>pilots that learn how to fly a real aircraft using these>simulators , is how well it represents the way a real aircraft>flys. ..... The FAA has stringent specifications on things like 'Short Period Pitch Oscillation' frequency and damping factor for such certified simulators. However, every (other) AIR file I've seen, including those used in expensive commercial jets have the Pitch dynamics set with many times real 'Cm_q'. Similar for Roll and Yaw dynamics. Observed dynamics, especially at high FL's are not consistent with real AC dynamics. Now many professional pilots may feel the dynamics are good. However, they are used to handing a big Yoke and feel forces much higher than one gets from a little JS. If one flys smoothly many details of the dynamics are less likely to be noted. If real values are set in the AIR file (and, aircraft.cfg) for Jets, the current FS "autopilot" is unable to control pitch, ALT, etc. well. Further, it is even worse when there is turbulence and gusts. On top of that, the FS 'Yaw Damper' is nearly useless. Just another reason FS AC are dumbed down: to fly reasonably well with the virtually non-adjustable FS autopilot, and the lack of an operating Yaw Damper. However, the AIR file can be set with REAL 'Stability Derivatives', and the result is dynamics consistent with engineering texts. AC not hard to fly, once one gets used to them. Also, closer to X-Plane, JSBSim, etc. at the high FL's and Mach numbers involved. I had to write my own 'autopilot controller algorithms' (including a real YD) to make such AC stable in all flight realms with autopilot. Code which has many adjustable gains and limits -- thus, adjustable as needed; not 'one size fits all'. I found that a variety of realistic jet transport flight models flew well with the same controller parameters. While high performance fighters required some adjustment. Which would be expected. With low, realistic Pitch, Roll, and Yaw dampings and my adjustable autopilot controllers turbulence and gusts were no longer a problem. I changed the turbulence scalar in FS9.cfg back to 1.00. The FS autopilot can't handle gusts unless dampings are set much higher than real, and a realistically modeled jet will sometimes roll 20 degrees when a gust hits. Not so with an appropriate roll controller. I feel the only way to get as much as possible out of the FS flight dynamics engine is to start at the ground level. Set real parameters, and verify that the AC displays appropriate dynamics for them. Then, fix things such as the autopilot, controller devices (including better FFB), the way sim pilots map visual cues to what they feel is appropriate, etc., step by step. Without a systematic and analytical approach to all factors there will never be an MSFS (or other simulator) that realises as far as feasable just what can be simulated.Ron

Holy crap, that just looks a-m-a-z-i-n-g. If FSX is anywhere near this with dynamic lighting, shaders, bump mapping and environmental and weather effects, than I would be more than happy!! This is pretty much "as real as it gets".Pat

"I think 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."Think of the refunds they'd have to give to the vast majority of those who bought it and then were told they'd have to pay extra to buy and install some aircraft to fly it!People here are a tiny percentage of Microsoft's target market - remember that less that 2,000 people responded to the demographic and vendor surveys.

>Realistic windshear. Realistic down- and updrafts. Temperature>effects more realistic (fog, water vapour). The wind as of FS9>is not modelled right, at least not the x-wind effects.>all fine except they have to FIX visibility problems first. Frankly before they attempt to provide such fancy stuff as windshear we should first fix huge visibility problems - problems that can't be corrected today using even best 3-rd party effort.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

>>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? :(I am hardcore ;) - I read avsim.More, I even am so hardcore that I spend a lot of hours in a plane in reality and in level-d sim and know that trying to make "realistic flight model" without at least 180 degrees field of vision and motion platform does not make any sense, so it would be waste of time.Same with lenghty check lists, when icing does nothing, cabine pressure does nothing, flight recorder does nothing etc.IMO it's fine as is. Systems are there to click on but do nothing and you can leave them turned off and happily fly immelmans with decompressed b747 (of any flavour) ;).I'd rather see much improvement in graphics technology, as now is often going low fps just because engine is dated. Lot's of people seem to not notice that going below 25-30 fps totally kills everything, realism being the first thing. You can't fly proper visual approach when your screen refresh rate is jerky at 15 fps. How can you even remotely feel the mass, when you get 12 fps near airport? Gauges refreshing at 5-10 fps and trying to track vor radial or even properly trim the plane? I say correct fundamntal flaws with new version, then move to fluff in next generation, FSX.1?:).P.S. I have more than average computer and very reasonable sliders settings and game still does not perform well in many places.

>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.That's my complaint about the "brand X" flight simulator. The planes are too much the same when it comes to a "feeling" of mass and inertia. It's been my opinion, that MSFS planes do a pretty good job of portraying a feel of weight, and response to controls.L.Adamson

>Sounds like more of a Vatsim problem to me. Personally, I>like having it on the runway, so I can just throttle up and>take-off.How is that an VATSIM problem? You just said yourself thats what you do "Throttle up and Take off" Now log onto VATSIM doing that!

"How is that an VATSIM problem?You just said yourself thats what you do "Throttle up and Take off"Now log onto VATSIM doing that!"You answered your own question. This "problem" doesn't affect people who don't use Vatsim. Thus, it's a Vatsim problem. Better pilot education before Vatsim use would probably help. Maybe if pilots had to go jump through all the hoops like Vatsim controllers do before they're allowed to fly.......

Well, for me I'm very happy with the FS Global 2005 terrain, Radar cOntact 4 ATC and Activesky weather, but:For FSX, I'd like to see1. better landclass textures and road placement2. better weather engine3. better ATCand most important, FSUIPC - WHY - do we have to buy a third party add-on (or software must be licensed to use it, same thing) for such a basic function as sharing data to and from FS??????

Wish list:A well documented and expanded set of APIs. This not only supports commercial third party developers, but hobby 'pit builders as well.Mikewww.mikesflightdeck.com