FSX Flight Planner - why it frustrates me!

[michal 44]

>If Microsoft took flight planning a bit more seriously in>future versions there might not be a need for 3rd party>solutions although I suspect they would still exist.I may be one of the few to disagree. Flight planning is beyond the 'core' functionality of a flight simulation. Flight planning can actually be as complicated as Jeppesen's professional flight planning tools developed for airlines or Part 135 operators - well beyond what we would expect from a $70 box. I would hope that MS sticks with core functionalities and don't try to waste time on something that can't even come close to what's available out there.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[Guest]

>When they start modelling this and bugs on the windshield it>will be even more real....:-)Well, guess you haven't flown Digital Aviation's Dornier Do-27 yet, which I only recently discovered. It's got bugs on the windshield! (No poop though...) During flight your window will get dirty and a few black splats will become visible too. You even have to clean the window too in between flights! And that's just one small detail... If you want a realistic GA there is only ONE option: get the Do-27. It's the BEST plane addon I have ever bought. Period. And I own a few classics (DF A36, RA SF260, etc.) so I know what I'm talking about. ;)http://www.digital-aviation.de/crjsite/l_h..._do27_main.html>Not to sound like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but I wonder if>this isn't a conscious omission. One thing that makes MSFS>what it is is the large community of add-on providers (and,>yes, I do mean commercial/payware ones). Er... that's what I meant to say...! Somehow. ;) Guess I wasn't really clear, but I do agree with you.

[G7USL 117]

And now after 16 post's no reaction from the top?

[JSkorna 137]

OMG, you think Phil or anyone else at ACES has a life outside his/her day job? :-rollJimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[slashed2 53]

I side with those who like the planner, although I do agree that searching for waypoints and sizing should be added to the functionality.Regarding SIDS and STARS, I think it depends on how one flys. The default FS GPS has approaches, and all this is dependent on the weather and ATC anyway so having it set in stone via the flightplanner may not necessarily be a good thing since you most likely will need to change it anyway.Also, considering the above concerning weather and ATC, most FMC/CDU aircraft if modelled correctly have SIDS and STARS in the FMC database so you basically just need the high altitude jetways when flying the jets which I've found the FS planner does fairly well at providing although this may be location dependent.I will say I do edit the FS flightplan to remove any departure or arrival points and use fixes on the jetways so some editing has to be done, but finding the jetway is key. For GA it's a completely different animal.It would be nice to have a moving map and be able to see SIDS and STARS from a particular airport to make it easier to choose, especially when a specific runway has multiples of each depending on direction of flight, but using Airnav.com suffices for now.Ian.

[Johan_Dees 84]

Just a bigger window will do.. nothing more is been asked.JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE..

[jlohrenz 133]

I'd disagree as well. For the $60-$70 price tag you get quite a bit. If you are willing for the price to go up another $40-$50 (which I doubt MS would ever do) then maybe they could include those advanced features.I think this is why they have enhanced how the application will work with third party apps in order for the simmer to decide how realistic they want the system to be.For the casual simmer, the out of box options/features may suffice.For the more advanced simmer they make the system able to work with 3rd party apps to add realism and extra features (more enhanced mapping, etc...)

[boyho1 0]

Hi GeoffThanks for this link to what appears (Voyager- Free Flight) to be a very nice bit of kit. I have d/l same but I cannot get to use it because it needs me to input my DUATS reg details which being a mere FS guy, I do not have. How do I get round this? I realise that you are a qualified pp so I guess that you did not have a problem with this.

[Geofa 108]

I'm not sure about that-if you ignore the prompts will it let you in? If it is required I'm sorry about that-I guess I didn't notice.The Golden eagle (2nd link) I don't think requires duats info to run-you might want to give it a try.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[slashed2 53]

One other note is that on a filed flightplan one doesn't seem to put a SID or STAR but airways, navaids etc.... not sure what the real world procedure is, but I would assume ATC assigns a specific departure or approach depending on runway/weather and traffic conditions prior to arrival or departure. Ian.

[Sartanius 399]

I agree with Ray... it would be nice if the baked in flight planner was a bit more useful but with a plethora of freeware and payware flight planners out there it's not a real big problem for me personally. I use FSBuild and love it! But an integrated moving map would be nice!What I would like, however is the ability to see a top-down view of the terminal areas when selecting the departure gate. Since I fly mostly heavy iron and like replicating real world flights then selecting a gate that's located where a specific airline typically parks at an airport adds to the "reality" effect. I realize that gate number/letter designations in FSX don't accurately reflect real life but If I could "see" the gate layout and "click to select" the one I want, I'd be pleased. Not a huge issue, but a "nice to have".And while I'm at it, it would be good to be able to select the arrival gate as well since most airlines' gates are located in a specific area at a given airport.Again, all nice to haves... the current version will do nicely. It would be great to see improvements like these in FS11!DougDell XPS 720H2C (3.73GHz) | 2GB DDR2 @ 1066 | 300GB RAID0, 10k RPM (C: ) | 500GB RAID1 (D: ) | 2 x 768MB nVidia 8800GTX (FW 158.45b) | SB X-Fi Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | Vista Ultimate | DirectX 10.0

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

My own opinion is simply that no-one has complained about the planner so ACES correctly assume it's fit for purpose.Technically it might be but a lot more could be done to make it more user-friendly especially for those who wish to add SIDs and STARs.Cheers,

[Guest dpc]

>Not to sound like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but I wonder if>this isn't a conscious omission. One thing that makes MSFS>what it is is the large community of add-on providers (and,>yes, I do mean commercial/payware ones). One of the reasons>people gravitate to MSFS instead of, say X-Plane or (in the>past) Fly! is that very third-party support. I think>Microsoft wants to cultivate a community of add-on developers,>and cutting into their markets by releasing something>equivalent to one of their products in FS for free is a sure>way to alienate that community. If that became a trend, I>could imagine, say, Level-D or PMDG saying to themselves "why>should we bother to spend the time and energy on a realistic>787 if, as soon as we get it out, MS releases a>not-quite-as-good-but-still-very-close competitor in FS11 for>free?" Likewise, say, the developers of FSBuild or FS>Navigator. There's a fine line between releasing an>all-inclusive product and encouraging third parties to support>your product, and I think MS has to realize there are some>areas where spending more energy is going to hurt the market,>not help it. (Of course, if MS got into the add-on business>themselves, they might be inclined to take on the third-party>developers with their own equivalent products, but those would>be Microsoft's own for-profit add-ons, and certainly wouldn't>come free with FS.)>>I think there is some merit to this idea.Also, I have always looked at FS as sort of the operating system for flight simulation. Much like windows, you have basic functionality that comes along with the OS. You want to write a letter, you can use WordPad, but you better be able to spell. You want to a more robust word processor, you buy one. In FS, you want a more robust flight planner, you buy one, but there's a basic one included if you want to use it.

[Guest maccars]

Great topic, Ray.I see the points being made by both sides. It is nice to have everything available in the sim, itself - even for more complicated flight plans. But, I think the basic planner does a pretty good job.My biggest complaint is the size of the map. I spend as much time moving and resizing the map as I do creating the plan. I'd be happy with a bigger map.Mac

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

Hi Mac,Thanks for your views. I agree that the planner does a good job of creating a plan but because it doesn't include SIDs and STARs those who like to fly with as much realism as possible will want to add the extra waypoints. That is a pain as I have already mentioned.And to those who say if you want a better planner you should have to pay more for the basic product. Remember there are two versions of FSX - standard and deluxe and the planner is the same in both.There should be a better planner with the Deluxe version as that one is clearly aimed at those who take their flying more seriously. We don't expect more aircraft for the same price and are happy to pay more. There are other extras in the deluxe version but I must admit I can't remmeber them.I'm sure a better planner wouldn't add another 20USD to the price but I'd be happy to pay a little more for a better one. Remember the two points I made at the start and neither would cost a great deal more. It just needs a way of searching for intersections etc. and to make the viewable window bigger. Hardly rocket science to clever blokes!Come on ACES, I know you must have an opinion so why not share it with us? :-waveCheers,