Hi, Have been a simmer since 1987 ... and I'm now specialized on 737-3/4/500 with good knowledge from real pilots. Using online ATC for 2 years now. I'm still with FS2002/4, so forgive me not knowing all details being solved with FSX.Me too, I think that it's too much burden put on ACES to add all fancy airports and aircrafts into the vanilla FS. There's many good people out there to make perfect add-ons. So, top priority for future MSFS 1. Give addon-developers as much support as possible with - a broad framework of technology (ie Fly-By-Wire basics, FMC+SID/STAR basics etc.), - complete up-to-date SDK and - hints and examples so they can do the best job without unnecessary limits. Focus on the engine and functionality. I believe the Addon-community is one huge factor of MSFS' success. (I'm not a developer, dont get me wrong). My remaining list:Improvements2. Real Overcast. No shadows and no glowing sides in overcast or fog conditions.3. realistic Fog vision for CAT II and III OPS, there good Hi Intensity lightning appearance for the runway approach lights. 4. Airbus Fly-By-Wire improvements to be used at least by 3rd party developers5. SDK support for shared cockpit. I want many of those perfect addon aircrafts be capable of sharing the cockpit too6. better Turbulences in Real Weather system7. no sudden wind changes when climbing or changing weather station within Real Weather function and if there's no turbulences8. *If* you want to spotlight additional airports, those here are of interest for all ambitious pilots worldwide: Kathmandu, Nepal - Quito, Equador - Innsbruck, Austria - and try to establish a way to reactivate old Kai Tak in Hongkong9. All of the remaining visual goodies not being included in FSX SP2 (cloud shadows, volumetric clouds, volumetric lights ...)10. Realistic "dirty" textures ;-)11. Cessnas are realistic? Then improve overall aerodynamic fidelity of jets (then helis) and provide addon-parties enough parameters that they can use for specific jet aircrafts.12. Using Force Feedback for much improved trim and surface force simulation. I don't care for the today's effects FFX. Try to work closely with the joystick/yoke companies if there's a way to make trim forces and rudder forces more realistic and undelayed.13. Visionary: try to go into the Virtual Reality hardware on the long term: VR-goggles (stereo high res vision), VR-glove? Holodecks? The current TrackIR is the first step towards this goal.Small adjustments1. On jet aircrafts, at rotate they won't get the nose up first, then they "jump" into air. I have to apply full elevator first 2 seconds, then go back to almost zero. That's to drastic, should be modified2. Modern jet engines spool up *slow* from 30% to 60%, then very quick from 60%-90%+. FS-jet engines in medium/large size aircrafts should behave the same.3. 737 can taxi at idle thrust and most cases even start moving without raising the thrust. In FS it takes 50% N1 to break off and 40% to keep 15KN. Ask somebody again and try to adjust.4. Frequent discrepancy between PAPI/VASI and ILS G/S. Often, if following the G/S then PAPI/VASI and Runway appearance don't look good. If following the PAPI, then the GPWS screams "Glideslope". Some scenery developers claim, it's a basic problem in FS not possible to work around. 5. Smaller Autogen, fit with texture--> ATC improvements: Forgive me, but don't invest too much time in improving FS ATC and AI traffic to perfection. I was dreaming of speech recognition some years ago. Then I found the online ATC services IVAO and VATSIM. That's almost perfect ATC, forget improving the FS ATC. People not satisfied with the MSFS ATC should be pointed to these online services!--> "All sliders max discussion": Two aspects: A new FS should perform better or look better overall than the old one on current hardware at release date. FSX was really too far away from reality in the beginning. But I disagree that all sliders max should work right away. Teach users to make a desicion: They can max one slider, but need to reduce a different one then. Teach them the relations between the settings, so they can judge what they prefer.Regards, Bigean

A fly-by view included in the sim. Should be easy enough.

These threads are always so depressing. Seriously, why do so many people ask for the kinds of things that computers won't be able to render for years? You have a fairly basic implementation of ATC, terrain, autogen, and weather, yet you want bugs, grass, roads you can drive on (?? seriously, come on...), human models!, perfect real world lighting, and God knows what else. I know I'll see more nonsense in here before the thread is over.I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but how about some realistic requests. Especially considering how MS took all the crap, yes crap, people wanted like animals, birds, and missions to heart instead of improved ATC, AI, and so on. You need to decide whether you want a simulator or a game. I agree a few of these suggestions about better lighting and various scenic features are great, but with the current engine you aren't gonna get that detail without hardware from 2020. MS needs to rewrite the engine and start over to give us all these new better looking sceneries, but I'm not sure they want to do that.With the current engine, you can squeeze out some better ATC, AI, and a handful of scenic code, but anything extreme isn't going to run good on any computer. I think some of you need to get a better handle on what we're working with and even limit your suggestions. Personally, taking my advice, I'm asking for the same thing I asked for last time - better ATC (DP/STAR support), AI (flight plans), and updatable NavData. Updatable at least in terms of easy 3rd party add-on updates.

I already posted, but one thing I thought of with regards to ATC is voice recognition.... Most of us have headsets with mics on them....we should be able to talk just like in our real planes or in our towers :)Please?

Hi Chris,You have hit the nail on the head!! We want, we want, we want, and then BAM, make it all run great on an old computer, right out of the box, all sliders to the right, and get great performance. Well, it's too bad that it doesn't happen that way. You would need a NASA super computer to do all this in a flight simulator. Oh, and please don't say... such and such game can do it why can't FS11? Why, because they are not world-wide flight simulators, that's why. Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

My wish would be for much more realistic flight models in particular for turboprops. The other area that has to be fixed is performance. MS should concentrate on building a stable base product and leave it to the 3rd party developers for the rest. The other change I would like to see is maybe two releases - one where the emphasis is on arcade game features that some among us seem to enjoy and the other for the those who want a serious simulator that closely mirrors real world flying.Bruceb

> These threads are always so depressing. Seriously, why do so many people ask for the kinds of things > that computers won't be able to render for years? What???> you want bugs, grass, roads you can drive on (?? seriously, come on...), > human models!, perfect real world lighting, and God knows what else. You silly monkey. Is flight sim the only game you play? Do you seriously think this is not going to be possible by about 2010 when fs11 comes out? Go ahead and watch the videos on Gamespot about Crysis or other recent games and you'll see whats do-able today. Lets see, you think human models are too hard?? take a look at "Total War"! - thousands of fighters slugging it out in battle!!http://au.gamespot.com/video/931592/615024...fficial-movie-1This game came out in 2006 for dx9!! Check out Crysis too, you might be amazed!And don't give me the whole "oh its a flight simulator" thing because thats as weak as "oh we do the whole world."!

Your last sentence is an interesting one. If you ask most simmers what they want I bet almost all would agree "a serious simulator that closely mirrors real world flying"-yet a good many would passionately disagree on what that is. What is arcade for one may be reality for another.I recently flew a 6500 nm. real world flight-out of the 17 airports I landed at 3 had warnings of coyotes on the runway-both on atis , from the tower, and I had an encounter with a couple at Santa Fe, New Mexico. If the next version of Fs has coyotes-I would see that as an increase in reality-I bet a whole lot of others would consider that arcade like. Reality for me also would be bug splats that hit my windshield more often than rain/snow does (just look at my videos on my blog site), the migrating birds (almost had to go around at Kbkl on Saturday due to huge flocks darting over the runway), along with the change in sound of a constant speed prop (when will that come standard to fs?), instruments that suddenly go on the fritz-then work a couple minutes later etc.,etc. All of these things are part of my real world flying and my reality-but some might be viewed by some as arcade...My reality is not Red Bull racing, aerobatics, crop dusting, flying helo's, flying commercial airliners, therefore the increases in reality in those departments don't really interest me, and frankly simulating some of those strike me as arcade like. But there are a large number who don't feel that way-both real world and simmers, and that is the way it should be. We all have our own reality to go for-both in reality and in the sim.Seems to me that MS has done a pretty good job of balancing increases in reality in almost all areas with every version-and while never pleasing everyone 100% still plods forward in both increasing reality and duplicating the whole real world experience. Where it doesn't quite make the mark, 3rd party developers fill in. Seems to be a formula of why this franchise has continued for so long where others have faltered.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

OK, I'll bite, and there should be no performance impact with this one.....I see it mentioned above, but when it come to Failures, I want something like a "Once in a blue moon" option, not a percentage even. Just like in the real world by having an aircraft which is for the most part well-maintained and up on all updates and modifications, but as happens, for some reason once in a great while has a component turn into taco meat for no reason (and the worst time, such as on final or low vis conditions...that would be an interesting option) .Last time I tried this (and it's been a while since it was such a letdown) I set the failure rate to the lowest possible setting and sure enough, not long into the flight, the artificial horizon goes Tango Uniform. Then shortly after that, there goes the airspeed indicator. Oh boy couldn't see that coming....yawn....What I want is, make me comfortable and even forgetful by being 100% reliable for many, many hours and flights, time after time, and then surprise me with a failure out of left field. So that my heart jumps out of my throat, sweaty palms and white knuckles, and total sheer panic and fear set in becuase it's so unusual and I was so unprepared.THAT's a failure that yields "immersion factor" and truly as real as it gets! Can you imagine the "So There I Was..." kind of hangar stories that would result form such a feature?

>Allow users to tweak the way AI>aircraft behave (such as what taxi routes they take, taxi>speeds, etc.)Like, if it isn't already in fsx.cfg, add variables in fs11.cfg to allow us to easily change ai taxi speeds (on the runway and on taxiways separately), and one to change how long an AI will stay stopped before disappearing... :)FSS services for VFR traffic, and VFR flight plans.... (Though, either this would have to be optional, or have a configuration option to turn it on or off, for those people who just want to release brakes and go...)Better AI separation for fewer go-arounds...Position-and-hold for departing traffic if there's no inbound traffic within X miles (a minimum distance on a straight-in line that it would take for a departing aircraft to move into position, hold for a reasonable time, and takeoff).. Would help congestion for takeoff because of constant AI landings....Buffer zones in ATC Center sectors to limit rapid Center handoffs between the same 2 centers...Improved/redesigned ATC....

I think by now Aces team has got really lot of experience, some of which they have got hard way. I believe they are now ready to make a perfect release - FS11. After releasing this sp2, I whish they won't spent more time and effort on sp3,4 etc. Instead they should take a nice long vacation, and then start to work, so that some two years from now we can enjoy in a fs-masterpiece.On the wish list is certainly decent performance (this fsx performance affair shouldnt happen again), and a few others already mentioned so many times:- good flight planner- atc with sid/star (I understand Vista has a new voice reckognition system, so why not get some use of it? It would be nice not to depend on Vatsim-equipped areas for real atc.)- improvements in flight modelWith all respect, adding too many default aircraft is not so necessary. Serious simmers will anyway concentrate on add-ons from their favorite developers. And I personally don't care too much for bugs on the windshield, train simulator integrations, visual damage, bombs and I don't know what else I've been reading here about. Seems I'm getting too old for these things. Not worth programming efforts.And this idea about two versions mentioned in a previous post I've been advocating for years. There should be a simple $30 FS for people who enjoy to just give full trottle, make loops and run into the mountain, and a "good" serious sim for which I would be ready to hand out, say $2-300.Thank you

>Seriously, why do so many people ask for the kinds of things that>computers won't be able to render for years? You have a fairly>basic implementation of ATC, terrain, autogen, and weather,>yet you want bugs, grass, roads you can drive on , human models!,>perfect real world lighting, and God knows what else.Hmmm, reminds me of a saying I read once: "Those who are keen to limit ideas and criticize imagination are doomed to live a dull life".So far I have read many great ideas put forth here in this thread. If most of these ideas were implemented, it would advance FS closer to reality. Many great features that we see in FS today have, once upon a time, had their birth as ideas in someone's mind.In the past, before the advent of autogen trees in FS, we have had those who criticized the very idea of trees in FS, complaining that trees had nothing to do with aviation and was a waste of time and resources for a "flight simulator". The same complaints were leveled by a few at the proposal of road traffic. After all, what do moving cars on roads have to do with a jet taking off from point A and landing at point B?Thank goodness ACES did not listen to the naysayers, and today most simmers will agree that 3D trees and traffic have added unquestionable beauty and dynamic life to FS, not to mention realism.Sure, those that barricade themselves inside their cockpits and stare at panels during the whole flight probably will have no need of trees or animals or cars. But those who like VFR and love to look outside the window and experience the visual thrill of seeing the world flying underneath them, these enhancements have positively heightened immersion and enjoyment.I think ACES has done a good balancing act, improving aircraft, physics, ATC, weather, scenery, and other environmental aspects a step at a time in each successive release. Sure each of us has our own preference on what area ACES should concentrate on, but we all have to recognize and acknowledge that we simmers are a diverse group and will naturally have different opinions.Instead of criticizing and ridiculing others for their ideas, let's celebrate the sharing of ideas and imagination. ACES will take some of these ideas, weigh them, and perhaps may incorporate a number of them in a future version of FS. I think they are smart enough to know which ones are feasible for FS11, and which ones will be delayed for FS12, and ones which may delayed for versions after that.Hardware is indisputably getting more powerful with time. Eventually, many of these ideas will be very possible to incorporate into FS, do-able as we might say. Let ACES hear our ideas and allow them to make the determination which ideas get utilized sooner, and which ones later. It's a steady march toward realism, and let it continue. :-)

Better ATCBetter weather-GROUND EFFECT-

i want to see real performance optimization for multi cores. like if u go from 8-core to 16-core machine i wanna see atleast 50 % increase in fps or 50 % more autogen etc. there are larrabee cores coming 2010 which have 80-cores in them. better use of shaders optimiced for DX 10 or even DX 11. get rid of blurries. period.better co-operation with 3rd party developers, because they deliver what MS cant like AI, ATC, planes, SCENERY, texturesi want FS11 to run properly with 64-core machines and geforce or AMD current (2009-2010) gen cards, right out of the box.ACES must concentrate developing a core product, bug free. let the addon developers add whats missing.support for tesselation or GPGPU is the future.aotogen per cell 10000 units and with added autogen distance slider like 4-times the distance we now have with FSX.maybe co-operation with Microsofts virtual earth photoreal product.

Agreed except to the extent that the underlying program places limits on the ability of 3rd party developers to produce products that closely mimic reality. For instance there was a recent post on the Digital Aviation forum from a RW Piper Cheyenne pilot who pointed out how the handling of the sim DA Cheyenne differed from the real thing. The answer from the DA developers was that the differences were due to poor modeling of turboprops in the underlying MSFS code. It's this type of thing that I would like to see fixed in FS11. I'm not a real world pilot but I have with the aid of my sim knowledge (and an instructor) flown and landed a light aircraft. It was an amazing experience and if if I was much younger, wealthier and healthier I would love to take up RW flying. But that will never be so sim flying will have to suffice and I would like it to be as close to reality as possible.Bruceb