Whatever Aces will develop, please let it be able to run fluently and without blurries on a typical hardware system of the release date, not just on the high end ones.

Amen! Stutter free and blurry free should be the #1 objective!!Then ATC and AI improvements.Default ac need graphic and function improvement as well. (not refering to complex systems here)Just make the basic program what it should be. You know----as real as it gets! Charge more for it if necessary! I'd gladly pay it!!Bruce

Here's an easy one,Allow us to drop our FSX logbook and rewards files into the FS11 documents folder and maybe show them in a seperate section of the log book or even show the combined stats in one section of it.That way a virtual pilot can easily keep track of his continued career. Maybe show statistics such as the number of hours in a particular aircraft and the like.

>I am really curious about your feedback (Paul Lange, what do>you think?)>>Regards,>HeikoI think you want to take my job... ;) Seriously, I can't really comment yet.

Very well put. After 25 years with FS some of the features we have now in FSX would have been a bit of a joke 20 years ago.Re

1. Option to stream scenery from the internet a la Tileproxy. Some kind of clever algorithm to automatically place appropriate autogen for the underlying photo would be very cool too. 2. Even for those not using streaming scenery, every airport should be surrounded by an area of photoscenery and the runways and buildings should be aligned properly with the photo. Also on the subject of photoscenery, it would be nice to have an option in the GPS to have it displayed on the GPS screen when the "Terrain" button is pressed.3. Much more intelligent automatic scaling of things like autogen and traffic. Currently if you adjust your graphical settings so that you get reasonable fps in the countryside, then your system will grind to a halt if you fly to a big city, whereas if you adjust them so that fps are fine in the city, when you fly back to the countryside everything will be unnecessarily barren. This is daft- the player shouldn't have to be constantly adjusting settings, the sim should do it automatically. All the player should need to do is set a minimum and maximum fps figure and the sim should then ensure that fps always stay within those limits.4. Significantly improved lighting: If the sun is below a cloud then the cloud shouldn't still look as if it's being lit from above, clouds should also cast shadows, and it should be possible to enable ground object shadows without halving fps. Lights on aircraft and ground vehicles could also use some work.5. Better scaleability for different levels of hardware. If the user adjusts the graphical options so FS11 looks like FSX or FS9 then they should get at least the fps they get in those sims. If the new renderer isn't capable of running comparable graphics to older versions without at least as good framerates then include the old renderers and have the sim automatically use them if graphical detail is set to that kind of level.6. Full compatibility with 3D stereo shutterglasses/3D monitors etc. No more sprite effects drawn at screen depth.7. Better modelling of the underwater environment: The terrain should actually extend some distance underwater around all coasts so that players can see the sea floor (when viewing angle, water depth etc would permit it). This would enable much more realistic water effects without significantly increasing the amount of terrain data required.8. A much better controller setup screen with options to sort the list of assignments by name, by date modified, by those aircraft for which each assignment is relevant etc. It should also be possible to print the list, and there should be much more flexibility like that offered by FSUIPC (such as aircraft specific assignments, axis control of all trim settings, the ability to assign a key combination to setting a particular value for a variable e.g. CTRL+SHIFT+A to "Autobrake set to position 3" etc).9. A tool for checking, updating and packaging 3rd part content. This would, for example, allow an aircraft designer to run a check on their plane and would automatically convert any old format gauges to whatever the new FS11 format is and would give warnings if any FS11 design criteria (like poly limits, texture sizes etc) are broken. Once these have been fixed it would then spit out a single file containing everything which makes up the plane (with a .fsll file format) which could then be distributed.To add the plane to the sim all a user would have to do is go to an "Add" option in the sim's menu and browse to the file. (There'd also be a "Remove" option, of course). I think this would massively increase the use of 3rd party content as many people are unable or unwilling to bother with the often fairly complicated procedure currently required to install a new plane (and are missing out on some great stuff as a result). The tool should also have the effect of raising the quality of 3rd party content as it would ensure that everything which is released follows the appropriate FS11 standards.10. Improved modelling of overcast cloud and some kind of fading for areas where cloud layers intersect terrain.11. At least one default jet modelled to a much higher level of detail, even if it's only to the level of quality that 3rd party developers were offering a few years ago. Hint: it should at least have a working FMS.12. Include a microlight with proper rudder control and excellent visibility amongst the default aircraft.Cheers,DD

"complaining that trees had nothing to do with aviation and was a waste of time and resources for a flight simulator".Excellent point.I remember when Pro Pilot '98 had terrain based mesh as we take for granted today, and 3d clouds- while fs '98 had "ice cubes" for clouds and no real terrain- I was told (and remember the quote vividly )"we don't need a rock and whipped cream simulator-we need a real simulator"....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>I remember when Pro Pilot '98 had terrain based mesh as we>take for granted today, and 3d clouds- while fs '98 had "ice>cubes" for clouds and no real terrain- I was told (and>remember the quote vividly )"we don't need a rock and whipped>cream simulator-we need a real simulator"....ROFL! That had me cracking up hard! :-lol I bet those protesting the advanced features and graphics would have been enraged to no end had they known back then that MSFS would one day have those "whipped cream" clouds actually reflecting back at us in the waters of the lakes, rivers and oceans below. A double whipped whammy!As the Wiz pointed out earler in this thread, there are some who feel certain ideas by other simmers are a joke and not worth considering. Many of these ideas deemed to be unworthy by a few resisters have eventually made it as an integral part of the sim by a forward looking ACES. Many of these improvements have become very much accepted and even loved parts of the sim. I can say that the improvements in the many different aspects of the sim has led to a broader appeal of the sim to potential consumers, and to hardcore simmers as well, since we as "hardcore" differ on our preferences as well. All in all, I have to say I'm rather pleased with the steady progress produced by ACES so far. I think they have been well balanced in providing improvements in scenery, eye candy, physics, ATC and the like. No doubt immersion has immensely increased. And I'm further pleased that they are continuing to actively listen and consider various ideas presented by us simmers.

>As a developer, my wish is that FS11 not be released for 3>years minimum :-)>>We're just starting to get our heads around FSX and Vista...>and soon it will be FS11 and Vienna.>>My head hurts already :-)>>Bryan>I will second that!When FSX can run with all sliders full right with constant 30FPS in the most dense scenery and autogen and loaded with lots of aftermarket addons, a new expansion pack should be offered to celebrate it's coming of age, and then we can begin to consider FS11 being brought to market.Ron

Sorry about the long post.I have a couple of suggestions as to what I'd like to see in Flight Sim, whether as an expansion or in the new version (seems everyone's assuming there'll be an FS11 before long, so I might as well go with it, but I don't really think there's any need just yet if FSX is sufficiently expandable).As others have suggested, it's true FSX ATC could do with a bit of a tweak in terms of complexity: at the moment it's still noticeably simplifed and interactions are still quite limited. On the other hand, let's be reasonable: it can't allow for every possible real-world ATC interaction, and FSX ATC is already a vast improvement on earlier versions. But a little more intelligence, a little more variety would always be welcome.Someone mentioned 'realistic accents' for ATC and pilots. I agree that'd be nice - but it's not 100% realistic to expect it. After all, how many different accents are there in the world? And even if you limited yourself to a single accent for each country (Britain alone has dozens, even hundreds, of accents), that's still 190-odd different voice sets, each (hopefully) with several different voices available. After all, it wouldn't be much fun to know that every time you fly into a country it'll be the same person on duty at every ATC facility! Some additional major accent groups could probably be added (American, British, several European, Australian, New Zealand, Chinese, Russian, and so on) - and that'd be great; but even then, that's a pretty arbitrary list and there's still an awful lot I've missed out. How would they choose which to represent?Slightly smoother speech, though - a little less stilted and robotic - would be nice, although I imagine that's probably inevitable in time anyway.What I WOULD like to see in ATC terms - in American accents or not - is an actual ATC simulation built into FS. Yes, I know the Deluxe FSX had the tower control option - but that relies on multiplayer, and I'm certainly not good enough for any aspect of FS multiplayer. No, what I'd like to see is an actual, single-player ATC sim, along the lines of, well, ATC Simulator, made an option inside FS. To be honest, ATC is the side of aviation I'm most interested in, which may sound weird, but there it is. I sort of feel it's a bit of a shame that the god of all flight sims doesn't really accommodate it, and I find the existing independent ATC sim(s?) a little limited. I imagine something that would let the player choose from enroute, approach/departure, tower, even ground control at whichever airport or facility they prefer; issue instructions to procedurally-generated AI flights (no preset lists of flights, because you end up learning them!) using the existing or similar ATC mechanisms; use detailed radar displays/tagging, etc; view, edit and transfer flightstrips; and look out the window (if applicable to the facility) using the existing FS graphics engine.I'd also like to see Flight Sim handle emergencies a little more realistically, including ATC emergency/urgency procedures (mayday/pan-pan). At the moment, as far as I can tell, emergencies only occur if you decide what emergency you want and more or less when it's going to happen. I'd like to see a simple slider for frequency of problems, and accompanying radio/traffic procedures included as part of dealing with them. Ideally, such emergencies could, if selected, also challenge players using the ATC sim feature above.As an aside, while it will probably offend some purists, I'd like to see even more development in really, really high-altitude flight. I've seen at least one third-party expansion offering the space shuttle as an add-on. I've not used that add-on, so I don't know exactly what you can do and what you can't, but from what I saw I think you can start in orbit and come down, but I don't think you can start on the pad in Florida and go up. I may be wrong. But I'd certainly like it if someone would take FSX and the freeware 'Orbiter' and, well, sort of mate them together. As it were. Ahem. FSX would provide a lot of the things that Orbiter lacks - detailed ground features, for example - and Orbiter would provide complex orbital dynamics, display readouts, reaction control systems modelling, and so on. And if Flight Sim already does any of this then I apologise - but I've never managed to get anything into orbit yet; not even vehicles supposedly built for spaceflight, and speed is still limited far too low to hold a freefall orbit.I'd quite like to go to the Moon and back. And Mars. And Neptune. And, and...But I'd prefer the ATC thing first. :()Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a teacher's pet, I should point out that I already love FSX as it stands (it's already more detailed than I would have thought to ask for in the areas it covers already), and I still have FS9 installed as well. These are both excellent implementations of an excellent sim. My suggestions above are just that: suggestions, in case anyone's stuck for ideas at any point (yeah, right!).

Paul Lange, Phil Taylor, the ACES team, and all:Here is a plea for integration.Most of the suggestions in this thread concern the "platform" that our friends at ACES provide. One can hardly argue against these suggestions. And, it seems, there will need to be some serious breaking of the current backwards-compatibility features for the franchise to move forward. If this is true, then we'll all live with it.However, I am keen that we do not "throw the baby out with the bathwater." The base engine is only part of our flight simulator experience. The other parts are created by the wonderfully-engaged "add-on" community.Clearly, there are many who use MS Flight Simulator as a stand-alone product. (While this is true for the internet-community, it must be true in spades for the broader customer base.) Good enough. But I suspect that most of us participating in this forum use add-ons as part of our experience. And it is the advanced users who play the role of "mavens". Advanced users give the product its word-of-mouth allure.We use advanced or innovative aircraft, gauges, weather, terrain and textures, environmental features, airport and city sceneries, air traffic, air traffic control, flight planners, and so forth. Most of us would find the core MSFS a bit sterile if that were all that existed. We have been spoiled by the contributions (payware and freeware) of hundreds if not thousands of developers. Just think about what the community owes to all who have done so much!For FS11, please keep the Flight Simulator community together.To this end, I suggest two "features" of the FS11 architecture that would help.1. Backwards compatibility engine.Build-in some way for users or developers to move FS9/FSX content to the FS11 engine. You could build-in "real time" conversions as in the current backwards compatibility system. Or you could build a "translation" engine as a separate program. (Depending on the issues, this might be a feature best employed by either sophisticated users or by add-on developers themselves. But it would be most helpful if it were possible for the user community to proceed without having to engage prior developers who may have moved on.)2. Engage Professional and Amateur Developers from the beginning.Develop the core engine so that you encourage different levels of add-on developer talent. To be sure, many of the very best developers have acquired real expertise. By all means, engage these artists directly. Create an engine that they can understand and use skillfully. But in addition, please consider the hundreds/thousands of more casual add-on developers who want to build their own home airport or to create their own repaints or even specialty aircraft. (Part of the real joy of flight simulation is exploring the work of other hobbyists in other parts of the world.)For FSX (at least after the first year) we have lost many talented amateurs due to the complexity of the new engine. And even the best professionals have found that creating new content has proven quite a challenge. Being almost half-way through the product cycle, things are starting to look a bit dire. When we move to FS11, we surely want to have everyone on board fairly quickly.So here stands a plea for the community as a whole. We understand the need to move the core product forward. But, in focusing on the innovations please do not lose sight of what makes the 25 year old franchise so very successful.It would be wonderful to hear others' suggestions aimed toward achieving this end.Best,Mike MacKuen

Mike! Been a while since I have seen you post here. Good that you are around. You always have sensible things to say.>>1. Backwards compatibility engine.>Build-in some way for users or developers to move FS9/FSX>content to the FS11 engine. You could build-in "real time">conversions as in the current backwards compatibility system.>Or you could build a "translation" engine as a separate>program. (Depending on the issues, this might be a feature>best employed by either sophisticated users or by add-on>developers themselves. But it would be most helpful if it were>possible for the user community to proceed without having to>engage prior developers who may have moved on.)>My understanding is that these very things you mention are the exact problem of FS, because adding these types of backwards compatibility features effectively SHACKLES the design, weds it to old techniques.My understanding is, that ACES could do much more in the features and performance arena *if* they didn't have to make room for older graphical techniques in the sim as it presently exists.It's probably an oversimplification (it has to be because I am an outsider looking in) but this my understanding of the issue.>2. Engage Professional and Amateur Developers from the>beginning.I second this!! Microsoft doesn't have time to design scenery. Let the 3rd party people do a portion of that, at least.Let ACES focus on the core sim, rather than spend time developing a nice-looking KJFK.I think we're on the right track on this issue because ACES did in fact outsource some things with Acceleration.You raise good points! Nice to see you in this thread.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I'd like to see a little more quality control in the lessons in the learning center. The spoken commentary often refers to instruments and switches that are either in a diferent format from the commentary or are missing altogether. For instance the DME in the Cesna 172 is described as a instrument box displaying three digit groups on the top of the radio stack mid-console. In fact, it only shows two digit groups and is at the bottom of the radio stack. As a new user (which is why I'm doing the lessons!), that one took me quite a while to work out.In a similar vein, I'd like to see a lot better cockpit documentation, at least for the planes included in the stock install. For instance, the glider has a few digital gauges (some kind of GPS??) but I can find no documentation for them yet and haven't a clue what they do or how they work.I'm using Track IR and fly in VC mode. FSX is the first sim I've tried with clickable cockpits, it's a feature that I'd heard a lot about and one of the reasons I bought the sim. However, trying to hold my head still enough to get the text labels to come up on the switches is an exercise in Zen! So I'd like a key binding that a) high lights every thing clickable in the cockpit; and :( shows the text labels.I see a previous poster has suggested an expanded mission selection and the possibility of a career mode. I think that's a fantastic idea and I'd just like to endorse it whole heartedly.Finaly; here's an idea for the longer term future:I understand that it's possible to intergrate FSX with Google Earth (can any one post a link to how?). This gives a snapshot of the world today. If this could be cached in some way (for instance, this is how city X looked on date Y); then, over time, we could load earlier versions of how the world is, and fly not just from here to there but from now to then.One day the new Airbus will be obsolete, like every thing else. Wouldn't it be great if, in the future, you could not only fly a classic plane in FSX; you could fly it in it's natural envioroment; the first two decades of the 21 centuary.I said it was a long term future idea :)

I'd like to see a "Snap-To" function for gauges. I LOVE the TrackIR and can't imagine flying without it. HOWever, the only problem with it is that when it's bumpy or you're moving your head around, it's really difficult to click on gauges in the VC unless you turn the TrackIR off momentarily.It would be great if, as the mouse cursor passed over gauges, it would snap to and "stick" to a clickspot if you paused near a clickspot. This functionality has been in CAD systems for 15 years. I think it would work in FS. Allow users who don't like it to turn it off.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

WHAT I WOULD LOVE THE MOST IS...1.) REAL RUNWAY TEXTURES...THERE NOT ALL THE SAME!!2.) BE ABLE TO HAVE AN FBO AT YOUR HOME AIRPORT AND YOU CAN PICK FROM A FLEET OF PLANES AND TAKE LESSONS, EARNING RATINGS, AND BEING ABLE TO REALLY "WIN"3.) OVERCAST4.) ACTUAL MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS5.) WEAR/OLDNESS. LIKE IF YOU USE A CESSNA, AND USE IT AGAIN, THERE IS LESS FUEL, OR TIRE CAN GET WORN OUT, WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT.6.) PREFLIGHTABLE7.) MECHANIC8.) VOICE ATIVATED ATC(OPTIONAL USE)THANK YOU