Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AdvancedFollower

FS11 Wish List/Expectations

Recommended Posts

I know this topic has been covered before, but I know the folks at ACES are hard at work on the new version and I think it would be wise if we (the users) periodically started a new post to drive certain things home to the folks at ACES. Maybe we can list our expectations, instead of "wishes" to change it up a little.I fly FSX nearly every day. Since the CRJ & 737 have no functional FMC, I am forced to use the GPS as my FMC/EHSI equivalent. Frankly, I think it is lame that we have to use the GPS as a psuedo FMC/EHSI to fly routes. Nobody flies needles anymore, so the concept of offering a simulated modern transport jet with VORS but without an FMC and EHSI (etc) is equally outdated. I am almost certain there are no transport jets in the world linked to a Garmin GPS in order to fly a route.I fully expect ACES to include modern jet transport aircraft with a fully functional FMC/autopilot system with the route displayed on the EHSI (along with weather radar) in the next version of FS so we don't have to do this rediculous work around.Also PLEASE, better transitions between weather and wind boundaries. In real life, the rudder would probably fall off if the airplane instantaneously changed heading by 15 or 20 degrees. Not even sure this is possible absent some mechanism for instantaneous transportation of matter -- like in Star Trek. Instant clouds appearing or disappearing is not exactly realistic either. I fully expect this to be fixed.Better ATC, rain/show on the windshield, flashing strobes in the clouds, icing, would also be nice. Thanks for listening to me rant.JoeInCT (ex SubLogic Apple IIe Flight Simulator user)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>>I fully expect ACES to include modern jet transport aircraft>with a fully functional FMC/autopilot system with the route>I wonder why FS developers (MS i.e. Aces) don't develop add-ons themselves? They know FS perfectly because they've made it. They are full-time employees and have much more time to dedicate to a project as opposed to third party devs who mostly do it in their free time. There would be no wasting time in transferring authorizations, rights, and knowledge. They could charge their add-on aircraft (or whatever), so there would be some income... etc.The fact is that lately we are faced with almost unacceptable long time 3rd party developers need to make a realistic add-on. Sometimes it is absurd when a new version of FS is due to be out before the add-on aircraft for the previous version. Seems that today's quality product from our favorite developers needs 3(+) years to be completed. I think an experienced and well-tuned team like Aces can do it in less than a year.On the topic: One little thing I would like to see is possibility to continue after crash. After the screen freezes, writes the red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go crazy if it had the ability to add machine guns and combat easily. I understand having this predeveloped might lower their maturity rating, but having, it easily optional, or having an expansion for it shouldn't be a problem. I would much rather have a new dedicated combat flight simulator, but I have not heard anything regarding one. Cfs1 got me started in both flying and development, and I just get shivers of nostalgia when I think of those days. Now I fly pacific fighters now and then, and I usually do well, but sometimes you just want to spawn 1000m from an enemy with unlimited ammo, and have fun, get shot down, and start all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, it needs to be a very vast improvement over FSX in terms of overall quality.There has to be backwards compatibility for aircraft, scenery, sounds, textures, panels, etc between FSX and FS11 (and even many FS9 addons, since many if not most of the community is still on FS9).Bring back compatibility with most FS9 panels, as there are very few very complex panels that work in FSX.FSX .dds texture format scares me because it almost reminds me of the introduction of GMAX in FS2002 to replace FSDS1, then in FS2004, FSDS1 models weren't even compatible. I fear that .dds might be the only texture format recognized in FS11, which, if that happens, you would probably see most people stick with FS9/FSX or run dual sims to be able to run their models that don't have .dds mapping. Especially being an aircraft repainter myself, I would like my textures for FS2004 aircraft to be able to be used in the next flight sim.I agree with better weather transitions, and the ability to have hail and windshield damage would be nice.A better flight dynamics engine which would allow for new ultra-realistic FDEs on the same level of X-Plane, while still being able to use the old FS9/FSX FDEs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no backward compability if it hinders development. I mean the fs9 backward compability from FSX isn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to set expectations, we are dropping FS9 compatibility. If not completely, as close to 100% as possible.It is almost impossible to add new features and keep version n-2 features working, these asks are along 180 degree opposed axes.So don't ask for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, better ATC, better Airport and AI management. FS11 shouldn't completely ignore these areas like its unused predecessor. Because then FS11 will not only be unused, but unbought as well. ;-)As a hardcore FS9 user, I agree with getting rid of backwards compatibility though. Of course, the benefits would have to be huge, serious, and what we want, not what some people think we want...Also, a little more flight simulation and a little less world simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Just to set expectations, we are dropping FS9 compatibility.>If not completely, as close to 100% as possible.>>It is almost impossible to add new features and keep version>n-2 features working, these asks are along 180 degree opposed>axes.>>So don't ask for it.That's the best news I've heard in almost 2 years. Cheers to the Aces team!Edit: Now bring on the cool stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,Regarding dropping FS9 compatibility, at some point one has to bite the bullet to ensure that the new version has the range of capabilities it should have. So good call.I don't know if you saw my post elsewhere, but how about including in FS11 the ability to reinstall just an individual component -- say, a particular aircraft, or scenery of a particular city -- without having to reinstall the entire sim from scratch. This would save users a lot of headaches. -Rick----------- My System -----------P4 @ 2.53 GHz / 1GB RAM / NVIDIA GeForce 6800XT, 256MB / Windows XP Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,<>That will not happen. An FMC/CDU is extremely complicated to create and there's no way that ACES would spend so much of their time on a FMC/CDU when 90% of the users would never use it.As far as what I would hope to see in FSXI a better flight planner with a full-screen map rather than the tiny one we have now. Phil has promised they will look at that so I'm optimistic.And the other bugbear is stars visible when the sun is still above the horizon. Until that is fixed FS will never be "as real as it gets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More engine threading and efficiency gains- such as the instancing ideas currently being worked on. (Per Phil's blog)I suspect that there are areas where efficiency has potential for big performance gains.Offload of gauge rendering so that multi processing systems can get high gauge rendering rates independent of the overall scene.Support for Live maps types of scenery ("real" 3d renderings of cities) Blended with synthetic textures for most areas. I'm generally not a huge fan of photo scenery as it disrupts the illusion in most cases.More than two light sources!!! Allow for a greater number so that Aircraft lights actually illuminate objects.True reflective surfaces- Make for markings that 'glow' under illumination of lights. Glass beads are used to make road and airport markings more reflective- represent this in the next gen sim. Could even be used in train sim as many locos have reflective strips on them. Heck they have headlights and ditch lights too :)Make the offline ATC more intelligent- don't bury a single arrival runway when there are two others with no activity. Make the vectors to ILS more realistic- don't send me to KBHM, when landing at KATL! (It happens all the time on 8L for me, and it's the usual alternate!)Make the air more fluid. Right now wind layer transitions even with ASX are a bit rough. Sometimes they are distinct shear layers, sometimes not.Draw up a doc that states where the performance hits are and general ideas as to why.I like flying in a full sky with limited ground traffic. But I do love flying short final while traffic scoots by beneath me.Improve overcast/undercast/fog. I can still see straight down through most overcast (might be ASX though). I's not often that you can see the ground in those conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My expectations?I expect MS to get back to basics and develope a flight simulator that simulates flight, the flight environment, and all aspects of flight. Elephants and giraffes not required. That's what I expect.Richard(also a past SubLogic Apple IIe, ATP, and still current MSFS user)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to hope then at the very least that anything FSX-native will be FS11 compatible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

><with a fully functional FMC/autopilot system...>>>>That will not happen. An FMC/CDU is extremely complicated to>create and there's no way that ACES would spend so much of>their time on a FMC/CDU when 90% of the users would never use>it.I agree. I hope ACES doesn't waste time on FMS, etc. Their primary goal should be to provide solid 'core' simulation so others can use it to their full potential. Highly realistic, detailed, FMS -equipped airliners will remain the domain of 3-rd part vendors and ACES has no chance to compete with their effort. Asking for weather radar is also a bit bizarre - we still don't have basic acceptable weather - we first have to cover basics - like winds, pressure, temperature smoothing. Weather simulation in itself is an extremely complex task and weather radar could be its crowning achievement somewhere down the pipe.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, My Dad used to say: "Wish in one hand and s* in the other. Wishes are nice but usually not practical. As long as I have used MSFS which has been since 1984 it has always been billed as a Flight Simulator; NOT and ATC simulator nor weather simulator. I believe that MSFS has always given us a very good package for the amount of money that it is sold for. I also believe that because they give us the basics as far as ATC, and reasonable weather gerneration that we get quite a lot for the amount of money the AVERAGE person is willing to spend on a game or simulation. By doing this they leave plenty of room for the developers to do what they do best and that is to create both aircraft,weather modeling and add-on gauges that the hard core simmer wants as opposed to the average user who just wants to get in and fly. As hard as it might be to believe I think that MS actually expects to make a profit after receiving no returns during the development period. Sure they could add on all the bells and whistles but all it would do is price the game out of reach of the average user. If it only appealed to the hard core FS enthusiasts the average joe would opt out because of the price both limiting the marketability of the product thus limiting the return on their investment. There are many games/simulators out there but I have yet to find one that achieves the realism and graphics of MSFS which encompasses the enitre planet. And that's my take on it. Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly a goal to keep compatability with FSX content, yes.Would we require a re-export through the SDK to update content headers? Or just load as-is? Unknown at this time, except we know we need to keep the effort the 3PDs need to expend there low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FSX .dds texture format scares me because it almost reminds me>of the introduction of GMAX in FS2002 to replace FSDS1, then>in FS2004, FSDS1 models weren't even compatible. I fear that>.dds might be the only texture format recognized in FS11,>which, if that happens, you would probably see most people>stick with FS9/FSX or run dual sims to be able to run their>models that don't have .dds mapping. Especially being an>aircraft repainter myself, I would like my textures for FS2004>aircraft to be able to be used in the next flight sim.I don't wish to 'hijack' the topic, but I simply cannot allow this misconception to remain unaddresed.Ron, DDS format is nothing to be scared of. The only difference between a DDS/DXT5/3/1 image and a DXT3/1 BMP image is that the DDS format has been "pre-flipped vertically." This is done for performance reasons.By having all textures saved "pre-flipped," it eliminates the need for the sim to do so before blitting them into the video stream... :-smile12In fact, to demonstrate just how benign DDS format is, take any of your FS9 SDK built models, convert the current bitmaps to DDS format, and note that they will load and display perfectly in FSX... :-hah Now, to add my 2cents to the actual topic, what I'd like to see is more robust and fuller access to the sim itself via the SDK. Right now, in order to accomplish some goals - such as a full FMS/FMC - we devs have to resort to some truly mind-bending 'tricks' to obtain the data needed. In fact, in some cases we have to create our own databases since the information needed is IN the sim's DB, but is completely inaccessable via the standard SDK paradigm.Similarly, with regards to such things as a "Weather Radar" the data needed is completely inaccessible without resorting to way too many "outside the SDK methods," which makes development costs rise to rediculous levels, and compatibility with the basic core platform problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always been basically my take too. Couple things though:It's a wonder default atc doesn't just quit with what we've thrown at it thus far :) but I would like to see a bit more volume handling capacity somehow straight out the box. Right now one needs an accelerated voicepack, increased taxi speeds, and 'aismooth' to help out.Weather - the wind transitions thing - be nice to get this tamed fully. Even the best autothrottles struggle when these occur.Finally - given (in pc timeframes) reasonably decent, modern hardware - performance, performance, performance - the heart and soul of it all, the fps without which all else is rendered naught.regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any specific requests right now, but I'm delighted to here that FS9 will be dropped. It annoys me that FS9 (albeit a great product) is still so popular. I can't help think that progress isn't and won't be made until more people adopt the newer platform. It seems some add-on developers are being forced to continue to develop for FS9, forums get confused between FS9 and FSX and it becomes a complete mess. I'd personally like to see every add-on released from now just for FSX. I realise this might be a little controversial..but hey..just my opinion.Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather is such an important aspect of aviation thus, a kick a** weather engine for realitic conditions and proper graphical depiction is foremost on my list. That obviously includes correcting the wind shift issues, visibility transitioning etc etc. Regards, Kendall#1: E6750@3.2GHZ/Coolermaster HyperTX2 Gigabyte P35-DS3L 4GB Ballistix Tracers PC6400 EVGA 8800GT - 174.74 beta Seagate 250GB 7200.11 CH Yoke/Pedals/Saitek Throttle Dual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905 #2: Dell 8400 3.2 H.T. 3GB PC4200 - X800XT Diamond Xtreme/Logitech X-530's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,<>That's a ridiculous statement! I don't understand why you would be annoyed. I have both FS9 and FSX and use them both. Which do I prefer? Probably FS9 because it looks great with all the 3rd party addons and I get three times the fps I do with FSX.People aren't forced to buy the new version. They'll buy it if they prefer it to FS9. The fact that so many haven't shows FSX was flawed and do a degree remains so. At the time it was released not even the most powerful harware could run it effectively. At computer fairs here in the UK the performance of FSX on Microsoft's PCs must have embarrassed their staff enormously. SP1 helped a lot but only now - 20 months into its life cycle is it possible to get decent performance.Commercial developers aren't daft. Why work on developing packages for FSX when so few have embraced it? Things are improving now but many developers are keeping buyers happy by releasing packages for both versions for the price of one. That is unprecdented and tells you a great deal about FSX.How does the saying go? You can fool some of the people some of the time or all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. FSX was released 12 months too early.If FSX hasn't sold well it's because DX10 was a mess and its release preceeded Vista. I'm sure Microsoft won't make that sort of mistake again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an fs9 only user I agree with you, the platform must cut strings and move on clean. I do think however that the mess is due largely to last point I made about performance. It truly underpins all else, and fs9 spoiled us rOtten :) - especially us heavy iron flyers. We were already engorged on candy but with fps to spare, and it means more to us than anything the wonderful FSX could offer. To my surprise we seem to wield quite a lot of financial power in this market.Having skipped FSX I certainly look forward however to reinvesting in my second favourite hobby with new hardware and a clean slate in future. It can only get better I'm sure.regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites