Ray,For the most part I agree. I am not talking about when FSX was first released, I am talking about the present. I have so many great payware add-ons for FSX and the frames aren't so bad anymore. I greatly enjoyed my time with FS9, but I moved on. I have invested both time and money into FSX and it is worth it IMO.FSX is a great product now, and has been for some time. I do agree it was terible to begin with, but Aces pulled it around. No product is 100% and all versions of FS need tweaking as you well know. FSX has matured nicely.I understand what you say about people being able to afford new PC's to run new versions of FS. However, as you know, flight simmers are well known for spending small fortunes on hardware and software..I know I do.Anyway, I guess we agree for the most part. I wanted to state that I was annoyed that we don't seem to be moving forward as much as I like to see..and I stress that is my opinion.I guess we should back off and let the thread develop as the original poster intended.Rich.

I bought FXS just to support the cause. I still have not installed it yet simply because of all the bad press here at Avsim. I still use FX9. If the Intel E-8500 finally ever makes it to anyone except Dell, I am considering taking the plunge. I think I will pitch my old machine and go with it's version on XP just to save a hundred bucks or so. My wife's Vista is a pain in the Axx and DX-10 alone does not appear to be worth that pain. Frankly, after playing with her machine, I do not want Vista about like I don't want the plague.That's my 2 pennies worth....Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

More robust ATC and Flight Planning. These two items would be highest on my wishlist and I would hope most of your time is spent updating here.A full feature GPS unit. Higher resolution 2D and VC panels and gauges. Our monitors are getting bigger, and your panel graphics could use some updating. Also, Widescreen and 4:3 support for 2D.A camera that you can move wherever you want in real time. Not tied to an aircraft or tower.More FPS friendly AI and autogen cars.Rain and snow on the windshield.Sloping runways.Realistic sized autogen. Ability to control (separately) runway and taxiway lighting brightness. Not everybody has the same gamma settings.Better runway textures. More detailed skidmarks that blend down the runway better.Landing lights that illuminate the ground in more detail.More options in the sound sliders. Don't lump all sounds together. Break down things like Environment with multiple sliders to control AI noise, wheels on the runway, air velocity around the cockpit, all separately.Incorporate AISmooth type program. No gamespy.Smooth instant replay.

I expect that Aces will learn from FSX and not make the same 'mistakes' a second time. I expect that Aces will rethink their 'build the simulation for hardware yet to be invented' fetish and realize that the vibrant 3rd party talent keeps the sim from getting boring...not sliders. I expect that optimizing FSXI will not require a sliderule and a PhD in quantum physics. It will work realtively smoothly out of the box and we will never again have to change the arc_moment_distance value of fsx.cfg to reflect the flatulating_undercog_value+112343422. I expect that Aces will tout the fun and fantacy of FLIGHT as the primary attraction for the expansion sales of FSXI and not how many goats can be flourbombed from FL350. I expect that FSXI will get back to recreating the basics of flight that are sorely broken and have always been broken (or poorly represented if you will) as long as there has been a FS Series.I expect that Aces will deliver the best version of MSFS ever released because they have the talent to do so in their sleep. I expect that on release of FSXI, Aces will finally enjoy the multilateral and unequivocal praise and support of the fs community that they truly deserve as FSX becomes a distant and 'interesting' memory.And I expect that I will finally be able to stop whining like a firetruck simply enjoy flying the sim again! :-lolRegards,Mike T.

"Elephants and giraffes not required."I disagree with this viewpoint. Elephants and giraffes are most definitely required if you want to simulate flight - because flight deoesn't just exist at 20,000 feet.I fly helicopters a lot. They do not care whether the temperature at 30,000 feet is accurate, but to simulate helicopter operations, you have to simulate the world as it exists ... not just the atmosphere above it.What I would truly like to see is a physics model for the world that equals the physics model work expended on the aircraft.I would like to be able to allow a Player to be able to fly under a bridge without an invisible wall "crashing" them. I'd like to be able to land on the 7-mile Bridge, or any building structure that has the proper structure necessary to support the weight of my craft (such as a parking garage.) Things like this need to be real if you're going to include aircraft capable of landing and taking off outside the confines of the airports.People are in the world. Animals are in the world. I create content that allows people to fly into environments where they run into people and animals and bridges and parking garages and hangars with open doors ... just like in real life.So, don't kill the giraffes please (so to speak.)Cheers,

It would be nice if they would add coyotes!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188157.jpg

ACES have already stated they are ditching backward compatibility - and for that I'm grateful as that's the main thing that has been hindering the advancement of the sim.You can't have a vastly improved sim and backward compatibility.James

- fix windshifts- fix timezone errors- buy out FSNav and integrate into FSXI- better AI spacing for landing- more multi-core performance optimisations- greater use of GPU- include a benchmark mode (command line switch?)I'd be happy if FSXI contained ONLY these updates and just optimised existing functionality if time permitted.Gary

I would prefer both good flight simulation AND a realistic world. Why? That's part of what makes flight enjoyable imho. Bring on the cars, trains, and wildlife.See ACES will have to sort through an assortment of opinions but I don't believe that having a realistic world will detract from a realistic physics engine.James

I think FSX is a great product but unfortunately requires very powerful hardware to run properly - hey wait a minute that's the way I felt about FS9 when it was released!There are many huge improvements in FSX over FS9 - you simply need to spend time playing FSX to really see/feel them. One example is the RealAir Spitfire - flies brilliantly and is a huge improvement over the FS9 one - why? Because FSX allows it.If more people did embrace FSX and more effort was made by third-party developers to focus entirely on FSX it would now be twice as good a product. Pity really.ACES should ditch compatibility with FS9 AND FSX in FSXI if it really wants to move forward.James

Gary..."Buy out FSNav, and integrate into FSXI"Amen brother !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'd buy the product on that alone, and it's exactly what the first time flyers desperately need. If they (Aces) want to expand their base.... that single thing more than anything else that I can think of will help seal that deal.For God's sake Aces, wake up and see that some people want a simple and convienient way to fly around and know where they are. It's not rocket science. A sim without "fly to" and "move to", just isn't much fun in my opinion, and that's the main reason I'm still with FS-9 alonelBob (Las Cruces, NM)

My wish list...- support for sloped runways with support for AI to land on such runways- non-flat airport support (end the flat polygon base and plateaus), allow for airport surface to be 3D instead of 2D- improved reverse thrust to model real-life thrust behavior better- improved wind smoothing- support for 8 engines / 2 rotors- flight dynamics support for aircraft such as the Osprey, Harrier or F-22 (thrust-vector types)- full support for DX in gauge SDK (would love to move away from the bitmap sprite and GDI+ rendering, very slow) - built-in XAML would be great :)- Expose more internal functions to the SDK (Simconnect is a fantastic start), for example, the pushback tug, provide an API for the ATC- more independent hardware lights available to the aircraft model and scenery objects (example, VC lighting)- ability to change the size of the lights and bloom (daytime lights vs night time lights, runway lights, etc...) (could be a .cfg setup?)- if we must keep the landing light texture and cannot have true 3D lights, allow more than one light texture (would help scenery and aircraft designer alike) - love the new emissive light texture for example- better rain/snow/ice effects on surfaces and on 3D external view- snow accumulation?- provide an easier way for simconnect to create/control dynamic scenery (for example, API to control jetways, call ground-service, etc...)- more animation time (more frames) for more detailed/longer model animation sequences- heat blur effect (engine, APU exhaust?)- allow more access to the sim's windowing interface (menu bar was a great start, can we have our own "real" dialogs / panels from SimConnect?)- ability to easily turn off auto-mapping of new input devices into FSX (this way, new joystick mapping can be manually set and not have to be deleted if incorrect). At the minimum, check/warn for duplicate assignments.Cheers,Eienne

>>I expect that on release of FSXI, Aces will finally enjoy the>multilateral and unequivocal praise and support of the fs>community that they truly deserve as FSX becomes a distant and>That would be nice but our desires here in this thread are so different that poor Aces will never make

hi All,i would like to see...1. creating the sim for "todays" hdw., not tomorrows; in 5+ yrs. since Processors first hit the 3ghz. mark (default clock speeds) and they haven't increased 1 full ghz. never liked nor understood the future proofing theory. give the video card as much work as it can handle without it being a major bottleneck. full multi-threading support from the ground-up.2. improve the atmospherics ie... more colors to the sky/clouds during sunrise & sunset. more realistic looking (3d) clouds and more different type cloud formations. 3. Full WideScreen Support - the strrrretched 2d panels/gauges are getting old. imho, this should have been supported in FSX right out of the box.4. improve the ATC or allow the 3rd party devs. like Radar Contact to handle the ATC functions. including the AI A/C - on the ground & in the air.5. drop All backward compatability. 6. have All of the SDK's in the 3rd party Dev.'s hands ahead of release. thank you and happy flyin, FM

OK, then with that said, here is what I would like to see in FS11:1. An improved FDE engine that better simulates ground effect and aerodynamics (of course, if it can still read FSX FDE's, that is preferable, ie the FDE file provides info about the aircraft, the FDE engine reads it and applies these other generic dynamics that occur with every aircraft).2. An improved weather engine that deals with transition issues, adds hail, adds microbursts/windshear, and does not allow me to see 80 miles on a clear day, since I've never been able to see 80 miles at 35,000 feet from a real airplane anyways. Better icing effect that actually impacts the aircraft's performance would be nice too, and perhaps add a fuel-freezing risk.3. Now, this might be bordering on something for a 3rd-party developer, but possibly a dynamic sky textures engine that simulates different sky colors based on weather and time of years, especially for sunsets and sunrises.4. An improved ATC/AI engine that handles traffic better and does not wildly vector me around. A feature that allows you to select SIDs/STARs that ATC will then guide you with would be nice.5. Airport deicing for cold weather would be welcome as well.6. The ability to tell your glider's tow plane where exactly to go before you release the cable.7. The ability to assign stands at airports as "pushback" stands or "taxi-off" stands.