Another thing- fix the building scaling. Default airport structures are way too tall (2-3x!) I want to see the tail of my 737 over the terminal just as I should IRL, at least at certain airports.I understand that Autogen is oversized as evidence by the sequoias everywhere on short final. At least make it so that there is an adjustable scalar in there (cfg file perhaps?) I'll admit that I'd be the first to set it to more realistic sizes...Give us more insight on how stuff is done- Phil's blog is great (when he updates it!) But I'd love to see some more video stuff like there has been on Channel9. We're not a stupid lot. Understanding why a decision was made is helpful to us too, even if it it's simply "that feature would kill performance".Personally I loved the DX10 development blog post. It gave real insight into what happened to go from DX9 to the DX10 preview.Adjust priorities to obtain the best bang/buck for performance. Take one page form X-Plane and make framerates king.

Start using the FSX SDK now and get your FS2004 sceneries converted now.There is no simple way to bridge the gap, and by waiting you only make the gap larger.

It seems that the hardware has just become available that allows us to run FS9 with all its features turned up full. FSX has been out for over a year and this same hardware is now just allowing FSX to run acceptably. The fault I see with FSX was not so much that it wouldn't run well on the existing hardware when it was launched, but rather that when you turned down the sliders to allow it to run as smooth as FS9, FS9 looked better. That's one of the main reasons so many have stuck with FS9, along with the investment and incompatibility of existing add-ons. Here's an example. In FS9 I can run just about all graphic sliders to the right with 100% traffic. When I reduce the graphics in FSX to match FS9, I still cannot run traffic without adverely impacting performance. To use traffic in FSX, I have to reduce the visuals to a level below that of FS9. So if I want traffic, I just use FS9.I've heard that the cause of this is all the gates activating at airports and the fact that there is more traffic volume in FSX. If that is the case, give me a switch that allows me to deactivate the gates until I have hardware that can utilize it. I understand that the only way to do this currently is to modify the files of each individual AI aircraft. Rather cumbersome, especially if you have additional add-on ai.On the AI traffic volume, yes you can see from the traffic list that there is a lot of traffic, but you only actually see a fraction of it while flying or at an airport. The majority are just out there, out of sight, using computer resources. Why not restrict the AI traffic to an adjustable radius around your aircraft like Sqauwkbox3 does with Vatsim to limit the computer resources used by AI? So my suggestion for FS11 is that when it is released and the sliders are turned down to work with the current hardware, it should still perform and look better than FSX and FS9. Also give us more switches, sliders, and config edits that allow us to modify those items that effect performance.Just do this, improve the core, get rid of the existing FSX bugs and issues, provide the third party developers access to the controls and data they need, and I'd be happy with FS11. Focus on the core and data access for the developers. As someone else stated, if you give us access, the users and developers can fix the nit picky details. Its seems like it would be better for everyone if Aces could focus on add-on packs like Acceleration after the release, rather than working on free patches for the core. That's my 2 cents,Ted

It is on my list of things to do :) Just have three more airports to finish.Shez

Save all of your .gmax or 3dsmax source files, too. You probably do that already I'm sure.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

>if you want realism get yourself a decent add-on>aircraft.>>Michael J.The problem is (in my opinion), the add-on community has not risen to the challenge. Given the massive task of creating an add-on aircraft like a B7X7, I don't blame them. There are really only 2 decent Boeing add-on aircraft for FSX: the PMDG 747, which is not the ideal aircraft for flying inter-city hops (I'm not interested in flying 5 hour intercontinental hops), and the Level-D 767 which is nice, but is basically a patched version from the old WILCO (FS2002) days. I have had the opportunity to meet the principle programmer on the LDS 767. The task of programming a Boeing jet is MASSIVE (with 100's of thousands of lines of code) with little financial benefit for the developer. In addition to the massive programming involved, major FS upgrades (and even some minor ones) are likely to break the ad-on aircraft. The incentive is just not there for ad-on developers.The point is, given that the add-on developers are basically doomed to failure (or at least less than spectacular success), there are very few quality commercial jet ad-ons out there. I'd like to see a more complex commercial jet aircraft out of the box. Yes, a fully functional 747 may be overkill, but a CRJ with the ability to input a route into the FMC and fly it in VNAV mode with the route displayed on the EHSI (along with weather radar and TCAS) is not asking for the world. They shipped a complex Cessna (with the G1000), don't see why they can't do something complex with the CRJ or a Boeing 73. Again, flying the CRJ or 737 linked to a Garmin GPS to fly a route is quite lame. And really, what medium sized (smaller than a 767) add-on commercial jet is available for FSX??? None that I know of.Not sure setting low expectations for ACES here is a good idea. But you are entitled to your opinion.Joe

>The point is, given that the add-on developers are basically>doomed to failure I disagree. Many (like PMDG, Level-D, Eaglesoft, Flight-1) are doing just fine, you get fine aircraft from these outfits. Many other non-aircraft add-on providers (scenery, ATC, weather) are doing fine too. I just don't share your doom and gloom here. >They shipped a>complex Cessna (with the G1000), don't see why they can't do>something complex with the CRJ or a Boeing 73. Funny that you mentioned complex Cessna with G1000. The simulation is neither complex nor it has G1000. It is again a Micky-Mouse version of the real G1000 with perhaps 5% of the original functionality. If this level of realism is sufficient for you then I agree such FMC could be done. Again, for a decent (though still incomplete) simulation of G1000 for FSX you have to go to the add-on market and shell out $50.http://www.mindstarprods.com/aviation/Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>And you're comparing a game that renders 16sq miles (oblivion)>at a time to a game that has to render 22,500 sq miles at at>time because? And don't tell me that those "far away" areas>aren't blurred compared to the immediate environment. Unless>you've downloaded some mods, they are.>>If FSX only had to model a landmass the size of a small>borough in high detail, FPS wouldn't be a problem. But>Oblivion doesn't even do that. It only renders out to a few>dozen meters in high detail with all the objects.This comparison thing is getting old. But how about a 'fair' comparison. Compare FS-X against the old Fly2! and newer flightgear and X-plane 8/9.Sure the FS series has a larger maximum view distance then the other flightsims but you get massive bluries in FS where the other Flight Sims give you clear crisp sharp textures. After using X-Plane in extreme res setting I always need time to re adjust to the blurry FS-X pictures.

>Compare FS-X against the old Fly2! I don't know about X-Plane but FlyII! was rather disappointing product (I was however a big admirer of FLy2k!) with rather unimpressive, low-res looking scenery and you are right - no 'blurries'. Because in FlyII! aircraft simulation was tied to scenery - literally aircraft waited for scenery to catch up - no blurring was even possible but at the expense of very bad stutters. In my opinion it was a horribly misguided approach, no professional simulation does it this way. If someone shows me simulation with scenery as rich in content as FSX's with enough fluidity and everything else, plus no blurries - I would be very impressed but as is often the case people compare apples to oranges.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Hi !A lot of really great suggestions here.I am sure Phil and the ACES Team keep a close watch on it.I would like to add*) Voice recognition (Like VoxATC but fully integrated) together with an improved ATC would be great. I know that voice files may large BUT it is a wish-list after all.Thanks Phil and ACES and I am looking forward to the next version while I am having a lot of FUN with FSX (Together with FTX)......Kind Regards and God blessAlfred