few ideas

[kurtvoss]

1. Real crash physics such as wings getting damaged or flaps jamming. Real physical damage like engines setting on fire etc..

2. Better frame rates.

3. no more blury textures.

4. More realistic turbulence.

5. Better looking VC rain effects on windows. Also window wipers with rain smear effects, which actually affect your vision.

6. Better icing effects on windows.

7. Better AI planes and should have less of an impact on frame rates.

8. More realistic tyre marks and overall runway textures.

9. Better looking water textures and none of thoes white blocky waves.

10. The ability to pick up passengers and walk around in the plane without the need of active camera.


These are just afew but flight sim is far from perfect as it is now.

[RyanbATC]

>1. Real crash physics such as wings getting damaged or flaps
>jamming. Real physical damage like engines setting on fire
>etc..
Well then you'd have to stop flying cause you crashed...lol....I'm guessing you mean like manuevering past Vma or something
>
>2. Better frame rates.
Aren't we always looking for that...what kind of PC do you have? :-)
>3. no more blury textures.
Same as above
>4. More realistic turbulence.
Yeah that would be good.
>5. Better looking VC rain effects on windows. Also window
>wipers with rain smear effects, which actually affect your
>vision.
Some of the payware planes kinda do that...they don't smear though, check out Flight 1's ATR - great VC effects
>
>6. Better icing effects on windows.
Yeah, and maybe on the wings too, like ice buildup on the leading edges and pitot wick etc and OAT gauge. Then we could use boots or whatever to get it off
>
>7. Better AI planes and should have less of an impact on frame
>rates.
I don't know how possible that is. PAI and Ult Traffic planes are pretty basic. It's just tough to have 50 bzillion planes operating around you. That's a lot of processing power.
>
>8. More realistic tyre marks and overall runway textures.
I like AEU6 or 7, you can get better cement textures and it looks great. Check here or at AVSIM
>
>9. Better looking water textures and none of thoes white
>blocky waves.
There have been so many freeware/payware edits on textures, some of them look just fine to me.
>
>10. The ability to pick up passengers and walk around in the
>plane without the need of active camera.
Picking up virtual pax would be cool. You don't need active camera, just use F1 View Utlility: http://atr.flight1.net/atr_downloads.asp
>
>
>These are just afew but flight sim is far from perfect as it
>is now.
Yeah, it's pretty dang good !!
>
>

[kurtvoss]

you wrote commencts about "most payeware have this and that"
But we are supposed to be talking about the default flight simulator as in, put CD in, install and play and have these features included without the need to download anything!
My system is great on the frame rates but doesnt hurt to be better!
And the damage effects i mean yea you crash, that eamns you just reset flight. Things like propellors breaking would make it more exciting.

[RyanbATC]

I understand but Flight Sim is almost like a base product, and we buy payware elements to make it better. It's almost like Windows XP - a base product you need to run all the rest of your software. I don't think they will put "payware quality" detail into the next default planes. That would be a whole lotta extra work for them and think of the cost it would be. They would have to increase the base price for FSxyz. Don't you think they should leave the intense research/etc up to the current payware developers? That seems to be the trend.

As far as frames go, it's all a matter of relationship. Low frames relative to what? I have terrible frames(never more than 15, unless its clear skies and default 172's 2D panel lol), but that's not Microsoft's fault, it's mine because I can't afford a better system and oh well. "Better frames" is a general statement. I know I know, I get what you mean...programming more efficiently to squeeze out a few more frames. I'm sure you know that FS will never yield FPS like 1st person shooters - those only model small areas, FS models the entire world - yikes! I can't image what it takes to generate code for the entire world...wow

While damage may seem more "exciting" to others I don't think we want an MS Crash Sim 10.0 lol! People would be crashing planes just to see effects. I don't find myself crashing planes often anyway... I'm sure you remember FS5, crashing the cessna into the Sears Tower seemed to be exciting...but now if you publish that in a forum you'll get flamed.

Just my opinions I guess :-)

[Lou_Betti]

Actually, I want all crash modeling ELIMINATED. At best, it is in bad taste and TOTALLY unnecessary.

Save that stuff for the combat sims.

As a real pilot, who often flies with friends and family, I feel it is disgusting.

Sorry, MS, but that's how I feel.

Regards,
[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx2/forum_banners/LOU.gif]
[font size=1][font color=blue]Can you pilot a plane, instead of programming an FMC to do it for you?[/font color= blue][/font size=1]

[lnuss]

I solidly agree with you, Lou. I don't use FS for blood and guts. In fact I normally use it with crash detection turned off.

[kingnorris]

I have to admit---after playing around with Flight Unlimited 3, I loved the crash effects in that game. Then I bought FS2002,now 2004,and was disappointed with the lack of crash effects. However,it doesn't bother me anymore, and I agree with you guys---these should be excluded in the next version.But, maybe once in awhile have landing gear that fail to go down and lock,as a challenge to us non-pilots,as these things do happen from time to time in real life.

[newguy]

I am all for crash effects in the game. The catch would have to be that if you generated a crash scenario, either the airplane you are using or even the entire game will be disabled, forcing a complete uninstall and reinstall.

[sclincoln]

I agree that crash effects are not needed but I would like to see improper procedures damage things. If you red-line your engine through the entire flight, damage. If you go full flaps down at cruise speed, damage. And on and on... I feel that would add a lot to the educational value of the whole thing. There's nothing like going down in flames to remind you to follow proper procedures.

[kurtvoss]

"blood and guts" I dont think you understand.
I only mean things such as wing damage, fuel leak, a jammed gear, broken flaps, engine fires etc.
It would be good because not every flight is perfect, and it would make it more exciting and you could recreate actual accidents that have happened. It IS a simulator after all and its not realistic to have a plane simply sink through the ground when it crashes, also some accidents you can cope with and continue to fly.

[Trace]

See... I just never crash :D

lol jk, but I really dont care, FSX airplanes are made for flying.. CFS aircraft.. for exploding :)

That pesky invisible terrain could go away too. Ive lost mane races (i race with PROPS) do to an invisble redwood in a desert :)

[desertflyer]

It is not realistic to come up short of the runway and then reset the flight and try again.

Crash damage FX are in bad taste.

[kurtvoss]

why do people think damage belongs with combat flight?
It IS a simulator after all and planes aint indistructable, i just think it would add a much better realism feeling and make it more exciting.