Two things I want to see before I BUY FSX

[davidd]

It goes without question that the graphics will be improved so I won't even bring that point up. The following two items are glaring omissions that should be addressed.

First, I would like to see fully functioning aircraft tugs that attach push out and detach from the plane you are flying and others in the airport. Also, airport traffic like baggage, cartering, fuel, security and safty vehicles in traffic and parked. There maybe be some addons that will help, but it should be part of the product who's tagline is "As real as it gets".

Secondly, more realistic weather effects on the runway and in the air. Snow,ice and water affect landing runs and that should be accounted for including splashing instead of smoke. Variable up/down drafts and unexcepted turbulence should be modeled in flight and on final approach. It is too predictable the way it is currently modeled.

A close third is much better ATC.

Thanks for your time reading this post.
Dave D.

[andyjohnston]

Glaring omissions? You don't think that's a little harsh?

[n4gix]

Well, while on the subject of asking for rediculous things, how about some realistic "blue water" and "floaters" in the tanks. Perhaps the gentleman would care to clean the loos?

:+

[RyanbATC]

Well you must have not read that there will be AI airport traffic on the ramp, tarmac, etc...like fuel trucks etc :)

[victorwest]

Two things I would like to see before buying FSX?

NOW and AVAILABLE

:D :D

[andyjohnston]

How 'bout:

Light entering right eye
Light entering left eye

Those are two things you'll want to see.

[n4gix]

>Well you must have not read that there will be AI airport
>traffic on the ramp, tarmac, etc...like fuel trucks etc :)

To whom are you replying, Ryan? I pretty much know what's going to be in FSX already, based on close observation and plenty of "reading between the lines," coupled with "what isn't being said..." It's all part of basic detective work.

With that said, it's patently obvious that the entire genre of FS is shifting from merely a "flying experience" to a more organic "world experience," with attention being paid to all the supporting detail that fits within the paradigm of a "living world."

My flippant comment referring to "rediculous things" was simply a light hearted way of saying that we shouldn't allow ourselves to get so caught up in details that we miss the whole point of FS to begin with, which is flying! ;)

And yes, I've found myself spending far too much time parked at a convenient "spotter's area" of an airport simply watching and admiring the AI traffic arrive and depart, as though I were watching a live web-cam!!!

[andyjohnston]

Why don't the pilots have shoelaces? I mean, who goes out flying without shoelaces? And not just little stripes drawn on the feet, what about full 3D animated shoelaces?

And zippers? I've never seen an FS-Zipper...think of the possibilities for third party designers!

And chewing gum. How come the pilots can't spit out their gum just before they begin their take-off roll?

We're getting the bids, but what about the bees? The world is full of bugs, but I've never seen a single one in FS-AnyVersion.

Trash on the lawn around the airports, and in other places too come to think of it. Everything's so neat and tidy. There should be trash that blows as the aircraft goes by/overhead.

And frogs...lillypads...logs in the rivers...pollution...lions and tigers and bears, oh my...there are too many things.

We're really gonna need some new part names for MakeMdl
:) Meant in jest of course :)

[bgenesis]

Well I want to see crash damage that actually shows up without the game quitting and proper collision detection. Not because I want to see my little virtual pilots burn up but instead so that in multiplayer, a friend can drive a road vehicle into the belly of a cargo aircraft and get transported elsewhere.

This will probably never happen though. Too much computation I guess.

[bjpilot]

Shouldn't be too complicated, Battlefield Vietnam allows helicpoters to drop a chain and pick up jeeps and ground vehicles loaded with people (in an online multiplayer enviornment). I don't see why that's not feasible.

[watles]

The two things I insist on before I buy another version of FS....

How about having the rivers and streams in the BOTTOM of the canyons,
and not up on the hill sides. MS has had 9 versions to get it right
but have failed. This is one fix VFR flyers would really appriciate.

Someone has spent entirely too much time puting in some nice looking
birds! Please spend time on more important things.

It would also be nice to see the roads/railroads in the bottom of
the canyons. Same as the problem with rivers/streams. The roads and
streams in FS9 were offset by almost half a mile. With all the
computer power at Microsoft and their communication ability, you
would think they would coordinate such things.

Off my soap box.

Les Watson
Orem Utah
FS user since version 2.1

[tdragger]

<<With all the computer power at Microsoft and their communication ability, you would think they would coordinate such things.>>

We tried during the Clinton years to get the rivers moved to conform to FS but got a lot of pushback from the BLM on environmental grounds. Maybe we'd have better luck with the Republicans in office.

[watles]

<<Get the inside scoop on Flight Simulator X: http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/>>

After reading the blog....I'm suprised we even HAVE a flight
simulator.

However....The mountains where I live look more real
with each version. Someone is paying a LOT of attention to the
realism of the terrain. That IS part of the pleasure of flying
VFR and is the reason some buy FS. The roads/rivers are *Almost*
as they should be now....but not quite. Every version I hope that
the mountains look better....and they do. Every version I hope
they have the roads in the right place.....not yet.

If 3rd party companies can do it, MS should be able to. This time
there is no excuse. Please.......this time give me a version where
my local river doesn't run up the side of a mountain!

Les Watson
Orem, Utah

PS....Most local environmental groups can no longer call themselves
environmentalists. They are obstructionists. Most of the folks
I know are very angry at them.

[n4gix]

>If 3rd party companies can do it, MS should be able to. This
>time there is no excuse. Please.......this time give me a version
>where my local river doesn't run up the side of a mountain!

Les,

The very reason why "3rd party companies" can "do it" is simply because - not having to concern themselves with a thousand-dozen other things to deal with - they can concentrate on one relatively small and tightly focused area and invest the hundreds of hours necessary to hand tweak every river, road, railroad track, and power line in their focus area.

Give the relatively tiny number of ACES team members actively involved with FS development, such a myopic focus on accuracy just "ain't gonna happen..." ;)

[andyjohnston]

Aww Bill....you and your logic... :)

[tdragger]

>Aww Bill....you and your logic... :)

I know. What a buzz-killer. <g>

[n4gix]

>>Aww Bill....you and your logic... :)
>
>I know. What a buzz-killer. <g>

Sorry Mike, I'm just to grounded in reality for my own good... ;)

[puma]

Ok, I agree that would be nice, actually, runway condition affecting performance was developed by some third party designer I don´t remember now.
But friends, really, after all improvements in graphics, ATC, weather, etc what we really need is the following:

A real plane!

What do I mean by this? I mean I want a plane that fails, that brakes, where engines flame out, where oil temp goes up, fuel flow is not perfect, gear damages, systems fail logically, etc. Or even (just thought of it), where you loose consciousness if cabin presssure either fails or is off. (Ok, ok, I pushed it...)

I know third party addons have these, some of them also include a wear and tear module, but we are talking about the new FSX.

The new FSX should include these as default, therefore leaving third party addons with more terrain to explore to make their software as close as possible to the real thing and not mending MSFS shortcuts.

Puma.

[sclincoln]

First, I have seen addons that modeled a few airports in that kind of detail. They may look really nice when you're slewing around but just try landing at one of those airports when your fps is down to a crawl. I'm pretty sure there are lots of things that MS could program into FS but hasn't because of the amount of computing horsepower it would require.

Secondly, I think I remember reading somewhere that those types of effects (slippery runways) are going to be included in FSX. Can't remember where that was.

ATC has been improving rather steadily over the last couple of iterations from None -> Some and then from Some -> Lots. Next, maybe Lots -> Nearly Perfect? Well, I shouldn't say None. I remember in FS98, if you dialed in a frequency and hit the Space Bar?? you would get a text message scrolling across the top of the screen saying something like "Microsoft Flight Simulator, you are cleared for ..." ATC was one of the must have reasons for upgrading to FS2002 and I've enjoyed the improvements made in FS9. I have faith that it will eventually be improved.

[crashking]

><<With all the computer power at Microsoft and their
>communication ability, you would think they would coordinate
>such things.>>
>
>We tried during the Clinton years to get the rivers moved to
>conform to FS but got a lot of pushback from the BLM on
>environmental grounds. Maybe we'd have better luck with the
>Republicans in office.

That's one of the best replies i've seen on those forums. :-) :-)

Crash

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/Crashking/Divers/crash.jpg

[Aloha717200]

I want to have an aircraft tug that will chase my plane down and pull it to the gate if I decide to taxi my plane off of the taxiway and into terrain off the side of the airport. Can they do that for me?


While we're at it I want a virtual flight attendant to come bring me coffee on my trans pacific flights, preferably Laura Croft.