My FSX wishlist

**jcmissionary** · 01-03-2006, 01:29 PM

I've been putting this one off for a while, simply because I figured that the FS team would have buckets of wishes to wade through and that mine would probably be included. However, with the recent "announcements" about FSX, I think I'll try my hand at a wish list. I'm trying to keep my wishes somewhere in the realm of feasability, so hopefully I won't go too far overboard. Here goes. :-)

1.) As some have pointed out before, I would like to see increased environmental effects on aircraft performance, such as structural icing and various runway conditions. Living here in northern Utah, I can tell you that trying to land on a snow-packed/partially plowed runway is a different beast than on a clear runway in the middle of June. This would also make the weather a more critical factor in preflight planning. While I don't fly in icing condition in the sim without a plane that can handle it, I would like to have icing conditions be part of my inflight considerations. A visual buildup of ice and/or snow would be nice too. It would start off with some white patching on the leading edge of the wing, which would continue to build as time went on and anti-ice measures wern't used.

2.) Inclusion of SIDs/STARs in the nav database, and the ability to update the database. Approaches are already there, so I imagine that adding STAR/SIDs in there wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

3.) AI ability to fly realistic flight plans, including SIDs and STARs, rather than the current "direct to" approach. I know that this would require a lot of time to compile actual flight plans as opposed to regular airline schedules, and that these routes would change with weather/traffic considerations. Perhaps the FS team could just give AI the ability to do this, and let 3rd party developers build on to this, much like how they included airline parking codes for AFCADs in FS2004.

4.) Refinements to the current ATC engine. While I think that the current engine is pretty good, I think that there are some ways that it could be improved. Guess I'd better start my ATC wish list here.

a. Better spacing and sequencing. I would imagine that the use of speed restrictions would be helpful in accomplishing this, as well as AI use of STARs, where available.

b. Improved vectoring for approaches. No more "30 mile final" handoffs to tower. :-)

c. Traffic or weather holds, which could be easily turned off if the user doesn't want to, or can't, fly a holding pattern. I'd be somewhat apprehensive about this one, since even real-world instrument rated pilots have problems with this. I've also never had any required holds in my 110 or so hours of flight. I imagine that this would be more for the "big tin" than the GA pilots.

d. Changes in terminology in different parts of the world. This one is more for our international bretheren. I hardly fly outside of the US, so to me this one isn't a big deal, but I know that for some, it is. I imagine that it would require a seperate ATC engine for each different ATC system. Might be too difficult to implement.

5.) Back to the normal list. ActiveSky-like weather engine. While I love ASVI and am very grateful for their program and the level of realism it brings to FS9, I would like to see this functionality included out of the box.

6.) Generic FMC engine that could provide data to different types of FMS gauges, whether it be Airbus, Boeing, or a BizJet system. The performance data (i.e. VNAV) could be gathered from some kind of cfg file for the individual aircraft, with the LNAV from the FS FMC engine. This could make it possible for freeware authors to include realistic FMS units in their panels, which isn't to say that it hasn't been done already.

7.) Scenery improvements, including practical placement of rivers, roads, etc.... I don't know if it would be possible, but it would be nice to have the sim recognize one of those "rivers flowing uphill" scenarios, and place the river in the canyon/valley where it belongs.

I'll admit, I don't have any knowledge of computer programming, and as such have no idea how to implement these ideas, or if they're even possible. However, I think that these are just some ideas that seem fesable, and would greatly enhance both the immersiveness and realism of the sim. Thanks for reading my little rant. :-)

[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/im...UM_HOWELL.jpg]
PPL-ASEL
Instrument Rated
http://172pilot.blogspot.com

**jcmissionary** · 01-06-2006, 03:05 PM

Just a good bumpity bump bump, now that this forums has some increased traffic, maybe I can get some comments on this. :-)

[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/im...UM_HOWELL.jpg]
PPL-ASEL
Instrument Rated
http://172pilot.blogspot.com

**bjpilot** · 01-06-2006, 03:27 PM

Well here's my comment ;) . I like this wishlist, it seems feasible and all of these are features that I think are very important too. I don't have Activesky, and I don't know if it does this, but there is no danger in flying in bad weather on FS. Other than wind and visibilty on takeoff and landing, there is no reason to divert around a thunderstorm. I want to see some real danger in FSX's weather, I want to see thunderstorms that can KILL you, as in real life. Microbursts, lightning strikes (on the airraft), hail, etc. I don't think that's asking too much. And have it affect AI traffic too. In real life, if I hear two planes in front of me go missed, I'll know to expect a rough approach. In FS, the AI never goes missed because of weather. Nice ideas.

**icebrain** · 01-06-2006, 11:21 PM

>4.) Refinements to the current ATC engine. While I think that
>the current engine is pretty good, I think that there are some
>ways that it could be improved. Guess I'd better start my ATC
>wish list here.
>
>a. Better spacing and sequencing. I would imagine that the use
>of speed restrictions would be helpful in accomplishing this,
>as well as AI use of STARs, where available.
>
>b. Improved vectoring for approaches. No more "30 mile final"
>handoffs to tower. :-)

And no more "fly a big 30-mile-radius arc around the airport at 5000 feet to get to final!" And while we're at it, how about a visual approach that brings you in to a standard traffic pattern, instead of being a duplicate of the ILS "vectors" to "final" without mention of the localizer? The vectors to final need work too; no need for above-mentioned huge arc or the seemingly-mandatory 45-degree course deviation when approaching an airport. Yes, I know using GPS or other approaches works, but why can't we make it the default method? And why can't it be implemented everywhere? And give us some speed assignments and better spacing (hint-AIsmooth does this, why can't it be included by default?). And quit with the slow, multi-stop climbs to cruise... give us a clearance directly, unless the real airport uses a different procecure (like "climb to 8000 feet unless directed otherwise; expect clearance to filed altitude after 10 minutes").

And someone take the mary jane away from our ATC people. My god, I can get up, get a beer from the fridge, and drink it in the time it takes to get a handoff to approach... speed the cadence up so they finish talking some time this century!

The idea of more-easily accessable approach and nav data sounds good; how about a config file for each airport in a special folder? Maybe the same format that the various addons (PMDG, LD, etc.) use for their FMS databases...

Fix the autopilot while you're at it; use a generic FMC or at least give us a FLCH mode, better autothrottle, and an approach mode that doesn't overshoot the localizer by a full needle deflection!

Also, putting in a new method of flight modeling doesn't mean we need to drop support for the old one. Allow the core to differentiate between the two, and that keeps the backwards compatability while implementing a new one. Give us thrust vectoring and a decent helo model too.

**syuwft** · 01-07-2006, 01:43 PM

The biggest deal for me would be improving ATC. While it is lightyears ahead of FS2002, there remain significant issues, many of which you addressed.
One of my big complaints is how it deals with airspace and handoffs. An IFR flight from Sacramento to San Francisco had something in the neighborhood of 20 frequency changes. In many cases, I would no sooner change frequency and check in when the controller would send me somewhere else. Once or twice would be no big deal, but constantly changing frequencies and controllers is so unrealistic as to seriously detract from the enjoyment of the sim. As a former air traffic controller, I can tell you that it just doesn't happen that way.
Another problem is traffic advisories. Why am I given an advisory for an aircraft at my 6 oclock position and several thousand feet above/below me? Traffic advisories should only be issued when two aircraft are going to be separated by the minimum allowance - ie 1000 ft. Traffic advisories came into being because, due to optical illusion, one plane climbed into the altitude of another in the same holding pattern. They are issued to eliminate likely confusion. I'm not going to be confused by an aircraft that I can't see and that is no traffic for me.

**RyanbATC** · 01-07-2006, 01:49 PM

lol, also, why traffic advisories in IMC?!?!?!?

**rlipoff** · 01-08-2006, 01:22 AM

Is it my imagination, or do AI aircraft disappear in flight rather than crash into the human pilot? I've had countless near-collisions in FS9, but I watch the TCAS and the planes just disappear before they hit me.