stickshaker

If I see all the features that people want I once again wonder whether it is possible or at least practical to make a ‘one size fits all’ sim. For me it would be perfectly acceptable if I had to buy several sim versions of the same basic engine: a GA sim, an airliner sim, a warbirds sim, a carrier sim, a helicopter sim, perhaps even versions for various historical periods. If that would make developing the sim easier and compromises less necessary or complicated I would applaud that.

Civil and military simulations can be two deriviatives of the same basic software I guess. While one combined product is preferrable, two simular products between which, for example, aircraft and sceneries can be exchanged, would also be a good compromise.

I get your point, Jonas. I suppose that aspect depends on how active the developer wants to be in hosting online combat sessions. You could leave that to the gamers themselves. As for me: I never fly online and would be satisfied with good offline military sim features.

It strikes me that nearly all suggestions done in this thread are relevant for either simulators in general or for simulators of civil aviation. Very few ideas pertain to military simulators. Is this because there is relatively little interest in military sims or because Aerosoft produces primarily civil aviation add-ons and hence this forum is primarily visited by civil aviation enthusiasts? Or perhaps because FSX is primarily a civil aviation sim? Insofar as civil and military features can go together in a simulation, I would very much like to see ‘military’ features like carrier operations, aerial refuelling and the like to be included in the new sim. If air combat would be possible that would be even better, even if it were only gun (WWI and WWII era) combat. I do not know whether including military features is a strategic choice in the sense that it must be at the expense of other desirable features, but if at all possible I would applaud if Aerosoft would at least keep the possibility open of developing either a combined civil/milirary sim or two separate sims based on the same technology and know-how.

It would be nice to have braking parachutes that behave realistically. And just a detail: droppable rocket boosters to assist take-off. Some planes used them operationally (the B-47 medium bomber I think).

I hope a flight planner will also be suitable as a mission builder for combat missions, like the one in Il-2 or CFS3. Perhaps two separate planners, one civil and one military, would be the optimal solution. I would also like a time compression or time warp function. Yes, I know it is not realistic, but if I have little time or want to have a quick flight before going to bed, a warp function is very useful indeed. A new topic about guided weapons in FSX on the sim-outhouse forums may be of interest. Perhaps it will give ideas for the new sim: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=17341

Force feedback is important, but also growth potential for future hardware like Virtual Reality glasses, motion platforms and (the successors of) Buttkicker. Perhaps this does not need extra modifications of the software; i9 don’t know.

Great initiative Matthijs! I wish you every success and hope I can contribute a little to it. Some ideas (sorry if they have been mentioned already): 1: The possibility to adapt the scenery according to the date. So, if I set as a date April 1917 and fly above Northern France I’ll see the WWI trenches, but they are not there if I fly in 2009. 2: The possibility to use both table-based (FS) and computational dynamics-based (X-Plane) flight model software through some conversion program. 3: The possibility to set the radar cross section of aircraft, probably as a few simple parameters for the six sides of a cubical object. 4: Stabilized HUDs (where the outside world remains in the correct position relative to symbology like the Flight Path Marker, without developers having to jump through all kinds of hoops to make this possible. HUDs become more and more important for civil aircraft also; the A380 and 350 have them. 5: The possibility of helmet-mounted displays that move with the pilot’s head movements. This is important in modern helicopters. 6: Carrier operations (moving carriers) and aerial refuelling possible. 7: The ability to not only tow other aircraft but also carry them (like an X-15 carried under the wing of a B-52) with the ability to jump into any f the cockpits. 8: The ability to give instructions to AI wingmen.

Does anyone know where I can find extra skins for the Northrop F-5E Tiger II included in ‘Patrouille de Suisse’? I would like to fly, for example, American versions but cannot find anything on the Internet. ‘Fly the Tiger X’ has the same aircraft plus some extra skins, but these are not included with ‘Patrouille Suisse’.

Matthijs, I think the 1.10 version indeed flies better than the earlier version. I seem to need less rudder in steeper turns.

Hello Matthijs, don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but it would seem to me that in turns the flight control system does not always automatically co-ordinate stick and rudder. I have to use rudder to prevent slipping in anything but shallow turns. This does not seem to be correct to me, compared to professional F-16 simulators I have flown. It may of course also be something in my settings.... Will the options for either a 'cold' or 'ready to fly'' start as in the readme of hotfix 1.01 be retained? And is there any chance of a dragchute in the future? Sorry if this has been covered before.

Indeed, Matthijs, the problem is limited due to limited vertical movement (a reason why I do not think that Dag’s principally correct point that with his solution the symbology would float off the HUD would be a great problem in practice) but if you ever are at an air show or such, have a look at a HUD. The symbology really stays stable relative to the horizon, even with bigger head movements (unless you move so much that the symbology floats out of the HUD boundaries). With lateral head movements it’s the same. Here again, if the symbology would not remain stable, how would you be able to use the gunsight except at very short distances?

Matthijs, as far as I’ve experienced in professional simulators, the position of the horizon line and FPM relative to the ‘real’ horizon stays the same regardless of head movements. So if you move your head up the ‘real’ horizon moves up relative to, for example the instrument panel, but the horizon line in the HUD does the same. Indeed, if you move up too much the horizon line will disappear off the HUD. It should work like this, otherwise the pilot could not adjust the seat up or down without making some adjustments to the HUD. And he/she could not use the HUD as a gunsight without sitting in a precisely defined position, which seems impossible to me in a high-G dogfight. In fact, when I flew the F-16 simulator at the National Aerospace Laboratory, I was told to raise my seat before entering finals because otherwise the horizon could be below the HUD (due to the high angle of attack). When I adjusted the seat the real horizon and the HUD horizon line and FPM moved in perfect harmony. But if you want I’ll check. A student of mine is an F-16 pilot and I’ll see him on Thursday. But perhaps there are fighter pilots watching this forum….

On an entirely different matter: I flew the Acceleration F/A-18 yesterday and when you move your head up or down (I have TrackIR) the HUD-symbology moves with it. That makes, for example, the horizon line and the Flight Path Marker virtually useless. How will this be in the F-16? The Iris F-15C shows it is possible to keep the HUD almost (not entirely) stable despite head movements. From flights in professional fighter simulators I know that the HUD-symbology stays stable relative to the outside world, despite head movements.

Makaveli, good post (your second last one). I certainly did not find any of the posts concerned offensive and understand that a little chat adds to the atmosphere. So it never occurred to me to report to the moderator, although I considered leaving this thread alone for a while until it had resumed its original course. I sometimes make posts that venture from the topic myself. The positive side of this exchange of opinions is that it makes us remember the need to balance the preservation of the course of a forum thread with one’s desire to express individual thoughts and opinions. Let’s always evaluate the added value, and possible side-effects, of what we want to say for the community as a whole when we formulate our post. I won’t say anything more on the matter and just wait for new information on the beautiful bird.