A new simulator (July / August issue)

[BPL 39]

I beg to differ. Just check our Rise of Flight and see how much progress has been made in in the last few years. And believe me, customers are buying that one.

Of course it is a WWI sim and for that aspect the systems are relatively simple but a wing is a wing and when I brush a tree with one wing tip and feel the aircraft yaw to one site I know I am seeing something not seen before. I agree there is no place for a 99.0% realistic F-16 sim as you would need to be a F-16 pilot to use it. I certainly LOVE helicopter sims but I gave up on Black Shark, I just do not have the time to understand the systems (and those Russian systems are complex like nothing else). I am sure there are people who love it, but I doubt there are enough to make it commercial big success. I am also sure it is a cracking good sim.

I must say I agree with you Mathijs. I want all systems to be accurately modeled, but I can understand that some aircraft are so complex that there would be few people who could fly them on a PC. Personally, I only fly small single-engine props with relatively simple systems, so I'm not exactly the one to speak on this.

P.S. I thought that the requests for damage modeling in the new sim were silly at first; then I got Rise of Flight and changed my mind.

[Ivan 0]

While I think everyones comments are terrific, I find that most of them are aimed at very specific aspects of FSX and FS9. Microsoft did well with those but step back and look at the application as a whole...

FSX and FS9 does not do anything whatsoever on its own unless you have the creativity to randomly select flights or you join a group etc. From a marketing perspective if you can match and exceed the realism you will capture the big fans like myself. However, to gain more market share you do need an element of game to this. Microsoft tried with missions but I think they fall short of capturing any types of gamers.

Adding a financial model and maybe even its own "virtual airline" will give your sim gameplay of some sorts. If you look at majority of the hardcore users anyway, they all belong to virtual airlines.

THere is a lot of talk about online systems here. Absolutely, it should be able to connect to VATSIM and others. However, some people like me do not have the time to dedicate to online flying. I need the pause button and often! Dont forget about us!

Good luck, this is some endeavor!

[BPL 39]

Something I think would be a nice feature is the option to randomly generate weather. When setting up a flight you could click a button to do do this. It would also be nice to have better real-world weather. The real-world weather in FSX never seemed very good to me.

[Zero_355 0]

the reason (i think) that MS didnot include more realistic aircraft operation is that it takes to long to modle correctly. how long dows it take PMDG to creat thier aircraft, with 90% of the real aircraft simulated, it takes awile. to long for MS.

but that excusse only works for big airliners like the boeing or airbusses

a cessna is not as complex as a 737. i dont like haveing to flip on the avionics switch to start the 172 with a G1000,

as for my ideas

dephinitly better ATC

including all parts (i only know the FAA system so) FSS unicom CTAF ATIS AWOS clerance ramp controle, ground, tower, TRACON, ARTCC and any i forgot

working with weather so airports can close flight can be delayed ECT

the NOTAM thing mentioned earlyer is a good idea

something i wanted to try in FSX is

hangers that have animation,

for example the hanger door is closed at night but at about 0600 local time it opens up for the day. but at 2200 local time it closes up for the night

something that would be nice but would make more sense included in addon software like FSpassengers or airhauler is a interactive company Dispatcher

and certinly included tools to connect to VATSIM or IVAO

ill post some wor idea when i get or remember them

[woofalong 7]

A Lot of people have expressed specifically ATC (as have I)

I had another idea that would make a lot of people happy.

A lot of people (like me) tend to fly to the same similar airports. My idea (along with the all in one downloader) is that when you release airport addons, you could also make the atc compatable for addons.

For instance, When London heathrow comes out as an addon, with that, include the option to pay for Sids/Stars that atc direct you on, aswell as what AI planes would follow.

- It would be relatively easy to create sids and stars for ATC to direct you on, even spelling it phonetically ( B - C - N - 6 - P) etc.

- When you depart you would follow this routing as would ai traffic (dont people get fed up with hearing "traffic traffic traffic" 5 seconds after takeoff!

- It could be downloaded very much like the current AES (which is the way forward for me) Using online serials to get credits (reduces piracy)

- Stars could be decided from the nearest current position when cleared for the approach, or by flightplan if filed

- please please please, make the ILS approaches more realistic, i currently get taken 50+ miles off course to intercept the ILS at some airports.

ATC is second to the actual planes in making fs enjoyable for me, if you could improve the atc to seperate aircraft on approach, make more realistic for interaction with large qantaties of addon ai, It would improve the fs no bounds

A

This way it would not be too much information for the hardrrives and is is only

[Antonio Pedro 1]

Hi, Mathijs and congrats on the ideia.

I'll try to be brief as possible.

I'm an hardware developer and for many times people ask me to build the electronics for home-build cockpits.

I hate to do that because you in M$ software one needs to develop it's won interface software or depend on

FSUIPC which, as everyone knows, it's a third party software. In this case, and of course for me, the easy part

is the hardware interface build, But when one needs to retrieve info from the simulator to have a feedback in

the hardware, for example, make a led lite when then landing gear is fully retracted with the simulator response,

you can only retrieve this info with the net-pipe tecnique. My sugestion goes for develop an interface bulked in

the simulator. I think it's faster, more reliable, more universal and, mainly, with future and support.

Of course one could mention that hardware interface should be handled by O.S.. I agree, but the O.S. is not

prepared to handle a GPS gadget or MCDU, MFD... you name it. It's application especific. If the data could be

exported, even by net-pipe or other tecniques, by the simulator and well documented, I think it can boom the

spread of this software.

Thank you for your time,

Antonio Pedro

[captdini 4]

An idea for the Flight Planner:

Right now in FS9/X we select our departure airport and then the Gate from the drop down box. At larger airports, selecting the gate is a bit of guesswork as to where you want to start from, unless you have a chart of the airport. I suggest when we select a departure airport, if we can get the layout, much like opening an airport in AFCAD with a graphical representation of the parking spots/gates, then we can get a clear idea as to where we want to start from. Also, like in many USA airports, terminals are more or less "hogged" by a particular airline. This way, if we can mouse over the gates and get a list of airlines assigned to the gate, again like in AFX or AFCAD, it will make it easier and more realistic to arrive at your starting point. Another advantage of this is that when we save the Flightplan it can be saving of only the plan from A to B. Right now in MSFS, the saved flight plan will also save the gate/parking you saved it with.

Dinshaw.

[Saikrishna 0]

An idea for the Flight Planner:

Right now in FS9/X we select our departure airport and then the Gate from the drop down box. At larger airports, selecting the gate is a bit of guesswork as to where you want to start from, unless you have a chart of the airport. I suggest when we select a departure airport, if we can get the layout, much like opening an airport in AFCAD with a graphical representation of the parking spots/gates, then we can get a clear idea as to where we want to start from. Also, like in many USA airports, terminals are more or less "hogged" by a particular airline. This way, if we can mouse over the gates and get a list of airlines assigned to the gate, again like in AFX or AFCAD, it will make it easier and more realistic to arrive at your starting point. Another advantage of this is that when we save the Flightplan it can be saving of only the plan from A to B. Right now in MSFS, the saved flight plan will also save the gate/parking you saved it with.

Dinshaw.

I agree. +1

What would be better is to show the terminal associated with the gate, like in X-Plane, and include a "Random" option so that the simulator would select an appropriate gate based on the parking codes and aircraft size.

[BPL 39]

Right now in FS9/X we select our departure airport and then the Gate from the drop down box. At larger airports, selecting the gate is a bit of guesswork as to where you want to start from, unless you have a chart of the airport. I suggest when we select a departure airport, if we can get the layout, much like opening an airport in AFCAD with a graphical representation of the parking spots/gates, then we can get a clear idea as to where we want to start from..

That is an excellent idea!

[maxter 4]

That is an excellent idea!

Yes indeed, put me down for a yes vote on this one as well.

Cheers and thanks,

[SimPilot767 157]

I don´t know if this has been suggested before, but my idea

was the possibility to select different positions like downwind, final,

holding point, etc. like in the instructor station of full flight simulators.

It´s one of the biggest disadvantages of FSX, that you cannot choose

positions in the air...

Regards, Timo

[BPL 39]

I don´t know if this has been suggested before, but my idea

was the possibility to select different positions like downwind, final,

holding point, etc. like in the instructor station of full flight simulators.

It´s one of the biggest disadvantages of FSX, that you cannot choose

positions in the air...

Regards, Timo

Very good idea. X-Plane has a feature similar to this, but it's not as advanced.

[AndyT 0]

I rapidly scanned through many many pages and I'm sure much of this has been posted, but I'd like to add it here for consideration.

* User modified scenery.

Make it easy for me to add my house and share it with everyone else.

* Version checker.

checks the status of all your add-ons and has a rating system for them which lists compatibility.

* Multiple sound card.

Support for multiple sound cards. Have outside sounds on speakers, ATC on headphones only...

* Multiple monitor support.

This is a must for cockpit builders.

* ATC voice recognition.

When I fly for real, I don't push buttons for ATC choices.

* Cockpit builders support.

Make it easily interfaced for home pit builders.

* Cloud shadows.

* Pilot controlled lights.

Click the mic to activate airport lights at night.

* Push to talk.

The one in FSX does not work correctly.

* Instructors station.

Because you know real flight schools will use it.

* Modular format.

Allows simpler upgrades and greater flexibility.

Thank you for asking what we want. Have you started development yet?

[BPL 39]

The ability to fly hot air balloons and hang gliders would be a nice feature to have in the new sim.

[Busterbvi 0]

Oh and another thing !! .... LANDING .... wouldn't it be nice if there was a restore point that one could choose when the aircraft is established for landing

that we can return to after the landing goes pear shaped so we can keep practicing final, finals without having to go around again ? Every plane handles

differently, especially on landing and it takes some serious amount of practice to get your favourates down smoothly. A great addition I think.

busterbvi.

"Thy shalt maintain thyne airspeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee"

[maxter 4]

Interesting point about landing. I was just comparing landing between FsX and RoF and the difference blew me away.

I was using an aircraft (GA) in FsX from one of the best FsX devs in the business comparing it against a default RoF Spad and the landing experience was like chalk and cheese... The Spad was difficult to control, did all the unexpected things on the ground after touchdown one would expect of it's vintage, but the FsX aircraft set down like it was on rails, glued on to the deck.

Having been simming since 1984 in every version of MSFS, I was prepared to accept that this is as real as it gets for the moment, but RoF has blown it away.

Getting back to the thread at hand, I would plead that you don't use FsX as a physics engine benchmark, but use RoF as a base/starting point and work up from there.

Cheers,

[BPL 39]

Getting back to the thread at hand, I would plead that you don't use FsX as a physics engine benchmark, but use RoF as a base/starting point and work up from there.

I totally agree with this. As I said before, if the new sim is at least as good as RoF, I'll be the first in line to buy it. Aerosoft, please make the new sim at least as good, or better than, RoF.

[MABE54 21]

Daunting task!!!

Not impossible but still daunting since it can’t afford to be wrong the first time.

A real time engine is the most difficult of them all.

Real Physics for:

-Timer

-Light (Reflection, Refraction)

-Sky (Celestial)

-Planet

-Water (Oceans, Lakes, Rivers)

-Atmosphere

-Weather

-Real 3D Clouds (Holly Grail)

-Navigation

-Ambiance (Day and Night)

-Gravity (real aerodynamics)

-Correct Altitude Landscape Visualizations

-Correct Topology

-Correct Vegetation

-Model

-Effects

-Collision

Data:

-Airports (As of 2006, there were approximately 49,000 airports around the world, including 14,858 in the United States alone. As per: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_airports_are_there_in_the_world

-Nav Aids (as per type of flight: VFR, IFR) =Jeppesen.

Note: Runways are not “flat strips” of land but have gradients.

ATC:

-Good, interactive with lots of imagination. (I know VATSIM or IVAO, right??? Wrong!!! But include them of course.

3D Cockpits:

Note: I agree. A functional 3D Cockpit is the final way to go. Simplicity and imagination can do it. Also, suppose one is flying with a heading of 360 degrees. The airport is at your 120 or 130 degrees on your left (you are in the captain’s chair) then you take the mouse and click of the side window view of your 3D cockpit somewhere over the airport image. Now the computer keeps your view lock on the airport at all times as you turn the airplane until you are perfectly align with the landing strip. It needs a little more details but you get the idea. Wouldn’t that be something??? You would still have to design the viewing of the basic “T” instrument panels during this maneuver of course but all that is easy stuff.

Autopilot:

-Full Autopilot capability for Take-off, Cruising and Landing with flare (all when possible as in weather permits of course). If anybody is an ACE in his or her mind that is okay but keep it there. Don’t tell anybody else how to use the simulator what he or she bought. As real as it gets like in CAT III.

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Bruneton/

Look for the movie RAMA at the end of the page. I love the illusion of the city.

I do not think there is an engine out there yet. Besides multiple-core computers are already here and Larrabee chips are around the corner.

Daunting but not impossible and a great challenge. It is all about illusions outside the planes really.

Cheers,

MAB

Sorry it was too long even though I’m still leaving many, many things out.

[BPL 39]

Also, suppose one is flying with a heading of 360 degrees. The airport is at your 120 or 130 degrees on your left (you are in the captain's chair) then you take the mouse and click of the side window view of your 3D cockpit somewhere over the airport image. Now the computer keeps your view lock on the airport at all times as you turn the airplane until you are perfectly align with the landing strip. It needs a little more details but you get the idea. Wouldn't that be something??? You would still have to design the viewing of the basic "T" instrument panels during this maneuver of course but all that is easy stuff.

I have also thought of this. Combat flight sims often have a feature with which you can lock your view to another aircraft. Why not have this feature with runways in a civilian flight sim?

[SimPilot767 157]

3D Cockpits:

Note: I agree. A functional 3D Cockpit is the final way to go. Simplicity and imagination can do it. Also, suppose one is flying with a heading of 360 degrees. The airport is at your 120 or 130 degrees on your left (you are in the captains chair) then you take the mouse and click of the side window view of your 3D cockpit somewhere over the airport image. Now the computer keeps your view lock on the airport at all times as you turn the airplane until you are perfectly align with the landing strip. It needs a little more details but you get the idea. Wouldnt that be something??? You would still have to design the viewing of the basic T instrument panels during this maneuver of course but all that is easy stuff.

Good idea! But this is already available as an "active camera" feature...

And another request:

During a manual ILS-Approach in the VC, i always have to pan down to see the ILS-indication on the PFD.

It would be helpful to have a kind of frameless "head up display ILS indication" for visual approaches...

Timo

[frkaipanika 9]

Instant replay that actualy makes replay of everything what happened min 60sek ago... AI..traffic..plane...scenery...

View.. in which you are able to go and look around the FS world with starting point around aircraft.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I don´t know if this has been suggested before, but my idea

was the possibility to select different positions like downwind, final,

holding point, etc. like in the instructor station of full flight simulators.

It´s one of the biggest disadvantages of FSX, that you cannot choose

positions in the air...

Regards, Timo

Good point...

[Banjo 0]

My first post here, sorry i am not so good with english, hope you can understand..

I had a look at Outerra. I think that a feature like atmospheric scattering is a must have in a new simulator.

Another one that i think of, is a way to represent the transition days between seasons. Instead of switching directly from one season texture to another, it would be beautiful if there were a kind of morphing between the two, but without any additional texture set.

I dont known if it is a feasible thing.. Maybe using a sort of layers?

Last one. I like to see a dynamic weather generator that behave taking into account the world area and relative season.

[BPL 39]

Another one that i think of, is a way to represent the transition days between seasons. Instead of switching directly from one season texture to another, it would be beautiful if there were a kind of morphing between the two, but without any additional texture set.

I dont known if it is a feasible thing.. Maybe using a sort of layers?

Excellent, excellent idea.

[Bell417 0]

I think it would be really helpful to have a small search engine for the airports in the sim. FSX has over 24,000 airports but I've probably only been to a few hundred because I just don't know about the others. For this reason, it would be nice to have this tool to discover fun, new airports. The users would be able to enter the criteria they desire in an airport, and then all of the airports meeting that criteria would be listed.

Here is a rough idea of some of the criteria choices:

Geographic details:

-Geographic location (continent, country, or state)

-Geographic features (located in/near mountains, canyon, lake, forest, ocean, desert, etc)

Airport Details:

-Airport type (controlled airport, uncontrolled airport, heliport, seaplane accessible, etc)

-Runway types available (paved, dirt/gravel, ice/snow, water, helipad, etc)

-Number of runways (1, 2, 3, etc)

-Runway length (0-500ft, 501-1000ft, 1001-1500ft, 1501-2000ft, 2001ft-3000ft, 3000-5000ft, 5001-7500ft, 7501-10,000ft, 10,000+ft, etc)

I think this would work best in a check-box format where the user could select as many different factors as they want for each criteria so that they could make as broad a search as they would like. This search function could be integrated as an optional way to choose your airport in the Select Airport menu of the sim.