A new simulator (July / August issue)

[Busterbvi 0]

I don't know if this has already been requested but what about ramp handlers actually loading the aircraft with bags/cargo.

If the aircraft has a mechinical fault engineers are called out and work on the aircraft and fix it or if its to big of a problem the flight is cancelled/delayed or you have to choose another aircraft.

Give me one good reason why you would want to sit and watch baggage handlers loading the plane or techs coming out to fix it B4 you take off on a home PC simmulation, those of us that

travel regurarly on the mainstream airlines, but enjoy the challenge of actually flying the thing really do not want to re live the complete and utter tedium of dealing with the ground routine,

I say this because two days ago I spent 6 hours on the ground onboard an AA flight from JFK to LHR while the techs had change out a duff compressor, I speak as a regular international

traveler and a very keen simmer but I am sure that I speak on behalf of 99.9% of simmers that use the airlines even ocasionally , would not even want to come even slightly close to re living

the usuall daily nightmares that are the norm these days on airline travel, even if the developer chucked it in as a random option, it would never be used, so please, take some time to think

about the reality of things these days before you post again.

Busterbvi.

"Thy will maintain thyne airpeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee"

[eurowing 65]

would it make sense to include a network client so that one can connect to VATSIM without additional software?

[captdini 4]

Hey,

A couple more suggestions

1. NOTAM Generator: I was wondering if this feature could be implemented. It would make our flight planning more interesting. For example, if your origin airport has two runways and the main runway is closed for work say from 0800 HRS till 1700 HRS with only the secondary runway available, you will have to plan for weight penalties, high ambient temperature if peak summer, etc. You could take it further by placing static construction crew/equipment on the closed runway. Similarily, you could have an unserviceble VOR or ILS, etc. which may lead to diversion to your alternate. This NOTAM generator, could be random or if we have access to current NOTAMS for our origin/destination/alternates we could plug them in. There are so many situations and variables that one can generate. Just a thought to make flight planning more challenging and realistic.

2. ETOPS Calculator: In continuation to flight planning, if we can have an ETOPS calculator showing ETOPS entry and exit points, ET, ED points based on the certified ETOPS limit of our a/c, flight levels, prevailing winds, etc, it would make Oceanic flight planning more realistic.

Then again, these may be considered by you at a later stage as an add-on and not developed for the stock sim.

Lastly, we are all fortunate to avail of monthly AIRAC cycles through Navigraph. Unfortunately, the stock Nav database in MSFS is woefully outdated, hence this sometimes creates problems when using the FS Flightplanner to create an ATC controlled IFR flight. If you can develop the NAV database such that it is compatible with Navigraph it would be great. When we download the current cycle file for the aircrafts FMC Navigation database, we can also download the current cycle for Aerosft FS Navigation database

Cheers,

Dinshaw.

[metamarty 0]

Some ideas I have been playing with for some time:

- The scenery engine should be partially online. It should load basic layout data from the internet. Moderators should be able to allow the addition of third party developments into the repository of scenery data after passing a quality check. Commercial scenery should be in here too. When a customer buys this scenery, textures are preloaded on the PC and the repository will provide the commercial scenery to the simulator. This will allow a truly global world of scenery to emerge without the need to constantly hunt for files and updates.

- AI and ATC should be done right. At the very least, it should not interfere with the user as it does now (multiple aircraft on final). It's something I think I may be able to play a part in. I think I could write at least part of this code.

- Network integration. The latest generation of online ATC networking is in development now. I've greatly simplified the client needs to implement it. It should be trivial to implement a basic functioning client now. The next gen ATC servers will allow much better interoperability between clients.

Marty

[Arista 64]

Now we will most likely not use a model where the shape determines the flight characteristics. There are many reasons for this, one of them that we tweak what you see to what you expect. Realism is in the eye of the beholder. A B747 has a bulb on the top. Customers like that bulb, in fact in many models I have seen over the year the bulb is bigger then it should be. Those models are what people like most. if you put an image of our F-16 on top of a real image you will see that we tweaked the shape a bit to enhance what people like to see. It's small stuff but it sure makes FSX models look better then Xplane model most of the time.

I for one strongly disagree. If this is the general approach towards realism you intend to take with the new sim, well, that is very sad indeed. For I tend to believe that while beauty clearly is in the eye of the beholder, realism isn't. At least not as far as 3D models are concerned, or anything easily measured and expressed by numbers for that matter. If the prototype has a small bulb, so should the 3D model, no matter whether you believe a bigger bulb would have looked better on the prototype. Basically, you're saying you're creating a fictional plane loosely based on a real-world prototype. If that's what you want, fine, but please don't call the result 'realistic' then. Besides, how do you know how people expect a 3D model to differ from the prototype? What if I happen to like small bulbs? Yes, comparing the size of bulbs might be nitpicking, but I think your general logic and philosophy here is seriously flawed.

Judith

[BPL 39]

I for one strongly disagree. If this is the general approach towards realism you intend to take with the new sim, well, that is very sad indeed. For I tend to believe that while beauty clearly is in the eye of the beholder, realism isn't. At least not as far as 3D models are concerned, or anything easily measured and expressed by numbers for that matter. If the prototype has a small bulb, so should the 3D model, no matter whether you believe a bigger bulb would have looked better on the prototype. Basically, you're saying you're creating a fictional plane loosely based on a real-world prototype. If that's what you want, fine, but please don't call the result 'realistic' then. Besides, how do you know how people expect a 3D model to differ from the prototype? What if I happen to like small bulbs? Yes, comparing the size of bulbs might be nitpicking, but I think your general logic and philosophy here is seriously flawed.

Judith

My thoughts exactly, but I wasn't bold enough to say it.

[jojolino 0]

Many users post very special features but I think first the generally concept must be ready. The main technology and the target group must be defined.

The GPU must be better used as in FSX. The power of GPU must be used for all graphical issues not the CPU. There is enought to do for the CPU...

I think photorealistic satellite images from Google, Virtual Earth, Yahoo or something else are not available for the whole world in a good quality and they are expensive and they need a huge amount or disk space. It is right that disk space is not expensive anymore but how should this come to the consumers? On 20 DVD's or what? Maybe BlueRay is the standard medium in 3 years but the expensive satellite images are a problem in 3 years also.

I think FSX with improved vector data, landclasses and textures is not so bad! Look at FTX, GEX, REX, UT and so on. With this addons FSX looks very nice in my eyes. My wish is, that a new sim out of the box looks like a very improoved FSX. That's possible, do not cost too much disk space and is not so expensive as satellite images. The idea to use satellite images only in higher altitudes is a nice idea! If it is possible to blend this textures to the others it would be a very nice feature!

The sim must be open for all to add selfmade scenery and planes and other improovments like MSFS.

Realism or not. I think we talk about a simulation not a game. FSX is not for gamers too. So my opinion is to make the sim so close to reality as possible! No graphical improvement were it is not in reality. (See the post above)

I think Aerosoft should spend the most energy and money in a very good and flexible base product not in things that addon creater can do better.

One example: I also think it would be nice to have a regional ATC with dialects and so on. But I think it must be very complicated to create this for the whole world. Better to let it open for individual improvement. I believe there are so many talented people out there they can create individual sound files if the sim gives them the possibility to add them for special regions. Aerosoft must create a much more real base technology for ATC but the regional improvements can better create from addon creaters.

I am not a hardcore símmer and I only love bush flying so I cannot talk about the most specials but realism must be one of the most important points!

In summary:

Better use of GPU instead of CPU for best graphic

Very improved looking world with satellite images for higher altitudes

So real as possible

Living world

Open for improvements for all parts not only scenery and planes because one developer cannot do anything best

Cheers

[Rune_ENHD 9]

I agree with the above posters, please don't use "artistic-licence" with regards to the visual-model, it should be modelled as in reality(the protype) and hopefully use aerodynamics in the flight-model with wing-profiles and correct fuselage-dimensions.

But perhaps combine this with a table or database.. Do it as REAL as possible within the contraints of a PC-sim..(and not MSFS-constraints)

I also like 2D-views, as I am a cockpit-builder, I prefer not to load a "heavy virtual-cockpitpit and cabin", when I have allready made a pit myself with buttons, swithches, levers,and lots of PC-screens for flightinstruments(Project magenta).

At least make it so that the aircraft has no virtual-cockpit which would take up resourses, one model with VC and one without VC, but the wiews should remain and also the sound, if they are done like they are in FSX where they 5.1sound is connected to the VC. I cant say I like this approach as you lose the 5.1 sound fsx, If your aircraft is not modelled to support the fsx-sound engine.

I have lots of good sound sets from FS-09, and they dont work as they did in fs09 when they are used in fsx that is annoying...

As I said SOUND is a BIG deal for me in the imersion factor, maybe you could go as far as to include some spescial-sounds which trigger transducers the user could connect to fs.

This would really Heighten that imersion factor.. of course these sounds should be customizeable so that I get one type of wibration for gear touchdown, and one for turbulence, and one for runway clancking/dumping and so on..

Please get rid off wheels/aircraft is stuck to Runway-feel we get in msfs today..

Please make sure everything is "OPEN" so that we don't get the troubles with ATC, physics, scenery-engine and stuff like that

which have flawed Msfs to many times..

We should be able to edit this stuff ourselves if we are capable of it, or have a good SDK at launch(perhaps even in advance of launch of new sim).

There are so many talented people out there both payware and freeware-developers, please don't dont limit their capabilitys to make the sim even better..

There must be be a possiblility for regional textures, and NOT regions of max 5-10 like it is to day, don't "hard-code" the sim to use same textures for Norway as a place in China, or some Carribian area which is very special the same as somewhere in russia,(the way it is Msfs-style) or use US-textures in Australia.. It should be possible to use diffrent areas of of tropical water-textures sort of, today you have only one texture, which is covering both the carribian islands, pacific,Oceania,and the US.. There should be atleast some regional texture-areas possible here also to make some diversity.

I think you sould make contact with REX, GEX, ORBX/FTX and the really tallented freeware artists, there is a guy from Sweeden which was really good I think He was called Lennart Arvidsson(Texture artist was username I think, also Adnan Arif, there are more freeware artists which are really good but I dont rember their names right now so, sorry.. Theese are texture artists really pushing the envelopes of the development of textures for the scenery-engine and should really be consulted for a new sim..

Also get all theese third-parties onboard right away on the Idea/concept development , and try and consentrate on that modular BASE-engine as forum-user"Snave" pointed out way back in May's addition I think

Please also NO "stretched textures" like in msfs, I hate the look of stretched mountain-cliffs.. yuuckk

Would be cool if the water freeze over someplaces during the Winter-months to allow take offs and landings on the water(now ice)

Also I don't think water takeoff's and landing are as realistic as they could be, but that might change with a new better physics-engine

I would also like to see some sort of waves if the weather is rough, this should be able to turn on and off in the 3D graphics-settings, as I would imagine this would be quite demanding on the sims-performance.

it should be able to have flat water inland independent of the oceans.

Would Really would like to have regional-ATC-(voices/accents at least)

- - -

Perhaps you should allow some milletary content addon-module IF it is NOT possible to be shot down by the milletary-nuts!! hehe

You should be able to choose this somewhere in the flightsim-session, that would make a lot of extra potential customers.

BUT the milletary-guy SHOULD be kicked out of the sim!! If they HACK into it, and "shot down" some poor user who is NOT partisipating in a session which this is allowed..

Thees users SHOULD get a WARNING that this is NOT allowed in this SIM, and will NOT be TOLLERATED!!

You could perhaps lock their fs-key so they can not use it, till they agree with you that this behaviour is not accepted and they should appologize to the users shot down in that session.

- - -

One idea I just thougt of:

You can make a game and a Sim in the same package with no problem like this:

You install the sim, and when you have the sim installed, you will allways be presented with a choise when you fire it up:

You will have to choose GAME or SIM as a choice, where as SIM: is full-blown simulator and features and settings..

GAME is somehow a bit easier(perhaps dumbed down a bit).. GAME would of course include missions or tasks to doo.. and perhaps could you include the milletary part in this GAME so as to make it action-based.. and fun (almost arcade)

The hardcore simmers would ofcourse go straight to SIM

Hopefully some Ideas

Regards

Rune_ENHD

[Quaxx 1]

Oh yes, please let's get rid of this "feature"!

Please also NO "stretched textures" like in msfs, I hate the look of stretched mountain-cliffs.. yuuckk

Here are some additional ideas:

Satellite images for high altitudes: Personally, I don't like the idea of switching between landclass model and satellite textures during a flight – I think the transition would look kind of strange to me. But: if this feature is implemented in the new sim, it should also be possible to select which model is used during the whole flight. So I can select the landclass model for a short trip in a Skyhawk, and the (low-res) satellite textures when flying a 747. It's just a matter of taste how we use this feature.

Airport ground textures: I don't like the way FSX is embedding the (default) airport ground textures into the surrounding scenery. I don't know how to describe this, but some times it looks just awful. Do you know what I mean? Perhaps we need special ground textures for the airports (diffenrent kind of grass etc.). This was even worse in FS2004 with the landclass textures shimmering through the airport area...

Runways/Taxiways: I think it would be great if we had more textures for them. When creating or editing aiport files, one could select the surface textues for a runway plus a variation (e.g. „tarmac 5“ has a more used and aged look than „tarmac 1“).

When visibility range changes (weather update or flying into/out of ground fog), the transition should be much (!) more smooth than in FS2004/FSX.

Microsoft has nice reflection maps for aircraft. But they could be improved: the reflecting animation speed should depend more on (radar) altitude and ground speed. Would look a bit more realistic.

Wave textures/animation: Flying low and slow over water or along the coast, it would be helpful (and better looking :-) if wave animations match to wind direction and speed.

If you are planning to include AI aircraft, cars and ships (I do hope so), please give us the option to use low-polygon-models of them by default. These objects add so much life to the virtual world, and it would be a pity if they slow the framerate down too much. So perhaps we may choose between less traffic with high polygons, or more traffic with less polygon complexity?

Birds... I'd really like to see them!

Best regards,

Quaxx / Daniel

[BPL 39]

Snow effects should be much more realistic than they are in FSX. For example, it would be nice to have the option to set snow on the ground before starting a flight. In FSX, some places have snow on the ground by default in winter, and some don't. This is realistic, until you turn on snow somewhere that doesn't have snow on the ground by default. Then you have to sit and wait for the snow to appear on the ground (unrealistically). There are also other strange things that happen in this situation, try it and see what I mean.

[eurowing 65]

would it be too soon for a true 64 bit simulator?

[wyoming 2]

Some ideas I have been playing with for some time:

- The scenery engine should be partially online. It should load basic layout data from the internet. Moderators should be able to allow the addition of third party developments into the repository of scenery data after passing a quality check. Commercial scenery should be in here too. When a customer buys this scenery, textures are preloaded on the PC and the repository will provide the commercial scenery to the simulator. This will allow a truly global world of scenery to emerge without the need to constantly hunt for files and updates.

Marty

Let me associate on this. I would assume that strictly everyone would agree that the perfect environment would be the real-time reproduction of the world, down to 3D reproduction of buildings etc. Logically, this can only be accomplished through a network of satellites beaming images of their coverage to the end-user. This is of course not possible at this time but it still gives us the end-point and therefore a trajectory... Just like in navigation, it is important to keep in mind the end-point. Even if it's far away.

[metamarty 0]

Let me associate on this. I would assume that strictly everyone would agree that the perfect environment would be the real-time reproduction of the world, down to 3D reproduction of buildings etc. Logically, this can only be accomplished through a network of satellites beaming images of their coverage to the end-user. This is of course not possible at this time but it still gives us the end-point and therefore a trajectory... Just like in navigation, it is important to keep in mind the end-point. Even if it's far away.

It won't be possible for a long time for satellites to generate 3d data of buildings, especially textures of the side. Also, satellite images tend to have a wide variety in color tones, resulting in very unrealistic scenery if these were used untreated. That's why developers will be needed for a long time to create scenery that is pleasing to look at, accurate and good on FPS. Using the scheme of an online repository that is automatically used and maintained by people, it should be a whole lot easier to "fill the world" with accurate scenery. With the current FSX and other simulators, there's simply way too much scenery floating around at many different web sites in many different formats to even think about starting to populate a reasonable area with custom scenery. I really hope something like this will make it into the next simulator.

[Janvw 1]

Hi,

In problaby twentyfive years I bought almost every flight simulator that was available for the PC I had, but I was never very satisfied with Microsoft Flight Simulator. There were always some kind of performance problems and it never felt complete without add-ons. So I always spent too much time trying to find solutions for performance problems or technical problems relating to the add-ons. So my idea of a new flight simulator is to have a game that works well with current hardware and has a way to work perfectly well with add-ons. One of the main reasons I did not buy too too many add-ons was because I was afraid to stumble into problems. So more fool proof would be my wish with a new flght simulator. I stopped using FSX because of the problems.

Furthermore I prefer the small and medium airplanes and less but better scenery. I used to have more fun with the small but excellent Flight Unlimited world, than with the vast, but barren Microsoft FS world. With an excellent sim I would more be tempted to buy extra software or hardware than with a sim with all kinds of issues.

That said, I can't hardly wait for the new Aerosoft sim. The current add-ons, airplanes and scenery, are excellent. They are just what I would want in a new flight simulator, so I have no other urgent wishes. Except for regionalised ATC voices.

Jan

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

No 2D Panels anymore? I think this will be a big step back. What if I want to show some gauges on a second monitor? Imagine the price of a 19" touchscreen in three years from now... we finally could use our NAV/COM radios or FMC in a far more realistic way - without having to build a complex home cockpit!

If you don't want to include 2D panels with the default aircraft - ok. But we should be able to write a short XML file (gauge names, x and y coords and gauge sizes) and send this "layer" to a second monitor. I think this is easy to implement (?) in the sim and writing such a XML is also no big issue.

If you mean not having the 2d instruments on the second monitor in a non logical, non realistic perspective and completely out of context of the rest of the cockpit, indeed that would be a problem for you. But as you can move the viewpoint in the VC to any location you like, with any view direction, any zoom level AND be able to move this view to a separate monitor right now in FSX (see image), what more is needed, what's the use of a 2d panel?

Personally I find 2d panels nice for a static trainings simulator where the looks are not at all important but they are just not realistic. They don't shade as light changes, you can only look at them from one angle (always always totally unrealistic). The sim we got in mind is build from the 1st person view, so you will see the cockpit as the pilot sees it.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

One of the main reasons I did not buy too too many add-ons was because I was afraid to stumble into problems. So more fool proof would be my wish with a new flght simulator. I stopped using FSX because of the problems.

And yet, per sold product FSX addons cause far less support, if only because FSX is more stable when pushed to the limits (on XP not on Vista with all of it's memory issues).

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

It won't be possible for a long time for satellites to generate 3d data of buildings, especially textures of the side. Also, satellite images tend to have a wide variety in color tones, resulting in very unrealistic scenery if these were used untreated. That's why developers will be needed for a long time to create scenery that is pleasing to look at, accurate and good on FPS. Using the scheme of an online repository that is automatically used and maintained by people, it should be a whole lot easier to "fill the world" with accurate scenery. With the current FSX and other simulators, there's simply way too much scenery floating around at many different web sites in many different formats to even think about starting to populate a reasonable area with custom scenery. I really hope something like this will make it into the next simulator.

In fact there is very little sat stuff used in FS. It's almost all areal imagery, so done from aircraft not satellites. Just like Google Earth etc, the moment you zoom into something where you can see a house you are almost certainly not looking at something done from space.

Of course there is also the hd space issue. 1/5 of Germany in one season is about 14 Gb using 50 cm images, so full Germany in 5 seasons (you need hard winter as well as winter) would be 14x5x5= 350 gb = 14 Blue Ray disks. Big country Germany but the whole of Europe will be 12 terrabytes like this. Now even with storage and bandwidth expanding as fast as it is now our demands will very soon exceed what's available.

[flyingfanatic333 0]

I was flying in FSX today, and it amazed me how sad the default jetways look compared to the AES ones.

Is there any possibility that a lite version of AES could be incorporated into the default scenery (just jetways, air stairs, marshaler, and pushback truck), and then there would be payware versions that would upgrade a particular region (i.e. Europe) to the full version (caterers, cleaning crew, fuel truck, deicing truck, etc...). Then, if you decide to use addon scenery, you would buy an addon version for that airport, like we do now.

[bradley27 26]

I think one thing that FS2002 did better than FS2004/FSX was sustain overcasts, you'd climb or decend into an overcast and drop into blindness until you popped out, it was an excellent effect, and the lastest two sims FS9/FSX really are poor at this!

FSX water effects are mind boggling!!! One of the best things about it

And of course Frames, FSX is extremely bad at sustaining frames, i bought it and dropped right back to FS9 after i saw it just demanded too much even without addons!!!

Wish you guys all the best if you do attempt an FS11

[maxter 4]

If you mean not having the 2d instruments on the second monitor in a non logical, non realistic perspective and completely out of context of the rest of the cockpit, indeed that would be a problem for you.

This is absolutely correct and it is so refreshing that a developer really get's it...

I have used a 3 monitor setup where the VC is zoomed out to fit and there is practically no need to scroll at all and with most new implementations of the VC in FSX, gauge animations are deliciously smooth.

Stay the course Mathijs, you are absolutely correct.

[metamarty 0]

In fact there is very little sat stuff used in FS. It's almost all areal imagery, so done from aircraft not satellites. Just like Google Earth etc, the moment you zoom into something where you can see a house you are almost certainly not looking at something done from space.

Of course there is also the hd space issue. 1/5 of Germany in one season is about 14 Gb using 50 cm images, so full Germany in 5 seasons (you need hard winter as well as winter) would be 14x5x5= 350 gb = 14 Blue Ray disks. Big country Germany but the whole of Europe will be 12 terrabytes like this. Now even with storage and bandwidth expanding as fast as it is now our demands will very soon exceed what's available.

Yes, that's why I believe the current landclass approach is the correct one. It will take a couple of years before true satellite/aircraft imagery becomes feasible. I do however believe that the current manual installation of scenery scheme is outdated. The basic layout of global scenery (like what FSX has now) should be on the DVD and installed for computers without internet, and the live scenery system should be available if the user has an internet connection.

[User42 0]

I will buy this!

I would like to see such things as engine fires to which a response is required from the pilot. Possibly control surface malfunctions. Icing to me is a must have.

I would like the ability to drape photoscenery over my favorite airfields, either within the boundary or out to a defined radius of the field, which can be blended into the default scenery. I would like to be able to easily populate that area with a good selection of 3D models. I think the user should be king when it comes to the ability to create his own piece of the simulated world and should have the tools in package to do this. This would revitalise the wider sim community.

I would like to be easily able to record a set of defined phrases or words and place them in the sim ATC. This would allow users to record and share a complete set of ATC commands to lend realism when it comes to accents etc.

I would like a panel builder to allow the display of basic guages without bezels on another monitor to allow projection of main views and cockpit building, though I gather this has been discounted.

[Constantin 2]

Here is something that i just noticed its lacking in MFS. That is the issue of variable intencity internal lighting (variable intensity gauge lights , gauge backlights , dome lights , flood lights etc ) . Currently as i can tell the issue is delt by some developers artificially by a loading a series of gauge textures of increasing luminance as one rotates a rheostat . But if possible a light should behave as real light , as it was delt by shockwave's 3D lights redux for aircraft external lighting

Another issue with all versions of MFS including FSX is the atmosphere visibility as one climbs above the moisture layer . When you climb over the moisture layer in MFS ( thats basically the ceiling of the visibility setting in wheather settings ) the whole world below you just cleans up almost immediately. In reality of course once you climb over the moisture layer the world below you doesnt just clean up....it remains reduced in visibility especially looking at a distance below the moisture layer ...The weather is clear and with very high visibility over the moisture layer. Items protruding above are highly visible . The attached picture illustrates this . The moisture layer is about 5000 ft below the aircraft . Even without the presence of clouds the reduced visiblity evident in the bottom left corner would have been all over the place . If you were to set some visibility, lets say 32km in MFS and a top at lets say 15000 ft , as you may have seen many times once you climb above this altitude the world will just clean up and you would be able to see for miles and miles .........unrealistic!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

- I would like to have some sort of dashboard on the sim wich could allow me to use for example internet explorer without leaving the sim, or messenger, or adobe acrobat and so on.

Why would you want that as you can just open the other application, Windows being multitasking and all?

- I would also like to have a calculator integrated on the sim.

Something like our Flight Calculator? http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd50!20,5244190940,DF02117_1

- Bird strikes, freeze rain, lightning strikes, natural problems that could affect my flight wich could be used with some sort of possibility to occur percentage.

Not a bad idea but I rather see that as a result of conditions. We know bird migration routes etc, we can link that to actual chances, not random percentages. If we get some kind of script mode included it should all not be too complex.

- I remember when I started with flight simulation "some" years ago (on FLY!) there was a magic key (Z if I recall) wich would land the airplane perfectly, that helped me a lot when I started simming as I could see how to position the airplane etc etc. It might sound stupid but it is a good feature for a newbie

Like to get some comments from others on this.

- And finnaly, you could include some sort of flight sim painter, wich could make easier for the average user to paint the airplanes according to his taste.

Almost impossible as we need layers, bumps, speculars etc.

Thanks for your comments, nice list.

[boerago 0]

Hi there, hi Mathijs

As everyone already said, nice idea listening to the wishes from future users!

I give my ideas, maybe some of them are already said (I read a lot of pages, but not all 40 of them )

Free moving camera I loved it using free moving cam tools, giving you the idea walking to your aircraft, doing a control walk around it, watching as a plane spotter your landing...

Co-pilot I read on this forum someone proposing to add a copilot in every type of airplane, so your not sitting alone there. It would be nice if you would see a 3d pilot sitting next to you (not necessary). But more important could be an "co-pilot" who can manage and control the airplane as much as you want him to do this. So as a learning person for example you can even just enjoy a flight and understanding what's happening during a real flight (atc, nav, checklists, afcs, etc). Or you can chose what's done by him/her, or take full control. In this way, the learning proces is more exiting and more understandable and you can more enjoy a real flight. Sharing a cockpit can of course also be done online by real persons as already said...

On board sound crew communications, people boading and talking, alarms, etc. Giving you in an easy way the idea flying a living airplane. (can also be controled by the Co-pilot)

More living airports I know it's difficult making every airport in the wolrd in detail, but just a more living airport and more possibilties for docking, ground crew, etc gives a much more good feeling arriving after a flight of 6 hours... I worked as a photographer at Brussels Airport and there I realy enjoyed that feeling. An airport is a small city, working for the aircrafts arriving en departing.

Night textures in cockpit!! Nothing so cool as the beatifull screens and atmospheric lights in a night-time cockpit, not worked out enough until now.

Good luck