A new simulator (July / August issue)

[Arista 64]

Like to get some comments from others on [the magic key which would land the airplane perfectly].

That could be part of a possible flight school module, along with comments from a virtual instructor telling you what steps he's doing, why he's doing them, what he's looking for, etc. Would probably be a great help for newcomers. I don't think it's necessary to make that feature universal, though, because I guess that'd be quite a challenge to get really perfect. And perfect it'd have to be if you want people to learn from it. In the confined scope of a flight school module, the 'landing demo' lesson could be just a fancy replay of a pre-recorded flight basically. Anyway, I wouldn't use it personally, because I know how to land, but I can see value in such a feature.

Judith

[flyingsub 7]

That could be part of a possible flight school module, along with comments from a virtual instructor telling you what steps he's doing, why he's doing them, what he's looking for, etc. Would probably be a great help for newcomers. I don't think it's necessary to make that feature universal, though, because I guess that'd be quite a challenge to get really perfect. And perfect it'd have to be if you want people to learn from it. In the confined scope of a flight school module, the 'landing demo' lesson could be just a fancy replay of a pre-recorded flight basically. Anyway, I wouldn't use it personally, because I know how to land, but I can see value in such a feature.

Judith

Yes this is a great idea and it would help me nail those dang carrier landings on the 3 wire and also landing in Crosswinds etc

This could extend to actually using the sim as a checkride sim in the same way that ATPLs do, first as training and then as testing.

Dale

[Carlos Domingos 4]

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

Lol it's a personal request. I've allways had problems with alt+tab on my system. And if there was a chance to have a PDF reader incorporated in the sim, then I could be flying while reading the airplane manual on the screen. I know, I could play in windowed mode, but I allways lose Antialiasing when I put FS9 in windowed mode, and it kind of spoils my "being there" feeling everytime I see the start menu Icon while flying lol...

[jonesrob 37]

Approach lights and taxiway centreline and/or edge lighting to be modelled. All lights, including runway, to be on at all times - or switchable.

Rob.

[BPL 39]

- 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

Not a bad idea. Years ago, when I was new to flight simulation, I inadvertently learned how to make a good approach by using the autopilot in the Cessna 172 to fly ILS approaches. I couldn't land well at first, and then I discovered this feature of the autopilot and started using it. I would let the autopilot fly the plane down to 200' AGL, and then, I would take over and finish the landing. When I went back to try manual approaches then, I realized that I had subconsciously learned how to make a good approach from watching the autopilot fly it.

[Mikethebike 0]

When shall we get the new sim?

Did you think about:

- use/develop/bring up Flightgear or Fly!Legacy

- use a cross platform game engine ( idsoft etc. )

- porting your addons to X-Plane ( or Flightgear etc. )

So this thread is open for months...get started folks!

Building a successor to FSX takes time....

Let us know when work has begun. Thanks.

[captdini 4]

Dear Mathijs,

I dont know if these sound stupid, but here goes:

• PMDG, Ariane, and a lot of developers have a Captain and First Officer visible in the cockpit when viewed from spot. These 'crew' are modeled either on one of developers or someone famous. If I am not mistaken, I think in the PMDG 737, one of them looks like Condeleeza Rice . maybe you could develop a utility with a "blank" face, wherein, with an editor, we could take one of our own photos and crop it into the pilots face. That way, it might look cool to see yourself in the pilot seat rather than someone else. At present, I realize that these pilots are 3D modelled into the plane itself and a photo being 2 D, it might be difficult. Just some food for thought if you can figure a way to work around it.
  • When landing or taking off in heavy rain, is there a way to "blur" the vision seen outside, except for that part of the windscreen where the wiper is working. It would make the wiper effect more realistic.

  [*]Sound for heavy turbulence. When flying in moderate turbulence, you here a bit of rattling and a "unique" sound that comes with it. I cant explain what it is, but anybody who has flown in moderate turbulence, I am sure you know what I am talking about.

  Cheers,

  Dinshaw.

[Carlos Domingos 4]

Hey!

Maybe this is a stupid idea but now that you have all this sugestions from us, you could gather all the ideas and make some sort of questionnaire where you could ask people in an easy way to rate our ideas. That would ensure some good (secret) statistics for your company I think.

[Tim Post 0]

Hi Mathijs,

First of all, great news to hear Aerosoft is seriously considering taking the huge FS-community "on board" of its own flight simulator! Once my dad and I heard that MFS had shut down, at dinner the same day, we immediately envisioned Aerosoft to take over the role... and would do it far more justice.

So, with all support to the project, my wish/frustration list based on over 10 years of extensive FS experience:

Weather

• 
  
  
• I love real-world downloaded weather. I always fly with real-world weather. Maybe an improvement would be the feature of being able to choose between downloading just one element of different real-world weather elements rather than being forced to download all of them: like only downloading real-world clouds but leaving out real-world temperatures and winds. Sometimes, I just want to have the "look" of the real thing without having to deal with strong crosswinds.
  
• More weather conditions: next to rain and snow, also include hail. Visible icing on cockpit windows.
  
• Real-world weather reports/charts
  
• Radar capabilities: weather and terrain. I would really love to track weather systems on radar in my B737!
  
  
  Default airplanes (if you even decide to include them)
  
  • 
    
    
  • Basic high-quality airplanes from main categories: sailplane, helicopter, (hot air balloon?), cessna, business jet, fighter jet, B737 and B747. An in-FS Aerosoft store could show other beautiful planes to download/purchase from within the airplane menu (read more under 'Wild ideas' below).
    
  • GPS functionality, like in FSX.
    
  • Full FMC capabilities in airliners.
    
    
    Virtual cockpit
    
    • 
      
      
    • I absolutely love the virtual cockpit. With TrackIR, this is a great (and to me the most immersive) way of virtual flying. I enjoy the virtual 'pilot's view point' in FSX that physically reacts on thrust changes of the aircraft (in FSX you see your view point reacting on G-forces).
      
    • I also like the glossy windows (in contrast to FS2004 where it seems like there are no cockpit windows at all).
      
    • Default virtual cockpits must be as detailed, photorealistic and fully functional as possible (like add-on aircraft of Ariane or Carenado).
      
      
      Views
      
      • 
        
        
      • I miss like an integrated "Walk and follow" camera feature by default that allows me to more freely move around my airplane. A "slew"-like camera to look at my own airplane (doing thorough preflight inspections).
        
        
        ATC
        
        • 
          
          
        • I love advanced ATC communications (I prefer the look of FS2004's ATC window to the one of FSX that looks far too fancy with it's 3D glossiness. Keep menu's as plain looking as possible. My graphic card is intended for rendering scenery, not menus!).
          
        • The ATC options could be structured more adequately (by using different positions, headings, or font colors) instead of merely listing all available options in just one big list; like differing in 'changing frequency' options from 'contacting ATC', or 'asking for transition of airspace' to showing 'nearest airport list'. Different ATC options clearly have different (recurrent) functions, and so, could be grouped as such. This way, the ATC window could scaffold ATC communications for a (novice) flight simmer by using some kind of natural structure in which ATC options are used and presented.
          
        • Minor issue: I also like that in FS, you are able to mute "your own" default pilot voice, enabling me to replace the automated pilot calls with my own voice just to mimic the aviation jargon by talking out loud myself. Though FSX's ATC is not able to do any voice recognition, this speaking-out-loud has no real function at all, ATC just responds in its default way on the muted pilot voice of FSX, giving me the feeling that I myself have really talked to ATC. I would love to be able to not just mute the default "pilot's voice", but to really disable it so that if I press option 1 'acknowledge clearance' for example, ATC immediately responds ... instead of me having to wait until my 'muted' pilot voice has finished when ATC finally responds (sometimes I speak to short of time or spend to much time talking). More specific, I would like to keep pressing the '1' key (like the real COMM button on flight controls) until I let go when ATC responds; this way the system knows that I am talking and no other AI pilot could interrupt me. I could enjoy more timed control to work with ATC and train myself in ATC jargon.
          
        • Would be cool if ATC sounds (of AI airplanes) included pilot voices that sound German, French, Arabic, Dutch, or English instead of all being fluently American. Also making these sounds airport/country specific. Also more female voices.
          
        • I love progressive taxi. I would like the option to choose my own parking space when arriving at an airport though (a gate or other parking area). Or at least, that if I park somewhere else, my ATC monitoring service is closed anyway (this is currently not the case; if I don't park at the exact spot where ATC wants me to park, my flight plan is not closed. This is annoying especially when I keep FS running and decide to do another flight within the same session; because then I need to "slew" myself to the ATC's desired parking spot before my ATC window is reset to new flight options.
          
        • ATC talks too fast when summing up the order of taxiway signs when directing a taxi route to a particular runway. It is very difficult to keep up.
          
          
          Traffic
          
          • 
            
          • Making AI traffic consist of real-world airline textures that we are all familiar with (airport specific).
            
          • More ground crew activity when aircraft is at the gate (bagage, catering, fueling, etc) by default. Airports must feel like they are alive.
            
          • More sophisticated push back communications than to merely just press 'shift + p' and get pushed back automatically. I would like to talk to the ground crew from within the ATC window.
            

          Scenery

          [*]Specific scenery complexity check boxes, instead of "cumulative" sliders. The problem with FSX/FS2004 is that sliders are pre-structured. For example: taxi signs are included in the 'Dense' setting, not in the 'Medium' or lower settings. Why couldn't I just enable taxi signs (specifically!) and disable all the rest? Some scenery complexities have functional use (as the taxi signs) while others are just fill ups. Same goes for gates. I would like to specifically enable 'gates' without having to move the slider all the way up to 'very dense' and being forced to live with all kinds of complexities that I don't like to have my graphics card work on. Like the taxi signs and gates, some scenery has functional use while other scenery is purely for sight seeing. I believe this distinction is crucial to make for the next FS. Get rid of the sliders!

          FS general

          [*]No fancy transparent windows. No background music. No missions. No games. Stripped down for system performance! (FS is not a game! Or at least, the "Pro version" of Aerosoft's FS should not be, if there would be a "Basic" version).

          [*]Flight Planner: suggesting flight plans based on real-world flight plans.

          [*]Collisions: when crashed or collided with some object; no restart of flight, but pop-up message prompting you what to do: restart or continue flying (as if nothing had happened). To me, I just want to be notified of having crashed and not having to reset the whole flight as punishment (let's use the advantages of VIRTUAL flying). Like flying on low realism settings in terms of aircraft and building collisions in which crashes are simply ignored; but then to add prompts during flight that notify me when a collision has just occurred. I would like to know if I have crashed, but not to experience it.

          [*]Ability to assign any kind of keyboard shortcut to joysticks used (currently I use JoyToKey to do this). So not only assigning FS-functionalities to joystick buttons, but also raw keyboard shortcuts. I program some buttons of my joystick to ATC options (1 to 4, that are most common). This cannot be done in FSX.

          [*]In interface terms, I prefer FS2004 to FSX. Less transparant fancy 3D menu stuff. Actually, I fly more in FS2004 than in FSX. With Ariane and Carenado add-on aircraft, I get much much more performance in FS2004.

          [*]In FSX I love the 'shared airplane' feature in multiplayer. Would be awesome if I could see a virtual (static) pilot sitting next to me in my seat during the whole flight.

          [*]In FS2004, I loved the flight training lessons.

          Wild ideas

          [*]Integration with Train Simulator, City Bus simulator, Tower Simulation, etc, to build on one integrated connected virtual world.

          [*]Google Earth as scenery.

          [*]FS build in user accounts: logging into FS with my own username and password. Syncing preferences, license keys and other Aerosoft purchases to one central Aerosoft server. Being able to create your own "pilot profile" that will be used throughout the whole FS (especially in multiplayer).

          [*]An FS integrated Aerosoft store to purchase/download add-ons ("one-click" system) from within the flight simulator. Like, if you plan to fly from EHAM to EGLL in the flight planner for example, you receive (unobtrusive!) recommendations for add-ons of Aerosoft scenery that specifically relate to the particular flight you have planned to fly; stuff like mega scenery packages of your departure and arrival airports, departure and arrival charts related to your flight, airplanes, etc. Or if your logbook shows that you fly a lot with a F16 for example, that you'll (once!) get prompted by Aerosoft's amazing F-16 to try it for one flight. This system should be connected to your user account in such a way, that the whole purchase, download and installment works at the background and the user just sees his newly purchased airplane or scenery "pop up" in the menu (progress bar).

          [*]Integrated beta-testing features. Being able to sign up for beta-testing programs that are seamlessly integrated (as modules) in FS. And also, integrated feedback forms in which users can easily post suggestions/errors. A forum IN FS might be a very interesting idea; again, to keep the community as much involved to the development of the FS project as possible. Developers should sign up on Twitter or blogs; it would be great to make the project as open and transparent as possible.

          [*]Pilots carry their own suitcases with them, containing flight plans, their own charts, notepads, conversion tables, checklists, etc, etc. Like, if you change from aircraft, you always have this suitcase with you in which you have access to all your personal pilot stuff (includes settings, like seat height, custom zoom, screen positions (checklist, GPS, etc), notes, checklists, photo camera, logbook, etc, etc).

          [*]Logbook: with world map to see where you have flown so far with airways indicating your flights. Camera function to capture small movies or stills during your flights (a nice tool for the "suitcase" idea).

          [*]I would love to be able to step out of my aircraft as a pilot, and once I do walk away for a few feet, and get prompted by an "end flight" menu. Same goes for entering an airplane. Once I set up a flight, that I start as a pilot standing next to my airplane from the outside and am able to do preflight inspection prior to any other startups from within the cockpit. Having a key to open the door of the airplane. At the gate; leaving or entering the airplane through walking the gate.

          [*]I would love to repair or refuel my own cessna "by hand" instead of using a boring menu of changing some digits?

          [*]Another wild idea: what if the FS allows dedicated multiplayer sessions in which advanced FS-ers could voluntarily sign up as instructors to train others as student pilots? This kind of multiplayer room could represent a kind of community-based "Flight School" next to Rod's unique and wonderful way of flight training. Using the shared airplane multiplayer feature in FSX, this would be really fun. A specialized "Instructor Display" could allow the instructor to manipulate all kinds of scenarios during the session (like engine failures, etc, etc.). In a kind of wiki library, lessons or glossaries could be build by the FS community itself.

          Looking forward to the launch!

          Tim

          [EDIT]

          PS. My dad adds:

          [*]Integration of IVAO.

          [*]Integration of FSUIPC.

          [*]Multi-screen support (so there is no need for matrox or Luciano anymore).

          [*]Support for multiple PC's configuration in which you can assign different windows of FS (like the overhead panel, communications, throttles, etc) to other (connected) PC's.

          [*]And frame rates, frame rates, and frame rates!

          [/EDIT]

[Constantin 2]

Wake turbulance effects by heavy / medium category aicraft . Since in the simulator it cannot be produced aerodynamically it could take the form of an fx file or any other type you are thinking that varies its characteristics according to aircraft size, speed, wing span and other variables to also determine how it dissipates over time.

Ask anyone who's been cought in and he'll tell you just how ugly it is. I was cought in twice and felt like the whole plane was gonna flip on one side ... had almost full aileron for 4 secs... and that was about 1.5 minutes behind a 767 after t/o !

[FSXC182RG (Alexander) 0]

Second post that I made in the forums. I would like the flight models like in X-Plane, that are not defined by a .cfg file, that are defined by the 3D plane and air passing through parts like wing, prop, gear, fuselage, stuff like that. And a converter to convert FS2004 planes.

Switches in the graphics menu to give better looks or better FPS, like objects are simpler from distance, textures have lower resolution in distance, etc...

And a aircraft, scenery, repaints, texture, add-ons installer instead of having to do everything manually.

A Cirrus SR2*, a Piper Saratoga, a A380, and B787.

Also, snow accumulates on objects, wet objects and weird braking when raining.

Don't make that FS2000/FS2002/FSX thing called "Professional Edition."

If someone wants to say photoscenery then you should know how much space on HD takes because the seasons, time, rain, stuff like that.

[BPL 39]

I would like the flight models like in X-Plane, that are not defined by a .cfg file, that are defined by the 3D plane and air passing through parts like wing, prop, gear, fuselage, stuff like that.

So would I. I'm still dismayed by Mathijs's post: "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." Not to dwell on this, but it's disappointing to see Aerosoft get started (IMO) in the wrong direction. I don't know about others, but I want the models to look exactly like the real thing, not like what Aerosoft thinks I expect. I expect nothing more than true realism.

[Diesel10 2]

Well, regarding the accuracy of the F-16 model and Mathijs's post, I was wondering about this as well. To my eye, the nose, particularly the radome of Aerosofts F-16 has a wrong shape, it is most obvious in the side view compared with the real thing.

As BPL, I'd prefer accurate models.

[metamarty 0]

I too would consider the X-Plane modeling more advanced, but it does have its drawbacks. Fluid dynamics needs very precise data on the exact model of the wing in use. This kind of data is lacking in MS FS models, which would make it very hard to port the currently existing library of aircraft over to the new sim. Also, the process of accurately bringing flight characteristics from real life into the sim using fluid dynamics is very hard. You more or less have to tweak the wing profiles to tune the flight model. With the MSFS system of lookup tables, although it's basically "fake", it's far easier to tune the flightmodel to how you want the aircraft to behave. Fluid dynamics will probably result in more realistic behavior, but given a well designed lookup-table aircraft in a sophisticated modern simulator, I doubt you will be able to tell the difference.

My preference goes out to fluid dynamics, but I understand the implications of this approach and I believe that's why aerosoft is currently looking at the "old" method. I do however feel that this simulator should not restrict the physics as much as MSFS has always done. I would say that any propulsion should be an option. I like the way the Orbiter simulator handles this. I think that ballistic flight using rockets should be possible in the new simulator, and earth orbit should be achievable. If the physics are done correctly, there could very well be car or boat addon vehicles. Even if these are not a goal for the initial release of the simulator, a well designed physics system could allow on the fly switching of a vehicle class, so special physics characteristics could be inserted by addon developers.

[juvejonas 0]

Hi all,

Being a long time FS-user but a first time poster at this forum, I'd first like to thank the Aerosoft team in their efforts to provide us with the best Flight Simulator yet. I really hope that you will succeed.

Reading through the posts, it is obvious that people have very different and specific requests, ranging from the possibility of Space travel to merging of FS and Trainsim. It is obviously impossible for you guys in the Aerosoft team to cater to all those needs, why I'd like to point to what I believe to be the most important things for you to keep in mind. I think you should try and create a simulator which excels at the features that will influence everyone, regardless of if you're flying a glider or a 747. Therefore, put your energy on (like others have said) creating a SIMULATOR and not a game. A simulator that simulates the environment as realistically as possible, eg flight dynamics, weather, ground effects, realistic ATC and navigation/FMC. I'm sure there's more but that's what I can think of now.

I don't see the point in you putting a lot of effort in providing a highly detailed EDDF or 767, as the need for either highly depends on the specific needs of the simmer. Some simemrs are happy with a freeware 767 and some want to increase the degree of realism by buying the Level-D version. I am not a programmer, but it would seem that the extent to which one is allowed to fly a plane realistically ultimately depends on the platform, why I really think you should focus on providing the best possible prerequisites for realism. Freeware and payware developers can provide the addons, but their degree of realism will ultimately be decided by the platform you provide.

Also - take advantage of the vast FS community. People have suggested region/country specific ATC, which I agree with. Let us fellow simmers provide the voices. I'm sure you'll find happy volunteers from all corners of the world to record what needs to be recorded. I know I would be happy to do my part.

To sum up: If the choice is between creating a simulator with half-assed weather and flight dynamics but with lots of built in planes (like the FS of today) and a powerful and realistic simulator in terms of the former but with the need for plenty of freeware/payware addons in order to be able to take advantage of it, I'll choose the latter a hundred times out of a hundred.

Best regards,

Jonas Helgertz

Sweden

[BPL 39]

I too would consider the X-Plane modeling more advanced, but it does have its drawbacks. Fluid dynamics needs very precise data on the exact model of the wing in use. This kind of data is lacking in MS FS models, which would make it very hard to port the currently existing library of aircraft over to the new sim. Also, the process of accurately bringing flight characteristics from real life into the sim using fluid dynamics is very hard. You more or less have to tweak the wing profiles to tune the flight model. With the MSFS system of lookup tables, although it's basically "fake", it's far easier to tune the flightmodel to how you want the aircraft to behave. Fluid dynamics will probably result in more realistic behavior, but given a well designed lookup-table aircraft in a sophisticated modern simulator, I doubt you will be able to tell the difference.

My preference goes out to fluid dynamics, but I understand the implications of this approach and I believe that's why aerosoft is currently looking at the "old" method. I do however feel that this simulator should not restrict the physics as much as MSFS has always done. I would say that any propulsion should be an option. I like the way the Orbiter simulator handles this. I think that ballistic flight using rockets should be possible in the new simulator, and earth orbit should be achievable. If the physics are done correctly, there could very well be car or boat addon vehicles. Even if these are not a goal for the initial release of the simulator, a well designed physics system could allow on the fly switching of a vehicle class, so special physics characteristics could be inserted by addon developers.

Interesting post. I must say that as long as the flight model is as realistic as possible, I don't care which modeling is used, but I do believe X-Plane modeling to be more realistic. To be honest, from the start I haven't liked the idea of being able to port existing aircraft into the new sim. The reason for this is that I don't want the new sim to be held back by MSFS; MSFS should be a thing of the past. I believe that this new sim needs to be truly new, not an improved version of FSX. In my opinion, the number one priority of the new sim should be a realistic flight model, an area where MSFS fell sadly short.

[Saikrishna 0]

For approaches

• Include the ability to easily create curved approaches, such as for KLAS.
  
• When using ILS approach, ATC requests me to go lower than the glide slope. (Ex.: When ATC tells me to descend to 3,000 ft, I descend to 3,000 ft. When ATC clears me for the approach, I find that the glide slope is far above me, sometimes 2,000-3,000 ft above me. I either have to climb to that altitude or wait until the G/S is at my altitude then enter. It would be better if the G/S is a few hundred feet above/below me.)
  
• Include changes in runway landing. (Ex.: If ATC says "Expect runway 27L," and there is a lot of AI landing on that runway, or for some weather reason, ATC should change to another runway and tell me something along the lines of "Due to weather, expect runway 14.")
  
• When ATC suggests an ILS approach, include transitions. (Ex.: If arriving at a major airport and ATC assigns a runway and ILS approach, include a transition for the ILS depending on the user's plane.) If this is similar to SID, then include that and STAR.
  
  
  For Emergency landings
  
  • When a emergency occurs on a aircraft, include the ability to change the transponder to various codes, such as 7700, which lets ATC know there is an emergency aboard and directs the plane to the nearest airport with a long enough runway.
    
  • Also, if the engine catches fire, then include fire coming out of the engines. Show the damage.
    
  • If the plane is overspeed at a low altitude, then show the engine catching fire, or the wings ripping off (maybe).
    
  • When landing due to a emergency, there should be police cars, fire engines, and ambulance, depending on the emergency.
    

[metamarty 0]

Interesting post. I must say that as long as the flight model is as realistic as possible, I don't care which modeling is used, but I do believe X-Plane modeling to be more realistic. To be honest, from the start I haven't liked the idea of being able to port existing aircraft into the new sim. The reason for this is that I don't want the new sim to be held back by MSFS; MSFS should be a thing of the past. I believe that this new sim needs to be truly new, not an improved version of FSX. In my opinion, the number one priority of the new sim should be a realistic flight model, an area where MSFS fell sadly short.

I'm with you on that one. If it were my call, I would throw out anything we have and really start from scratch. Businesswise however, it would be a strange move for Aerosoft to create a product that, when successful in replacing the FS franchise, would automatically remove the market for all of the products they have already invested in. Keeping compatibility will significantly lower the required investment.

One might argue however that in the very least, some tuning will be required anyway for aircraft to work in the simulator. I don't think it is technically possible to create a simulator with flightmodeling that eats FSX aircraft without modification and give them exactly the same behaviour as in FSX, so it might as well be an idea to see what amount of investment would be required for adding airfoil information to the models and run it through fluid dynamics flightmodelling.

As for the legacy scenery/aircraft system in FSX, I would personally rewrite it using up to date technology and formats, with the idea in mind that it should be possible for the existing products (BGL scenery) to be converted to this format by using external software in an automated way. I would not chose to retain the current format with all its restrictions. When this conversion technology is successful, it should even be possible to put it inside new installer code that takes an FSX Aerosoft product and, after convertion, installs it into the new simulator environment.

[wyoming 2]

I too would consider the X-Plane modeling more advanced, but it does have its drawbacks. Fluid dynamics needs very precise data on the exact model of the wing in use. This kind of data is lacking in MS FS models, which would make it very hard to port the currently existing library of aircraft over to the new sim. Also, the process of accurately bringing flight characteristics from real life into the sim using fluid dynamics is very hard. You more or less have to tweak the wing profiles to tune the flight model. With the MSFS system of lookup tables, although it's basically "fake", it's far easier to tune the flightmodel to how you want the aircraft to behave. Fluid dynamics will probably result in more realistic behavior, but given a well designed lookup-table aircraft in a sophisticated modern simulator, I doubt you will be able to tell the difference.

My preference goes out to fluid dynamics, but I understand the implications of this approach and I believe that's why aerosoft is currently looking at the "old" method. I do however feel that this simulator should not restrict the physics as much as MSFS has always done. I would say that any propulsion should be an option. I like the way the Orbiter simulator handles this. I think that ballistic flight using rockets should be possible in the new simulator, and earth orbit should be achievable. If the physics are done correctly, there could very well be car or boat addon vehicles. Even if these are not a goal for the initial release of the simulator, a well designed physics system could allow on the fly switching of a vehicle class, so special physics characteristics could be inserted by addon developers.

Tables or vectors? I don't know but I always wondered whether it would be possible to plug a program into a form of inertial platform to register the accelerations in all axes in relation to control input and perhaps even turbulences. That kind of technology was hard to find years ago but today..? I don't know.

The point is that it would give some sort of objective reference to the real world and some sort of "subjectivity" for the aircraft being modelled.

[lillebix 1]

http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9

This link shows that its more the cfg file, than the shape of the model, that makes the best

behavior in the "sim air".

Michael (Denmark)

[woofalong 7]

Some may not like this idea. But im a big fan of the Ipod and Apple's way of dealing with songs/addons to it.

Im thinking that in conjunction with the launch of this new simulator, A downloader program could be installed aswell. I hate having to do a mini research project just to find the airport im looking for. Perhaps Aerosoft could launch a program which has all the addons for your flight sim going through it. This would surely reduce piracy if then, it had to go through your account to activate it. Just like in Itunes- each song is liscenced to one person on 5 or so computers.

This program could download, install, modify and uninstall addons all in one place. It would also make things a lot easier on the hardrive, making things a lot less messier than they are on my computer. Bits of airplanes and scenery everywhere on my hardrive at the moment!

I'd love to think that all the addons for this flight simulator were in once place. instead of having to search around. Im not saying that you should charge companies to put it on your program, I think it should be free liscening, or a VERY small cost to keep development running, and healthy competition!

Any feedback on that idea?

[Jan-Paul Schuchna 24]

Hi,

another major point are updatable magnetic variation datas.

The FS9 magvar file dates back to 1996. Now we have 2009. In 13 years the have been significant changes to the magnetic variation.

Jan-Paul

[Guest Dag]

Hi there,

I have not exactly followed the threads on the new sim but I have the following whishes:

- Light/self shadowing that varies with cloud conditions.

- Terrain textures that load quickly even when flying fast jets. The current FSX state is highly unacceptable.

- A GPU-driven graphic engine. GPUs nowadays are incredibly powerful, let's take advantage of this.

- RWY braking action simulation, eg. when dew point and air temperature are close to each other, when below zero, you usually have frosty conditions and reduced braking action. Connect this with cross winds and you can have a real challenge.

Best from a former FSX beta tester, a frustrated one too... :-)

[Mikethebike 0]

Anyway, adding to my previous posts, I think to have the most possible realism is the ultimate goal.

Flight prep. etc. all like in a real plane. If you don't do that correctly, like in real planes, you go down etc.

Flying zones etc.

I think you should put all back and implement the ultimate REAL simulation first. All eye candy etc. comes later and

maybe even leave that to addons.

Version 1 consisting only of a Flying school adhering to the absolut realism.- Yea I'd buy such....

[Dan2152 0]

I still like the idea of the combat aspect intergrated into the system as well so that it is a regular flight sim and a combat flight sim. I know that many people say that this would ruin the game because on multiplayer 'if you are on a transatlantic flight and suddenly a couple of fighters pop up and shot you down then this would ruin the point of what you are doing' however why not have specific servers so that the host can select whether weaponry is allowed or to block it, meaning that the 'weapons/missiles' would not be able to fire and so have no effect on the other gamers who are simulating regular flights. The reason why i am so keen on the idea of regular flight sim and combat flight sim being intergrated is because i feel that the CFS's are not as realistic and having the two together in one game opens up many more possiblities.

At the very least i would like to see 'air combat training' systems intergrated, that are similar to real world military training where the aircraft which are taking part in the 'exercise' are fitted with air combat training pods which simulate target locks and missile firing and send out signals to the targeted aircraft as to whether it has been hit/'killed'. If a system like this was modelled into the simulation then the dogfight fanatics (like me, lol) could engage in realistic training exercises without disturbing or effecting the other simmer who are enjoying there sight seeing GA flights or there long haul airline flights.

You could model in this system by the developers designing an extra model for there military aircraft (e.g aerosoft F-16) which encorporates this systems and allow it to particpate in the traing exercises. Also if you are 'killed' you could lose control of the ability to 'shoot' and so effectively have 'lost' the fight.