Simviation Forums

ok, for the last few days I tryed to get a harrier that could hoover, and in the process I realize how limited fs2004 is!

I mean you can't have thrust changeable vectors, you can't have two engines in two diferent directions, you can't have runways or decks(carriers) with an angle!!

is this as real as it gets? I've been playing fs sims since fs4 back in the early 90's and that was version number 4!! they had 20 years to add things and they still didn't add this??

this days almost every new jet fighter has vectorial nozzles some to a greater extend (harrie, f-35) others less (Eurofighter,f22,etc), and that's the way it will go!vectorial nozzles that make planes do stuff that 20 years ago would seem impossible!!

will we have to stop having real behaving planes? and what about angle decks and runways? who can tell me of a runway that has an 0

No surprise here.

However, some food for thought - and these are my own opinions:

The Flight Simulator is a focused towards civil flight simulation.  So that the simulation is geared towards the "traditional" aircraft configurations.  Vectored thrust, etc, woudl be more appropriate (at this time) to a military simulation.

Having said that, I do wish that the current limitation on a maximum of four engines of the same type could be improved to a mix of engines and more than four.  This would pave the way for jet-augmented aircraft (admittedly - military aircraft like the C-123, C-95, B-36),
and multi-engined planes like the Brabazon, AN-225.

Overall, FS is quite a good piece of software for less than US$100.00

I'm not saying it's not a good sim!It's  a great sim, and I love it!I just think that this particular things are not that dificult to implement  and it would open an huge window for modelers! there's also civil version of the v-22 coming out, and that too needs vectorial thrust!
I love this sim, just trying to make it better

!I just think that this particular things are not that dificult to implement

Are you a software designer?

If not, I don't think you realize how time consuming, let alone difficult it can be to program what seems to be simple things

Are you a software designer?

If not, I don't think you realize how time consuming, let alone difficult it can be to program what seems to be simple things

I agree...there is probably a good reason why MS programmers decided to not include the thrust vector issue mentioned above.

I miss many things in FS, far too many to bring up here, but most of them are about the Boeings, which are a joke in Flight simulator.
When flying the default commercial jets, you're not running a simulator, you're playing an arcade game... :-/

I agree with Andrew. Sometimes it seems the simplest things turn out the hardest to program. That being said I also realize that with a sim costing upwards of $50 a pop should be worth some extra effort in the programming department. If MS knew that a lot of people would prefer a feature it might give them extra incentive to produce the feature.

I haven't had too much trouble however with the things mentioned but of course those features aren't too prominent in the planes I like to fly. Sure there are some limitations but "As real as it gets" doesn't mean it's as real as can be or even as real as it's possible to be, it simply means that so far MS Flight Sims are ahead of the competition. You can't find a more realistic simulator. Are there some things that are missing? Of course but those features aren't available in other sims or if they are other features we take for granted in MS Flight Sims aren't available in the others.

There's a lot of things I'd love to see in the next version. MS isn't huge on listening to it's customers but if anyone wants to petition them for features they would like to see, it wouldn't hurt.

As for the hovering Harrier, I believe the current one for ACOF is supposed to do a decent imitation of  a hover. Actually Harriers prefer not to hover unless it's absolutely necessiary. Hovering costs a lot of fuel. Most Harriers usually use either a short field or normal takeoff and landing technique when possible.

I have to agree with Felix. It's true that there are all sorts of features we would all like to see but we each have different ideas on what those are. It's quite likely that some of these things are already possible. It needs some talented freeware developer to find them. This is the beauty of the open-architecture structure of the M$ sims & their main attraction for many users.

Personally, I think it's a shame that with CFS3 being in a completely different format the impetus for continuous development of FS as a whole has been lost. I could never understand why the CFS2 Ships were not included with FS2002/4 for use as "AI traffic". This seemed so obvious to me. The AI aircraft themselves use the same basic principle first introduced with CFS1. There are many other examples of features developed in CFS that are now commonplace in FS.

I seem to remember reading a quote about this very same issue.

I agree with Hyperion MS did not mean for this sim to be used for real pilot training. Its for those of us that have a love for flying and others to just sit and relieve some stress and have fun.

yes, I agree with all of you! I'm not trying to say that the sim doesn't work! It's very very very good, and if I didn't have it, I probably would spend only 1%  of the time I spend today in front of a computer!! I'm just saying that M$ could try to do a bit more of an effort! I mean besides the weather (wich is impressive), few thing changed from fs2k2, I mean a lot changed, but litle things!

no I'm not a designer, but I think that M$ with the money they have shouldn't have a big problem in resolving these issues! I know of a simulation being done by guys like us and they already have working vectorial nozzles http://www.thunder-works.com/about.htm.
besides, they keep making money with us, they don't print manuals anymore and the price is still rising. here in portugal fs2k2 pro is 86

I'm just saying that M$ could try to do a bit more of an effort!

You bought it.

MS did not mean for this sim to be used for real pilot training.

This is just one example of how it can be very useful.

[quote]Today, Flight Simulator is being used to help train pilots. The U.S. Navy issues Flight Simulator to its student pilots. As part of the Career Pilot Program at the FlightSafety International Academy in Vero Beach, FL, students must complete 27 hours of instruction in a Microsoft

If I might throw my own two cents in; the MSFS series especially FS9 - can be extremely useful both for pilots and for students.
NOT for flight training - 90 per cent of what one experiences in flight comes from you ears and butt, not your eyes. Flying is a very intuitive task.
But where the FS series helps is in teaching a pilot all those things that comes with time - the ability to multitask (read the map, communicate on-air while keeping the plane intact, etc.). It gives - or can give a basic working knowledge of flight instruments and procedures, should a student decide to use it for such. For myself; I've used the series frequently to aid my real-life flight.

I too use the flight sim as entertainment and a tool.  How many people actually write down what FS ATC tells you and remember it?  How many people hit the number command just to get the proper response to keep the flight moving?  I use my fly my virtual aircraft like I would my real aircraft.  I plan the same way, I practice writing the info ATC gives me, etc.  FS is a great tool and a whole lot of fun at the same time.  I think FS is as real as YOU make it.

I still think that MS could put in extra effort.

After all each year they simply build on an existing product and still charge the same sum of money.

If you consider how much FS has changed from its first ever release and then compare that with the changes over the past 4 years, its just a tad disappointing.

Its not that I hate it, but you have to agree that a few more enhancements could have shipped this (last) year.

After all, to succeed you need to give 110%