FS11 Wishlist- What would you like to see in FS11?

[ZeRoLOVE]

What i want is a wider variaty of aircraft to chose from.im not talkin GA of comercial arliners,im talkin military power,and maby some warbirds and some more helis.    

[IndioBlack]

You can actually get quite a lot of Military Aircraft now as third party add-ons, but they're all firing blanks.
Which is pathetic really.
I mean, if you're a pacifist, you shouldn't be flying Military aircraft anyway.

What we really want is aircraft that can fire bullets, drop bombs, and blow things up. Like in LOMAC.

[Fly2e]

I guess there is no reason to keep this a sticky as there will be no FS11...  ::)

[crazypotatos]

more default planes

default military planes

REASONABLE system requirements

[flyboy 28]

What we really want is aircraft that can fire bullets, drop bombs, and blow things up. Like in LOMAC.

So go buy LOMAC.

[IndioBlack]

I did buy LOMAC.
I certainly didn't waste my time on a pansy civilian simulator like FSX.

[Fozzer]

The day that the M.S. General/Commercial Aviation Flight Simulator series descends into a full-blown Military, War Simulator, is the day I abandon it completely!......!

M.S. Combat Flight Simulator, and similar programs, was designed for that purpose!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004... 8-)...!

[Hagar]

The big attraction of the MSFS series for me is that anyone can make it into what they want it to be. Except for those who haven't discovered the wonderful world of addons no two people will have the same version of a specfic sim. I'm certain that my own version of FS9 is very different from anyone else's. Nobody is forced to have anything they don't want but if someone wants to fire the guns or drop bombs I don't understand the objections. The same goes for cars & boats that all help to make it a realistic experience.

CFS was a development of FS98 with advanced graphics & features that would be used in later versions of FS, like the AI aircraft. The AI Traffic in FS uses exactly the same principle but wasn't introduced in the civil sim until FS2002 was released some three years later. This was probably the biggest forward leap in the history of MSFS. They completely lost the plot with FS2000 which was a step backward in so many respects. Other features like the DVC & multi-resolution models were first developed in CFS2 & it took the FS developers a long time to catch up. These features were considered 'new' by some people years after FS9 was released & even now some FS aircraft are being released without a VC. Moving aircraft carriers that you can land on were also introduced with CFS2. I believe this was finally possible in FSX.

MSFS has always claimed to be 'as real as it gets' but there has always been a section of the community that wants nothing to do with the combat side. Like it or not, the real world includes military aircraft that can fire guns & drop bombs. They also have to do everything that the civil aircraft do. If the developers forgot their supposed differences & all worked together on one real-life flight simulator I'm pretty certain that our hobby would be even more advanced than it is now.

[macca22au]

What a fascinating duality of views.  Surely for those who want shooters rather than civilian planes it should be possible to blend CFS into FSX, almost as a complete add-on or vice versa.

Meanwhile those of us into civilian flying would hope that the next generation of scenery designers would challenge themselves to improve on the scenery and autogen complexity ( or the design of the components) to improve performance in FSX.  Big challenge, but solve that and who cares about FSnext.

Already there are boats with VC that one can pilot around waterfront cities, why not Trains using the same scenery generating engine!

So what about a functional boat that, in my country can be put into the waters of Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart, Port Phillip, resail the America's Cup in Perth, windsail off Darwin, not forgetting their greqt nude beach.

Hey we have a great base for a flourishing industry that thinks outside the square.  The scenery engine is the core, the centre, the mother lode, around which an enormous amount of talent can take it into many unthought of directions.  After all, look into simobjects and you see that airplanes are only one choice of many,  Imagine, it would be easy to pilot a ship into NY, then command the tug that pushes you into your berth, then fly the helicopter to La Guardia, and finally captain the jet to your destination through sleet ice and snow.

The worlds at our feet, so lets go, and welcome the world of other sim object devs who will work around the same scenery engine and SDK.

Who cares about FS11 and hormone shifts in MS?

[IndioBlack]

Well my point is that if FSX is a civilian flight simulator, then why is it so full of military aircraft? Why are there so many third-party military aircraft add-ons? All of which are firing blanks. FSX has rendered them flaccid, impotent, and metaphorically speaking, performed a vasectomy on them.

If Military aircraft are to be a part of FSX and the next FS beyond, then the least Microsoft could do is allow the aircraft to be able to destroy targets on Military ranges, and engage in training exercises. Then people like Fozzer could pretend there are no wars, and people who wanted to fly Military aircraft could fly them the way they are supposed to be flown.

I really dislike that negative attitude some people have, where they say something shouldn't be included because they personally don't want it. Everything should be included, and then you have the option of choosing not to do something you don't like.

[Fozzer]

There is no real problem with introducing realistic War Planes, etc, with realistic shooting and bombing facilitates built in, for Solo, pre-organised Warfare, in on-line, Multiplayer flights...

The problem/annoyance arises when it is mixed with on-line, Multiplayer, General and Commercial flight activities.

During our various Multiplayer Civilian flights over the years, here and on other General Aviation Sites, we are often confronted with gung-ho Pilots in War Planes, etc, who would excitedly remove us from the skies if they had the ability to do so...which is not generally allowed in real life... ...!

If I want to get involved with shooting and bombing everything in sight, with my on-line Chums, I fire up my Combat Flight Simulator and have loads of fun with like minded individuals... ...!

..otherwise, I/we, would rather not have our on-line Civilian Flights spoiled by little GI Johnny and his Browning Machine Guns trained on us!...;!...

(1) Commercial + General Aviation Flight Simulator.
(2) War Combat Flight Simulator.

Different simulators for different purposes... ...!

I'm afraid that my experiences and observations with real warfare in my 75 years, has rather spoilt my enjoyment of "fighting" activities... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF, with FS 9 for on-line, Civilian flights...and CFS for other on-line, brain-numbing activities!.....!

.... ...!

[Brett_Henderson]

I don't think the MSFS series would have become near as popular, if combat simulation were ever a part of it. The ability to blow things up and shoot things down appeals to a completely different type user.

I for one, would have probably dismissed it as more of a game, if I had seen bombs and guns... and would have never become a dedicated user and freeware designer. BOOM, BANG and KABLOOEY have their place.. just not in a civilian (civilized) flight simulator. The whole mood and attitude of the community would be different.

MS knew this, and have kept the two entites seperate for good reasons.

[Hagar]

I don't think the MSFS series would have become near as popular, if combat simulation were ever a part of it. The ability to blow things up and shoot things down appeals to a completely different type user.

I'm one of the hated CFS community that has been known to enjoy blowing things up. I also think I've made more than my fair share of contributions to FS. It was my experience with CFS that allowed me to do so.

[Brett_Henderson]

I don't think the MSFS series would have become near as popular, if combat simulation were ever a part of it. The ability to blow things up and shoot things down appeals to a completely different type user.

I'm one of the hated CFS community that has been known to enjoy blowing things up. I also think I've made more than my fair share of contributions to FS. It was my experience with CFS that allowed me to do so.

Nobody is hated

[IndioBlack]

Well the problem with Combat Flight Simulator 3 is that Microsoft have abandoned it, and instead concentrated on FS2004 and then FSX.
So CFS3 fans are obviously a little upset that this broken Sim isn't going any further. And then they see all those lovely military aircraft in FSX, that have been spayed, and wonder what Microsoft is thinking of.

I think those gung ho pilots you see flying online must be jumping about with frustration because their military aircraft look good, but are completely impotent. I'm surprised they don't fly over and ram you.
So if Microsoft would just give them some live ammo, I'm sure they'd go over to the Military lobby and dogfight each other. Leaving you to go to the Civilian lobby and monitor the autopilot on your Cessna.