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

[Daube]

One thing that is not clear or at least I have not read anything about it on Phil blog at this point is backwards compatibility and to tell you the truth, if I had to choose between having better features with better perf and compatibility with FSX, I would say NO to compatibility and let the ALL new shine in

I would like to say something important about this subject.
A friend of mine works in Zurich, in a company that builds professionnal simulators for trainning of professionnal pilots. Since not so long ago, they started investigating the FSX modelling to produce payware high quality models. That's for the context.

This guy explained me that out of the FS world, there exists a unified, globally unique aircraft modelling format called OpenFlight.

I strongly believe that ACES should definitely shift to this new format, which is common to all the other professionnal sims, and FORGET ANY BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY !

[Mitch.]

Hmm...

More imersive airports, FSX was a good effort but quite generic, something along the lines of AES. Perhaps.

A brilliantly modeled/sounding Lockheed Constellation. All models.

[krigl]

Oh no, not another... oh wait, it's Official.

I'd like to see Aces concentrate on a new engine etc etc from the ground up that as far as visuals go can generate and depict good detail close up and grade it further out to keep performance okay, as well as improve flight dynamics in areas that need it. I'd be prepared to say goodbye to backwards compatibility IF THE RESULT WAS WORTH IT and the default aircraft were as great as some of the FSX ones are. AND - ACES developed a user-friendly programme set that allowed both freeware and payware developers to get to grips with the new system quickly - this is crucial!

Regarding looks and content:
I'd like to see better textures (Ground Environment style) with some real local feeling - like Indonesian autogen doesn't look the same as Chicago, a better visually and more user-configurable weather interface (REX or FEX or AS style), lots of local content like the great detailed sceneries for FSX (Rio is one of my favourites) and more aircraft like the default Beaver, Goose, Merlin, F18 which are really great to fly.

Perhaps Aces could extend cooperation with external sources to bring this mainly visual-enhancing content into the sim, out of the box, so they can concentrate on the bare bones of the sim. I wouldn't hope for the sim to look like Crysis, I'd be happy for it to look exactly like FSX if it would run smoothly. However, more detail, more content, still more immersion would be awesome.

Regarding other features, I'd be particularly interested in:

1. Better flight planning interface so it's possible to really plan something thoroughly using FS only using the map in there, do calculations needed, get distances and bearings from one place to another by clicking on the map (like SkyVector), see magnetic variation etc. Obviously within the limitations of the FS map, I wouldn't expect en-route charts for the whole world or anything.

[th3flyboy]

PhysX for the physics of the whole world and all physics in general
the beginning of making it both a civil flight simulator and a combat flight simulator, at least the level of combat flight sim that lomac:Fc is, but prefferably falcon 4.0
PMDG quality default aircraft
Better ground textures
cooperation with people like flight1 and others to integrate out of the box things like activesky and gex, along with utx and fex, and accurate landclasses, and extreme detail terrain mesh (around 1m global) and finally things like more detailed airports and real ai, as in integrate something like mytraffic x.
finally, I want to see better flight planning, with more realistic flight plans.

[TRflyman01]

Just three simple things:
Improved flight planning.
More realistic ATC & IFR flying, mainly not telling you to go a certain heading and as soon as you get there sending you right back to the previous heading, again and again.
And most of all, make it playable on my outdated comp., still using single core and even an AGP card.

[NickN]

And most of all, make it playable on my outdated comp., still using single core and even an AGP card.

Not going to happen

by the time FS11 comes around AGP will more than likely be dead and buried

it already is by FSX standards

The autogen and scenery will saturate a high speed PCIe buss


Never expect Aces to design for a 3-5 year old system. Although I do see them making HUGE changes in perf with FS11 as comapred to FSX you wont be playing it on a 5 year old AGP system with any fun


You can not make MORE and have it run on LESS, does not compute... but I do think they will take further strides to the core and base software running on slower systems without all the bells and whistles

[TRflyman01]

And most of all, make it playable on my outdated comp., still using single core and even an AGP card.

Not going to happen

by the time FS11 comes around AGP will more than likely be dead and buried

it already is by FSX standards

The autogen and scenery will saturate a high speed PCIe buss


Never expect Aces to design for a 3-5 year old system. Although I do see them making HUGE changes in perf with FS11 as comapred to FSX you wont be playing it on a 5 year old AGP system with any fun


You can not make MORE and have it run on LESS, does not compute... but I do think they will take further strides to the core and base software running on slower systems without all the bells and whistles

I know, I was just dreaming, although I am somewhat satisfied with my perfomance now, just have to swap settings around depending on what type of flying i want, ie, less traffic with denser scenery, etc. I can live with 15 to 20 fps.

[an-225]

Man, so many requests for aircraft.

Let PMDG produce the PMDG quality aircraft.

Let Aces work on a bug free simulator, that is more immersive than ever before too.

Who cares what aircraft it comes with, if it updates ATC, graphics, flight modelling etc. then we have a solid stepping stone to build upon with the aircraft that you would like.

[Boikat]

Which brings up, once again, an easier to understand and learn SDK so that all those "I wish I had a (Name of aircraft here)" could be made, *especially* if FSXI is not backwards compatable with earlier FS add-ons.

[Daube]

Man, so many requests for aircraft, I think I might just remove the cover of my PSU while its running and...

Let PMDG produce the PMDG quality aircraft.

Let Aces work on a bug free simulator, that is more immersive than ever before too.

Who cares what aircraft it comes with, if it updates ATC, graphics, flight modelling etc. then we have a solid stepping stone to build upon with the aircraft that you would like.

I agree 50%.
"Let PMDG make PMDG-quality aircraft", I'm ok with that.
"Who cares which planes comes with it" I do not agree at all. Default planes are important. Let's say I want less default planes, but I want them COMPLETE.
The last thing I do when I have just buyed a game and the new computer to make it run, is spending money AGAIN to get something to fly...

[an-225]

"Who cares what aircraft it comes with" infers that there should just be enough aircraft to sample each type. Piston Prop, Turboprop, aerobatic, short-haul, long-haul, helicopter, seaplane, amphibian, fly-by-wire etc.  :)

However, the default aircraft, as they are now, already provide enough to fly, with functioning avionics suites don't they? This means that the user can hop in and fly, if they have an understanding of how a plane flies of course.

The extra money spent, is for complex systems, and the user will have to dedicate time to learn these systems, which isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Imagine, you had a plane, PMDG grade as default, and it was just to much for you to handle. You just want to manage basic avionic systems, and fly from A - B.

It wouldn't make sense to pay for an add-on that waters things down, now would it?

[Rich H]

Well, include a space shuttle with the game, it's a bit annoying if you are able to go into space, but no spacecraft to actually fly. A flight planner which can include more than 2 airports, and a way to get a flight plan from your current position, not from another airport.

[Hagar]

"Who cares what aircraft it comes with" infers that there should just be enough aircraft to sample each type. Piston Prop, Turboprop, aerobatic, short-haul, long-haul, helicopter, seaplane, amphibian, fly-by-wire etc.  :)

However, the default aircraft, as they are now, already provide enough to fly, with functioning avionics suites don't they? This means that the user can hop in and fly, if they have an understanding of how a plane flies of course.

MSFS was always based on an open-architecture structure so end-users can create their own addons for it. This is one of the reasons it's still popular. It is also the prime reason for the existence of Simviation.

Addon aircraft all use flight dynamics based on the default aircraft so there has to be a good selection of different types to use as templates. We could do with more types, not less.

Unfortunately every improved feature makes creating addons more complicated & what used to be an enjoyable hobby is now aimed more & more at the payware developers. I don't think the suits at Microsoft ever understood the principle of Freeware. You only have to look at the number of fully compatible aircraft created specifically for FSX since it was released to know what I'm talking about. CFS3 is a similar story & an example of what things will be like if there are any major changes to the structure of the new version.

[stevehookem]

Aces: Please do not build FS11 for any system that is old. I want a FS that requires a new computer with the latest graphics and CPU. It's the only way to push it forward!

That said, make us not have to think about frame rates as much! I look at my son playing PS3 with amazing graphics and fluid movement---never a thought about frame rates---and wonder why FS can't work like that.

Why can't it?

[NickN]

Aces: Please do not build FS11 for any system that is old. I want a FS that requires a new computer with the latest graphics and CPU. It's the only way to push it forward!

That said, make us not have to think about frame rates as much! I look at my son playing PS3 with amazing graphics and fluid movement---never a thought about frame rates---and wonder why FS can't work like that.

Why can't it?

Simple

With a PS you are looking at a program that uses local maps.. in other words a game does not load up a memory and CPU with the world and then calculate everything going on around you in the way a simulation does. A game is a very small and tiny area rendered and calculated

FSX would run the same on a PS that it does on a tower, probably worse becaue the PS does not have 4 gigs of memory in it and expandable CPU/FSB ability

you cannot compare a local map game to a word simualtor