Simviation Forums

Since there will be no FS11, imagine that Microsoft will start from scratch with the FS franchise, what would you like to see it accomplish & what features would you like to see?




My number one wish is to combine the CFS series with the FS series, this kills two birds with one stone, and allows for greater multiplay flexibility & fun.

A decent selection of realworld traffic and a more natural ATC would be nice as well.

New FS1! New FS1! New FS1 for Apple 1 and Commodore 64!

J/K. A CFS/FS game would be great, and if there will be any FS11 - Please Microsoft, less resource hogs!

And some frame-rate friendly default AI that isn't all imaginary airlines, and some real airline paints would be great too. Boring to download one repaint after another.

CFS and FS would be great

and a damage model for ALL the planes with weapon systems (just me though)

and i wouldnt mind to see some how the graphics be good for everyone even if you dont have a high end system like i do

I hear a lot of requests for real world airlines - but, Microsoft has to acquire licensing for those airlines. This could drive the price of the simulator up exponentially.

Provide the base flight sim "world system" that defines the core physics of the world and the world's graphics (at about the level of FSX but fix the landclass and textures), and also provides totally realistic aircraft systems possibilities, with an interface that allows the end user good access (like the FSUIPC offsets......but way more of them to reflect almost all potential aircraft and environment variables).

-A more realistic flight model (better representaion of spins, ground-effect, turbulence, and how the model copes with crosswinds)

-System management; startup to shutdown, including abuse-induced failures (wear-and-tear accumulating)

-Built-in, flexible, programable, multi-monitor support for those wishing to build elaborate sim-pits

-Real-world weather that more accurately replicates what a real-world briefing would have you planning to fly through

I think we're bust inventing the Level D flight full motion simulator at a price tag of multiple millions of Dollars!  

best,

..................john

PS:  Good ones Brett!

I am assuming that FS-Next will run on the same .cfg premises as FSX.

So, I would like a variable in the aircraft.cfg, called thrust_vectoring. It can be set to either 0, 1 or 2.

When set to 0 - no thrust vectoring.

When set to 1 - you have 2D thrust vectoring. The vertical axis of the engines is now linked to the elevator control. A parameter may be added to the .cfg to define how much vectoring is available.

When set to 2 - you have 3D thrust vectoring. Same principle as above, only you have the ability to yaw/roll with the engines.

This does not give the simulator the ability to handle VTOL...so perhaps a variable of 3 is required in which thrust vectoring is linked to each notch of flaps? Or an independent control (Engine Nozzle Down/Up, so that VTOL may be controlled independently).

Just the way I would handle it.

Thrust vectoring is an item on my wishlist ever since FS9... however, I've come up with a better "wish" that might incorporate this and also increase the realism for the flight modeling altogether

Wish #1. Physics Based Flight Modeling
This would solve the whole problem... by treating aircraft engines as Force generators under a physics API such as Havok or Bullet, one could easily direct these force vectors to wherever desired, AND change it's orientation in runtime.
Also, by treating wings and control surfaces as force generators as well and simulating the entire aircraft as a physics object, you could have a much better implementation of the forces acting on a plane during flight, and much more easily model better stalls and spins, damage modeling, and all sorts of general improvements

The .cfg file now could be used only to define flight tuning parameters such as thrust output, fuel capacity and the like, and the placement of the forces could be done on the 3D program itself. Alternatively, if the placement of force vectors were to be done through the .cfg file, it would be necessary to implement support for hierarchy control inside the file, so we could "tie" these vectors to geometry parts... Once these parts are animated, the force vectors would follow... No complicated math required (other than the math being done inside the physics API)

HarverteR,

Your option 3 is sort of what us simpit builders are already doing.....but yours would be in a more "designed that way" manner.  Nice.

Maybe each "module" you mention would be able to be assigned a "core" on a milti-core processor.  So a four core processor would handle each module rather effectively.

best,

.................john

PS:  I'm right with you on the physics based engine too.

fs pasanger kinda of thing would be cool.. or kinda like a mini game in the game where you can run and operate an airline company. with in ingame paint program that you can make your own company livery . I think that would be neet seeing some of you company planes flying around as AI too. And you can get a hub and buy facility's all in one sim.

[quote]each "module" you mention would be able to be assigned a "core" on a milti-core processor.

Cloud Shadows!

It would be nice if the next sim would allow us to import the free and payware that is already in circulation. You know, so the add ons could still multiply before the new sim came out.

IDK, for me at least, I'd be willing to give up on backward compatibility to have a completely reworked FS...

But I think this might be a touchy subject, so I won't push  ;)

Cheers