Mistakes in FS2004

[Katahu]

They should also allow users to land or ride on brides.

[Lurch16th]

hmmm

[Saratoga]

I gotta give M$ credit for what they pulled off, the sim is pretty damn good from where I sit. It's impressive what they did considering where it was 10 years ago. Look at the AutoGen for example, that is genius in itself and adds a wonderful level of realism to flight. I am most impressed.
On the other hand, I wish they could get the rivers and major roads in FS right. Not too hard, they could pull it off. I wish the border of Texas, i.e. the Red River, would actually follow the right path.
AND I WISH THEY WOULD ACTUALLY GET THE PANELS RIGHT!!! They made the stupidest errors starting in FS2000 with them and they are still wrong!

[logjam]

You're right. The panels, in my mind are the most important thing in a sim. Kudos to all those that have made accurate ones. As for the rivers, I always laugh at the way rivers flow up and down hills, missing the valleys.

[FS_Pilot]

In my opinion Fly! II has one of the best designed panel i have ever seen in a flight simulator it is a pity the scenery doesn't match the quality of the panels. FS has some great add-on scenery. Ms should employ some of these people.

[Brute]

Agree FlyII is great but the scenery is :-/
If only M$ , The FlyII team, and X-plane joined up and put toghether each sims greater quality

[beaky]

They should also allow users to land or ride on brides.

As long as the grooms aren't armed, I'm all for it!!!

[Saratoga]

Here's something they need to fix. If you are like me and spend a lot of your time in the southern US, for me mainly North Texas, you would notice there are huge fields of plain grass texture. I am talking 20 square miles of one field, totally unrealistic. What's worse is they are all around my main flying airport, which is a PITA to say the least. I dun like it. Other than that, I wish they would get the registration numbers right, fix some of the larger errors (gaping holes, etc.), and I don't believe it's too much to ask to get real airliners. If they can get Boeing and Cessna to cooperate, they can get AA and Delta as well. Dun see why they wouldn't, it's publicity for them.

[beefhole]

From M$s standpoint, there's no reason for them to put the time and money into getting real airlines if people like Ultimate AI, PAI, etc. etc., are just going to come out with high-quality freeware and payware packages. I prefer they put their time and energy into something that the fs community can't fix, like the core game itself.

But I agree with you on the fields, or at least I sort of do, they need new and more varied sat images, cos it gets repetitive at FL 350.

[GWSimulations]

If only M$ , The FlyII team, and X-plane joined up and put toghether each sims greater quality

The Orbiter team too, that's a good sim.

[Saratoga]

beefhole I am with you 100%. I can testify that when I am cruising along in the mid-30s, I look out the window, there isn't the same textures repeating off into the wild blue yonder. That's one of the things that keeps us airline pilots entertained, the scenery down below. And in the sim, flying over the same textures, again and again and again gets really old really fast...(makes me wanna get the Cub out and get low and slow )

Actually, is it just me or does World Travel Airlines, especially the DC-3, seem to be suggesting American Airlines. The retro scheme of AA has some strong reseblences to the scheme on that DC-3.

[TacitBlue]

I thought of something they should fix. Its not really a mistake, but it would be nice if they had more support for VTOL aircraft. I think they should give you the option to put thrust direction on an axis. That would make vehicles like the Moller Skycar and the Harrier a lot easier to fly.

[Katahu]

That's correct.

Adjusting the core game is M$'s job. Our job is to adjust the little and major that can be fixed by any of us [ex: textures, sounds, terrain, airports, aircraft, etc.].

I have an idea here.

Sony decided to drop the proposed PS3 idea and has sticked with the world-famous PS2. Reason: To expand upon it and improve it. Take the expansion bay for example. Besides, many people are already used to the PS2.

M$ should do the same after it releases FS2006. That way, our computers wil be able to catch up with it. M$ provides the patches and we provide the aircraft, scenery, modules, sounds, panels, textures, etc.

[Saratoga]

Support for VTOL, I like that. I also wish they would get some of the simple but stupid mistakes out. Leaving gates out is an example, and leaving out major things that anyone could notice. The Trinity River, for example, which runs through Dallas, Texas, is a huge landmark around here than governs travel and it a useful thing for pilots to follow. It doesn't exist in the FS world. Things like that, major landmarks that are missing, are really sad. The only other things I can think of, well I know this doesn't apply to a lot of people, but I wish they would make the Panama Canal actually work. Now it's blocked by the scenery, but the sudden 25-50 foot jumps in the terrain are annoying for those of us who find the Panama Canal to be a fun thing to fly around. Fix the mountain climbing rivers, that would help.

[TacitBlue]

Katahu, I like that Idea. A lot of games dont have lots of sequals, instead they have xpansions that after enough of them, its like a whole new game. These companies that do this make more money too, because the expansions cost almost as much as the original game did when it was new, but not so much that people would stop buying them.