Fs2006

[The_Joker_Flyer]

When is FS2006 coming out anyway?  i cant wait to see what they have done with the textures and the new options, the settings, and most of all the planes!!!  Anyway... i think the new fs should have one or maybe even 2 fighter planes - to widen the options - and the rest commercial planes! (cos that's what it is all about!)

[Tweek]

It could come with no aircraft for all I care, I'm never going to use those default planes anyway.

You make a good point there, though I suppose for a fair few days, there would be absolutely no aircraft to fly! No one would bother buying the sim if there were no aircraft to fly Though they are very useful for the in-built lessons, and multiplayer flying.

[Calb]

EVERY choice on your list is invalid. It's all military hardware. FS is civilian -- always has been and likely always will be.

Cal (CYXX)

[Tweek]

EVERY choice on your list is invalid. It's all military hardware. FS is civilian -- always has been and likely always will be.

There's a "none of the above" choice aswell And I'm not gonna repeat my pro-military arguement again

[flyboy 28]

And what about taking the oppurtunity to include a Concorde? IMHO it was a glaring omittion from FS9.

Zaphod

Ever hear of FS2000?

[killerbunny]

Ever hear of FS2000?

Ok, but they didn't include it in FS2004.

[RollerBall]

And I'm not gonna repeat my pro-military arguement again

Don't know what it is but you'd be wasting your breath Tweek. If nothing else, MS know how to protect their market franchise - and as Cal said, FS has always been and is likely to remain non-military.

FS2004 like its predecessors is a 'flight simulator' and is targeted in the marketplace as such. That's why a large proportion of purchasers are of the more mature type. There are plenty of 'shoot-em-up' GAMES for the other end of the market and it would be the death knell of FS if it started to go in that direction. You might be surprised that folks like me have no more than a passing interest in the F18, the Mirage and many others. We're much more interested in classic aircraft, flying low and slow, procedures, SIDS, STARS, transitions and ILS approaches, challenging things that FS allows us to do at home in our own armchairs, rather than aimlessly blasting around the countryside in a totally uncontrolled way and imagining we're Tom Cruise.

Don't believe that MS see it like that? Is there a comprehensive flying tutorial system in LOMAC or any of the other military combat GAMES? I don't think so.

But in any case, for starters, every one on the list worth having is already available as a high quality 3rd party download - so what incentive can there possibly be for MS to waste time and money in creating the same ones as default aircraft which the majority of 'serious' FS fans would then delete.

Everyone knows that MS default aircraft with few exceptions are just not worth having - mirrored textures, undetailed models and all. They are only there to make FS into a 'basic package' as it's become clear over the years that MS's role in all this, as they know, is to create a vehicle for developers to develop. They are unlikely therefore to divert resources into creating aircraft models that could better be devoted to developing the FS engine - and that's historically where all of the significant developments have been made, and will continue to be in the future.

So this 'poll' is pretty meaningless and a waste of time really.

Just MHO, but there are an awful lot of people out there in all sorts of forums who will agree, I'm sure  ;)

[TacitBlue]

Just so we will all know what to expect when FS10 does come out: How long did it take freeware developers to start making whole aircraft (as in not repaints or texture fixes) for FS9? I was only into combat sims when FS9 came out, and didn't know about add-ons at the time.

[pete]

So this 'poll' is pretty meaningless and a waste of time really.  

Well ... not really

. because it has provoked statements such as yours  &  reminded folk that, in black & white,  this is a Simulator - not a game (albeit with the potential to entertain as good as the best of 'games' in the long term...)


If FS wasn't a realistic PC simulation of real flying  - none of us would be here or be reading this.  :)

They are only there to make FS into a 'basic package' as it's become clear over the years that MS's role in all this, as they know, is to create a vehicle for developers to develop.

..
I wish I had as much faith in MS ..... & would love it if my scepticism proved wrong ...

Never worry about what AIRCRAFT will be included. That's the LEAST concern - as you can get virtually anything. As Roger says - concern yourself with  the challenging aspects like ground textures, interactive potential with other developing technologies & flight characteristics potential.

[expat]

Just so we will all know what to expect when FS10 does come out: How long did it take freeware developers to start making whole aircraft (as in not repaints or texture fixes) for FS9? I was only into combat sims when FS9 came out, and didn't know about add-ons at the time.

Now that could be the first productive FS10 question asked8)

Matt

[pete]

Just so we will all know what to expect when FS10 does come out: How long did it take freeware developers to start making whole aircraft (as in not repaints or texture fixes) for FS9? I was only into combat sims when FS9 came out, and didn't know about add-ons at the time.

Days -  ...

But FS9 was easy as most of the later FS2002 stuff worked fine anyway --

It's a very open question as none of us (that I am aware of) knows the engine they are developing for FS10.

[Zaphod]

Ever hear of FS2000?

Yes I've heard of it Rimshot, but don't have it installed.
Have you?
And I don't see why I should have too, to fly a Concorde.
As the only supersonic airliner, now unfortunatly withdrawn, it deserves a place in FS10. But of coarse, I'm biased.
Zaphod

[Tweek]

RollerBall, if you skip back a to the last page, you can see what me and Zaphod have been saying. We want military aircraft in our sim. We don't want a combat game. The relation between 'combat' and 'military' has become too strong. One thing I like to do in flight sim, is power up to a good few hundred knots, yank back on the stick, and climb to 30,000ft! I'll be there for years trying that in a default Cessna, or Boeing.

Wanting military aircraft does NOT mean wanting to bomb targets! As I said before, a C-130 would not fit in a combat sim. Yet it's still military.

[Tweek]

Is there a comprehensive flying tutorial system in LOMAC or any of the other military combat GAMES? I don't think so.

Oh and, yes, there is!

I'm not trying to get at you, just put my opinion across

[Zaphod]

Yet again I must agree with Tweek.
It's not about bombing or shooting anything, it's tottaly about flying the aircraft you want to fly.
It's a given that FS9 does not support firing or bombing. but why are there so many miliatary planes in the download sites? Because people like me and Tweek ( and a whole lot more) enjoy FLYING THEM!
Actually I spend most of my time flying GA, but I like to be able to go extreme ever now and then.

Cheers.
Zaphod