Fs2006

[CSM]

yeah that is exactly right, i get the most enjoyment out of weaving in and out of valleys in my F-15E or flying over the treetops in teh blackhawk. so if you do not like the choices just tell me what planes you think should be put in

[yancovitch]

alot is about the design and form of an aircraft we all have an affinity for different types of aircraft. i don't think commercial or military is an issue...when you see a woman and say, thats the one i want to meet. so maybe what kind of plane you want to fly, is some kind of sexual thing? like maybe the spitfire is the marlyn monroe of aircraft. hard to find someone sho doesn't like?

[RollerBall]

You guys still haven't got it.

You can do all the things you want to do with the 3rd party download aircraft that are available. Why should you need MS produced (inferior) aircraft to do the same thing? Sorry I don't get it.

The point is that the 3rd party aircraft that you do these things with, and that's OK we look in different directions for our pleasures, are based on MS default aircraft that were created each with slightly different flight models and use the FS engine to perform in different ways. Your military fast jets use the Learjet dynamic model. Your C130s basically use the Dash 8.

Designers can then do anything they want by selecting and modifying the available models, and then we pick the particular candy that makes each of us smile. But the overall constraints are imposed by the FS engine.

The actual aircraft that MS include are totally irrelevant. What is important is how MS develop the engine and what those developments permit in the way of flight models.

And I'm sorry, I also think (and there's a consensus view across the whole FS world) that the greatest contributions to improved realism, which is what everyone is looking for, will come from environmental factors - scenery, buildings, external dynamics etc, not from just chucking in a few 'different' aircraft that 3rd party designers can already provide.

If all you want to do is blast a fast jet up to 50000 feet, that's fine, but you don't need FS9 and you certainly won't need FS10 You could do it convincingly in FS98. And when there are some marvellous Concordes around why the heck would you want one created by MS - which would inevitably be inferior.

You guys are not demanding the right things IMO. You are MUCH too easily satisfied  :P

[Souichiro]

We'll just have to wait and see what comes in fs10

It doesn't really matter with a lot of addons to chose from probably.  (At least I hope)

a proper base package is what's most important for me compared to the original I have

A different:

Sun
Water
Sky textures all around
Stars
Meshes..

Basically an entirely different FS especially if you add about 100+ planes added on...

What I'd really want is a map in the airport selection screen because I like to fly in mountainous aera's but don't always know the airfields near them.


about Lomac: I've been flying since the age of 5. I started on the first BOB in a time when a color screen was a privelage. Yet LOMAC is THE hardest flying som/game I've ever had. The flying itself might not be to easy allthough the stalls are really tricky to get out from. The combat action is insane. Haven't had a Combat flight which lasted longer than 10 mins I think.... (haven't flown it tooo much though) But it's real fun. But this isn't what this thread is about.


The good old days of BOB

Ah a Messerschmitt!!! Fire!

B Lip B Lip B Lip......games certainly have improved since then.

[alrot]

I rather civilian planes

[BFMF]

Roger is right about the aircraft issue. Even if MS did put new aircraft into the next version of FS, some 3rd party designer would simply design a better version if it hasn't already been done.

Look at the aircraft already in FS2004. I know they have mostly already been replaced by high quality freeware and some payware models.

I would rather see better environment, a better weather engine, and a new or better ATC engine with a lot more realistic features.

What bugs me the most about FS2004 is that if you're flying above fog, you can look down at the ground without seeing it, thinking what a beautifull day to fly untill you descend into airspace that looks clear only to find out that it's completely fogged in.

[Midnight_LS1]

What I like to see in the upcoming FS is a better ATC.  

Like this:
(X would be in place of the numbers in the list)

X. Report a aircraft problem
X. Report a Mayday
X. Request return to Departure airport
X. Report a Fuel Emergency
X. Report a diverson
X. Accept LAHSO
X. Reject LAHSO

LAHSO = Land And Hold Short Ops.  
For use with intersecting runways with 2 aircraft landing at both times, the person using the shortest of the runway would be allowed to accept or reject a land and hold short operation for way to the other aircraft to have the whole runway for itself.
Most airliners have a policy not to accept them if ATC requests for it.

[CSM]

i think what they really need to do is create something that has great graphics but doesn't require a top notch computer, cause i do not have the money to rush out and buy a new computer every time one of tehse games come out. I run FS2004 on my Toshiba Sattelite Laptop and it has an IntelR Graphics Card and it just runs the game. But i probably should delete some of my planes i have 204

Happy Flying

[Saitek]

It's another FS2006 thread!
I'll have to get the list out again.

EDIT: I've updated it. There has been three since I did the work.
If your're interested look here:
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/ ... 1127402387

[TacitBlue]

I was just thinking (no, I'm OK ) and I realized that even though you can download better scenery, and meshes for pretty much the entire world, it really is a PITA. That is one area that MS should improve on in the next FS. Better scenery, and better meshes. A few basic aircraft to tie it all together, and leave the good stuff to the freeware designers- they are better at it anyway.

[Brett_Henderson]

Wouldn't it be horrid if M$ was taking this long for FS10 because they're testing a version that will only accept add-on planes, scenery, etc...  that THEY decide to market or license ?

What they've let us do to date is so NOT M$. It's like the one honorable executive they have is in charge of FS. "Please the customer first" to generate sales and loyal customers seems to work well with us.. But it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were willing to sacrifice a few unit sales to reap the the profits in the add-on arena... and bank on creating a whole new set of customers used to the M$ way of doing things.

That aside (already bit my tongue):

I'd like to see default:

707, 727, DC-8, Constellation, Tomahawk( PA38 ), C310, C210, C177RG, Aztec, Commanche, Warrior, C152..

I know there are third-partys for all of those, but my problem is.. that even with an Athlon3200/ATI6800-256pro/1GB-RAM..  With all video settings FULL.. I'll have frame-rate issues at places like  KORD, at night.. running ALL PAI stuff.

No frame-rate probs at all with default planes.

[TacitBlue]

I honestly don't think that MS would do that. They certainly wouldn't get ANY of my money if they did, and I know that thousands of people would say the same thing.

[JBaymore]

[quote]Wouldn't it be horrid if M$ was taking this long for FS10 because they're testing a version that will only accept add-on planes, scenery, etc...

[Tweek]

If all you want to do is blast a fast jet up to 50000 feet, that's fine, but you don't need FS9 and you certainly won't need FS10 You could do it convincingly in FS98

I don't like to answer to posts with several others between them, seems like I'm relighting old fires, but I certainly do not just get a kick from the odd stunts every now and then. I do enjoy flying planes 'properly' (military and civilian), I do like to use it as a simulator.

But you say about the flight models. I agree, but surely, if a fast fighter jet was loosely based around the default LearJet, you are not going to end up with a realistic result, unless you have real life pilots, beta testing your aircraft (which I know for a fact, not everyone has access to). If a wider range of aircraft were created in the first place, the better the end result will be when creating a third party addon. Surely?

Plus, you'd have a better range of aircraft that everyone had access to in multiplayer

[microlight]

Phew! Feelings running high here. John has raised an interesting point that I've not thought about before. I only started customising FS with 2002 and found out what fun it was. Now, of the time I have available to spend with Flight Simulator, I'd assess less than half of it is spent actually flying!

Oh, and give us old guys a break - some of us are still trying to get FS9 working properly, never mind worrying about FSX!

Now there's a thought - different versions of FSX for different target populations:
FSX Civil - Airbuses and Boeings akimbo
FSX Military - blow people up and still land on a carrier successfully
FSX Bushwhacker - low and slow in Alaska

Well, we had Standard and Pro in FS2002!

Enjoy the sim! It is what it is, and its variety is why we all feel like commenting here. FSX? Bring it on.