Microsoft Flight Simulator 11

[toprob]

QUOTE (airnzrnzaf @ Dec 29 2008, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

iv been searching the net many people say its coming out beggining of 2009 others say 2010 2011 i hope it comes soon but all seems unknown but it will be great when it happen
but if it comes out first in america its most likly going to take a month or so to come out here
airnzrnzaf

The MSFS team has said 'holiday 2010', which I guess means December 2010, and I assume they'd want to release it for Christmas, but 2011 may be more likely.

December 2009 is meant to see the Train Sim released , which uses the same basic system that they'll use to build FS on. This may work in our favour, as any real problems which crop up on the release of TrainSim, such as the performance problems with FSX which resulted in the SP's, should be well and truly ironed out for FSE.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

Asking for more aircraft probably isn't a great idea- Default FS aircraft are cr@p and addons can be downloaded anyway.

I'd FS11 to look as good as FSX while running on anything less than a supercomputer.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE

Asking for more aircraft probably isn't a great idea- Default FS aircraft are cr@p and addons can be downloaded anyway.[/quote]

Only if they actually made them extremely detailed and the cockpits had fully functioning systems and switches etc.

[greaneyr]

I've posted 'wishlists' all over the place now so I won't bore those of you who have read them by posting them again.

However, there's one feature I've really started longing for and that is some level of randomisation in ground lights. Go to a real airport at night and you'll notice some slight variation in the intensity, colour and even position of runway or taxiway lights. Look at an airport on FS anything and it's just so 'perfect'. Too perfect, in my view. All lights have identical brightness, colour, and are perfectly lined up so as any airport looks brand new. It's a bit like landing in a clean and sterile laboratory.

They could do the same thing with autogen lights too, and it would make a big difference.

[gokanru]

A better landclass would be my priority,countries that are green should be green not like a desert.Also the seasonal textures could do with a major overhaul,flying over the Southern Alps in mid winter left a lot to be desired in FSX.Backward compatibility with current 3rd party developer programs,like XGraphics,FEX,GEX,etc would be nice

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (gokanru @ Dec 31 2008, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A better landclass would be my priority,countries that are green should be green not like a desert.Also the seasonal textures could do with a major overhaul,flying over the Southern Alps in mid winter left a lot to be desired in FSX.Backward compatibility with current 3rd party developer programs,like XGraphics,FEX,GEX,etc would be nice

think we may get there with the ORBX type , playing around yes achieved some better result .. it would cover the main devide , so many addons

[FlyingKiwi]

The usual stuff I've been wanting for the last few FS'.

- Better landclass (I can live without better default terrain meshes since there'll always be good addons)

- Better autumn textures, the current ones are horrible, unless you're flying in Southeastern Europe or the midwest US they look way too brown and dry.

- Better air traffic control, there could be an "easy" mode which would just be the same as currently (radar vectors everywhere) and a more realistic option for flying actual IFR procedures like holding patterns, arcs, teardrop approaches etc. Of course, you can currently do these things in FS perfectly well, but there is no air traffic control support for it.

- This is a minor one, but I hate how making even slight adjustments to the prop pitch in FSX makes the plane shake violently.

- Better default weather - specifically with real world weather I would like a system that populates neighbouring sectors with similar weather if the data isn't available. I hate flying from a massive storm into suddenly clear skies and fine weather because the nearest weather station obviously isn't sending any data.

- More view options, perhaps a sort of free-flying camera mode, Microsoft must've surely realised by now how many people like taking screenshots in FS. (I realise there are addons for this, but I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to implement as a default ability)

- More realistic performance requirements - I've got FSX running quite nicely now, but only after spending more than $2000 on a new PC.

- This isn't likely to happen, but default aircraft that actually fly properly would be nice. Admittedly I can't exactly claim to know what a DC-3 really handles like, but if the default 172 is anything to go by, they aren't very good. Not to mention the appalling oversensitive pitch on the Baron and King Air.

- The big one, which also isn't probably going to happen for reasons of data availability, but I would love to see the same level of coverage of airfields that the US has in FS expanded to the whole world. In the US, every little private farm airstrip is depicted - if the same level of coverage was applied to New Zealand we'd probably have a few hundred more default airstrips at least, and that's assuming they don't bother with agricultural airstrips.

If at least half of those things are looked at in some way by MS, I'll be pretty happy. Obviously I didn't bother including all the things that are basically a given, like better graphics, autogen etc.

[ardypilot]

QUOTE

I've posted 'wishlists' all over the place now so I won't bore those of you who have read them by posting them again.[/quote]
Ditto - the only suggestion I have to solve the lack of accurate details in every country outside the states would be for the Ace's developers to create localized versions of the next flightsim, maybe one for each continent or geographical region which you can buy separately.

This would be usual for real world student pilots to have a realistic virtual environment to practice upcoming flights in, however, the whole series has always been marketed as a game for gamers, and not a simulators to critiques like ourselves, so I can never really see this happening.

[mustang808]

I'd like to see FS11 have the ability to, when you are online flying with people with a payware product. To be abe to see thier aircraft at full detail.
I hate how FSX defaults to a randum airarcft...

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (Trolly @ Jan 2 2009, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto - the only suggestion I have to solve the lack of accurate details in every country outside the states would be for the Ace's developers to create localized versions of the next flightsim, maybe one for each continent or geographical region which you can buy separately.

This would be usual for real world student pilots to have a realistic virtual environment to practice upcoming flights in, however, the whole series has always been marketed as a game for gamers, and not a simulators to critiques like ourselves, so I can never really see this happening.

You mean they have countries outside the states?

Seriously though, I think this is a really good idea. The regionalised versions wouldn't just have detailed scenery, they would also have accurate ATC procedures and phraseology that match each region as well.

It's the only way I can see them coming up with a solution to the 'we can't see beyond the USA' problem. Sure, the temptation is always there to day "We can only model so much of the world accurately, the rest of you will have to wait for add-ons" but I'm sure there's a better way and this might just be it.

[dbcunnz]

What I would like to see is for them to give you the option of a custom install so you can pick and choose which parts of it you want to install instead of having to install huge amounts of data that you may never use.
I would be quite happy if I could custom install just the NZ, Aus and the Pacific Islands as I very seldom venture outside this aerier.
Also I don't need all the aircraft so it would be great to just pick the ones that you do use by custom installing.
The aircraft all need to be of a much high standard more like the PMDG or Captain Sim aircraft would be great.

[Bazza]

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Jan 18 2009, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I would like to see is for them to give you the option of a custom install so you can pick and choose which parts of it you want to install instead of having to install huge amounts of data that you may never use.

Now that is a seriously good suggestion - wouldn't suit everyone but it would be a nice option.

[BigBird]

Realsitic worldwide AI traffic would be something I'd like to see in the next version.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (CDTDAN @ Jan 3 2009, 06:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been playing 'Test Drive Unlimited' recently, and at has basic things that could really be improved for FS11 like darker/fade out shadows and also smog or distance 'paleness' if you know what I mean ... ? (just look outside) Also, in real life a big aircraft is a 'powerful' thing, but in flight simulator you just put the throttle up and lift off like there's nothing to it. I think there should be things like having the cockpit shake when going really fast, motion blur, constant wing shaking/flexing due to wind which should also effect sound. Of course there should be better crash effects and harder/more present ground surface.

It doesn't matter for me because my PC probably couldn't handle it anyway

I also think they should put more classic military jets in the sim e.g. A-4, F-4, F-14...

Dan

How does DX10 graphics stack up I wonder with such effects Lockon is dx9 and it has pretty good speed without motion blur. As for fast movers theres a good sim in development at the moment which will fill that gap but such aircraft would still look good in FS.

[spongebob206]

Hey guys,

Probably won't make much difference but can we send a link to this forum to MS?

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (spongebob206 @ Jan 18 2009, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey guys,

Probably won't make much difference but can we send a link to this forum to MS?

They have an email address tell_fs@microsoft.com (I think) that you can email suggestions for the next release of FS to. Reportedly, they read every email. It might make their lives easier if someone just condensed the points down into a list and sent that. I doubt they'd bother reading through it all if we just sent them a link.

[Michael]

- They need a 737 with every thing in the cockpit working.
- Something like FSPassengers or atleast an optional career mode would be cool.
- Declare an Emergency
- Concorde, even if it is defunct its the best ever.

Many, especially non simmers who see me play the game at my place have a whine because their plane doesn't blow up when they hit the ground. I'm not too fussed about that as it is suppose to be a sim, not some arcady playstation game.

[toprob]

QUOTE

Many, especially non simmers who see me play the game at my place have a whine because their plane doesn't blow up when they hit the ground. I'm not too fussed about that as it is suppose to be a sim, not some arcady playstation game.[/quote]

This is already avalible in fs9 fsX but the models would have to be made to break up on impact by the modellers ,and this would take alot more work to make thus why nobody does it ,a good exsample in FSX is the oilrig mission were it blows up and calls effects...
I would say it would be better if the sdk had these effects coded in so you could stress the wing to 100% and it falls off by a simple attach effect to part ...
At the moment the sim does change textures with rips and burns well i think it still does and that change would only happen if you had crash on in settings but yeah this would all be cool to have ..

[toprob]

I guess you need to look at a lot of these 'most-wanted' features in terms of dollars -- if MS need to buy something to make it work, it is not likely to happen. For instance, there are a lot of reasons why MS don't include real airlines -- one being that if they went to all the airlines and said, hey, we want to include your liveries in our sim, most of the airlines would just see dollar signs. Even if most of them offered their liveries for a small price -- say $100,000 -- then this would soon add up for the whole world:)

And some features would be mutually exclusive -- for instance, you wouldn't get an airline agreeing to have their fleet depicted in detail, if there were crash models included.

The same dollar sums can be applied to any sourced data, such as topo. If MS can get hold of free data, then they'll use it, but if they had to pay for every little piece of data -- as well as negotiate for it -- then it just won't happen. That's why the degree of data we see varies greatly from place to place. Actually, NZ is one of the best-served areas in FSX, it would be a lot better if the landclass was better, but that's an issue with data availability, it has nothing to do with MS.

One point which really interests me is when people say 'better performance'. Since performance is always going to be a fine-line between what you stick in the sim, against the hardware to run it, then there are two ways to improve performance -- better hardware, or less feature-cram. So asking for better performance on the same hardware is really asking for less features, and we've already seen here that the majority want more features, not less. And when people say 'better performance', do they mean before or after using the built-in sliders? Or instead of? In FSX we got a lot more sliders, but maybe people actually want less. What the developers have done is to cram in a huge amount of features, and let the user decide how much of that they can cope with. This seems like a brilliant idea, but they didn't really take into account a very important issue -- ego. A lot of folk simply can't accept that they need to pick and choose which features work best for them, they just want EVERYTHING. Now the simple answer is to give less, and cut back the feature-set until it works on all systems without scaling, but that would be a huge backward step.

One of MSFS's strengths is its scalability. It is really the only 'modern' PC game which runs well on my old system. I just cannot get any full-featured game released in the last 4 years to work at all on my computer -- except FSX. So as someone who not only takes advantage of this scalability, but relies on it to keep simming, I love the fact that I have such a useful range of sliders to change the sim into whatever I need it to do at the time. I do fear, though, that MS may say, hey, if people don't want to make their own choices how their sim will perform, then we'll have to make some choices for them.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (creator2003 @ Jan 24 2009, 12:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is already avalible in fs9 fsX but the models would have to be made to break up on impact by the modellers ,and this would take alot more work to make thus why nobody does it ,a good exsample in FSX is the oilrig mission were it blows up and calls effects...
I would say it would be better if the sdk had these effects coded in so you could stress the wing to 100% and it falls off by a simple attach effect to part ...
At the moment the sim does change textures with rips and burns well i think it still does and that change would only happen if you had crash on in settings but yeah this would all be cool to have ..

They removed the crash detection for political correctness FSX has multicore support so its more than capable of featuring crashes.