Simviation Forum - What we wish: Realism + Weather

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Current Flight Simulator Series › MS Flight › What we wish: Realism + Weather

(Moderators: beaky, ozzy72, Fly2e, Bob70, JBaymore, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

What we wish: Realism + Weather (Read 5330 times)

Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:57pm

SeanTK Ex Member

Trying to organize our thoughts a bit more rather than having one thread. It will also be easier to see what everything thinks of a certain aspect of the forthcoming sim.

What are you looking for in the "Flight" weather system? What needs to be added/changed?

Aircraft physics...what needs to be adjusted, included, etc?

The small things that could add to immersion, what could they be/add?

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Sep 27^th, 2010 at 9:46pm

Boikat Offline
Colonel
Hello!
NW Loueezianner

Gender:
Posts: 2978

Weather-wise, actual weather patterns would be nice, so if you're flying into a hurricane, you actually have the spiral feeder bands, the eye wall, and outragious winds. Same for thunderstorms, with downdrafts, wind shear, hail, the occasional tornado..

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Sep 27^th, 2010 at 10:55pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

Boikat wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 9:46pm:

Weather-wise, actual weather patterns would be nice, so if you're flying into a hurricane, you actually have the spiral feeder bands, the eye wall, and outragious winds. Same for thunderstorms, with downdrafts, wind shear, hail, the occasional tornado..

I second the motion. Thank you Roy.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Sep 28^th, 2010 at 10:39am

Flying Trucker Offline
Colonel
An Old Retired Rocking
Chair Flying Geezer

Gender:
Posts: 11425

Excellent idea Roy... Wink

Wink

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Sep 28^th, 2010 at 12:23pm

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

Realistic effects of "Icing" upon the Engine, Airframe, etc.

(Carburettor Icing, Pitot Tube Icing, Flying Surface Icing, etc).

Paul...G-BPLF..FS 2004...FS Nav..

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Sep 28^th, 2010 at 12:55pm

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Fozzer wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 12:23pm:

Realistic effects of "Icing" upon the Engine, Airframe, etc.

(Carburettor Icing, Pitot Tube Icing, Flying Surface Icing, etc).

Paul...G-BPLF..FS 2004...FS Nav..

I have a feeling that this is much more plausible these days than it was in the past, Paul. Hopefully they won't scrimp on that in this incarnation.

I, too, would love to see a hurricane in FS (or should we just call it "F"? Grin

Grin

). This was actually possible in FS9 and possibly FSX by use of the Gmax SDK, which granted you the power to create cloud formations in Gmax itself. The creation of things like tornadoes and hurricanes is what I think ACES was attempting here, but no one seems to have taken the time to work with that particular part of the system, since learning to make aircraft and scenery for each version always took too long. I'm really hoping it's going to be possible to simply fly out and find a hurricane that is actually happening so we can fly data missions. Or perhaps check out hurricanes from the past . . . as well as other natural phenomena such as volcanoes.

Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a dynamic and changing planet. For instance, if I wind back the clock to 1903 Kitty Hawk, it would interesting to see around me the world Orville and Wilbur would have seen. Probably still out of the realm of wishful thinking, but we are "wishing" here, are we not? Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Sep 28^th, 2010 at 1:15pm

alrot Offline
Colonel
Freeware Designers Above
All..

Posts: 10231

The ATC to control the approach speed

example in the 0:20 Virgin 1918 reduce speed to 170 and descend 4000

Venezuela

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Sep 28^th, 2010 at 2:49pm

f-35simpilot Offline
Colonel
Coquitlam, Beautiful B.C.

Gender:
Posts: 317

Wingtip vortices and C-130 prop-tip style lines ... You know what i mean, sound cones, when in tower view and you go by supersonic you get sonic BOOM, and all high g effects when enogh moisture in the air... Also I apologize for poor grammar, I am doing this post from my phone and I am lazyJ

Carriers would be so mush easier to land on if they would just stop turning!!!

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 2:35am

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

Quote:

Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a dynamic and changing planet. For instance, if I wind back the clock to 1903 Kitty Hawk, it would interesting to see around me the world Orville and Wilbur would have seen. Probably still out of the realm of wishful thinking, but we are "wishing" here, are we not?

I'm with you on that Travis. It would be nice to change the date to 1944 and see the world as it was then. It would also be nice to see military bases with the proper AI and ground equipment for the time. I'd like to see some submarine pens with subs in them and naval vessels in port and steaming in and out. I realize how much work this would involve, but as you said, we are 'wishing'.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:03am

xtp Offline
Colonel

Posts: 61

I'd like to see more realistic high-res 3-d scenery areas - both around airfields and elsewhere - together with a tighter elevation mesh and photo-realistic (best Google-Earth-like) photo terrain at a high-enough resolution for realistic low flying worldwide.

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:10am

SeanTK Ex Member

A few ideas from me:
Turbulence & condensation when going through clouds.
Wake turbulence.
Visible icing.
Aircraft vibration.
Steering and braking power affected by surface conditions.

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 12:10pm

specter177 Offline
Colonel
Check out the Maverick
Flying Car!
I-TEC - X35

Gender:
Posts: 1406

I'll just combine what everyone is saying into one sentence.

We want Star Trek Holodeck level realism that will run on a Pentium 4.

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:47pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

specter177 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 12:10pm:

I'll just combine what everyone is saying into one sentence.

We want Star Trek Holodeck level realism that will run on a Pentium 4.

Grin

Grin

Grin

Yeah, but was it Keith Richards that said, "you can't always get what you want"? Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 3:36pm

Boikat Offline
Colonel
Hello!
NW Loueezianner

Gender:
Posts: 2978

Some more environmental stuff..

Water was mentioned. I'd like actual, rolling waves. I want whitecaps when the wind is strong enough. I whant hit-knuckle waterlanding in a Goose.

For that matter, ditching. If you ditch right, you should not crash, even though ditching is technically crashing, or rather, and emergency water landing. Add to that (though it would be part of the model), life rafts popping out and passengers disembarking (Heck, that'd be nice for the air-stairs....)

Come to mention it, even crashing should be doable. A nice gear-up belly landing should not result in "end of game" so to speak. Of course, it basically *is*, but you should have all the time you want in order to admire your handy-work, be it a "soft as a baby's bottom skid to a stop, or a towering pillar of smoke and fire comming from a crater.

No "crash" if you brush againt a tree-top with your wing tip. By all means, "crash" when you actually crash, but winging a twig shouldn't be fatal. Damage the aircraft, sure, to the appropriate extent. Again, that probably needs to be built into the model.

Two words: "Bird strikes".

Just more thoughts.....

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:28pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

And good thoughts they are Roy. I would like to see them as well.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:55pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

As for realism, I would like fly out of my local airport, turn and fly along the Grand River and 10 miles out actually see my neighborhood below. The airport, river and town are so unrecognisable in FSX. Parts of Canada were sorely passed by in previous sims.

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 7:00pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

Steve M wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:

As for realism, I would like fly out of my local airport, turn and fly along the Grand River and 10 miles out actually see my neighborhood below. The airport, river and town are so unrecognisable in FSX. Parts of Canada were sorely passed by in previous sims.

The upper united states did seem quite left out. I'm not sure about other areas, but it seems that if it's not a city, it doesn't matter.

In Washington they seemed to think to themselves: Right, well here is the Boeing field and Seattle and I'm not sure about the rest so I'll just cover it in grass.

My response: Dang!

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 9:21pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

It's not any better down south, maybe even worse. Sad

Sad

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:06pm

olderndirt Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender:
Posts: 3574

Much as I hate to say it, my suspicion is that this new 'Flight' will be more or less what Microsoft calls it - a game. From a purely business point of view, they can't be faulted - making money for the shareholders but, for those who still hold a dream, look to others. There's a groundswell of enterprise out there so don't be surprised at what happens next.

THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:17pm

XxRazgrizxX Offline
Colonel
747? No, Concorde Will
always be Queen of the
Sky.
KPTK --- Clarkston, MI

Gender:
Posts: 372

im also afraid that Microsucks Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

will end up turning this into more of a game than a simulator but i hope that they werent dumb enough to do that

http://www.youtube.com/user/Razgriz100000

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:28pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

XxRazgrizxX wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:

im also afraid that Microsucks Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

will end up turning this into more of a game than a simulator but i hope that they werent dumb enough to do that

Me too. But there was Vista....for one example.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:32pm

SeanTK Ex Member

There "FAQ" section on the "Flight" website says that this new program will still be a "full fidelity simulation".

More things I'm hopeful for:

Continued refinement of helicopter physics and the general rotary wing experience in the simulator.

Most people forget that a class of aircraft called "helicopters" exist (and I've even heard requests for their elimination on other forums!), but I hope that they are retained and expanded upon in this new program.

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 4:40am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

machineman9 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:

Steve M wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:

As for realism, I would like fly out of my local airport, turn and fly along the Grand River and 10 miles out actually see my neighborhood below. The airport, river and town are so unrecognisable in FSX. Parts of Canada were sorely passed by in previous sims.

The upper united states did seem quite left out. I'm not sure about other areas, but it seems that if it's not a city, it doesn't matter.

In Washington they seemed to think to themselves: Right, well here is the Boeing field and Seattle and I'm not sure about the rest so I'll just cover it in grass.

My response: Dang!

One of the many reasons why I have toured the State of California for the past 10+ years is because it has the most accurately represented ground scenery compared to the rest of the World. A comparison with the Google Map of the area flown over reveals the similarity.
I suspect this is because many of the scenery designers probably lived in, and around "Silicon Valley" (San Francisco Bay area!). From Santa Rosa to Los Angeles, down the Pacific Coast, is extremely well represented in the Sim, and is very close to authentic Mapping, and local photographs!.

The ground could be represented as a Google Map, but that would make it "Photographic Scenery" in flat 2D (eg: Flight Unlimited II/III), rather than the much more realistic 3D, MS; "Autogen" scenery.

But, as always, the more realistic the scenery, the more load is put onto our lowly computers, often making the Sim impossible to play!

I'm always afraid that if the designers take into account all our wishes from lists similar to this, like Aces did with FSX, that the next Sim will be just as impossible to play for most Flight Simmers!

A very careful compromise will have to be observed... Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

...!

Grass waving in the breeze?....actual Flies in the Teeth?.....MMmmmm.... Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

.... don't fink so!... Grin

Grin

....!

Paul..G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Nav....California Flower Power... Cool

Cool

...!

..By the way...The scenery for Great Britain was/is a total waste of space, in the Sim... Cry

Cry

...

Wink

...!

P.S....actually, as an enthusiastic; "Tourer", looking out of the windows, I would sacrifice many of the proposed frills and whistles in the Sim, for some excellent, even more realistic, ground scenery to observe.

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 5:54am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

patchz wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

XxRazgrizxX wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:

im also afraid that Microsucks Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

will end up turning this into more of a game than a simulator but i hope that they werent dumb enough to do that

Me too. But there was Vista....for one example.

Vista... You mean that modern, useful and powerful operating system which was used to build Windows 7? I'm incredibly fussy about people saying Vista was bad... What was bad was the 3rd party support (I.E, not Microsoft) who weren't updating their software fast enough, and customers expecting new stuff to work on ancient hardware. Vista was absolutely fine. I had it since soon after release and not a single problem has arisen which was directly because of Vista. I do get incredibly fussy about that. Vista was a great operating system. I still prefer it to 7.

MSFS was created by ACES, only published by Microsoft. Yeah, Microsoft did buy them as part of Microsoft Games Studio, but they did their own development for the games. Lionhead Studios, Bungie, Rare and Turn 10 are also such affiliates.

Annnd breathe Grin

Grin

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 6:11am

ShaneG Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!

Posts: 10000

machineman9 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 5:54am:

patchz wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

XxRazgrizxX wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:

im also afraid that Microsucks Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

will end up turning this into more of a game than a simulator but i hope that they werent dumb enough to do that

Me too. But there was Vista....for one example.

Vista... You mean that modern, useful and powerful operating system which was used to build Windows 7? I'm incredibly fussy about people saying Vista was bad... What was bad was the 3rd party support (I.E, not Microsoft) who weren't updating their software fast enough, and customers expecting new stuff to work on ancient hardware. Vista was absolutely fine. I had it since soon after release and not a single problem has arisen which was directly because of Vista. I do get incredibly fussy about that. Vista was a great operating system. I still prefer it to 7.

Which brings up the question...

Will the new "Flight" even run on older OS?

IE9 is supposed to be Windows 7 only,
and most future M$ software will more than likely follow suit, as they try to get the XP & Vista faithful to move up.

I have a friend who still uses Windows 98, and a dial up modem, and swears he'd rather stop using a computer than upgrade. Shocked

Shocked

To each his own I guess.

Quote:

I'm incredibly fussy about people saying Vista was bad...

What hurt Vista in the eye of the 'general public' was it's intense hardware demand at a time when hardware wasn't ready for such demands.
When most systems only had 2Gb of RAM total, an OS that required 2Gb of RAM just for itself was pretty ridiculous.
Then when you tried to run any other program on top of that, it was pure hell. (I know because my dad still has one of 'those' systems. Lips Sealed

Lips Sealed

)

This is the exact same reason why FSX got such harsh criticism at it's release (and still does).

As 3GB+ systems came out, it started to shine, but by then the damage was done in M$ mind, and that's why they stripped it down and called it Windows 7.

But just like my friend with Win98, and you with Vista, I'll probably stick with XP until it's useless. OS are like best friends, once you have them figured out, and you get comfortable with them, you really don't want to have to start over with a new one. Grin

Grin

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 6:57am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

ShaneG wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 6:11am:

.....But just like my friend with Win98, and you with Vista, I'll probably stick with XP until it's useless. OS are like best friends, once you have them figured out, and you get comfortable with them, you really don't want to have to start over with a new one. Grin

Grin

....

Kiss

....!

Being a keen user of Win '98, (and Dial-up), in the far distant past, my trusty copy of Win XP SP3, runs in good-old-faithful Win '98 "Classic Mode"...
.."Simplicity"; is the name of the game for me!... Wink

Wink

...

Grin

...!

...and being an "old" sort of person, my Win XP runs all my mountains of; "old" software very nicely...

..!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Nav...and occasional MS DOS!... Grin

Grin

...!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DOS_commands

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 9:10am

SeanTK Ex Member

Darn it, I completely forgot that it's highly likely that this new sim won't work on XP.

Sean....still with XP SP3....and loving it.
Wink

Wink

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:19pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

ShaneG wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 6:11am:

Which brings up the question...

Will the new "Flight" even run on older OS?

W3 statistics for August, compared to January, of the OS population who visited their website:

22% Windows 7 (+11%)
11% Vista (-5%)
53% XP (-7%)
x% other

There is still a huge population running XP (I don't understand why... It's ancient!) so I would imagine there is some possibility of it running on XP, but people seriously need to consider upgrading. Support is running out. It's like running a car which will be refused any future servicing.

Microsoft want people to upgrade so a lot of incentive will be with the two Aero operating systems, but XP support will probably still exist. But in this turn of the decade the fanbase should really consider upgrading - Not just to play games, but to keep their computer secure in the first place.

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:27pm

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

I run Win XP as well, and won't be upgrading this rig I have EVER, since it's already older than damn near anyone else's I know of.

Anyway, getting back on topic:

Most of the world (with the exception of California and the largest cities) was half-cooked in both of the last two sim installments, mostly because the designers couldn't spend five years creating it and refining it to map out each town in the world.

Although that is a bit strange, since most (non-commercial) pilots tend to utilize ground-based waypoints as their guides when not using GPS or frequency locators. If a town or dam or something similar isn't where you expect it to be in FS, you are simply SOL and have to revert to some other form of navigation, which is something I always disliked about it. This led* me to flying almost exclusively in places like the South Pacific, where the islands were (mostly) accurate.

Flying over your neighborhood and seeing the houses? Probably not.

Flying over your city and seeing mostly accurate roads? I frakkin hope so! Grin

Grin

*edited for "lead" poisoning Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:43pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

Travis wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:27pm:

Flying over your neighborhood and seeing the houses? Probably not.

Flying over your city and seeing mostly accurate roads? I frakkin hope so! Grin

Grin

X-Plane seem to have all the leaves for that. Though they cannot guarantee that their world is accurate, they can ensure that the layout and positioning is technically accurate. Properly placed buildings and roads in sensible places.

If X-Plane can do that (and they have done a lot) then Flight should definately be able to do the same. I'm just too used to playing MSFS and I am used to all the controls (changing all of them and relearning the GUI is too much effort for me) or else I would buy X-Plane and fly that.

IP Logged

Reply #30 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:52pm

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

Travis wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:27pm:

I run Win XP as well, and won't be upgrading this rig I have EVER, since it's already older than damn near anyone else's I know of.

Anyway, getting back on topic:

Most of the world (with the exception of California and the largest cities) was half-cooked in both of the last two sim instalments, mostly because the designers couldn't spend five years creating it and refining it to map out each town in the world.

Although that is a bit strange, since most (non-commercial) pilots tend to utilize ground-based waypoints as their guides when not using GPS or frequency locators. If a town or dam or something similar isn't where you expect it to be in FS, you are simply SOL and have to revert to some other form of navigation, which is something I always disliked about it. This lead me to flying almost exclusively in places like the South Pacific, where the islands were (mostly) accurate.

Flying over your neighborhood and seeing the houses? Probably not.

Flying over your city and seeing mostly accurate roads? I frakkin hope so! Grin

Grin

One of the joys of my regular Californian flights is being able to navigate my way, by recognising the accurate Scenery surrounding me!
I can travel the Roads, Railway Lines, Rivers and Streams by recognising the same land marks on my Google Maps, including the realistic Mountain ranges surrounding San Francisco, the Pacific Coast, and Los Angeles.

Following Interstate 5, Highway 1 and 101, 118, I40, (and Route 66!), etc, etc, below me is very comforting when other navigation instrument methods are not available, or fail!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Nav...and a Map... Cool

Cool

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 5:54pm

gtirob01 Offline
Colonel
FSXer
Ft. Walton Beach, FL

Gender:
Posts: 3522

Cloud shadows on the ground. This is absolutely possible as I believe the guys at REX were already working on it.

Also, would love to see a coastline that doesnt cut right through the middle of a city! Im sure you all know what I mean.

My specs... A hard drive, motherboard, graphics card, some memory, a keyboard, mouse, and monitor - in other words, nothing special.&&&&My Posky 777 VC settings - http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1218341439&&Posky 777 and FSX jetways - http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1228448408

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Sep 30^th, 2010 at 8:52pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

Fozzer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:

Travis wrote on Sep 30^th, 2010 at 12:27pm:

I run Win XP as well, and won't be upgrading this rig I have EVER, since it's already older than damn near anyone else's I know of.

Anyway, getting back on topic:

Most of the world (with the exception of California and the largest cities) was half-cooked in both of the last two sim instalments, mostly because the designers couldn't spend five years creating it and refining it to map out each town in the world.

Although that is a bit strange, since most (non-commercial) pilots tend to utilize ground-based waypoints as their guides when not using GPS or frequency locators. If a town or dam or something similar isn't where you expect it to be in FS, you are simply SOL and have to revert to some other form of navigation, which is something I always disliked about it. This lead me to flying almost exclusively in places like the South Pacific, where the islands were (mostly) accurate.

Flying over your neighborhood and seeing the houses? Probably not.

Flying over your city and seeing mostly accurate roads? I frakkin hope so! Grin

Grin

One of the joys of my regular Californian flights is being able to navigate my way, by recognising the accurate Scenery surrounding me!
I can travel the Roads, Railway Lines, Rivers and Streams by recognising the same land marks on my Google Maps, including the realistic Mountain ranges surrounding San Francisco, the Pacific Coast, and Los Angeles.

Following Interstate 5, Highway 1 and 101, 118, I40, (and Route 66!), etc, etc, below me is very comforting when other navigation instrument methods are not available, or fail!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Nav...and a Map... Cool

Cool

...!

Acurate roads and rivers would make me happy. Thats two out of three. Wink

Wink

Seeing your village below, well, maybe that's something I will have to learn how to create on my own.

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 1:15am

Boikat Offline
Colonel
Hello!
NW Loueezianner

Gender:
Posts: 2978

True orbital capability would be nice too, assuming that once in orbit, you can still maneuver using attitude jets and retro rockets, and de-orbit.

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:39pm

SeanTK Ex Member

Occasional streakers on the runway. Would liven up a flight quite a bit. Cheesy

Cheesy

Grin

(only joking)

In that vain though, bird-strikes, and the possibility of animals on a runway would be realistic and interesting in my opinion.

Other things....

Proper helicopter autorotation! (Kind of weird having to fidget with the "throttle" and have it cracked a certain percentage for autos to work currently).
Actually, helicopter physics in general could be looked at too. Along those lines, I think someone mentioned true VTOL capability too, with the likes of such things as the V-22 and forthcoming BA-609 tiltrotors. Don't forget the Harriers too!

Ability to experience lost comms AND have the tower use the light gun for clearances. (likely not going to happen)

Accurate waves and water "physics" for float/seaplane operations.

Convective currents and ridge lift for sailplanes in free flight mode.

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Nov 23^rd, 2010 at 5:59pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

How about better winter flying conditions? By that I mean ice on the aircraft, and realistic snow and ice conditions at the airport. I wonder if it would be possible to include airfield NOTAM conditions in the real weather download from Jeppeson.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Nov 25^th, 2010 at 11:50am

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Quote:

Ability to experience lost comms AND have the tower use the light gun for clearances. (likely not going to happen)

Actually, I think this is totally possible. It would only require that MS spend a little time creating a dedicated flight operations part of the sim, as one person already suggested. The coding wouldn't have to be changed much to accommodate this.

IP Logged

Reply #37 - Nov 25^th, 2010 at 12:57pm

Boikat Offline
Colonel
Hello!
NW Loueezianner

Gender:
Posts: 2978

Guy wires and power lines, just to make things interesting when you try to fly a slalom between the power line masts or use radio towers as pylons for your Red Bull practice.

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

IP Logged

Reply #38 - Nov 25^th, 2010 at 8:56pm

drbob777 Offline
Colonel
KAPA - Centennial Co.

Gender:
Posts: 89

Hopefully a better trim effect. Maybe I just don't understand how it works in the sim but it just feels so wrong.

IP Logged

Reply #39 - Nov 26^th, 2010 at 12:01am

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Actually, I don't get the trim right very often, and I actually have a license . . . so don't feel bad about it. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Reply #40 - Nov 26^th, 2010 at 12:15am

drbob777 Offline
Colonel
KAPA - Centennial Co.

Gender:
Posts: 89

Travis wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 12:01am:

Actually, I don't get the trim right very often, and I actually have a license . . . so don't feel bad about it. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

I have 28 hours, I know its a sim but It does feel so weird trying to trim for landing in a C172, but hey it is just a sim after all

I have to laugh while doing touch and goes in FSX, having to reduce trim down dramatically after takeoff, if you let go of the yoke your practically pointed up 90 degrees.

IP Logged

Reply #41 - Nov 30^th, 2010 at 2:25pm

Romflyer Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Canada

Gender:
Posts: 365

drbob777 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 12:15am:

Travis wrote on Nov 26^th, 2010 at 12:01am:

Actually, I don't get the trim right very often, and I actually have a license . . . so don't feel bad about it. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

I have 28 hours, I know its a sim but It does feel so weird trying to trim for landing in a C172, but hey it is just a sim after all

I have to laugh while doing touch and goes in FSX, having to reduce trim down dramatically after takeoff, if you let go of the yoke your practically pointed up 90 degrees.

I'm not really clear on what it is that you dont like about this.....if you are configured for an approach (power,trim,flaps,etc.) and then you dramatically change your throttle settings (touch and go, or a go-around) then holding down the nose of the aircraft IS a handfull Shocked

Shocked

it's a very dangerous transition of flight which requires firm forward pressure on the control column and alot of trim adjustment to relieve the pressure......it's a technique which needs to be practiced and mastered......and in my opinion it is modeled fairly well in the FS sims.

IP Logged

Reply #42 - Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 4:03am

littlebenny Offline
Colonel
See those cumuli ? A perfect
day for soaring !
EBKT,LFAV

Gender:
Posts: 73

real ridge- and wavelift would be nice and thermals that make cumuli Cheesy

Cheesy

just a pair of long wings and some rising air.

IP Logged

Reply #43 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:44am

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

I would like to see a military jet come up beside me when I have entered a restricted area after ignoring ATC's instructions to change course. But it would be nice to be able to turn it off when you don't want it.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #44 - Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 5:10pm

patchz Offline
Colonel
What, me worry?
IN THE FUNNY PAPERS

Gender:
Posts: 10589

Doug (Flying Trucker) just came up with another thought. When landing on a dirt strip with prop reverse, it would be nice to see the dust fly, like my edit of the Caribou.

If God intended aircraft engines to have horizontally opposed engines, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way.

IP Logged

Reply #45 - Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:45am

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

I've always wanted to see tornadoes on FS so it would be really cool to see them on Flight

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

IP Logged

Reply #46 - Apr 5^th, 2011 at 2:06pm

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Specific weather patterns in general would be pretty cool. Being able to fly into the eye of a hurricane would be astounding! Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #47 - Apr 27^th, 2011 at 3:05pm

Tyler012 Offline
Colonel
My Soul is in the Sky
KLBB

Gender:
Posts: 201

Things it needs: a working, decent, TCAS system for us big iron flyers. Grin

Grin

.

Grin

as well as a weather radar gauge, perhaps in the EICAS display as per many airliners?

Things I would like: smoother, more intuitive view system, fluid atc system set to more realistic standards, perhaps you could talk back?

Just a sample of my personal art.

IP Logged

Reply #48 - Apr 27^th, 2011 at 4:21pm

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Being able to talk to ATC would be extremely handy, especially during cross-wind or low-vis landings in small aircraft. Having to take your hand away from the yoke or stick at a crucial moment could result in overshooting or just plain crashing.

IP Logged

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge