Simviation Forum - What We Wish: Default Aircraft

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Current Flight Simulator Series › MS Flight › What We Wish: Default Aircraft

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

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

What We Wish: Default Aircraft (Read 10538 times)

Oct 5^th, 2010 at 10:29pm

RaptorF22 Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 1643

What A/C should be in MS Flight and what do we want from them?

I for one, would like to see full VCs with all clickable cockpits and cabins.
As for what types of aircraft, they did a pretty good job with FSX and Accel IMO, but maybe a little broader selection of aircraft. I think there should be something for everyone; from hot-air-balloons to F-15s, Cessnas and Mooneys to Boeings and Airbusses, auto-giros to Mil V-12s.

What do you think??

« Last Edit: Oct 6^th, 2010 at 6:31am by RaptorF22 »

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Oct 5^th, 2010 at 10:49pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

No Airbuses!!! Grin

Grin

I think we do need a larger variety of default aircraft. But that line from the FAQ page that says that there will be a integrated content marketplace makes you wonder if you will be able to download/buy new aircraft from within the sim. If this is true, then they may have intentions of making lots of add-on planes available. Now, I am still hoping that 3rd party developers can continue to produce their add-ons just in case the ones released by MS are not what we want.

But If there will just be default aircraft and no add-on ones by MS, then I want the following:

-Robinson R66
-Robinson R44
-MD530F
-Boeing 787-8
-Cessna 182
-Cessna 152
-Boeing Stearman (I assume we are already getting it has been in both videos)
-Bell 205

Cool

Cool

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Oct 5^th, 2010 at 11:38pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 317

all the originals from FS2004 and FSX plus;
military: F-35B, Harrier, Eurofighter, F-22, F-15 (Cause it is a LEGEND!), C-130, C-17, and for A real hoot the C-5M!!!

Airliners: 787, 747 dreamlifter, embraer, 737-200 (gravel pack including a good exaust smoke), IL-76, IL-62.

Vintage: T-6 Texan (a classic), T-28 Fennec, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Lockheed Super Constellation, DC-4.

Small Airliners: Saab-340, Beech-1900D, Shorts-360, king air.

GA: Beavers, Turbo-Beaver, twin-otter

i would be more than happy with that list

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

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 2:53am

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

Posts: 24861

Here:...>>>

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1285635036

Paul... Wink

Wink

...!

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 #4 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 6:22am

RaptorF22 Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 1643

Fozzer wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 2:53am:

Here:...>>>

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1285635036

Paul... Wink

Wink

...!

I thought that was more for aircraft and scenery design. Huh

Huh

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 6:34am

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

Posts: 24861

RaptorF22 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 6:22am:

Fozzer wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 2:53am:

Here:...>>>

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1285635036

Paul... Wink

Wink

...!

I thought that was more for aircraft and scenery design. Huh

Huh

A well designed Cessna 150/152 Trainer is the only important one I would wish for, for all the would-be "Heavy" Pilots here, to practice their skills on FIRST!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004..FS Nav..and a very nice '150...

...!

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 #6 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 1:32pm

SeanTK Ex Member

My list of defaults:

Douglas DC-3
Cessna 172 (or 150)
Piper Cherokee 180
Bell 206
Eurocopter AS365 (I can dream...)
Robinson R-22 (or R-44)
Sikorsky Uh-60
Boeing 737
Boeing 747
Airbus A320
Airbus A340
De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver (many configurations)
Bombardier Learjet 60
North American P-51D Mustang
Supermarine Spitfire (any mk.)
Beechcraft B58 Baron
Beechcraft King Air B200
Beechcraft B1900D
Canadair CRJ-200 or 700
Boeing V-22 Osprey
Boeing Stearman (pretty much confirmed from previews)
Saab 340 or 2000

All with full VCs, accurate systems, etc.

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Oct 6^th, 2010 at 8:45pm

Flying Trucker Offline
Colonel
An Old Retired Rocking
Chair Flying Geezer

Gender:
Posts: 11425

My thoughts and list of Default Aircraft

DeHavilland of Canada DHC-3 Otter and DHC-2 Beaver in all configurations from radial engine to turbine. Amphibious Floats, Wheels, Wheel/Skis and Floats
Cessna 180 & 185 in all configurations
Douglas DC3 with retractable skis

Lots of rag and tube aircraft and general aviation singles and light twins in all configurations

If a Default Aircraft like the Beaver in FSX is included on floats only it is useless to most of us unless there are some freeware downloads.
So when supplying a Default Aircraft make it accurate and in all configurations.

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Oct 26^th, 2010 at 6:24pm

Atticus18 Offline
Colonel
RGAAF, Fort Hood,TX

Gender:
Posts: 148

HELO-CHOPPERS!!!! :

EC-135
EC-145 / UH-72
BELL 206, 407, 412
OH-58D Wink

Wink

UH/SH/MH-60M (glass cockpit)
R-22/44/66
CH-47F (glass cockpit)
SCHWEIZER 300C
AH-64A/D
EH-101 (fixed flight dynamics of course Grin

Grin

)
LYNX

FIXED WING:

CESSNA 152/172/182
BEECH BONANZA (V AND T TAIL)
BEECH BARON
T-34C
CITATION (ANY)
LEAR 45
CRJ 900
SAAB 340/2000
ATR 72
BOEING 737/747/757/767/777/787
AIRBUS A320/A340/A380 (yeah I know, it's a flying forehead)
PITTS S2B (had enough of the extra 300...)
MD11/DC10
C130
C17
C5

I could go on forever...... Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Oct 26^th, 2010 at 6:58pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

I actually do not like to have too many default aircraft. I rarely fly any of the default aircraft since almost any add-on is higher quality. And sometimes if there is a default, no developer will take on the challenge to make one better.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:03pm

drbob777 Offline
Colonel
KAPA - Centennial Co.

Gender:
Posts: 89

A C172P model would be nice, considering the majority of pilots that rent fly N/P models.

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Oct 26^th, 2010 at 8:06pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

I think there should be more light trainer aircraft. I do love the Grob Tutor G115E so I'd have to ask for that to be in the game (I should really finish off my version of it at some point!)

A380 as standard would be interesting as there is the 747 on the Boeing side of things.

More military aircraft (C130 for example) would be very nice to have too.

Concorde would definately be welcome and heavily used as well.

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Nov 1^st, 2010 at 7:03pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

They will want to stick my fav the Beech Baron in there or they won't be blessed with my company. Tongue

Tongue

So stick it MS. In there. Wink

Wink

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 4:04am

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

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Atticus: you'll never get MS to give you such specific options. Wink

Wink

I would, however, wish for the ability to have some freedom in the creation process. Stock aircraft are a shadow of what is available in terms of how the sim is constructed. So to that end:

2 or 3 very light aircraft, like gliders and the like.
4 or 5 GA aircraft that are prolific.
6 or 7 airliners (Airbus, Boeing)
1 or 2 specialized aircraft, like the Moller Skycar or Osprey.
2-5 military aircraft from around the world.

The mil aircraft could be anything from C-130s to AN-225s. The actual type is not important, just so long as the technology to implement them is there.

The real test is that there is a way to create any aircraft that currently or potentially might exist in the next few years. If they don't include it in the initial release, it will certainly be created within 6 months of the sim being sent out.

Given that this a new sim, it should be maintained that the modeling process (and program used to create it) will most likely be new or very recent, and therefore very hard to get or obtain. I don't expect any freebies on the modeling side, since MS has shown itself to be an uncompromising b***ch in this respect from the past.

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 8:45pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Travis wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 4:04am:

Atticus: you'll never get MS to give you such specific options. Wink

Wink

He's not expecting them all to be included, just that it would be nice to see any of these in the final release. There obviously won't be that many.

Cool

Cool

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 11:17pm

Tai-2 Offline
Colonel
Georgia

Gender:
Posts: 702

Id love a c-130 with many variants, including ac-130, blue angels with jato, etc.
F-22
B-17
Of course 767
Cessna jets(don't care which)
Wheeled float planes.
Helicopters with emergency flotation systems
(Think I am getting more complicated as my list goes on Huh

Huh

)

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 4:42am

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

Gender:
Posts: 73

many would love a harrier jumpjet which is real VTOL not ultra STOL Grin

Grin

just a pair of long wings and some rising air.

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 4:21pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 4515

I think the key here is to ask for aircraft that we know are unique enough to need their own programming in the sim. For instance, how the Concorde needed it's own animation protocols for FS2k. So we need true VTOL capabilities. That alone would open up a whole range of new aircraft creation. We would also need stable flight dynamics for helo's, since that was an issue from FS2k2 on up. Then of course there's the problems with military aircraft and their systems. Modern mil aircraft have such integrated electronics and functions that we have had huge issues in programming gauges (or more specifically: panels) that could emulate the functions of some of these aircraft. So we need at least one or two mil aircraft, preferably a fighter and a transport. Also, having some functions that simulate the more obscure tech from different eras would also be nice, like gyrocopters and jetpack prototypes, as well as ducted fans and perhaps even a way to simulate flapping wings similar to a real bird. Perhaps some of these are a bit out there on the edge, but it would be interesting to see this type of thing take shape.

EDIT: I almost forgot about multiple engine types! JATO would be awesome, as well as a way to simulate ramjets or even scramjets! Of course, just the ability to utilize rockets and then another form of engine would be pretty cool, too.

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Nov 4^th, 2010 at 7:56pm

kev13479 Offline
Colonel
C172pilot@W13

Posts: 88

I think we need full VC's. Better graphics and for planes:
-F/A-18E super hornet.
-C5B Galaxy.
-Boeing 747.
-Variety of helicopters.
-Variety of GA aircraft.
-More to detail airports.
-and real clouds that you can fly through without seeing anyting other than the fog.
- And one more thing, i think they otta' get in the cockpits and see what its really like.

Kev13479

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Nov 5^th, 2010 at 5:15am

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

Gender:
Posts: 4515

kev13479 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

-and real clouds that you can fly through without seeing anyting other than the fog.
- And one more thing, i think they otta' get in the cockpits and see what its really like.

I'm not sure what you mean by these two statements.

The clouds: flying through them is fairly accurate in the last two FS installments, when the clouds are set high.

As for the cockpits, I know for a fact that the last two flight sims have had designers sitting in the cockpits of the various aircraft, photographing and studying the layouts. Most of the aircraft were photorealistic, and all of them were accurate to the blueprints/diagrams of said aircraft. So what was missing?

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Nov 5^th, 2010 at 5:30pm

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

Am I the only one the likes the Maule?

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Nov 5^th, 2010 at 5:59pm

SeanTK Ex Member

I think everyone just forgets about the Maule. I like it too, but I just don't use it enough.

Also, MS, keep the Goose. That's a fun one!

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Nov 5^th, 2010 at 8:22pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 10589

For whatever default aircraft they decide on, two sided textures so us repainters can do proper repaints for them. It's stupid for them to do something like Edwards AFB in FSX and have just one side of the fuse in the DC-3 et al.

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

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Nov 6^th, 2010 at 1:10pm

kev13479 Offline
Colonel
C172pilot@W13

Posts: 88

Travis, what im saying is, well they only make one variation of the cockpits. They should make more than one cockpit for each aircraft.

and the defult clouds dont quite have the IFR in them.

Kev13479

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Nov 6^th, 2010 at 11:56pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 4515

They gave us the ability to create our own cockpits in FSX, something that was missing from previous versions of the sim. That should be kept in. It isn't really necessary for them to create extra cockpits for aircraft that are going to be modded out anyway.

I seem to recall having fairly good IFR clouds when I flew in FS. Although I could be mistaken . . . what standards are you judging this by?

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:06am

kev13479 Offline
Colonel
C172pilot@W13

Posts: 88

Travis,
by the realism standards, well i only fly the C172 in real life so i cant judge any of the other aircraft, but the C172 in the flight sim didnt have the feel of the real one, like the speed and the effects (e.x: flaps dont have real effect in the sim) as they would in real life.
they did a good job non the less ill say that, but this time i think im saying they should step it up a knotch you know what i mean?

Kev13479

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Nov 8^th, 2010 at 5:08pm

drbob777 Offline
Colonel
KAPA - Centennial Co.

Gender:
Posts: 89

kev13479 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

Travis,
by the realism standards, well i only fly the C172 in real life so i cant judge any of the other aircraft, but the C172 in the flight sim didnt have the feel of the real one, like the speed and the effects (e.x: flaps dont have real effect in the sim) as they would in real life.
they did a good job non the less ill say that, but this time i think im saying they should step it up a knotch you know what i mean?

One reason may be a difference in model. Considering I only fly N/P models and the in game is a S model.

Although the trim effects of the C172 in FSX always feel realllllllly weird

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Nov 8^th, 2010 at 6:47pm

Atticus18 Offline
Colonel
RGAAF, Fort Hood,TX

Gender:
Posts: 148

Travis wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 4:04am:

Atticus: you'll never get MS to give you such specific options. Wink

Wink

i realize that.....but the thread is called "what we WISH"

i'll probably end up adding them all myself....and im fine with that! Grin

Grin

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Nov 8^th, 2010 at 7:54pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

drbob777 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

kev13479 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

Travis,
by the realism standards, well i only fly the C172 in real life so i cant judge any of the other aircraft, but the C172 in the flight sim didnt have the feel of the real one, like the speed and the effects (e.x: flaps dont have real effect in the sim) as they would in real life.
they did a good job non the less ill say that, but this time i think im saying they should step it up a knotch you know what i mean?

One reason may be a difference in model. Considering I only fly N/P models and the in game is a S model.

Although the trim effects of the C172 in FSX always feel realllllllly weird

The SP model 172 is much different than an N or P (I have flown both). One FBO that I used to rent from actually required you to have checkouts in both if you wanted to fly both. The biggest difference is power, 150-160 hp vs. 180 hp.

As for the trim effects, that is a flight sim issue all together. No one is entirely happy with the way FS handles trim.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Nov 11^th, 2010 at 11:44am

Don-Mafiozo Offline
2nd Lieutenant
I Like Flight Simulation!

Posts: 1

littlebenny wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 4:42am:

many would love a harrier jumpjet which is real VTOL not ultra STOL Grin

Grin

yeah man great idea i love the harrier jump jet
and the vertical take-off
keep posting ideas' s Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #30 - Nov 11^th, 2010 at 5:39pm

drbob777 Offline
Colonel
KAPA - Centennial Co.

Gender:
Posts: 89

DaveSims wrote on Nov 8^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:

drbob777 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

kev13479 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

Travis,
by the realism standards, well i only fly the C172 in real life so i cant judge any of the other aircraft, but the C172 in the flight sim didnt have the feel of the real one, like the speed and the effects (e.x: flaps dont have real effect in the sim) as they would in real life.
they did a good job non the less ill say that, but this time i think im saying they should step it up a knotch you know what i mean?

One reason may be a difference in model. Considering I only fly N/P models and the in game is a S model.

Although the trim effects of the C172 in FSX always feel realllllllly weird

The SP model 172 is much different than an N or P (I have flown both). One FBO that I used to rent from actually required you to have checkouts in both if you wanted to fly both. The biggest difference is power, 150-160 hp vs. 180 hp.

As for the trim effects, that is a flight sim issue all together. No one is entirely happy with the way FS handles trim.

Our club has 160 and 180HP P models. I've flown the 180HP and yes the difference is huge. It sure gets up to pattern altitude in a hurry

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:51pm

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

This subject sounded like a job for an Idealist, which I proudly profess to be. By it's very title, FLIGHT should cover a very wide range of experiences, however I wouldn't be surprised if it was NOT released with very many default AC as MS plans to release more in time. It wouldn't shock me if it was like 5-10.

That being said, here are the aircraft FLIGHT experiences I hope they will (at least, in time) cover:

Hot Air Balloons / Blimps
Sailplanes / Hang Gliders
Ultralights
Most-popular and Prolific GA (Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft... etc)
Bushplanes / STOL / Amphibians
Turbo-props
Business Jets
Airliners
Fighter Jets
Helicoptors / VTOL
Spacecraft
Aerobatic Aircraft
Vintage / Classic / Historical Aircaft (DC-3 & Connie, WW2 Fighters... etc)

SO, if default was only say, FIVE... here's my votes!

Boeing Stearman ( check Cool

Cool

)
Beech V35B Bonanza (V-tail)
DeHavilland DHC-2 Beaver (wheels/skis/floats/amphibian/turbo)
Boeing 787 Dreamliner
Bell 206 JetRanger

These would keep me happy for my first few weeks of FLIGHT. I can't wait! Grin

Grin

Cheers!

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Dec 21^st, 2010 at 10:23pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Spindrift wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:51pm:

That being said, here are the aircraft FLIGHT experiences I hope they will (at least, in time) cover:

Hot Air Balloons / Blimps
Sailplanes / Hang Gliders
Ultralights
Most-popular and Prolific GA (Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft... etc)
Bushplanes / STOL / Amphibians
Turbo-props
Business Jets
Airliners
Fighter Jets
Helicoptors / VTOL
Spacecraft
Aerobatic Aircraft
Vintage / Classic / Historical Aircaft (DC-3 & Connie, WW2 Fighters... etc)

I can guarantee you that they would never put a spacecraft in Microsoft Flight. Grin

Grin

Would be great if they did! Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Dec 21^st, 2010 at 11:10pm

Boikat Offline
Colonel
Hello!
NW Loueezianner

Gender:
Posts: 2978

I wouldn't be overly surprised if the had a Space Shuttle. But I doubt we see any Sci Fi spacecraft, unless the M$ Add-On Approval Gods allow them as third party add-ons.

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

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 9:31am

manesag Offline
Colonel
I feel the need the need
for speed

Gender:
Posts: 226

Hmm soo many too choose

B727-100
B737-200 or -300 and -700 winglets
B767-200ER nd -300ER
DHC2 wheels
Cessna 172 and 182
B777 with GE90
B747-100 and -400
F-18 A or C
F-14A no B or D
Learjet 25
F5E
Some plane with a Westinghouse j-34
AC-130!!!
AC-47
C-47
DC-3
DC-10
SR-71
A330-200
That's all folks

http://www.flywestwind.com/

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:36am

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

Gender:
Posts: 317

I would like to see the dhc-5?

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

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Dec 27^th, 2010 at 10:31am

NNNG Ex Member

I figure we need a wide-range of aircraft to suit almost anyone. Not too many, as we need quality rather than quantity.

Airbus A380 <-- must have, good marketing point, worlds biggest airliner
Boeing 787-8 <-- must have, good marketing point, boeings newest all-new aircraft
Boeing 737-700/800 <-- 737 is worlds best selling modern airliner. everyone has been on one
Boeing C-17 or Airbus A400M or C-130J <-- military aircraft for exciting airlift missions
Bombardier Dash-8 Q400 <-- kill the CRJ-700 and King Air with one stone with state-of-the-art turboprop
Bombardier Learjet 85 or newer Cessna Citation <-- a change from the Learjet 45, business jet
DHC-2 Beaver float-plane with wheels <-- vintage, radial, float-plane
Cessna 172 <-- good learning aircraft that everyone has been on
Cessna 400 or an old mooney<-- good high performance aircraft.
Edge 540 <-- one of worlds best aerobatic aircraft
DG 808S sailplane <-- one of worlds best sailplanes
R-66,e <-- prominent helo... kill R-22 and bell with one stone
DC-3 <-- it's a DC-3... nuff said
Boeing Stearman <-- biplane
a VLJ (Very Light Jet)
port / update FSX F/A-18 into it <-- it has a nice 3d model / VC + need a military aircraft
port / update FSX Grumman goose <-- it has a nice 3d model / VC + it's vintage radial float-plane

kill the ultralight, not many people flew it.

IP Logged

Reply #37 - Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:50pm

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

Quote:

kill the ultralight, not many people flew it.

... I flew it.... Grin

Grin

Ah, well. no matter, everything else you suggested is GRAND! 'specialy the DC3!

Keep' em coming folks! Smiley

IP Logged

Reply #38 - Dec 28^th, 2010 at 12:57pm

usapatriot Offline
Colonel
Please Upload Image To
SimV!
Miami, FL

Gender:
Posts: 270

I'd like to see in addition to what FSX includes:

--Civil--

Boeing 737-900ER
Boeing 787-8
Boeing 777-200ER
Boeing 747-8 and 747-8F
Bombardier Dash Q400
Gulfstream G550
Cirrus SR22
Cessna 400
Eurocopter AS350

--Military--

Boeing C-17
Lockheed C-130 Super Hercules
F-16D Fighting Falcon
F-18E Super Hornet
F-22A Raptor

Antec 902 - i7 920 @ 4.0GHz - G.Skill 6GB DDR3 - Radeon 5870 1GB - Win 7 x64

IP Logged

Reply #39 - Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:04pm

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

How 'bout one a these... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-Fo7uQlrY&feature=related

Smiley

IP Logged

Reply #40 - Jan 12^th, 2011 at 6:40am

Moach Offline
Colonel
Jet-Powered PropellerHead
São Paulo, Brazil

Gender:
Posts: 991

my vote is:

keep the fleet from FSX - add a tilt-rotor

having a proper tilt-rotor would require the addition of thrust vectoring - which is a must-have by now... Wink

Wink

and add some form of generic FMC for heavy jets and alike... it doesn't make much sense to use a G/A GPS in the cockpit of a 737 Huh

Huh

Roll Eyes

...and fix the starboard aileron in the Maule VC - it's inverted in FSX Grin

Grin

Come, one and all aboard! - The Russian Roullete in the sky!
One in each Six of my personalities knows not at all how to fly!

IP Logged

Reply #41 - Jan 15^th, 2011 at 3:58am

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

Gender:
Posts: 73

Spindrift wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

Quote:

kill the ultralight, not many people flew it.

... I flew it.... Grin

Grin

Ah, well. no matter, everything else you suggested is GRAND! 'specialy the DC3!

Keep' em coming folks! Smiley

the ultralight was for the dummys and those first missions , they will propably include it in flight too if they want to reach a bigger public and turn them into real simmers

just a pair of long wings and some rising air.

IP Logged

Reply #42 - Jan 15^th, 2011 at 2:21pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

I fly the ultralight from time to time even though I'm a great virtual pilot that can fly just about anything in the sim. Cheesy

Cheesy

The ultralight lets you sit back and enjoy the scenery and not make you focus on actually flying it.

IP Logged

Reply #43 - Jan 15^th, 2011 at 6:53pm

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

littlebenny wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 3:58am:

Spindrift wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

Quote:

kill the ultralight, not many people flew it.

... I flew it.... Grin

Grin

Ah, well. no matter, everything else you suggested is GRAND! 'specialy the DC3!

Keep' em coming folks! Smiley

the ultralight was for the dummys and those first missions , they will propably include it in flight too if they want to reach a bigger public and turn them into real simmers

Um... thanks for the compliment there Lil' Benny! I've been called worse... Wink

Wink

BrandonF wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

I fly the ultralight from time to time even though I'm a great virtual pilot that can fly just about anything in the sim. Cheesy

Cheesy

The ultralight lets you sit back and enjoy the scenery and not make you focus on actually flying it.

And that's why you're awesome Brandon! Grin

Grin

IP Logged

Reply #44 - Jan 15^th, 2011 at 7:29pm

aircanadarox21 Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!

Posts: 26

B747-8
A380-800
A350-900
B787-8
B737-700
A330-200
etc.

And how about Microsoft gets off there lazy buts and try to get some copyrights lifted so they can give us some real airlines.

IP Logged

Reply #45 - Jan 16^th, 2011 at 6:53am

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

Gender:
Posts: 73

Spindrift wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 6:53pm:

littlebenny wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 3:58am:

Spindrift wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

Quote:

kill the ultralight, not many people flew it.

... I flew it.... Grin

Grin

Ah, well. no matter, everything else you suggested is GRAND! 'specialy the DC3!

Keep' em coming folks! Smiley

the ultralight was for the dummys and those first missions , they will propably include it in flight too if they want to reach a bigger public and turn them into real simmers

Um... thanks for the compliment there Lil' Benny! I've been called worse... Wink

Wink

BrandonF wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

I fly the ultralight from time to time even though I'm a great virtual pilot that can fly just about anything in the sim. Cheesy

Cheesy

The ultralight lets you sit back and enjoy the scenery and not make you focus on actually flying it.

And that's why you're awesome Brandon! Grin

Grin

the ultralight for me is an airlane for those first missions and when you get new scenery to check it out but that's it but i can see thet you fly it there will always be persons who fly something like that

just a pair of long wings and some rising air.

IP Logged

Reply #46 - Jan 16^th, 2011 at 7:56pm

New Light Offline
Colonel
Mandeville, LA

Gender:
Posts: 93

I'm a low & slow kinduva "pilot", so I'd like to see some manufacturers like Aeronca, Diamond, Cirrus, Beechcraft, Grumman and Piper.

Definate Picks:

Beechcraft V 35 B Bonanza (just put this one in the line up)
Cessna 162 Skycatcher (with the proper Garmin G300 panel)
Cessna 182 Skylane
[*definately bring this one back*, (and preferably with a choice of fixed or retractable gear and an analog panel or G1000 glass panel)]
Cirrus SR 20/22 (with proper Avidyne Entegra glass panel)
Cubcrafters Cub Sport S 2 (with the new panels) Check 'em out @ http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcubs2/options
Diamond Katana (preferably with a choice of analog or glass panel)

Some models I'd like to see:

Aeronca AC 7
Cessna 150 (with the old skool, no frills cockpit/panel)
Cessna 172 RG Cutlass (with the old skool, no frills cockpit/panel)
Diamond DA 42 Twin Star
Grumman AA 5 Cheetah/Tiger
Piper J 3 Cub (keep this one in the mix please)
Piper PA 18 Super Cub
Piper PA 28 Cherokee 140/180 (Pleeeez make this a nice, "flyable" aircraft)
Piper PA 23 Apache
Piper PA 31 Navajo

The rest of the aircraft are AI in MY sim world. Cool

Cool

Semper Fi,

Dave

IP Logged

Reply #47 - Jan 16^th, 2011 at 9:49pm

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

New Light wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

I'm a low & slow kinduva "pilot", so I'd like to see some manufacturers like Aeronca, Diamond, Cirrus, Beechcraft, Grumman and Piper.

Definate Picks:

Beechcraft V 35 B Bonanza (just put this one in the line up)
Cessna 162 Skycatcher (with the proper Garmin G300 panel)
Cessna 182 Skylane
[*definately bring this one back*, (and preferably with a choice of fixed or retractable gear and an analog panel or G1000 glass panel)]
Cirrus SR 20/22 (with proper Avidyne Entegra glass panel)
Cubcrafters Cub Sport S 2 (with the new panels) Check 'em out @ http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcubs2/options
Diamond Katana (preferably with a choice of analog or glass panel)

Some models I'd like to see:

Aeronca AC 7
Cessna 150 (with the old skool, no frills cockpit/panel)
Cessna 172 RG Cutlass (with the old skool, no frills cockpit/panel)
Diamond DA 42 Twin Star
Grumman AA 5 Cheetah/Tiger
Piper J 3 Cub (keep this one in the mix please)
Piper PA 18 Super Cub
Piper PA 28 Cherokee 140/180 (Pleeeez make this a nice, "flyable" aircraft)
Piper PA 23 Apache
Piper PA 31 Navajo

The rest of the aircraft are AI in MY sim world. Cool

Cool

Semper Fi,

Dave

Ditto on everything! You're my kinda pilot Dave! and those SportCubs are sharp enough to cut you!

Smiley

IP Logged

Reply #48 - Jan 17^th, 2011 at 9:40am

New Light Offline
Colonel
Mandeville, LA

Gender:
Posts: 93

Hey Spindrift, I was going to suggest the newer Top Cub version when I did a last minute check of the Cubcrafters site while makig the list (haven't been there in a while) and got a load of the S 2 and the new choice of panels. That plane is friggin' niiice.

It seems that Garmin and FS have had a good working relationship over the years, at least since FS9 was developed - maybe longer. Just that fact would indicate that the possibilty to include these newer Garmin products should be within the reach of FS's ability to deliver a good sim version and for Garmin products to be more exposed.

Anyway, Garmin can furthur expose their products on the market along with Diamond aircraft. Diamonds come with analog panels but can also be outfitted with the G1000 glass cockpits. Diamond has a good chance to furthur work it's brand name into the market and take a bigger "cut of the pie" through Garmin's relationship with FS. The DA 20 Katanas (with different engines and horsepowers) seem to be main staple in Diamond's sliver in the GA market. Diamond can use the oppurtunity to showcase their smaller twin engine DA 42 Twin Star and their new D-Jet, which is in a new category of aircraft called Very Light Jets (VLJ) that can be flown by a single pilot. Both have Garmin glass panels.

Also, FS has had a really good working relationship with Cessna. It seems that Cessna has a golden oppurtunity to showcase their new 162 Skycatcher. Garmin, again, has an equal oppurtunity to showcase their newer G300 which is standard equiment on all Skycatchers (as far as know). I think both companies can exploit the same success with the new Skylane with the G1000 with Synthetic Vision Technology (SVT) and fixed gear (it doesn't seem that there is an RG version on newer Skylanes) but maybe an older version with an analog panel with retractable gear can be placed in the line up.

Aspen is another company that, as far I know, has no relationship with FS. It's another glass panel small enough to be retrofitted into small aircraft that can be seen at their website @ http://www.aspenavionics.com/index.php/customergallery They may have a chance to expose their Evolution line of products. They do service some older aircraft. It might be a long shot for them, but it may be worth a try for them.

Avidyne Entegra can expand it's market in FS, but since Eaglesoft Development Group have done an awesome job with their Cirrus', Columbias, Liberty's, etc., they would probably keep FS at a distance, but who knows...

Again, as I stated above, there are your basic, old skool, no frills panels/cockpits. They can be made nice looking, remain fully functional, and still challenge just about any "pilot's" skills.

A couple of company's relationships with FS are kinda kooky - Piper and DeHavilland. FS has made a nice version of the J 3 Cub, but has totally sh!t on the PA 28 Cherokee. What's up with that? It's nice trainer plane. It's not a high wing aircraft like the Cessna. Even though they are soppose to be direct competion, a low wing trainer ia different animal altogether. Some have tried to make it "flyable" but have fallen way short of acceptable. Why keep a useless pos in the line up? Make it a good, "flyable" aircraft or replace it with a Swift or a Cheetah/Tiger. Same thing with the DeHavilland Dash 8 100; it's a good "stepping stone" from the King Air 350 to the Bombardier Learjet 45. Why not make that a good "flyable" aircraft too? FS has a nice, "flyable" DeHavilland DHC 2 Beaver, neither one of those aircraft pose a threat to any other aircraft in the line up.

Semper Fi,

Dave

IP Logged

Reply #49 - Apr 5^th, 2011 at 3:05am

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

Gender:
Posts: 266

My list:

737-800
747-8
767-400ER
777-200LR
777-300ER
787-8
A320
A380
Citation X
C172
C182T
F-22
F-35
Wright Flyer (not joking)
EH-101
AH-64
Icon A5

It would also be cool to have real world airlines (eg. American Airlines) instead of fictional airlines (eg. World Travel Airlines)

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 #50 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:18pm

DaJamsta123 Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Valve, Bungie, Micrsoft,
Mojang!
Edinburgh

Gender:
Posts: 5

There's only really one plane I would like other that the norm airliners (Boeing, Airbus), and that is
CONCORDE!!!!!!!!!!! Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

At the moment I cant find any desent payware or freeware addons for it Cry

Cry

PLEASE MS!
Wink

Wink

Grin

Cheesy

Shocked

Cool

Roll Eyes

Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna go to the moon!

Why wait!

*Smack*

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

IP Logged

Reply #51 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:02am

iheart707 Offline
Colonel
Chicago

Gender:
Posts: 15

I'd like to see airplanes that make a little bit of smoke! I'll take anything from Douglas, or the early generation of Boeing jets. But then again, tell me someone at Microsoft has heard of a BAC-1-11 before. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

Far too often, the good old classics are dismissed for the planes with shiny buttons and gauges. I hope that's not true with Flight....

IP Logged

Reply #52 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 6:29am

Raoul98 Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 270

My list:

BBJ2
737-800
737-900ER
747-8 Series
767 Series
A380
A330
A320
Apache Longbow
Chinook
F16
F35
F22
V22 Vertol
EH101
NH90
Bell 460
C130 Hercules
MD11
Fokker 50
Fokker 100

I would love those aircraft!!!! Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Cheesy

Also i would love some airport vehicles you can drive in

« Last Edit: Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:56am by Raoul98 »

No worries, be happy

IP Logged

Reply #53 - Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 6:21pm

Bubblehead Offline
Colonel
Clear the bridge
San Diego, California USA

Gender:
Posts: 696

Microsoft should not allow questionable add-ons such as Abacus FD5 & 6 unless the developers got all their bugs out and have the facility to provide good technical support for their products.

IP Logged

Reply #54 - Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 7:20pm

IronHand Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Whitney, Texas

Gender:
Posts: 28

New Light wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

Hey Spindrift, I was going to suggest the newer Top Cub version when I did a last minute check of the Cubcrafters site while makig the list (haven't been there in a while) and got a load of the S 2 and the new choice of panels. That plane is friggin' niiice.

It seems that Garmin and FS have had a good working relationship over the years, at least since FS9 was developed - maybe longer. Just that fact would indicate that the possibilty to include these newer Garmin products should be within the reach of FS's ability to deliver a good sim version and for Garmin products to be more exposed.

Anyway, Garmin can furthur expose their products on the market along with Diamond aircraft. Diamonds come with analog panels but can also be outfitted with the G1000 glass cockpits. Diamond has a good chance to furthur work it's brand name into the market and take a bigger "cut of the pie" through Garmin's relationship with FS. The DA 20 Katanas (with different engines and horsepowers) seem to be main staple in Diamond's sliver in the GA market. Diamond can use the oppurtunity to showcase their smaller twin engine DA 42 Twin Star and their new D-Jet, which is in a new category of aircraft called Very Light Jets (VLJ) that can be flown by a single pilot. Both have Garmin glass panels.

Also, FS has had a really good working relationship with Cessna. It seems that Cessna has a golden oppurtunity to showcase their new 162 Skycatcher. Garmin, again, has an equal oppurtunity to showcase their newer G300 which is standard equiment on all Skycatchers (as far as know). I think both companies can exploit the same success with the new Skylane with the G1000 with Synthetic Vision Technology (SVT) and fixed gear (it doesn't seem that there is an RG version on newer Skylanes) but maybe an older version with an analog panel with retractable gear can be placed in the line up.

Aspen is another company that, as far I know, has no relationship with FS. It's another glass panel small enough to be retrofitted into small aircraft that can be seen at their website @ http://www.aspenavionics.com/index.php/customergallery They may have a chance to expose their Evolution line of products. They do service some older aircraft. It might be a long shot for them, but it may be worth a try for them.

Avidyne Entegra can expand it's market in FS, but since Eaglesoft Development Group have done an awesome job with their Cirrus', Columbias, Liberty's, etc., they would probably keep FS at a distance, but who knows...

Again, as I stated above, there are your basic, old skool, no frills panels/cockpits. They can be made nice looking, remain fully functional, and still challenge just about any "pilot's" skills.

A couple of company's relationships with FS are kinda kooky - Piper and DeHavilland. FS has made a nice version of the J 3 Cub, but has totally sh!t on the PA 28 Cherokee. What's up with that? It's nice trainer plane. It's not a high wing aircraft like the Cessna. Even though they are soppose to be direct competion, a low wing trainer ia different animal altogether. Some have tried to make it "flyable" but have fallen way short of acceptable. Why keep a useless pos in the line up? Make it a good, "flyable" aircraft or replace it with a Swift or a Cheetah/Tiger. Same thing with the DeHavilland Dash 8 100; it's a good "stepping stone" from the King Air 350 to the Bombardier Learjet 45. Why not make that a good "flyable" aircraft too? FS has a nice, "flyable" DeHavilland DHC 2 Beaver, neither one of those aircraft pose a threat to any other aircraft in the line up.

Semper Fi,

Dave

It is nice that the Microsoft g1000 can be used in any airplane. I think that in itself speaks tons for microsoft and allowing it to be sent out with FSX. The paywear addon Garmins are nice, but taking any aircraft you want and adding a Garmin PFD just makes it cool(I actually don't care for the MFD section.) I have seen several people say it cant be done. But i have had it now in everything from a ford trimotor(FS2004) all the way to my A380-800. Very simple once you understand what files need to be edited in the aircraft.cfg file. I posted some screenshots in the forums and just uploaded a Gates 23 with a g1000 pfd added. I hope the more it is use the more understand how nice it is to have a PFD that also has a built in gps and many other great features. Hats off to MS on this one. (would have been nice to have known the secrets how to make it work on all airplanes before now, It just took me lots of time)

IP Logged

Reply #55 - Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 8:58pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Bubblehead wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 6:21pm:

Microsoft should not allow questionable add-ons such as Abacus FD5 & 6 unless the developers got all their bugs out and have the facility to provide good technical support for their products.

But... but if they at M$ themselves are the first who don't work their bug out in the first instance before marketing their software (hence the proliferations of patches bombastically called "service packs" that act like a cork applied to the sinking Titanic, that while not always fixing a problem almost always manage to create new and enticing problems to the users), how can they demand the others to do differently? Huh

Huh

But, if you really think the way you do, be happy, that if they really decide to follow the evil ways of Apple and blind Flight only to the add-on they approve in a compartmentalization that will make EVERYONE unhappy (beside them, of course), we'll soon have a new phenomenon in our hand: the growth of pirate freeware. Won't that be nice? And, what will be next? Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

Maybe a couch made of cactus bark with a properly positioned banana-shaped growth for the user to compulsorily seat upon or the software won't even start, I guess... after all, there is just so many people that LOVE to feel as many layers of pain as possible around. Masochism in its purest form. Tongue

Tongue

Complaining with people who couldn't care less doesn't work. In a free market (and let's hope Flight will still have one) there is only ONE way to discourage bad payware, or software in general, to proliferate, and that is NOT TO BUY IT. If bad payware software and/or add-ons exist is because some <expletive deleted> buy it. No other reason. If people stop buying products made of crap, these will stop proliferating. Wink

Wink

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

IP Logged

Reply #56 - Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 10:38pm

IronHand Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Whitney, Texas

Gender:
Posts: 28

With the new aircraft/pilot licensing structure that has brought with it a wave of home built LSA aircraft and pilots. It would be nice to see some of those arrive some time soon. Several good aircraft builders about that do justice to smaller aircraft. It would be nice to see a few of those be turned out with better quality than a few i just deleted.. It just seems we have been mauled to death and the aircreations lacks creation, imho.

IP Logged

Reply #57 - Jun 24^th, 2011 at 4:33am

NNNG Ex Member

I think in most aspects the FSX aircraft were quiet good. However, I think some changes are needed.

1. Most of the sounds need to be massively improved. Most of them are almost the same as FS9.

2. The A321 fly-by-wire was annoying. In real life FBW is supposed to make flying easier, in FSX it did not (for a taste of what FBW should be like, try fiddling with it in X-Plane). The A321 passenger windows were tiny, and it was MASSIVELY overpowered. If this isn't possible stick with non-FBW aircraft or don't implement it at all.

3. Flight dynamics need to be massively improved (i.e. try flying default 747-400 then try flying PMDG 747 or even ifly 747).

4. Most HUD implementations are not smooth and the direction indicator on them (I don't know what it's called) is inaccurate.

Other than that, the virtual cockpits were beautiful, the external models were usually very decent, and the gauges were very nice.

In my last post, I think I wished for too many aircraft. Rather have quality of aircraft rather than quantity.

Airbus A380
Boeing 737-700/800 <-- port from FSX. Improve sound, external model and FD.
Bombardier Dash-8 Q400
Gulfstream 550 or 650.
Cessna 162
Cessna 400 or an old Mooney
Edge 540 or Extra 300 <-- port from FSX. Improve FD.
DG 808S sailplane <-- port from FSX.
R-22 <-- port from FSX.
F/A-18 <-- port from FSX, improve the sound, HUD and FD
Grumman goose

Use the freed resources to improve the game engine.

« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2011 at 5:45am by N/A »

IP Logged

Reply #58 - Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 11:34am

Spindrift Offline
Colonel
Simple things done well.
58N

Gender:
Posts: 267

Hrmmmmmmm..... been gone a while, day-dreaming about FLIGHT... and after considering the aircraft revealed to us so far, I have a simple logical prediction I'd like to share, based on the progression of these facts:

1) Boeing Stearman - Low & Slow Biplane with great training qualities, Open Cockpit, Taildragger.

2) Maule Orion M-7 260C - High-Wing-Single STOL Bushplane, Light & Simple, Enclosed Cockpit, Taildragger.

3) Van's RV-6A - Modern Low-Wing-Single, Clean bubble-like Enclosed Cockpit, Fixed Tricycle Gear.

And so, I think it stands to reason, that #4 will be...

4) Beechcraft Baron 58 (Or something quite similar) - Low-Wing-Twin, Retractable Tricycle Gear.

Anyone else like this logic? Smiley

IP Logged

Reply #59 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 1:17pm

ArcticFox Offline
Colonel

Posts: 77

RaptorF22 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 10:29pm:

What A/C should be in MS Flight and what do we want from them?

I for one, would like to see full VCs with all clickable cockpits and cabins.
As for what types of aircraft, they did a pretty good job with FSX and Accel IMO, but maybe a little broader selection of aircraft. I think there should be something for everyone; from hot-air-balloons to F-15s, Cessnas and Mooneys to Boeings and Airbusses, auto-giros to Mil V-12s.

What do you think??

The most common airliners from Boeing, Airbus, MD, Ilyushin and Tupolev since the 1960s jet age start I hope!

[ASUS P8H67]- [Intel core5 2500k]- [4gb Corsair DDR] - [Asus 560ti]

IP Logged

Reply #60 - Dec 13^th, 2011 at 9:44pm

c130lover Offline
Colonel
Allons-y!
U.S.A

Gender:
Posts: 326

I seriously doubt microsoft would include all of these hardcore military aircraft... but heres what I would like
747-400+ (with a GOOD vc)
737 new gen (again with good vc)
ERJ 170 (no airbus.. true men dont control their planes with sticks)
Cessna 152 (instead of the aircreation)
piper cub (like A2A quality)
cessna 172 (needed)
cessna 182 (lets have both like in FS9)
beech baron
beech king air
beech debonair
bell 412
bell 206
R22
R44
and military:
F-15
F-16
F/A-18E

IP Logged

Reply #61 - Dec 14^th, 2011 at 10:18am

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

Posts: 24861

To add to all the excellent default aircraft....

I would suggest the classic, basic, Cessna 150/152 trainer aircraft, for all the Flight Sim newcomers to practice their initial skills on.

With an additional panel option included, containing a full Bendix-King Radio stack, with HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator + VOR 1 indicator), RMI (Radio Magnetic Indicator dual needle VOR2+ NDB/ADF) Gauges, for Pilots to progress from VFR (Visual Flight Rules), to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) radio navigation....
..all contained in one single, easy-to-manage, trainer aircraft.

Thumbs up for a Cessna 150/152 Trainer!... Smiley

...!

Paul.... 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 #62 - Dec 14^th, 2011 at 9:03pm

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

Fozzer wrote on Dec 14^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

To add to all the excellent default aircraft....

I would suggest the classic, basic, Cessna 150/152 trainer aircraft, for all the Flight Sim newcomers to practice their initial skills on.

With an additional panel option included, containing a full Bendix-King Radio stack, with HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator + VOR 1 indicator), RMI (Radio Magnetic Indicator dual needle VOR2+ NDB/ADF) Gauges, for Pilots to progress from VFR (Visual Flight Rules), to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) radio navigation....
..all contained in one single, easy-to-manage, trainer aircraft.

Thumbs up for a Cessna 150/152 Trainer!... Smiley

...!

Paul.... Cool

Cool

...!

If I were Cessna, I would be making sure they are using the 162 SkyCatcher instead.

Not that I have an issue with the 150/152. Just saying.

IP Logged

Reply #63 - Dec 16^th, 2011 at 9:01am

ArcticFox Offline
Colonel

Posts: 77

A320 - all versions
A330 - both versions
A340 - 300 to 600
A380

B737 - 400 series and up
B747 - 400 and 8
B757 - all versions
B767 - all versions
B777 - all versions

Yeah... I love commercial flying Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

[ASUS P8H67]- [Intel core5 2500k]- [4gb Corsair DDR] - [Asus 560ti]

IP Logged

Reply #64 - Dec 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm

Air Vandalay Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!

Gender:
Posts: 18

My wish list?

Cessna 402
Beech King-air
Dash 8-100
Metro III

One feature I'd like, is a knee-board that would allow you to up load landing procedure pages

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