Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Poll closed Poll
Question: What would you like to see in Fs2006
*** This poll has now closed ***


Better water effects    
  23 (12.4%)
More aircraft selections    
  25 (13.5%)
Improved Air Force Bases    
  19 (10.3%)
More flight plans with military aircraft    
  21 (11.4%)
Better flight school training    
  14 (7.6%)
Better airport textures    
  25 (13.5%)
Add ATC and parking to all small airports    
  20 (10.8%)
Improved scenery    
  38 (20.5%)




Total votes: 185

Polls have re opened
« Last Modified by: ryan6802 on: May 3rd, 2004 at 8:32pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
What to include in FS2006 (Read 1893 times)
Reply #15 - Apr 27th, 2004 at 11:05pm

walt_stout   Offline
Colonel
Washington & Montana

Gender: male
Posts: 17
*****
 
Quote:
Two words:  Inflight Emergencies.


In flight emergencies with appropriate responses from ATC
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 7:01am

Sterk   Offline
Colonel

Posts: 316
*****
 
2Nexus
You'll lose FPS anyway,or you want FS2006 stay on the same graphic level as FS2004?

Dont forget that technology develops so fast that by release of FS 2006 we'll make fun of somebody who has
so poor graphic card like GeForce FX 5950,and still uses processors below 5 Ghz... Grin Grin Grin
 

...&&&&
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 7:25am

Sterk   Offline
Colonel

Posts: 316
*****
 
I'd like to see in new FS version some kind of pilot career
managment,when you,say,have to start from beginning
private Cessna pilot in small company,or start from the level that depends on  your flight exams results.
Then to be promoted,getting flight assigments,generated by sim,depends on airline company you choose to work for... 8)
 

...&&&&
IP Logged
 
Reply #18 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 11:59am

Scottler   Offline
Colonel
Albany, New York USA

Gender: male
Posts: 5989
*****
 
Although I think that would be a great idea Sterk, I don't think M$ will do it because VA's are already so popular.  They'd be alienating a large portion of the sim community.

It IS a good idea though. Wink
 

Great edit, Bob.&&&&&&Google it. &&&&www.google.com
IP Logged
 
Reply #19 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 2:43pm

EricK   Offline
Colonel
My Playground - Boundary
Bay (CZBB)
Canada

Gender: male
Posts: 578
*****
 
Hi there,

I think that SCENERY is the next logical step. We now have aircraft that look almost photoreal, sitting against a background that looks like "Lego"

I also think that we should have more aircraft in general. I enjoy the default planes (great vc's, etc) we just need more of them. Honestly, who flies the default "Vickers" on a regular basis!?

Lastly, but in my opinion, most importantly - MILITARY!!
I have never seen so many people talk about a subject that is not included in the sim. I understand that it is not everyones cup of tea, but when Kirk Olsen's "Viper" came out, tell me, you didn't download it!!!!!!!!

Thanks
Eric
 

...&&SYSTEM-Alienware Area 51,Intel P4 3.2ghz,Asus P4C800E,Corsair 1gb DDR,Seagate 120gb HD,Geforce FX 5950 Ultra 256mb,Audigy 2 zs 7.1,17
IP Logged
 
Reply #20 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 5:43pm

tsunami_KNUW   Offline
Colonel
Life is good.
Oak Harbor, Washington

Gender: male
Posts: 1215
*****
 
Quote:
Honestly, who flies the default "Vickers" on a regular basis!?

Good point but remember FS2004 was made to celebrate the 100 years of aviation. But I'm sure MS won't have the "Vickers" or "Wright Flyer" in 2006  Wink
 

...&&Home Airport: NAS Whidbey Island (KNUW)-Oak Harbor Airpark (76S)&&Current FS Location: Seoul/Incheon, South Korea
IP Logged
 
Reply #21 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 11:49pm

Tomtomcat   Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 20
*****
 
I`d like to have : Flocks of birds , realisticly scaled
buildings ( not those dwarf huts) , living blocks
(houses with yards in the middle that you find in most
western cities -if they cover larger spaces on the
ground you need less scenery objects - hence :
better FPS !) , wet rainy runways with enviromental
mapping , wake turbulences caused by heavies &
the possibility to leave the outer atmosphere.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #22 - Apr 29th, 2004 at 1:52am

Ionos   Offline
Major
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 4
*****
 
Scenery needs to make a jump to the next level.  As was said before, the planes now look good, and now is the time for the scenery to also step up to the plate.

A more accurate and visually realistic rendition of the virtual world in the next version of Flight Simulator would draw others who aren't neccessarily flight buffs, but would enjoy sightseeing in a virtual world (which is what MSFS is) from the comfort of their homes.

I have to admit, even though flying is my number one thrill in MSFS, I derive a large chunk of the excitement in having the whole world to explore.

And I also think that it's time for dynamic scenery to be improved.  Realism would get a huge boost if we could see moving buses, cars, other vehicles traveling down the roads and highways.  Flight Simulator would truly come to life.

As for FPS taking a hit, that's a weak point.   That's what the adjustable settings are for.  Anybody is free to customize their sliders up or down to increase or decrease the level of certain feaures, or turn it off completely.  It would allow those with the capablity to enjoy this new realm, while not hindering those with prehistoric computers.

This could only make our experiences within MSFS more positive and enjoyable.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #23 - Apr 29th, 2004 at 2:26pm

JBaymore   Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender: male
Posts: 10261
*****
 
Quote:
I understand that it is not everyones cup of tea, but when Kirk Olsen's "Viper" came out, tell me, you didn't download it!!!!!!!!


Well..... actually..... I didn't download it  Grin.

best,

................john
 

... ...Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M,  Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit
IP Logged
 
Reply #24 - Apr 29th, 2004 at 3:24pm

Scottler   Offline
Colonel
Albany, New York USA

Gender: male
Posts: 5989
*****
 
Quote:
As for FPS taking a hit, that's a weak point.   That's what the adjustable settings are for.  Anybody is free to customize their sliders up or down to increase or decrease the level of certain feaures, or turn it off completely.  It would allow those with the capablity to enjoy this new realm, while not hindering those with prehistoric computers.


I have to disagree.

While the purpose of sliders does help those with slower systems, it would be illogical from a business standpoint for M$ to release a software so demanding that only the absolute highest computers would run it.

The system I'm currently on (my "old" one) is only about 18 months old, and it runs FS9 reasonably.  It's hardly in the prehistoric category.  (Even by computer standards!)

But I know of a few people who are just a few months "behind" me and they can't run FS9 at all. 

Kick it up too much, and NO ONE will be able to enjoy (i.e. pay for) the game.
 

Great edit, Bob.&&&&&&Google it. &&&&www.google.com
IP Logged
 
Reply #25 - Apr 29th, 2004 at 4:37pm

gabe   Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 8
*****
 
Well, FS2004 has been a chalenge to my frame rates.  So as much as I would like better scenery, I do not want it at the cost of less disirable frame rates.

As far as other aircraft, I think that would be great.  But I do not fly the default aircraft much, I fly mostly freeware aircraft now and panels.

I would like to see more improvement in ATC.  I think this is something they can do without cratering frame rates.  I would like to see holding instructions, SPEED RESTRICIONS, we have altitude, now lets have speed, better spacing, but get rid of the 40 mile vectoring to final.  Maybe 10 to 20 miles of vectoring.  I would just once like to fly a published STAR into a airport without being vectored off a third of the way into the STAR.  When I request a change of runway, let me land on that runway and not ask me to fly the approach but land on the original runway.   Declarie emergencies.

Basically, I feel there is enough freeware scenery, aircraft, and panels to do the job.  But there is no freeware addons I have seen other than adding airline call signs to ATC.

Have a button you can click if you want holding instructions or not.  Also, have a button to add narrow body and/or wide body jetways in the top 1000 cities so long as it does not crater frame rates.


Just some thoughts, Microsoft, I hope you are reading some of these excellent ideas I have been reading on many members posts. 

FS2004 is much improved in regards to ATC and Weather in my opinion over FS2002.  Now, lets raise the bar proportionately in FS2006.

Regards

Gabe
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #26 - Apr 29th, 2004 at 4:59pm

Dragonfighter   Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 19
*****
 
Scripts for ATC response so you can add your own voice like in the Pro Pilot series.  It took some time but it was a blast to hear myself talking to an ATC center and such.

Also, if you add military, add civilian aircraft intercept and challenges as is the sad reality of today's world but would be fun to fly.

Roads going into and out of airports.  In game scenery editor.  I have wonderful dynamic and accurate scenery for Pensacola, MS and Corpus Christi NAS's that came with the Navy Shell trainer.  But it only works in 2002.  I would like to see an integral editor so you don't have to install, adjust and tweak a ton of third party programs and then worry if the finished product is going to work.

DF
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #27 - Apr 30th, 2004 at 6:43am

Ionos   Offline
Major
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 4
*****
 
Quote:
While the purpose of sliders does help those with slower systems, it would be illogical from a business standpoint for M$ to release a software so demanding that only the absolute highest computers would run it.

True...   But it would be quite presumptuous of us to conclude that any advancement in the graphics and other features that Microsoft makes to FS in the next release would result in just that.

This reminds me of similar comments made by some back when we were still using FS2000 (not so long ago).  When the question of improvements came up for the yet to be released 2002 version, there were of course those reluctant and apprehensive of progress, afraid that their computers would not run the new, more processor hungry Flight Sim.Cry

Ideas had been suggested, such as adding trees, improvement in terrain realism, increased cloud complexity, among others.  We all know FS2000 was pretty poor when it came to these features, and we wanted improvements.  And oh yes, comments similar to "I'm not willing to lose FPS because of some trees" were heard.  MS did release the 2002 version with many of the improvements.  Sure, some really old computers couldn't hack it and were left out in the dust.  Undecided  But the majority of average computers during that period were able to run it OK depending on the degree one used the new souped up features (as always, as in previous and future releases).  And, as has always been the case, the high ended machines ran it the best.

Microsoft is an aggressive savvy company in the business of making money (all the lawsuits will attest to that ).  You will never have to worry about MS releasing software that ONLY the absolute highest computers could run.  They also know quite well from a business standpoint they have to offer some new advancements in their product, otherwise who in their right mind would fork up $$ to get basically what amounts to a clone of their previously owned copy?! Shocked

My point is the fact that by the time it comes for another release of FS, computers and graphics cards will also have advanced significantly to allow us to ramp up the improvements in FS software.  Sterk was right when he half-joked that by that time, we'll be making fun of those who have processors below 5 GHz.  Grin   MS will no doubt take advantage of the beefed up processor power and release FS2006 with some of the enhancements we want.  If the idea that advancement should be curbed due to the mentioned fears was actually followed, we all would be still flying staring at flat wireframes going by on the screen.  Angry  http://simflight.com/~fshistory/fsh/fs1.htm

As the average power of the computer increases every year, so should the newest FS reflect that, and that is what MS has always done.  I expect no less and no more this time around as well.   Smiley
« Last Edit: Apr 30th, 2004 at 8:25am by Ionos »  
IP Logged
 
Reply #28 - Apr 30th, 2004 at 10:43am

Scottler   Offline
Colonel
Albany, New York USA

Gender: male
Posts: 5989
*****
 
Ionos, you've taken my quote out of its context.

What I was saying was that it wouldn't be logical to create a program with ridiculous minimum requirements.

For example, it would be insane for them to release a game that would not run at all on anything less than a P4 3.4Ghz chip with 1 GB of RAM.  I don't mean run well, I mean it won't run at all.  Won't even start...

Of course there are going to be improvements, I'm not implying that there won't.  (Assuming we even have an FS10!)  But to wish for improvements that are so demanding that you can't see them unless your computer is 20 minutes old is a bit unrealistic.
 

Great edit, Bob.&&&&&&Google it. &&&&www.google.com
IP Logged
 
Reply #29 - Apr 30th, 2004 at 11:46am

Ionos   Offline
Major
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 4
*****
 
Quote:
What I was saying was that it wouldn't be logical to create a program with ridiculous minimum requirements.

Hyperion, I absolutely agree with you on that one.   Which is why, despite all our complaints about MS, they're probably going to have to find the right balance of innovation, so we will feel it's worth our hard earned money to buy the new FS, and at the same time not eliminate most PCs from being able to run the sim. Business wise, being a shrewd company, they'll never go to either extreme.

And I'm sure that's the process they go through everytime they release a new version.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print