Fly Away Simulation
SearchSearch 

FS2006

Biggawalty Guest

IN FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2006, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BOARD AN AIRCRAFT. WHAT IS THE USE OF AN AIRCRAFT WITH OPENING DOORS AND NO PEOPLE TO GO IN OR COME OUT?

WE NEED BETTER SCENERY.

THE AERO COMMANDER 500 "SHRIKE", THE CESSNA 421C, THE TWIN COMMANDER 1000 AS AIRCRAFT WOULD MAKE THE SIMULATION VERY EXCELLENT!

Guest

in fs2006 i would like to see lots more explosions sp that when an aircraft crashed it dosent just sit there and make stupid noises

Finski Guest

And it would also be great if:

-there would be dynamic cars (may be only some spots moving, to avoid too much frame-loss like in Chicago in FS2000) These would appear by increasing dynamic scenery. By increasing dynamic scenery to the highest there would appear also trains and ships. These would only show below a special altitude to keep the performance reasonable.
-there would be catering trucks handling airplanes (donīt know how much the frame-loss would be Rolling Eyes) These would also appear by increasing dynamic scenery.
-when raining, there would slowly form ponds on the ground that would perhaps reflect the airplane
-the air would flicker behind the jet engines of aircraft
-more frame-friendly clouds Smile

These were the things that first came to my mind.

Pro Member First Officer
leadfoot First Officer

I would like to see visibility settings be more realistic. Say you're descending from 30000' to land, I would like to see the visiblity gradually decrease into haze or any other desired visibility if so desired, not just suddenly go from unlimited to nothing in an instant. It would also be nice to change the weather with a little window during flight instead of having to essentially stop the flight and go to a different screen to do it. I want to see a realistic MD83, 88, MD11, Fokker F-100 to fly. A better throttle quadrant for the 747 would be nice. ROADS would be nice.

Jonnypiano Guest

Maybe the jet aircraft could be made more realistic by including an APU, and all the hydraulics and electric systems. As for explosions... hmm it's not a game, it's a simulation so I doubt they'd be necessary. Would be a waste of time designing it. At the end of the day, you shouldn't crash, and if you do then all you need to do is be informed that you have crashed - the idea is not to experience a big explosive crash, for fun, like in a game, as that's not the idea of the simulation - crashing is a side effect and is not part of the simulation objective, it's just unecessary.

An FMC would also be nice. But that's probably reducing the market.

Jonathan

Trund Guest

This is what they have to do for FS2006.......

- Finally some real Aircraft Dynamics
- Real Panels with FMC
- Real Aircraft Sounds
- A weather radar (like every real plane has)
- A TCAS, since I already crashed twice into an Airplane (the ATC is no help)
- Breaking Parts when overstressing the plane (no more "Aircraft Overstressed" message.)
- Wet runways, ice etc.
- More Weather effects at all, like Hail.
- More CPU friendly AI traffic, smarter AI traffic and Wake Turbulences
- They have to fix the AutoGen Textures since it doesnt disappear in the back of your plane (even when you cant see it the CPU calculates it, which causes a huge FPS drop)
- The Clouds should be aswell more FPS friendly.

AND Finally -> They should test the game well before selling it!!!

What they can do in the next version (not important)

- Some Visible Damage (maybe Hail damage etc.)
- When starting on a Wet Runway, some effects behind the engines.
- Real Air Pressure Simulation, Hydraulic Simulation etc. which can all fail to make it more real

Thats all for now I guess, I see Microsoft has many things to do to make FS2004 more "real" especially the way the Planes fly. I hoped for a Weather Radar and Wake Turbulences long, and FS2004 still didnt had it. Well you can buy an add on for that (Active Sky) which really makes the weather in FS2004 real (also includes a weather radar).

Though theres only one real bad thing, which is the Non-Friendly FPS. Maybe Microsoft should stop testing this Game on a 3.2ghz P4, with 2gb Ram and an X800 as graphics card. Especially the Minimum Requirements are a fake in my Opinion, though I got a pretty fast Computer, FS2004 Lags a lot by me (I set the settings down pretty much).

I still have the hope, that FS2006 will be a great Flight Simulation Smile!

jwptap3 Guest

I have to agree with one of the first guys more realistic crash effects would be awesome. Even though it is just a simulation and not a game, to make it more realistic you would want to simulate a realistic crash, instead of just getting stuck in the ground. Since It will be coming out in the start of the second century of flight I think they should have more modern private, airline, buisness, glider, helicopters, and military aircraft. For example an RV-10, Diamond Katana, Cessna Citation 10, A380, the Carter Copter and other more modern and high tech aircraft instead of the old cessna's, learjets, and jet rangers that have been around for quite some time. Also there should be actuale airlines instead of qlobal, orbit,etc. There should be baggage trucks and other vehicles driving around at airports. Also there should be houses at the small grass strip airport neighborhoods like the place I live. I also think military airports and small grass strip[s should have AI aircraft at them. Other than that I can't wait until it comes out,
SWesley

jwptap3 Guest

I still think there should be realistic crashes. I know it's a simulator and it's suppose to simulate real life things and when a plane crashes it doesn't just get stuck in the ground so a simulator would simulate a real crash. After all a simulator is suppose to be realistic. Besides it's not suppose to be boring by having your screen just say CRASH it's suppose to be fun, and having explosions and parts falling off of planes when you overstress would be an exciting part of FS2006.
Also heat shimmer behind engine exhausts, and visual weather effects on aircraft and the ground would also be cool.

Jonnypiano Guest

"to make it more realistic you would want to simulate a realistic crash, instead of just getting stuck in the ground"

Then get crash simulator or Terrorist Simulator.

"I know it's a simulator and it's suppose to simulate real life things and when a plane crashes it doesn't just get stuck in the ground so a simulator would simulate a real crash."

Real million dollar simulators do not do this. It isn't necessary. Flight Simulator is professional, not a shoot 'em up explosions 'game' for little kids.

"After all a simulator is suppose to be realistic."

Yes, and the simulation is of flight, not crashes - crashes are not realistic as they are not supposed to happen, are they.

"it's suppose to be fun"

No, it's supposed to be a realistic and professional simulation which results in professional fun, not a couple of hours of fun then boredom after crashing a few times.

"and having explosions and parts falling off of planes"

Oh yes I'd love to see my plane falling apart, get rid of all the professional flight systems, all I want to see is bits falling off the plane I'm flying. At the end of the day, flying a plane is just about crashing it and wrecking it, isn't it? I reckon that those million dollar simulators should have parts flying into them to scare the pilot sh*tless and have it smack into the ground and get wrecked. Mega fun. Then those pilots will be trained for the every day ritualistic occurences in aviation, such as crashing 10 million dollar airliners. THAT'S what those airlines are there for. Killing people.

Jonathan

jwptap3 Guest

You have a point. It would be cool to see explosions and parts falling off planes but it is unnecessary. Because when you get down to it your trying not to crash. Anyway even though it would be cool it's unnecessary. Back to the topic.
Some more things i would like to see are vapor trails and clouds forming on the tops of planes when they reach the dew point. Not like the ones that you download that don't have anything to do with the dew point you just have to reach a certain amount of G's. Although in a fighter jet pulling G's has a lot to do with it, I want the air to reach dew point when your pulluing G's instead of the G's causing the vapor trail. I want them to work like they should. Example: When your coming in for a landing in a 737 and you put the flaps down. I'd like to see them coming of the tips of the flaps. Or forming cones on fighter jets when it gets close to the sound barrier.
Also hangars that open when you taxi up to them so you can park inside. It would be cool if they were at every airport. Right now you can only download them and they get put at the airport that the designer chooses.
Also the gates at international airports should move to the sides of planes when you shut down in front of them.
What would be really cool is if you could go into space. I'm not talking about all the way to the moon. I'm saying just far enough that you could acctually orbit right outside the atmosphere. Even though it's not that big of a deal.
Like I said before about it being the start of the second century of flight. Two other aircraft that would be cool to put in the flightsim is Burt Rutans White Night and Space Ship One.

Wesley

Guest

From what i can see there seems to be two types of flight simmers out there those who treat FS as more of a game and those who treat it much more seriously, each to there own, what MS has to to is decide which market they want to follow they'll never please both and if they try the product will end up being a 'jack of all trades' product pretty much like the rest of their software.

Personally as a non real world pilot, I feel the games realism is good enough (to be honest, it seems real, weather or not it is, i'll probably never know and if i did find out i cannot see myself playing it as i'd be doing it for real!!!!) So what i'd like to see are more cosmetic changes including:

More Planes
Better graphics
More realistic citys
Turbulance special effects including audio effects
Wing views - maybe the abillity to walk around the cabin
More instruments in the virtual cockpits i.e. GPS, weather radar, TCAS, etc. also better night illumination in the VC
Most of all though - a game objective (adventures don't re-ward you) May be, to take the game grand turismo (a driving simulator) as an example, as you learn or progress more features/planes/etc become unlocked thus giving you an objective. - There would always be cheats for those who cannot wait.

Which everway microsoft take this product you can be sure that someone else will fill any market gap left over, afterall there is XPlane and even the free opensource sim flightgear (http://www.flightgear.org/).

Giladal Guest

I would add the whole FAA PTS to work with. In other words, now when you doing a checkride they done have for the commerical the 180 degree acuracee landings and for the private slow flight, s-turns and so on.. They need to add all that. Plus it would be nice to feel the airplane shaking in turbulance and the seat belt sign coming on automaticly in the big jets.

troy gauthier Guest

IN the next simulator 2006.get rid of those carry-over al traffic airplanes. like the boring 737 400, the old looking md80's. rid the old learjet45. use something like the (gulfstreams) use crj 200 or the erj's. most airports in the U.S you will see the smaller jets 50&70 seat airplanes. rid the old 747 and replace it. use more airbuses.

Pro Member First Officer
leadfoot First Officer

I'm a diehard Boeing fan, as well as McDonnell Douglas. There are more of those "boring" 737s 757s and Md 80s doing yoeman work out there than any other makes now. I would personally love to have an accurate MD 80 or 83 and a GOOD 757, with accurate sounds by the way. I think the 757 is the sweetest looking twin jet out there. It just pulls my chain. Even though the Airbus Industrie's has the most advanced wing out there right now, I just don't care for them. Maybe I'm biased, but that's how I feel. When I travel commercially I always choose Boeing products. I just have a real problem with the idea of an Airbus pilot just watching over a computer while at 37000' which could go haywire at anytime and get a mind if its own and proceed to kill all of us, and or scare us to within an eighth of an inch of our lives in the process. This has happened several times, some fatal some not. The fatal ones were because the pilot could not override the damned computer, and the plane proceeded to crash anyway killing all aboard.--- No thanks. I have personally observed a video of an airbus on approach go into a spiral nose dive for no reason at all. The pilot was lucky, he managed to convince the computer to let go of it at about 1000' agl. He recovered it--- BARELY. It was determined that a computer malfunction was the cause. I have also read many an NTSB report on VERY similar cases involving the airbus flight comp. Real scary. I like the idea of a pilot having a real yolk in his hands when I'm with him at 37000'. A sense of security-- they call it? I think MS should also concentrate on improving the frame rates. You should'nt have to by a multi- thousand dollar machine just to get decent performance out of a sim. I paid 1200 bucks for my machine and the frame rates at times leave something to be desired. I think the boys at MS are more than smart enough to figure that one out.

Guest

Anonymous wrote:

From what i can see there seems to be two types of flight simmers out there those who treat FS as more of a game and those who treat it much more seriously, each to there own, what MS has to to is decide which market they want to follow they'll never please both and if they try the product will end up being a 'jack of all trades' product pretty much like the rest of their software.

Personally as a non real world pilot, I feel the games realism is good enough (to be honest, it seems real, weather or not it is, i'll probably never know and if i did find out i cannot see myself playing it as i'd be doing it for real!!!!) So what i'd like to see are more cosmetic changes including:

More Planes
Better graphics
More realistic citys
Turbulance special effects including audio effects
Wing views - maybe the abillity to walk around the cabin
More instruments in the virtual cockpits i.e. GPS, weather radar, TCAS, etc. also better night illumination in the VC
Most of all though - a game objective (adventures don't re-ward you) May be, to take the game grand turismo (a driving simulator) as an example, as you learn or progress more features/planes/etc become unlocked thus giving you an objective. - There would always be cheats for those who cannot wait.

Which everway microsoft take this product you can be sure that someone else will fill any market gap left over, afterall there is XPlane and even the free opensource sim flightgear (http://www.flightgear.org/).

i would have to agree to objective is to fly not to crash i think if you want to do that fly one of the combat sims that are out there Rolling Eyes

ziplineX Guest

theres going to be a new sim in town made by microsoft fsX get readdy http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=146773

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

ziplineX wrote:

theres going to be a new sim in town made by microsoft fsX get readdy http://www.neowin.net/forum//?act=Attach&type=post&id=146773

The article is bogus and has already been disclaimed by MS. don't believe everything you read. Evil or Very Mad

Pro Member Trainee
murrphys Trainee

Ok, I found a lot of information out on the New Flight Sim, but they are still keeping a lot of it hush hush. You can read and even see an interview from Microsoft by googling "Flight Simulator X".

Here is a link to see a ton of images and Q&A on the new Flight Simulator X Due in Quarter 4 2006. http://www.fsplanet.com/fsplanet_com_fsx.htm

I'm really getting excited about this one...Hopefully they will integrate something similar to VOX ATC, which I've been using and really like it.

Pro Member First Officer
simon roourke (simon123) First Officer

im with troy gauthier,,

New aircraft not the old B, 737 they are good to fly, but we need some new looking aircraft, but again the more detail the slower speed,
Time for an upgrade I think before getting 2006. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions