What would you like to see in the next flight simulator?

Comments, Bugs, doubts, help or anything related.

Moderators: rd, mel wilson, gbesoain, Cat1, ricktobin, groundsquirrel, Insured Disaster, skipperdan

Locked
User avatar
Sandpiper-N121PP
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

What would you like to see in the next flight simulator?

Post by Sandpiper-N121PP » Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:49 am

I personally have been thru all of the Flight Simulator from Microsoft since FS 1. There have been alot of changes... if you are new to the flight sim... then you might want to see where it all started... and then add to where you might want to see it go to. I would love to see some of the following...

1. More natural and national/worldwide landmarks. Example...

Waterfalls... Angel falls Venezuela - Tallest waterfall in the world.

Disneyland... California - Where did it go?

Devil's Tower... Wyoming - Not Devil's Mound!!!

Christ Statue... Rio De Janeiro - Where did he go?

These are just a few I would like to see added. Also would be nice to see traffic of some sort on the roads at low altitudes. More trees and bushes would also be nice. Any more great ideas? Below is a link you can go to where you can see where it all began and where it currently is... the page appears to be under construction but still will make you very much appriciative of what you see today in the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

http://simflight.com/~fshistory/fsh/start.htm
Image

You land a million plane's safely... then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it!!! [-X :roll: =;

User avatar
JohnBAC111
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Bournemouth, UK (EGHH)
Contact:

Post by JohnBAC111 » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:53 am

Your request's can quite Easily be acomplisted already in FS2004 just need to look around and find them.

As for the Next version of Flight Sim *Rolls our huge list* These debates go on for ages there's many things I would like the next version to have.

Microsoft is seems to still find it hard to take our idea's and put them into the next realease, Hopefully the next version will live and to expectations.
"If God wanted us to fly, He would have given us tickets."

User avatar
wingman1508
Junior SurClaro Member
Junior SurClaro Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: EDDF

Post by wingman1508 » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:59 am

better default cockpits..as this years cockpits are lame.

possibility to see aircraft interior...just like in melvin rafis planes.

upgraded weather...or better weather that doesnt kill yr frame rates.
better ATC.

i really dont care too much about the default panles as the addons from all the great fellow simmers are so much better :D

it would be also nice to request emergency landings.

the possibility to have more failures during flight...

User avatar
groundsquirrel
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:31 am
Location: Navarre,Florida-USA (KVPS,KHRT,KPNS)
Contact:

up to expectations?

Post by groundsquirrel » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:01 am

Personally, I find it hard to keep up with everything FS has to offer, it seems that I no sooner get a handle on the programs features and we're off and running to the next version. After all the debate about what to add to the next version, there has to be one thing that would absolutely enhance the experience. Please allow aircraft to fly as close as a foot apart. With multiplayer coming into its own as the WWW matures, can you imagine some REAL formation flying and dogfighting? Wouldnt you like to roll in nice and close to some of the AI aircraft and others? How about that tower flyby being close enough to read the radar scopes yourself? Two by two alert takeoffs anyone?
Gravity ... it's an Earth thing.

User avatar
wingman1508
Junior SurClaro Member
Junior SurClaro Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: EDDF

Post by wingman1508 » Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:22 am

isnt CFS for dogfights ???

i sometimes fly military equipment in FS2004 but only freighters....no fighters

imo they dont belong to the civil FS

on the other hand ...sounds quite good to have that

yellowbird
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Alexandria, Ontario CANADA

Post by yellowbird » Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:12 pm

a better flight planner with a larger screen.

ricktobin
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:29 am

Post by ricktobin » Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:47 pm

I'd like to see a link (on the create a flight menu) between the aircraft start location and the AFCAD .bgls. If you have AFCAD installed and have your AI setup to use the actual gate numbers that the real world airlines use, it'll say:

GATE 24 HEAVY AAL
GATE 25 MEDIUM AAL AAX
GATE 26 MEDIUM USA
RAMP 11 CARGO UPS

That way for us realism freaks, you don't enter the sim with a COA parked in the NWA gates.

User avatar
JohnBAC111
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Bournemouth, UK (EGHH)
Contact:

Re: up to expectations?

Post by JohnBAC111 » Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:05 pm

groundsquirrel wrote:Personally, I find it hard to keep up with everything FS has to offer, it seems that I no sooner get a handle on the programs features and we're off and running to the next version. After all the debate about what to add to the next version, there has to be one thing that would absolutely enhance the experience. Please allow aircraft to fly as close as a foot apart. With multiplayer coming into its own as the WWW matures, can you imagine some REAL formation flying and dogfighting? Wouldnt you like to roll in nice and close to some of the AI aircraft and others? How about that tower flyby being close enough to read the radar scopes yourself? Two by two alert takeoffs anyone?
That's how I view it, The specs are rather high for it's time a lot of people don't run FS2004 at peek performance. This is frustrating cause I practically had to buy a new computer to run FS2004 alone.

So a more computer friendly program is what is needed otherwise it will be a long wait for me(and many others), cause we will need a whole new rig just to run it.
"If God wanted us to fly, He would have given us tickets."

Destroyer14
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:49 pm

Post by Destroyer14 » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:54 pm

id want to see real airlines put in the game

SpectroPro

Re: up to expectations?

Post by SpectroPro » Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:00 am

JohnBAC111 wrote:
That's how I view it, The specs are rather high for it's time a lot of people don't run FS2004 at peek performance. This is frustrating cause I practically had to buy a new computer to run FS2004 alone.

So a more computer friendly program is what is needed otherwise it will be a long wait for me(and many others), cause we will need a whole new rig just to run it.
John, I hate to say it, but that I am just the opposite. I hate that they make it TOO friendly for older computers. Max this bad boy out. People will adjust. I bought a new computer system JUST for use with fs9. I maxed this thing out so that I could play with full reallism and all settings on high. Which I do. And yet, there are many things that don't exist in the program because it would kill lesser computers. PHFT!!!!!

I want full AI and ATC in multi-player. I want moving cars, real water vehicles , etc.. I want my computers internal temp to rise 50 degrees from all the graphics and effects. I will get a temp job for a month to pay the 1000.00 for a new computer when I need to upgrade again.

DON'T give up incredible features for the sake of people that don't feel like upgrading. NOTE: This computer that I have stock with unreal graphics and sound system cost me 600.00 with no monitor or dvd recorder. A bit more when I added those. Call DELL. They destroy every other companies prices. Their service is unreal and second to none. And I have tried to destroy this computer with apps/games/etc.. but have yet to come close. So I don't want to hear it is too expensive. You can work at a fast food restraunt part time and make enough for a new computer in 4 weeks. But of course, that would mean people actually have to work for something...and we know that won't be happening.

So, my solution would be go back to the 2 version format. one version with crap for people that don't want to upgrade and buy new systems, and one version for even double the price (I'd easily pay 100 bucks for a version with what I want in it, in it...) for those of us that DEMAND and DESIRE the absolute BEST and will find a way to get it.

MORE MORE MORE!!!! 8)

Exxman

Post by Exxman » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:34 pm

I love the great ideas from Groundsquirrel and Rick Tobin!!! Yeah, choice of parking according to aircraft/airline. Formation flying...right on!

How about allowing training flights to be filed and flown just like regular flight plans? Currently you can only fly from one airport to another for a flightplan to be valid no? I just installed CAF Military flightplans for Canada and am trying to get the a/c to fly training loops around their respective airports...lots of errors but I think I can do it.


Exxman

User avatar
wackie
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
SurClaro.com Regular Forum Member
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by wackie » Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:20 pm

Add my vote for more user freindly.

I think semi detailed weather with realistic amount of ATC traffic should be something the average computer should be able to handle.

I have seriously thought of re-installing fs02 and run everything to full and see what happens.

My biggest complaint with FS9 is that (IMO) it's not THAT much of an upgrade as it is a hit to your frame rates.
Answers are $5. Correct answers are $25. Dumb looks are still free.

User avatar
Insured Disaster
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Insured Disaster » Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:36 pm

MS should try to make a version with greater customization to the graphics setttings. Right now, say, you have an "scenery complexity" slider. But wouldnt it be great if you had more choices, say, low complexity, but with airport signs there? Or could add more city buildings, but at the same time keep airport buildings at minimums? I really think that if MS could come up with a game that would allow PC nuts like Spectro to go out and buy a brand new computer to max out the features, but at the same time allow me to keep my laptop running, MS would sell far more copies faster, than preventing Spectropro's species from getting full enjoyment by running a low graphics sim, or by puttig out a high graphics sim that would leave me by the wayside crying my eyes out.
Signature changed to avoid offending anyone.
LOL

User avatar
paulvil
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 1:22 pm
Location: Spring Hill, FL -KBKV-
Contact:

Post by paulvil » Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:19 pm

You could never max out Gregs Department of Defence computer! I feel M/S should design F/S for a MID system to run MID settings, MID HIGH comps run at MAX settings, MID LOW comps run at LOW settings, & Gerg like people can put 1000s of AI A/C, Active Sky, ect...
Mmm, 3.14159...

SpectroPro

Post by SpectroPro » Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:35 pm

ID: I love your ideas. There should be 1 or 2 entire pages of options for graphic settings. I totally agree with that. Give the user full control over what they want to see and how well. This would be HUGE. And very simple to do, since the program makes the settings itself, why not add sliders for the user to do it.

Paulvil: Why do I have to be a Gerg? lmao!!! :twisted:

Exx: I would LOVE it if you could program round the airport flights for AI. That would be great as you could then set AI to fly around known flight schools.

As I said, I wish they went back to the multi-versions of FS. Make one where the min system is a 9800pro with 256megs, 4 gigs ram, pentium 4 multi processors, etc... Allow people that WANT the unreal stuff the option to have it. And allow those that don't want it, a version where it runs on low systems.

User avatar
paulvil
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 1:22 pm
Location: Spring Hill, FL -KBKV-
Contact:

Post by paulvil » Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Do you know how hard that would make our job?!?!!?!?!! and think addons OMG!!!
Paulvil: Why do I have to be a Gerg? lmao!!!
Who said YOU are Greg (yes you are the who I was refering to :D )

And multi, scratch that OMNI controls would be great but also give a basic section for those who dont know dirt

Look its ralph :D)
Mmm, 3.14159...

Mathijs1
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:54 pm
Location: Netherlands, the

Post by Mathijs1 » Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:54 pm

More voices and views.
Hi all,

My name is Mathijs Slingerlands I'm 16 years old and live in a villige in the easten part of the Netherlands.
I live near the airbase Twenthe.
If you have any questions just ask me.

Regards,
Mathijs Slingerland.

User avatar
Insured Disaster
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Insured Disaster » Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:02 am

Questions about what? What should be in FS 10? We did, earlier in this post.
Signature changed to avoid offending anyone.
LOL

Exxman

Post by Exxman » Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:24 am

I gotta question for Mathijs1...


To what degrees can I retard the timing in my 67 Dart SE so that the water injection system doesn't puke back at me under de-acceleration?

Been looking around for answers but no one seems to know and my LT link and s/w doesn't give me any answers...

Exxman

Andicleez
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:49 am
Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA

Next FS

Post by Andicleez » Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:05 am

I have to agree with the guys that are for one version that is able to run on low, medium, high, or outrageous graphics settings. Say, for example, I have a not so new computer, but it runs ok. I can buy the new FS version and run it on low settings, but what if i decide to upgrade my computer or get another one, i dont want to have to get a whole new version of FS. That makes your old copy useless and therefore a waste of money. Anyway i am against two versions.

In addition to that, I would like to see flights selectable more like missions. I think that will add another perspective and make FS more like a game, where you have something to accomplish, instead of just flying around. Just like the "training" in FS, you have something like corporate pilot, or airline pilot, or cargo pilot, or sightseeing chauffer, or even flying banners over the beach to choose from and each choice has it's respective set of missions to be completed. Something that gives you an objective, and upon completion you are rated on how well you performed the task and whether you pass or fail the mission. You could be rated on things like improper procedures, incorrect altitudes or routes, or a hard landing, while a perfect landing can get bonus points. Missions could be short hops in a puddle-jumper where you must get the passengers to a specific airport in time for them to switch to another flight (And not just start out with passengers, you have to taxi to what terminal they are at and open the door for them to get in. I think it would be really awesome if there could be some neat little animated people exiting (and entering) the plane, while all of this time is being counted toward your mission score and whether or not the passengers arrive on time.)Or say you have some passengers that are somewhat afraid to fly and you have to make a smooth flight for them to remain happy. Or on the other end of the spectrum, have an aerobatic show to perform where you must amaze the crowd with a certain degree of difficulty and risk. Maybe a group of sightseers who want pictures of specific landmarks and you must take them there so they can get their pictures.

A few minor details i would like: just to spice it up a little, put some messages across the screen if you pull a steep turn or go inverted, saying someone passed out, or threw up, or made a complaint and animated ground crews including things like airstairs and terminal ramps. I agree with the person that said declaring an emergency to ATC, that would be cool, or if you could drive one of the emergency vehicles like a firetruck, as a mission to put out a flaming engine for a landing plane. Emergency exit slides would be cool too. I know there arent military planes normally in FS, but being able to drop/shoot objects or missiles from military planes would be a great effect and also possibility to eject, i downloaded one plane from here that could eject and it was GREAT!

Also i think it would be nice to be able to choose how many passengers or how much cargo you carry when selecting aircraft to enable different loading and CG situations and even make it impossible to lift off. I know you can change the payload, but i mean passengers, so when you get to an airport you can drop them off.

I know I mentioned a lot of stuff, but I would really enjoy all of those things if they were in FS, and I will definately buy the next version. I think that these are good ideas and I hope that some other people agree with my recommendations.

User avatar
Insured Disaster
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Insured Disaster » Sun Aug 29, 2004 10:09 am

I also think that real time crash damage would be awesome. If anyone has played Flight unlimited III, they know what I mean. You could actually have wings and tails rip off, gear be blown away, and flaps damaged should they be operated improperly. I once flew into a thunderstorm that tore the plane apart. I also pulled a hard turn in the Motor glider and ripped off half a wing. It was a real challenge to land the plane mission control surfaces and such. If only MS added this sort of thing, rather than a simple "Crash" on the screen. But at least MS is better than X plane in that regard.


(Ok, I know "good pilots" are not supposed to like to crash, but its really cool haveing wings rip off.)
Signature changed to avoid offending anyone.
LOL

User avatar
Sandpiper-N121PP
SurClaro senior forum member
SurClaro senior forum member
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Crash Realism

Post by Sandpiper-N121PP » Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:47 pm

I must admit that the crash realism in Flight Unlimited is great! They should have that in MSFS as well... even though you crashing is not the goal of a pilot... it would make it more realistic. I would also like to see traffic on the roads. That would be a memory hog wouldn't it. hehehehhe More realistic snow and rain would be nice... icy patches on the runways as well. I also wish they would put in a paint shop in the simulator so you could have more choices than the ones you get. I know there are add on's out there but just make it a complete package deal. One final thing would be to have actual passengers in the plane with you. When you go under fuel and payload you can add them in as weight but you never see them. Just a couple of ideas.
Image

You land a million plane's safely... then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it!!! [-X :roll: =;

User avatar
HAMMEROGOD
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:37 am

Post by HAMMEROGOD » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:51 am

It would be terrific to see greater detail related to aircraft inflight over-stress.
I want so see the wings come off.

I would also like to see greater accent placed on inflight hazards.

How about bird strikes and lightning hits?
Runway FOD (foreign object damage)?
I would REALLY like to see a set of AI driven Hazards (user configureable and optional of course).
I want some (configurable and optional) randomization of real life events.

And..Hey Microsoft...keep the frame rates managable.
Don't make me buy yet another overpriced Graphics card.
If FS2006 requires some Hyper Card and/or Mega Memory I simply won't buy it.
The gods of avation touched my very core when I was but a child.
They have remained constantly with me now that I am old.
Why?...Why oh gods of the sky did you pick me?

User avatar
groundsquirrel
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:31 am
Location: Navarre,Florida-USA (KVPS,KHRT,KPNS)
Contact:

Well unfortunately,

Post by groundsquirrel » Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:31 am

Unless you have come up with some incredible advancement in computing technology, the current technology will demand a hyper grahics card and several gig of memory, not to mention the processor from hell to run the type of features you desire. I am afraid it will be baby steps to get where you want to be, but I am sure it will get there eventually.
Gravity ... it's an Earth thing.

User avatar
w4p
Junior SurClaro Member
Junior SurClaro Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:18 am
Location: washington

Post by w4p » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:21 pm

Some good stuff here! :D
I will be afraid to get the new FS. The huge drop in frame rates from fs2k2 was 8O . I had FS9 for 3 months and still played fs2k2 more, because my old 733 proc.( :roll: ) couldnt handle FS9. Well it could, but who wants to fly into NY and say, "Hey, I thought NY had buildings!" I did get a new rig two years ago and upgraded GFX card and ram, but alas, it is now getting old itself. I am afraid, because I will be forced to go out spend a minimum of $300 (new GFX card (have 128mb now)) for a $50 game. :(
The new FS will be determined by which direction MS wants to go. (duh) If they stay true to the name "simulator", we can expect improved flight dynamics, better communications with airports with more options available, better weather simulations, anything that will make the actual flight dynamics more true to life. If they decide to go towards a little more of a game aspect, we might see something like job options.
I actually have designed a handful of "games" that go along with FS. Its just lists of job options, weather options, destination options all decided by a dice roll. I "get" cash from completed jobs and can eventually buy my own plane and start my own business for better money. This was all on paper and ranged from Grand Canyon Tours in small cessnas, cargo deliveries in cargo planes, drug smuggling in DC3s, chauffering around some rich *beep* in the medditeranean(that is SO spelled wrong!), to an airline pilot. You have to start in small planes making little money and work your way up to the big jets making the big bucks. I had to buy gps, vor/dme equiptment, hidden storage for drugs, incase I got busted when landing (called the OH *beep*! roll). But another roll of the dice would determine if I could bribe my way out of it or loose the whole shipment. There were hundreds of options with sometimes 10 rolls of the dice for one flight. I had to do this after having FS games for 4 years now. You open the package and immediately go to the coolest plane and fly to the coolest destination. Whats left then? The problem with this is that even though there are tons of outcomes of a flight, I new them all and there were no surprises.
I dont ask very much from the next version. Some simple stuff I would like have been mentioned, traffic on some roads, more detailed areas (although there are many add ons available for this), more AI at airports (moving equipment, gates). I would like them to add stuff like birds, maybe just geese in V formation, and just some wierd stuff like UFOs (nothing blatant like a ship from close encounters swallowing my plane), just unexplained lights or something. I would like to stop seeing lense flare after the sun has set! :lol: And the hardest thing I could think of, better water in oceans=pitching and rolling flight decks :twisted: .
human knowledge has always exceeded human intellegence

Andicleez
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:49 am
Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA

Post by Andicleez » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:49 pm

I just have to say, very well spoken w4p. that exposed the tough reality for those of us that dont have a "state of the art" computer and the flat out truth about getting the coolest plane and flying to the coolest airport but then there's nothing else to do. I also agree with the comment about "simulator" or "game", however I am one that suggested making it have job options so I am for that idea. Also the game idea that you wrote up sounds great to me, let me know if you ever get it made into an add on or something, i would be really interested...especially if the microsoft team dont decide to add that in the next fs version.

Here's another interesting question regarding what w4p said... for anybody that posts in this forum later on...what's your stand, should the next fs be more like a simulator or a game (as explained above)?

i'm for more of a game standpoint with missions but without sacrificing the quality of graphics and flight dynamics.

Exxman

Post by Exxman » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:52 am

I'm for simulation. Like some of you out there...I was one of those gamers who was running a 'low performance' system but in time, we all upgrade. As have I. You can't keep the same PC for years on end...it just doesn't happen that much anymore.

As software gets better and faster, so do the computers and sooner or later, we all catch up. Better to have a really good simulation game than to just 'make do' and keep the graphics and speed subdued I say.

We all like to improve don't we? Eventually, it happens if one is inclined to do so. These are my thoughts on the topic.

Exxman

User avatar
groundsquirrel
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:31 am
Location: Navarre,Florida-USA (KVPS,KHRT,KPNS)
Contact:

For my nickel.........

Post by groundsquirrel » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:46 am

I still dont see why we cant have a really good simulation game. Maybe they should get a little team together to expand the scenarios selection to include a little gamers attitude in FS.
Gravity ... it's an Earth thing.

Andicleez
New Forum Member
New Forum Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:49 am
Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA

Post by Andicleez » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:03 pm

GREAT idea! i LOVE how flight simulator is set up now as far as simulation realism, and being a pilot i want it to be as realistic for flight characteristics as possible. and the scenarios that FS has now are fine too, there is just no scoring system, you can fly one of the scenarios and do NOTHING even close to what it tells you to do, and you get the exact same outcome as if you did it perfectly. if the scenario section was expanded and improved even if nothing else was changed, then that would satisfy me perfectly. but i still think you should be able to see people entering and exiting planes, in a scenario or not, and definately improve crash and inflight damage graphics/effects..
but that's just my opinion...

User avatar
zunflappie2
Junior SurClaro Member
Junior SurClaro Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: SChiphol Airport, Netherlands (EHAM)

Post by zunflappie2 » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:31 pm

I begin to like FS2004 more and more.
The weather is great, but may be more! Clouds are like mist... but now they are simply a few bitmaps.

The runways may be more detaild. I dont care of each gates is avaible at a airport. I just know 2 airports in real life.

I want that there a less mistakes!
A example is below in the picture
Some things simply dont fit!
Water is flat, no high cliff!

Another problem is that i often get a BUILDING CRASH while i am still a few meters from the building! So i dont even hit the building.
Other times i can just fly/ride THROU a building.

And a Boeing 747 cant fly underneath the water!



Thats all!
O yeah: the GPS and flight-planner may be a lit lighter from my CPU. They are now very heavy!
Attachments
end_of_the_world.jpg
On this top of water (?) lays a airfield. Check out yourself.

This water is not frozen or something (it is cold, yes is cold) but not so cold.
SGrab_00005.jpg
Over just 10 feet I get a building crash... while it is even 100 feet or more!
Flying around the world in just 10 seconds... everytime i start up FS9

Locked