|
|
Post by kbr on Mar 28, 2006 5:39:42 GMT -5
Aside of an improved reflection engine, I can't say I've really seen anything that I feel can't be done in FS 9. However, most of the things I'm hoping for are really not visual.
What I'd really like to see improved in the coming FS is the ATC. Approaching an airport, I'd like to be able to dial in the com number rather than hunting up and down 15 minutes trying to find an airport on a list. I'd also like to see them get rid of those zig-zag approaches while flying IFR.
I'd also like see a better collision detection system. You should actually have to touch a building or tree to crash, not an invisible force field 30' out.
Visually I'd like to have landing lights and taxi lights that you could actually see the ground through and also that they would light up 3d objects so that you could see buildings and trees at night.
Anyway these are the things I mostly hoping for in FS X. There's no real reason in this post I guess, except that I thought it might be fun to discuss what we're looking forward to and what we're hoping to see in the new FS. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Mar 28, 2006 10:40:12 GMT -5
All of those things you would like to have would sure be great in FS X. I think the things like the collision detections system are probably already being improved, but the ATC engine is going to be some hard work to come I bet  If the FS X team can squeeze it all in to an all mighty FS X, then that will be very...very... awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2006 17:01:36 GMT -5
Not being a jet-jockey I have not experienced some of the problems with ATC I see reported. It always seems to work fine for me. I was opposed to including ATC in the first place but they did a nice job so far. Incremental improvement is to be assumed but I still believe canned ATC will always by definition be flawed. The only way (IMHO) to have real ATC is to have real controllers. Wouldn't it be nice to have a compatable ATC module where you could get a group of people together in multi-player and 1 or two could be controllers instead of pilots. Yes, I know about VATSIM and they have a place in FS. But I'm not going there.
My wish list for FS-X is the same as it has been since I installed FS9 and found it wanting: 100% accurate world wide hydrography. That's all I want added to FS9. That's the only thing that will disappoint me if it isn't there. Anything else will be a pleasant surprise
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Mar 28, 2006 18:47:57 GMT -5
When you say hydrography, you aren't meaning the definition "Study of the surface of waters", so you mean basically the measurement and study of depths and currents in open seas, lakes, estuaries, and rivers.
I am not bothered by what they have done with the sea because to me its all correct, the sea is flat lol. What do you want when you say you want "100% accurate world wide hydrography" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimslost on Mar 28, 2006 20:42:01 GMT -5
I don't know about the rest of the world, but white caps when the wind is set at 22kts+ would be super. That's the way I'll always remember the San Francisco Bay.
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Mar 28, 2006 21:22:36 GMT -5
Hmm, that would be interesting wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2006 21:23:23 GMT -5
"100% accurate world wide hydrography" ? Shorelines, rivers, lakes, streams and oceans. They are barely cartoon close to accurate in FS9 Perhaps I meant Hydro Geography LOL |
|
|
|
Post by kbr on Mar 28, 2006 22:35:30 GMT -5
My wish list for FS-X is the same as it has been since I installed FS9 and found it wanting: 100% accurate world wide hydrography. That's all I want added to FS9. That's the only thing that will disappoint me if it isn't there. Anything else will be a pleasant surprise That also would be great. Imagine having the whole world with coast lines and rivers as accurately portrayed as they are in Misty Fjords. More realistic waves and water surfaces that responded to the weather would be great too. |
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Mar 28, 2006 22:47:37 GMT -5
Hmm, yah I kind of figured that's what you meant but since I didn't know what hydrography was, I thought of it as Google said it was lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptainCernick on May 27, 2006 5:37:46 GMT -5
What I want from FSX What's already there: - Airplanes: reflections, more detailed models,... excellent
- Landscape: more detailed terrain mesh, new textures, great autogen, better water dynamics,...
[2.] A "living" world: ground traffic, airport traffic, animal life, birds,... [3.] Mission system. Hopefully it will be an easy and flexible tool to create our own missions. I'm hoping for a wide scala of possibilities: SAR, passenger/cargohauling. And not only airport to airport, but also to less accessible locations requiring a floatplane/bushplane/helo. Imagine missions like this: transporting a scientist to a glacier in the Maule with skis or flying some badly needed supplies in the Goose to that coastal village in the middle of a tropical storm, or doing a medical emergency in the heli, concluded with landing on top of the roof of a hospital. Also, it would be very cool to have these missions randomly created. [4.] New aircraft: it seems Microsoft is paying attention to GA/bushflyers here: a Beaver (hopefully in a float AND wheel config.), a Goose, a Maule (with skis, but also on normal wheels?) and a ULM. [/ul] What I hope for: A few minors: - Crash sequence: please, no more 20 seconds freeze of the sim before it realises you bumped a building at 1 mph and then external view with a horrible noise and red letters saying "crash".
- Landing and taxilights: could they actually illulimate the terrain, instead of coloring a triangle in front of the airplane uniformly white, making the terrain even more difficult to see than it was.
- Cockpit lighting: get rid of the ugly red floodlight and use backlighting for the gauges.
Notes: *zig-zag approach: when the controller does this to you: "Niner-Bravo-Uniform, you are 30 miles from your destination turn right heading 095" Three minutes "Turn left heading 055" One minute later "Turn right 095" Three minutes later "Turn left 055" And When you ignore him "Niner-Bravo-Uniform, please execute your turn to 055", you realise that while having an actual ATC in a flightsim ROCKS, you really wouldn't mind having a couple of bombs or rockets under your wings to eradicate the building with that fool of a controller in it. |
|
|
|
Post by jimslost on May 27, 2006 16:34:23 GMT -5
It appears that modifying the airfile to allow good sideslips only involves a small change to one value in the airfile (Cn_dr in section 1101). Be aware that the drag is quite high, especially for a biplane, so watch your airspeed!  Getting the airplane to spin is almost as easy, requiring changes to lines 451 and 456. The problem - which I have not yet solved - is keeping the wing stalled through the maneuver, as once the nose drops the wing usually resumes flying. The result is either a highspeed spiral or the dreaded FS fishflop. I am still working on this one, and any hints will be gratefully accepted. If you have an airfile editor, remember to make a backup copy of your airfile before you begin your experiments. |
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on May 27, 2006 19:05:45 GMT -5
;D ;D
----------
I am going to try that side slip edit too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimslost on May 28, 2006 8:52:06 GMT -5
The value is very small, Kobbe, and you don't want to increase it by more than 50% initially.
Me, I'm going to try to figure out why my picture came out so small ....
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on May 28, 2006 17:39:12 GMT -5
LOL Well, I can't tell you EXACTLY why it came out so small, but I can tell you I experience the same thing. That is why I like photobucket. If you host it at imageshack.us for example, it won't decrease the size, but if you host at photobucket it will decrease the size to suit the screen. Here are the default "resizer" settings in Photobucket:  See you can change the resizing amount, and even rotate it! |
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on May 28, 2006 21:35:36 GMT -5
I can't find that section in the aircraft.cfg or .air file for the 172.
|
|
