91 replies to this topic

[Romario_]

huxen69, on Sep 7 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

For on thing, it is not fair at all to remove novice from VATSIM. Some process can be integrated to seperate novices from pro users. Because, even the pros were novices once. Perhaps if a novice passes a few training phases before being accepted into the network, so that the pro's won't have much of a problem and everybody gets a fair shot at it.

Not really. You'll get people who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they are doing, connect to VATSIM, and ruin it for the people who know what they are doing. You'll get people not listening to ATC, disrupting traffic, and a lot of other things that would ring VATSIM to its knees. The creators of SB will most likely create a new version once Flight is released.

Just my 2 cents.

[Buziel-411_RED]

huxen69, on Sep 7 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

For on thing, it is not fair at all to remove novice from VATSIM. Some process can be integrated to seperate novices from pro users. Because, even the pros were novices once. Perhaps if a novice passes a few training phases before being accepted into the network, so that the pro's won't have much of a problem and everybody gets a fair shot at it.

A VATSIM beginner, who is working to improve, is one thing. A new guy who has never heard of VATSIM and has no intention of flying realistically is another.

[SamYeager]

wynthorpe, on Sep 7 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

Do people actually fly the default aircraft?!

Yes!   Until we really get the hang of flying semi realistically there is zero point in buying add-ons. IMHO of course.

[Peter797]

SamYeager, on Sep 9 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

Yes!   Until we really get the hang of flying semi realistically there is zero point in buying add-ons. IMHO of course.

Yea that's true. Default is good for recognizing basic systems. that's how i started out in 2002.

[niteye]

There's also technical things about the engine you learn by using the default planes. For example, FSX's engine has no standardized way to save the transponder mode. None of the default planes have it, and it's handled with just a button in the VATSIM/IVAO client seperately.

[162db]

1. New engine without micro stutters,
2. Realistic rain and snow
3. Bring back the alpha fade so that autogen doesn't suddenly pop up from out of nowhere.
4. More realistic lighting model (this includes working taxi lights for stock a/c)
5. Performance gain when using more than 1 video card
6. Get rid of the cartoonish stock look

[162db]

Can't find the edit button.

7. A replay function that actually works properly

[BrandonF]

I'd like to see:

1. more accurate ground textures and airport layouts.
2. Cloud Shadows
3. Wider selection of aircraft
4. More efficient aircraft selection dialog. (FSX one took forever to load. need something more like FS9)
5. HELICOPTERS!!!! We can't loose them in MS Flight!!! It would be a HUGE disappointment if none came with the sim.
6. Customizable UI (change colors, maybe layout, etc)

[THBatMan8]

Yay4Afterburners, on Sep 8 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

A true all in one. Meaning combat aircraft, combat missions, no fly zones, dogfights, etc that the commercial and GA boys have to fly around, just like in the real world, and so we combat simmers can get a next gen, authentic fix!

I like the idea, but there are some drawbacks;

1) Lag. Let's face it, the more people that join a online server, the worse the lag becomes and it hurts gameplay. This has been a daunting problem that EA faces with almost all of their games.

2) Gameplay. When you try to incorporate everything into a single platform and keep the price down at the same time, you'll get a arcade game instead of a simulator. Not to mention that when you fly online, not everyone tries to fly as realistically as possible, so the last thing I want when flying a 744 is to put up with the n00b flying a F-22.

3) AI. Microsoft AI sucks, to put it bluntly. I can imagine how bad it would get if you put F-15's into the control of AI on a Microsoft platform.

All Microsoft needs to do is model a barebones kit that supports 3rd party development. Weather, ATC, airplanes, slopped runways, etc can all be done via the 3rd party devs. Just remember that the more Microsoft puts into a platform, the more it's going to cost up front.

Edited by THBatMan8, 12 September 2010 - 01:32 PM.

[Romario_]

+ backwards compatibility with FSX addons

Edited by -Romario-, 12 September 2010 - 04:14 PM.

[Spam]

-Romario-, on Sep 12 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

+ backwards compatibility with FSX addons

This is why FSX died on its . So many people wanted backwars compatibility they opted to keep the same engine from previous releases. If they do this again were bound to see the same performance that FSX has.

Edited by spam3d, 15 September 2010 - 12:08 PM.

[BrandonF]

spam3d, on Sep 15 2010, 10:08 AM, said:

This is why FSX died on its . So many people wanted backwars compatibility they opted to keep the same engine from previous releases. If they do this again were bound to see the same performance that FSX has.

I agree. The coding and such that the game engine has used since FS98 or so to display aircraft is now very old. If they would start over with this, it would allow for major steps forward in technology. Although, supposedly, the graphics in MS Flight will set a new standard in game graphics.

[Independence76]

Sure, I have a wishlist and a huge amount of things I'd love to implement, but why do I get the impression that I will look back on this in the summer of 2012, look back at threads and laughing in my depression as my computer lags at medium settings at 12FPS?

[BuboBubo]

better post-release support (patches & etc).

[-Dexter]

In order of importance:

1. Performance. Build a new engine. Seriously. If backwards compatibility goes out the window, I won't be sad at all.

2. Realism vs Arcade. There should be a slider, like this:



3. Addon/DLC support. Seriously. I'd love to see downloadable content. Developers can submit their payware addons, and they can be easily downloaded and installed. No more serial numbers to keep track of, no more discs to lose, and no more addon incompatibility.

[pyruvate]

pwn247, on Sep 23 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

2. Realism vs Arcade. There should be a slider, like this:

There already is...

[-Dexter]

^ Yes, but how can we know there will be such a feature in MS Flight?

[BrandonF]

pwn247, on Sep 23 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

^ Yes, but how can we know there will be such a feature in MS Flight?

Jeez! You guys are so negative! Lets just see what happens. We still don't know much info on Flight, so making guesses that there won't be a realism slider, should wait until we know more.

Edited by Hughes-MDflyer4, 23 September 2010 - 09:59 PM.

[THBatMan8]

Hughes-MDflyer4, on Sep 23 2010, 10:57 PM, said:

Jeez! You guys are so negative! Lets just see what happens. We still don't know much info on Flight, so making guesses that there won't be a realism slider, should wait until we know more.

It's better to start off negative and be proven wrong than it is to set your expectations high to have them shot down.

[Brandon-M]

Or you can take the middle ground and be happy that they are making one at all like me