Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1710 times:
Things I wish for in FS(98):
1. More realistic Dynamic Objects like Traffic. Not the DUMB traffic that you get now.
2. realistic ATC sending instructions (as text/voice) with rule enforcement.
3. Mebbe FOLDERS for organising Aircraft collections. Like, i may want to arrange my aircraft collection into Civil and Military Aircraft, with further fodlers for COmmercial and GA aircraft etc.
4. "Pushback" with a tug. Press *T* and a tug will appear to TOW me to the active runway.
KLM672 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2341 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1684 times:
Real airlines for traffic
Passenger views (if u were a passenger on the plane)
777-200 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
More realistic Panels And a Redone 777-300 the one on 2K and 2k2 is UGLY
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Staffan, if the next simulator were to have system requirements lower than the current one, you would complain that it does not fully use your hardware...
KLM, I doubt airlines would agree to that. Besides, which airlines would it be? Microsoft can hardly provide every single aircraft of every single airline...
Passenger view? You're the pilot. If you want to be a passenger, don't use flight sim
777, the panels are good enough as a start. They're made so people without experience can use them, which is what they should be. The aircraft are made to have the least impact on performance when seen from the outside. That way they can serve as AI and dynamic traffic as well without slowing your computer to a crawl. Try substituting POSKY aircraft for the 777 and 747 and see what I mean.
Software development is always a compromise. You can't please everyone so you aim to make as few people as possible unhappy while still making as many people as possible happy.
Microsoft has done a commendable job given the restrictions they must have had in available resources (both the expected hardware at time of release and available manhours/funds to create the product).
777-200 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
I have the 772 Panel from PSS but its just messed up Maybie MS Could put in More Complex Panels in the Pro Edition?
Portcolumbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1612 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Once again I agree with Jwenting. Unless you want to have a 20GB game here on 30 CDs, be realistic about it. FS2002 is pretty damn good.
Remember, the more variables you through into the picture, the slower the game runs, and many people are already pissing and moaning about FPS. I would have to say flying at an unbearable FPS with all the eyecandy bells-and-whistles sucks worse than flying with less eyecandy, after all, this is supposed to be a simulator, right?
And you bring up voice recognition. This would be a nightmare. Take ATC Simulator, there were so many problems with it, and to toss it into Flightsim would be stupid. If you want to talk to controllers via voice, use RW.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2341 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
