FS2006

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Anyone any news of the release date?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> Anyone any news of the release date?

At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current version?

The Microsoft guy I spoke to at the London Airshow said there might not be a
2006 version anyway, as 2004 has been so well received with third-party
developers.

D.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:

> At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current version?

There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed limits
as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and terrain
avoidance.

The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so that
AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach. Blah, blah,
blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on, etc.

At the very least, including a year in the name of a software product is
just asking for a decrease in market share as each new year passes. Flash
forward to the year 2016. Two teenagers walk into a software store looking
to buy a flight simulator for their latest Dell XPS Generation XXX super
desktop cube.

"Oh, look," one says, "a choice."

"X-Plane 2016 or Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004. Which one should we to
buy???"


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1l7quofmxrd3.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current version?
>
> There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed
> limits
> as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and
> terrain
> avoidance.
>
> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so that
> AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach. Blah, blah,
> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on, etc.
>
> At the very least, including a year in the name of a software product is
> just asking for a decrease in market share as each new year passes. Flash
> forward to the year 2016. Two teenagers walk into a software store
> looking
> to buy a flight simulator for their latest Dell XPS Generation XXX super
> desktop cube.
>
> "Oh, look," one says, "a choice."
>
> "X-Plane 2016 or Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004. Which one should we
> to
> buy???"
>
>
> --
> Peter

I could not agree more Peter. While I am happy with FS2004, there is plenty
of room for improvement. In addition to what you said about ATC, I would
also like to see an alternate airport included in flight planning as well as
ATC recognition, declaration and handling of emergencies by ATC, lost
communication procedures applied properly on a random basis (user defined)
and SID/DP and STAR support.

Eye candy is all well and good, but some efforts need to be applied in other
areas as well. Since all my flights are IFR, I really am not into sight
seeing over terrain--I would however appreciate accurate airports--ALL
airports. And let the user designate gates/ramp positions for HIS/HER type
of aircraft and have ATC direct the pilot to taxi to those positions.

Maybe someday. ))

Paul

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Interesting idea proposals:

I think with all of the really great artists creating the sceneries
(freeware and payware) the big MS shouldn't touch this.

There versions of planes and sounds have always had a lame approach.

With all of the great artists creating flying crafts, and I mean all of the
military, choppers, commercial, private and all of the ga, again the Big MS
shouldn't touch it.

Now, In my own opinion. Having flown from one of the very early versions,
FS2 from Sublogic. This FS9 has come a very long way. I still have the old
2 manuals from the FS2 program.

What the Big Boys at MS should concentrate on is not letting Microsoft
Flight Sim go the way of the Combat Sim. Look at the amount of money
generated or jobs created. From Fighter Ace, the WWII combat online fighter
arena. Gaming Zone used to charge a whopping $10.00 a month for the
enjoyment of flying into and out of trouble. They sold it and it went down
the tubes. Some nights, we would have several hundred people flying in
different rooms. All fighter ace.

They should concentrate on what Paul has already said "the flight planning,
weather and AI engines and a vastly better ATC with a way to declare
emergencies.

The flight sim program has been around for more than 25-30 years give or
take. I purchased FS2 in the early eighties. Why would Microsoft want to
give away a big cash cow. We, and I do mean all of us have upgraded
computers and looked for better ways of using the MSFS programs on a better
machine. We have actually gone out of our ways of purchasing computers that
we use for other things (at least some of us LOL) for the sole purpose of
better flying. That says something of the ability for a product to creep
into the minds of the users.

Enough rant.

Mark G
Not4wood

"Paul Riley" <Falcon63624@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec6dnYK3Adj2sknfRVn-vQ@sirinet.net...
> "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1l7quofmxrd3.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>> David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current version?
>>
>> There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed
>> limits
>> as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and
>> terrain
>> avoidance.
>>
>> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so
>> that
>> AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach. Blah, blah,
>> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on, etc.
>>
>> At the very least, including a year in the name of a software product is
>> just asking for a decrease in market share as each new year passes.
>> Flash
>> forward to the year 2016. Two teenagers walk into a software store
>> looking
>> to buy a flight simulator for their latest Dell XPS Generation XXX super
>> desktop cube.
>>
>> "Oh, look," one says, "a choice."
>>
>> "X-Plane 2016 or Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004. Which one should we
>> to
>> buy???"
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> I could not agree more Peter. While I am happy with FS2004, there is
> plenty of room for improvement. In addition to what you said about ATC, I
> would also like to see an alternate airport included in flight planning as
> well as ATC recognition, declaration and handling of emergencies by ATC,
> lost communication procedures applied properly on a random basis (user
> defined) and SID/DP and STAR support.
>
> Eye candy is all well and good, but some efforts need to be applied in
> other areas as well. Since all my flights are IFR, I really am not into
> sight seeing over terrain--I would however appreciate accurate
> airports--ALL airports. And let the user designate gates/ramp positions
> for HIS/HER type of aircraft and have ATC direct the pilot to taxi to
> those positions.
>
> Maybe someday. ))
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Beech45Whiskey wrote:
> David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current version?
>
>
> There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed limits
> as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and terrain
> avoidance.
>
> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so that
> AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach.

They could put DIRIGIBLE HANGARS at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station,
like there should be!!

Grrr....



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:

> They could put DIRIGIBLE HANGARS at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station,
> like there should be!!

Are you telling me that no one in the scenery design/Gmax world has
developed this for you after all these years of mentioning this?

I would start dropping requests in the various scenery design forums, such
as Avsim's boards, if I were you.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

>>
>> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved
>> so that AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach.
>
> They could put DIRIGIBLE HANGARS at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station,
> like there should be!!
>
> Grrr....

They should put my Granny in her garden...She WAS a dirigible ... grrrr...

--
Cheers
Quilljar


Try 'Living With Technology' magazine
http://www.livtech.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Bah... go back to the original... T80-FS1, my how far we've come.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Actually, the first (original) release of FS1 was for the Apple II in
January 1980. The TRS-80 version didn't come out until March . I'm still
looking for a copy of FS1 for the Apple in new or mint condition and would
be glad to talk with anyone who has same and might want to sell it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Nobody Important" <nobodyimportant@noisp.biz> wrote in message
news:9p7Be.18272$kw4.10213@fe12.usenetserver.com...
> Bah... go back to the original... T80-FS1, my how far we've come.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Beech45Whiskey wrote:
> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>They could put DIRIGIBLE HANGARS at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station,
>>like there should be!!
>
>
> Are you telling me that no one in the scenery design/Gmax world has
> developed this for you after all these years of mentioning this?
>
> I would start dropping requests in the various scenery design forums, such
> as Avsim's boards, if I were you.
>

No one cares about airships anymore. Sigh...



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:

> Beech45Whiskey wrote:
>> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>They could put DIRIGIBLE HANGARS at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station,
>>>like there should be!!
>>
>> Are you telling me that no one in the scenery design/Gmax world has
>> developed this for you after all these years of mentioning this?
>>
>> I would start dropping requests in the various scenery design forums, such
>> as Avsim's boards, if I were you.
>>
>
> No one cares about airships anymore. Sigh...

If MS believed that William Randolph Hearst's castle was interesting enough
to be in the sim, it would logically follow that airship hangars would be
interesting enough to be in the sim, too.

Now, I am no GMAX-experienced developer, but it seems that these hangars
would be pretty easy to design.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

MS need to bundle some of the stuff we go elsewhere for and do it well.

Why pay for real life traffic? Be far better if this was part of the deal
and MS put a bit of time and effort into this.

Make the online experience so simple it doesn;t require IVAP or other online
software.

Contrary to what some others have said here - do improve the graphics and
also improve the engine so the frame rates spark slightly better.

Get rid of the milk lakes that constitutes mist.

SIDs/STARS and an ATC that has a vague idea of what they are.

Improve low level terrain so that add-on scenery makers have to really work
for their living.

Allow runways to be on a slope as in the real world.

Provide as standard a far better quality of elevation data.

Include well textured cliffs - they exist in real life - let's have them in
flight sim.
"Not4wood" <no_spam_mgottes@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dv_Ae.2265$%b4.5@trndny08...
> Interesting idea proposals:
>
> I think with all of the really great artists creating the sceneries
> (freeware and payware) the big MS shouldn't touch this.
>
> There versions of planes and sounds have always had a lame approach.
>
> With all of the great artists creating flying crafts, and I mean all of
> the military, choppers, commercial, private and all of the ga, again the
> Big MS shouldn't touch it.
>
> Now, In my own opinion. Having flown from one of the very early versions,
> FS2 from Sublogic. This FS9 has come a very long way. I still have the
> old 2 manuals from the FS2 program.
>
> What the Big Boys at MS should concentrate on is not letting Microsoft
> Flight Sim go the way of the Combat Sim. Look at the amount of money
> generated or jobs created. From Fighter Ace, the WWII combat online
> fighter arena. Gaming Zone used to charge a whopping $10.00 a month for
> the enjoyment of flying into and out of trouble. They sold it and it went
> down the tubes. Some nights, we would have several hundred people flying
> in different rooms. All fighter ace.
>
> They should concentrate on what Paul has already said "the flight
> planning, weather and AI engines and a vastly better ATC with a way to
> declare emergencies.
>
> The flight sim program has been around for more than 25-30 years give or
> take. I purchased FS2 in the early eighties. Why would Microsoft want to
> give away a big cash cow. We, and I do mean all of us have upgraded
> computers and looked for better ways of using the MSFS programs on a
> better machine. We have actually gone out of our ways of purchasing
> computers that we use for other things (at least some of us LOL) for the
> sole purpose of better flying. That says something of the ability for a
> product to creep into the minds of the users.
>
> Enough rant.
>
> Mark G
> Not4wood
>
> "Paul Riley" <Falcon63624@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec6dnYK3Adj2sknfRVn-vQ@sirinet.net...
>> "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1l7quofmxrd3.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>>> David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current
>>>> version?
>>>
>>> There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed
>>> limits
>>> as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and
>>> terrain
>>> avoidance.
>>>
>>> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so
>>> that
>>> AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach. Blah,
>>> blah,
>>> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on, etc.
>>>
>>> At the very least, including a year in the name of a software product is
>>> just asking for a decrease in market share as each new year passes.
>>> Flash
>>> forward to the year 2016. Two teenagers walk into a software store
>>> looking
>>> to buy a flight simulator for their latest Dell XPS Generation XXX super
>>> desktop cube.
>>>
>>> "Oh, look," one says, "a choice."
>>>
>>> "X-Plane 2016 or Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004. Which one should we
>>> to
>>> buy???"
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> I could not agree more Peter. While I am happy with FS2004, there is
>> plenty of room for improvement. In addition to what you said about ATC, I
>> would also like to see an alternate airport included in flight planning
>> as well as ATC recognition, declaration and handling of emergencies by
>> ATC, lost communication procedures applied properly on a random basis
>> (user defined) and SID/DP and STAR support.
>>
>> Eye candy is all well and good, but some efforts need to be applied in
>> other areas as well. Since all my flights are IFR, I really am not into
>> sight seeing over terrain--I would however appreciate accurate
>> airports--ALL airports. And let the user designate gates/ramp positions
>> for HIS/HER type of aircraft and have ATC direct the pilot to taxi to
>> those positions.
>>
>> Maybe someday. ))
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Plymyphil" <prolt@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cIWBe.155840$Vj3.23571@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> MS need to bundle some of the stuff we go elsewhere for and do it well.
>
> Why pay for real life traffic? Be far better if this was part of the deal
> and MS put a bit of time and effort into this.


I think there may be some licensing issues if a big company like MS decided
to represent the various airlines in the sim, airlines being how they are
would envisage a cash-cow there. I seem to recall that this is why they
dropped Concorde after FS2000 - something to do with Air France and/or BA
requiring permission.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

A Naismith <a_naismith@shaw.ca> wrote:

> "Plymyphil" <prolt@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cIWBe.155840$Vj3.23571@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> MS need to bundle some of the stuff we go elsewhere for and do it well.
>>
>> Why pay for real life traffic? Be far better if this was part of the deal
>> and MS put a bit of time and effort into this.
>
> I think there may be some licensing issues if a big company like MS decided
> to represent the various airlines in the sim, airlines being how they are
> would envisage a cash-cow there. I seem to recall that this is why they
> dropped Concorde after FS2000 - something to do with Air France and/or BA
> requiring permission.

This is true of American Airlines as well. AA is one of the few airlines
that does (or at least did) require royalties when its logo and colors were
used on aircraft in simulators, if the simulated aircraft/repaints were
offered by a for-profit company.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I agree, at the very minimum the new FS2006 ATC should be able to deal with
SIDs and STARs. As things stand at the moment if it is IFR, you have to
follow MS rather poor radar vectors. If you want to practice these
procedures in IFR weather conditions, you have to ignore ATC and hope there
isn't an aircraft on the runway! For the moment I use the Elite 8.0 flight
sim to practice SIDs and STARs as there is no risk of hitting other aircraft
and you can analyse your flight in minute detail afterward to see how
accurate I had followed the procedure.

RobP

"Plymyphil" <prolt@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cIWBe.155840$Vj3.23571@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> MS need to bundle some of the stuff we go elsewhere for and do it well.
>
> Why pay for real life traffic? Be far better if this was part of the deal
> and MS put a bit of time and effort into this.
>
> Make the online experience so simple it doesn;t require IVAP or other
> online software.
>
> Contrary to what some others have said here - do improve the graphics and
> also improve the engine so the frame rates spark slightly better.
>
> Get rid of the milk lakes that constitutes mist.
>
> SIDs/STARS and an ATC that has a vague idea of what they are.
>
> Improve low level terrain so that add-on scenery makers have to really
> work for their living.
>
> Allow runways to be on a slope as in the real world.
>
> Provide as standard a far better quality of elevation data.
>
> Include well textured cliffs - they exist in real life - let's have them
> in flight sim.
> "Not4wood" <no_spam_mgottes@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:dv_Ae.2265$%b4.5@trndny08...
>> Interesting idea proposals:
>>
>> I think with all of the really great artists creating the sceneries
>> (freeware and payware) the big MS shouldn't touch this.
>>
>> There versions of planes and sounds have always had a lame approach.
>>
>> With all of the great artists creating flying crafts, and I mean all of
>> the military, choppers, commercial, private and all of the ga, again the
>> Big MS shouldn't touch it.
>>
>> Now, In my own opinion. Having flown from one of the very early
>> versions, FS2 from Sublogic. This FS9 has come a very long way. I still
>> have the old 2 manuals from the FS2 program.
>>
>> What the Big Boys at MS should concentrate on is not letting Microsoft
>> Flight Sim go the way of the Combat Sim. Look at the amount of money
>> generated or jobs created. From Fighter Ace, the WWII combat online
>> fighter arena. Gaming Zone used to charge a whopping $10.00 a month for
>> the enjoyment of flying into and out of trouble. They sold it and it
>> went down the tubes. Some nights, we would have several hundred people
>> flying in different rooms. All fighter ace.
>>
>> They should concentrate on what Paul has already said "the flight
>> planning, weather and AI engines and a vastly better ATC with a way to
>> declare emergencies.
>>
>> The flight sim program has been around for more than 25-30 years give or
>> take. I purchased FS2 in the early eighties. Why would Microsoft want
>> to give away a big cash cow. We, and I do mean all of us have upgraded
>> computers and looked for better ways of using the MSFS programs on a
>> better machine. We have actually gone out of our ways of purchasing
>> computers that we use for other things (at least some of us LOL) for the
>> sole purpose of better flying. That says something of the ability for a
>> product to creep into the minds of the users.
>>
>> Enough rant.
>>
>> Mark G
>> Not4wood
>>
>> "Paul Riley" <Falcon63624@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ec6dnYK3Adj2sknfRVn-vQ@sirinet.net...
>>> "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1l7quofmxrd3.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>>>> David Wright <REMOVEnonewsgroupspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At the risk of inviting a deluge, what's wrong with the current
>>>>> version?
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of room for improvement. The ATC could include speed
>>>> limits
>>>> as a form of separation, which is often done in the real world, and
>>>> terrain
>>>> avoidance.
>>>>
>>>> The AI engine that drives the AI aircraft could be vastly improved so
>>>> that
>>>> AI aircraft don't run down other aircraft on final approach. Blah,
>>>> blah,
>>>> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, and so on, etc.
>>>>
>>>> At the very least, including a year in the name of a software product
>>>> is
>>>> just asking for a decrease in market share as each new year passes.
>>>> Flash
>>>> forward to the year 2016. Two teenagers walk into a software store
>>>> looking
>>>> to buy a flight simulator for their latest Dell XPS Generation XXX
>>>> super
>>>> desktop cube.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, look," one says, "a choice."
>>>>
>>>> "X-Plane 2016 or Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004. Which one should
>>>> we to
>>>> buy???"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> I could not agree more Peter. While I am happy with FS2004, there is
>>> plenty of room for improvement. In addition to what you said about ATC,
>>> I would also like to see an alternate airport included in flight
>>> planning as well as ATC recognition, declaration and handling of
>>> emergencies by ATC, lost communication procedures applied properly on a
>>> random basis (user defined) and SID/DP and STAR support.
>>>
>>> Eye candy is all well and good, but some efforts need to be applied in
>>> other areas as well. Since all my flights are IFR, I really am not into
>>> sight seeing over terrain--I would however appreciate accurate
>>> airports--ALL airports. And let the user designate gates/ramp positions
>>> for HIS/HER type of aircraft and have ATC direct the pilot to taxi to
>>> those positions.
>>>
>>> Maybe someday. ))
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>