[closed] Important information about FsP future patches/versions

[carpless]

Canada_Boy wrote:
Thanks for the update.

Just wanted to tell Dan to take his time. Im in no rush nor should anyone else be.

and the people that are..... we'll take care of them

I dont even have FSX. Fsxp will most likely be done before I get FSX anyway

I tried FSX and promptly sold it on E Bay... you need a very serious machine to get any decent graphics and frame rate ... Dual Processor
comes to mind.... Gates thinks everyone is made of money and can just throw away your trusty machine and start over... it takes years to
get it all bug free (ok I exagerate) but a long time anyway.

Fs2004 is good on graphics and it works! lol

[Canada_Boy]

carpless wrote:
Fs2004 is good on graphics and it works! lol

That's exactly my point of view. I can live without animals walking on the grass, or moving jetways if it means I'm going to get and extra
25fps at max settings.

But on the other hand, if I had the top of the line computer I would probably go with FSX.
At the moment I think FSX at playable setting (probably Medium/Medium-low, on a normal computer) isn't going to be any better then FS9
with all of my addons at max settings.

[BTCobos]

Perhaps a way to save flights incase there's a CTD or computer restart unexpectedly. A restore point or something like that would be veeery nice!

[Overrated]

I think it would be great if you could buy upgrades for your planes. Such as...

-Armor for your plane, decreasing the chance of failure in war zones, but may lose strength once used.
-Bars inside your plane (probably only heavies).
-Entertainment system - like a movie, except you get more satisfaction from it.
-Improved cabin, like better seating and better lavatories

Those are just examples. They would all cost a lot of money, but would be worth it. The last 3 would get more satisfaction from passengers, maybe even
allowing you to get slightly above 100%, but maybe only if you make an exceptional flight. I think that a flight should not automatically be 100% from
takeoff, then drop based on your flying, etc., unless it's a short flight or something. If it's a long flight, passengers should lose a little
satisfaction once in a while, as they get bored, or annoyed with uncomfortable seating, bad lavatories, etc. Of course, you should still be able to
get 100% on long flights, it would just be a bit more challenging. As it is now, it's far too easy to keep passengers at 100% satisfaction.

Maybe an option should be added for my suggestion, as some people wouldn't like my idea. Kind of how some people do not like light penalties, yet some
do, so there is an option for that.

Just a random idea.

[pegase]

About the 250 kts limit below FL 100

From time to time, on network flights like on IVAO, the controller will ask you to speed up to usually 280 kts during approach below FL 100
in order to get a nice queue of evenly spaced planes.

In this situation, the command "ask 250 kts clearance" does not help too much because
1) The network controllers expect you reacting right now.
2) By Murphy's law, most often the FsP control will reject your request.

Then, once again it is necessary to disable a penalty. Its frustrating,

Would it be possible to add a command 'Got over 250 kts assignment" ?
Off course, to avoid the feature becomming an easy cheat or a "don't care option",
this command should be available ONLY when below 250 kts or above FL100.
the clearance is voided when your speed gets back below 250 kts.

[Wicked_Jester]

Hello,

I'm new here

I just wonder if there is any news about the project?

[F-22 Raptor]

Hello,

these are my offers for the future updates


-more failures [like engine on fire]
-more hot food services for long flights

[Swift]

Too bad there aren't any more news about the fsx version of fsp... I'll be moving to fsx as soon as I mount my new machine, these vacations.

Keep up the good work!

[abd zibdeh]

it would be nice that if ur company has a very low tickets and food..etc.you some times you carry criminals with you and makes your
passngers a little bit frightened?

wouldnt it be good

[MonsterCheese]

Hey, i'm new here and this is my first post.
I havn't tried FsP yet but it looks awesome, infact FsP is the main reason i'm buying FS04.
I reckon it would be good (but alot of work) to put in some really difficult (but survivable) situations.
For example:
Engines ripping off parts of the wing as they fall away, thus increasing drag on said wing.
Loss of hydraulics, thus having to attempt a landing purely on engine power.
Rudder hardover/failure/reversal.
Sabotage (bombs on plane, cockpit takeovers etc.)
And more.

Also i like the idea of failed toilets on the plane lol.
Perhaps you could include structuaral (sp?) failures on the planes, like metal fatigue and missing/wrong size bolts etc. and make
investigations on crashes last longer, so that pilots and airlines don't know what happened until a few days after or something. And make
crashes visible, like, if you were flying over paris, and you crashed into the eiffel tower, when you flew with a different pilot and you flew
over paris, you could see the damage to the eiffel tower, and bits of airplane scattered around. Also, if you were flying quite low (short hop
between citys perhaps?) and you saw a part of an airplane and you knew there was an aircrash earlier, you could report it to ATC, which would then relay the information to aircrash investigators.



Post Edited ( 06-02-07 17:29 )

[Northern Warrior]

More scope for price regulation.

I'm thinking Airline 6 here where you can allocate a certain number of seats for cheap tickets while others sell for a higher price. An
overnight flight might be cheaper than a daytime flight, likewise if you make the flight a charter the ticket prices (and probably the service)
would also be cheaper - a First Choice knees under chin special!

[upsidedown]

How about a more random element to the number of PAX for any given flight. So its still based upon frequency of flights from airport and
reputation but there is also a randomness factor of say + or – 15%.


Also, and this might be a little more difficult. Supposing I am using a 737 on a particular route and I am getting 125 Pax (approx 85% load
factor) to load considering usual factors. If I upgraded to a 767-300 on that route would I expect to get 190 Pax (approx 85% load factor
again) on my first flight? I would have thought not. I would expect to get maybe a few more than I had when I made the upgrade. So I
would expect to get say 130 Pax and then build up to 190.
So here is what I am saying in a manner that I hope will make it a liittle clearer:-

So rather that have PAX loads based only upon %age satisfaction and number of flights from airport I suggest that it could work like this.
First A/C on route starts with a %age load factor as now. Lets say 50% for 737 = 75 PAX approx. From then on FS PAX works with
numbers, not %ages.

Next flt from this airport due to usual factors we get 60% satisfaction so 737 = 90 Pax.

And so on up to 100% satis so we get approx 150 PAX

This is where things change

Next flight still with 737 we get 110% satisfaction so potential is for 165 PAX but we can only load 150 PAX.
We need a bigger plane!

Next flight 767-300 (capacity 220 PAX) and we now have say 120% satisfaction figure but this is not applied to the planes capacity
because this would give 220 PAX. Instead we apply the 120% figure to 165PAX which would give 198PAX.

And so it goes on.

[michael]

MonsterCheese wrote:
Hey, i'm new here and this is my first post.
I havn't tried FsP yet but it looks awesome, infact FsP is the main reason i'm buying FS04.
I reckon it would be good (but alot of work) to put in some really difficult (but survivable) situations.
For example:
Engines ripping off parts of the wing as they fall away, thus increasing drag on said wing.
Loss of hydraulics, thus having to attempt a landing purely on engine power.
Rudder hardover/failure/reversal.
Sabotage (bombs on plane, cockpit takeovers etc.)
And more.

Also i like the idea of failed toilets on the plane lol.
Perhaps you could include structuaral (sp?) failures on the planes, like metal fatigue and missing/wrong size bolts etc. and make
investigations on crashes last longer, so that pilots and airlines don't know what happened until a few days after or something. And
make
crashes visible, like, if you were flying over paris, and you crashed into the eiffel tower, when you flew with a different pilot and you flew
over paris, you could see the damage to the eiffel tower, and bits of airplane scattered around. Also, if you were flying quite low (short hop
between citys perhaps?) and you saw a part of an airplane and you knew there was an aircrash earlier, you could report it to ATC, which
would then relay the information to aircrash investigators.

Youv'e been watching Seconds from Disaster or Air Crash investigation for these ideas like the "wrong size bolt on the 111 and the 2
engines ripping off in the Cargo 747 flight from Schipol in Amsterdam and the DHL and JAL 747 lost hyds! and i bet the rudder idea is
from Hidden danger right? i dont think it would just be a cowinky-dink! (Good source of ideas) lol



Post Edited ( 06-09-07 17:12 )

[MonsterCheese]

michael wrote:

MonsterCheese wrote:
Hey, i'm new here and this is my first post.
I havn't tried FsP yet but it looks awesome, infact FsP is the main reason i'm buying FS04.
I reckon it would be good (but alot of work) to put in some really difficult (but survivable) situations.
For example:
Engines ripping off parts of the wing as they fall away, thus increasing drag on said wing.
Loss of hydraulics, thus having to attempt a landing purely on engine power.
Rudder hardover/failure/reversal.
Sabotage (bombs on plane, cockpit takeovers etc.)
And more.

Also i like the idea of failed toilets on the plane lol.
Perhaps you could include structuaral (sp?) failures on the planes, like metal fatigue and missing/wrong size bolts etc. and make
investigations on crashes last longer, so that pilots and airlines don't know what happened until a few days after or something. And
make
crashes visible, like, if you were flying over paris, and you crashed into the eiffel tower, when you flew with a different pilot and you flew
over paris, you could see the damage to the eiffel tower, and bits of airplane scattered around. Also, if you were flying quite low (short hop
between citys perhaps?) and you saw a part of an airplane and you knew there was an aircrash earlier, you could report it to ATC, which
would then relay the information to aircrash investigators.

Youv'e been watching Seconds from Disaster or Air Crash investigation for these ideas like the "wrong size bolt on the 111 and the
2
engines ripping off in the Cargo 747 flight from Schipol in Amsterdam and the DHL and JAL 747 lost hyds! and i bet the rudder idea is
from Hidden danger right? i dont think it would just be a cowinky-dink! (Good source of ideas) lol

Lol. Yeah, i watch them programs alot. But i do think it would be good.

[michael]

My ideas:

The mini report tell you the status of the cabin right? well, why not make ANOTHER mini-report to show cockpit status or just have 2in1!

Declare false emergency!

Co-Pilot ideas...

Gear status
flaps status
spoilers status
interactive checklists
co-pilot can control plane
ATC that runs in connection with FPS
Choose the meal or drink that you give your passengers
when you are about to crash the co-pilot radios "going down" to ATC
tells you if you are overspeed, landing light off under 10000ft or over 250KIAS (without clearence) under 1000ft

What do u think hey?

OOH! and what about cockpit conversations on longhaul flights!