Lot's of thoughtful posts. But, heck, do you know that Brooks & Dunn song: ... you have to put a g-i-i-i-rl in it ... ?

My favorite topic ;) And, there

People is what I think would make a huge difference. It can be lonely sometimes flying a commercialairline and no AI passengers or unscripted crew. Not to say all those empty airports.Hope someone is working on it!JCampos

I was in Cancun last month and I tried to make every mental note of the color of the water. As good as the FSX water looks, it still needs a lot of work - perhaps a better worldwide waterclass is all that is needed. Right now I don't think there are enough variations in the water colors. I also agree that the clouds/atmospheric conditions have a way to go. I think the clouds need a lot of work. We have some decent textures right now but we really need volumetric clouds to beabe to replicate the impression of flying through clouds.As far as an Earth Sim, what I got out of the Cascade announcement was they may be creating something like that. I'd love to see it and I hope that is the direction things go in.

Pretty soon all oceans will be black anyway what with all the oil co f__ups :( jja

I think the next steps in "realism" will involve some lateral thinking, EZDok is a great example, the immersion with the subtle camera movements is so much greater than without. Getting other senses involves, sound, kinesthesia etc...More detailed photoscenery will be nice but gets wasted on someone unless they know what they are looking at, and are familiar with the area they are flying over.

Personally as flight sims advance, the area that I would most likely see get better is the environment/atmospheric dynamic. If we never got more than the photoreal packages, ORBX, and stuff of that nature, I wouldn't be too upset. However even using things like REX and ASE I still crave more realism in regards to how weather changes, clouds form, visiblity changes and effects the lighting conditions, things of that nature.

Remember those 'ice cube' clouds we had....what? back with FS95, or 5, or whatever.We were all simply thrilled with that development. :( We have come a long way in a relatively short time.

we have come a long way, but now that there is no more FS for the foreseeable future, what is next? We can only spruce up the engine so much. Unless MS releases another version in a couple years, we will have hit a brick wall. But maybe by that time I can have a computer that runs 30fps in heavy rain, JFK, with 100% traffic, in the VC of a PMDG 747X

My dream is to have a Holodeck,Like on Star Trek Next generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck. Imagine the training possibility :(

Heres where we were a few years back, dont forget :(

Sometimes I look up at a Cessna and think, Man he's getting some good fps. :(

I'm guessing the basis for the future lies with Google Earth and Virtual Earth. Google and MS already have high resolution images of a good portion of the world... now imagine this combined with some type of high resolution 3D scanning, and a way to automate the application of photos to the 3D models. Google "street view" could be a full 3D representation of a location. Once things are perfected, the maps could be licensed to developers to make flight sims, driving sims, or even MMORPG virtual (yet real) worlds. All streamed over the internet in real-time...

I'm guessing the basis for the future lies with Google Earth and Virtual Earth. Google and MS already have high resolution images of a good portion of the world... now imagine this combined with some type of high resolution 3D scanning, and a way to automate the application of photos to the 3D models. Google "street view" could be a full 3D representation of a location. Once things are perfected, the maps could be licensed to developers to make flight sims, driving sims, or even MMORPG virtual (yet real) worlds. All streamed over the internet in real-time...

Yes, something like that: it needs indeed to be automated because it's impossible to create everything by hand... Still, Google street view only shows houses from one side... and combining Google's top down images with 3D buildings will result in very odd buildings, I guess. I think we need a technology we don't know yet... :( Or that we can't even imagine yet! The most simple option or solution I can think of right now would be that everyone gets real time access to 3D camera's all over the world. Some sort of ultra-mini-camera's that float all over the world and simply show you in 3D what is out there. A bit like super deluxe spy cams. :( And all the data that is shown can be recorded and accessed later on (we do want all seasons available all the time, don't we?). But of course this won't happen: even if it was possible, you'd be crushing privacy globally!!!. :( The idea of modelling the entire world just sounds impossible... On the other hand: I wouldn't mind a sim that would only give me a smaller part of the world...! Right now I only fly above PNW and have no interest in the rest of the world (until Orbx has treated it in the same great way). BTW On a sidenote: some posters seem to think that I like photoreal scenery or that I am thinking in that direction: let me make clear that I don't quite like the available photoreal (to put it mildly): right now I rather have generic but GREAT looking scenery (like PNW) than photoreal (with cities that look as if an atom bomb has been dropped in it). At this moment addons like Darrington (a combination of photoreal and 3D objects) are the best thing possible imho!EDIT:Just had a look at the upcoming Concrete addon from Orbx... That's looking really great, even better than Darrington!http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=23121.0http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=23130.0

I purchased a 1,4m x 80cm tiff for Oslo Gardermoen. It has 20cm resolution and is for the airport perimeter only. This is not like other photoscenerys. It is sharp from all heights, and looking so good it is impossible to fly without it...just stunning. I left holes in it for the MS autogen trees, and added a few trees myself, did not do much else, except from correcting colours, and adding seasons.I think high-res photoscenery for every airport's perimeter would lift the sim very much towards realism. The rest of the world does not need photoscenery, but it very, very much needs updated landclass data which has much more different "types of nature" to choose from. Here in Norway, the North is just a joke full of trees where no trees should be. Another planet again. Of course there is the problem certain countries do not have decent landclass data available at all, which puts the simulator designer (and freeware designers like me) in an ankward position. If the country looks like it is nuked, there is no urge to develop anything.We also need roads and rail tracks that do not zig zag in ugly angles. This is a huge realism killer.Photoreal airports and new landclass would be a solid boost towards realism, and make all the airports inviting. This is the strategy behind my airports: Not to make them a perfect replica, but making you want to land there. Just like real-life, the place looks so good you just have to go there and have a peek.

I hate to say it, but it's going to be some time before imagination is removed from the gaming equation. The processing power necessary for the level of detail you are talking about is astronomical. That said, I'm often struck by a very convincing sense of believability in FS. I'll be flying along looking around at the scenery and find myself thinking "man you can almost see the people walking around down there." I find the sim most convincing when I'm cruising along at about 6,000 feet looking at the horizon with some nice rw weather downloaded. Sometimes the cloudscapes just blow me away...

I'd prefer more detailed traditional graphics vs. the photoreal stuff. Better and crisper textures, better and more detailed buildings, more ambient objects (airport objects, city details and objects, etc.), better weather depiction, and sharper elevation data. All of that is doable within the next few years IMO as well.