Here, more woodness:

http://awebic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1.png

;-)

I would prefer an iron bark version :-)

Some of these we can already control. The strike distance we can control with velocity response. (EDIT: OR maybe not. The delay might be set note by note?) The hammer hardness with hammer hardness.

That leaves what? The hammer mass? The shank weight? The shake weight in proportion to the hammer weight or density? The shank length? All of these things contribute to the force applied and to how long the felt touches the strings. I do not know enough about the subtle interaction of the action parts. But I suspect that we may need to slow down and look at each, instead of focusing on just applying an eq to the hammer. But that would be good, too: each mic on a real sound board can have its own set of EQ knobs.

Regardless, and I hate to say it, I'm slowly coming around to the old argument for letting the user control the velocity response note by note. I know, I know. Shouldn't be needed. But real pianos do have flaws, including bent shanks, that change the velocity to loudness response note by note. And I can imagine that a bent shank might straighten out at high speeds to strike the unisons at a different angle from the angle it strikes them on soft strikes, when the bentness might be maintained.

Much of this comes from what I mentioned in another thread--I recently bought a 1905 Chickering, and the many irregularities in it are often lovely. Delight in disorder? Yes, and the attack is both precise and forceful, using slightly smaller,  lower mass hammers.

Let's keep talking about the attack.

http://awebic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1.png

;-)

I supose you refer about this be the kind of ultra expensive thing, to be used only by huge companies, like silicone super computers used by ILM in the 90's.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/hp-corona/

If true, that will allow to modelled technology to compute many more or more detailled characteristics.

...Briefly the most required changes in future models for me are:
- more woody sound (оr setting for this parameter). Especially strong and woody ff and fff (as Emil Gilels, for example, had)
- better interaction of string-hammer (the moment of the hit is not realistic enough, in my opinion)
- setting for the loudness of sound tail (or the speed of fading). In classical recordings sound is obviously shorter, it decays quickly

But without any doubts, i love pianoteq! And truepianos, Ivory and etc. are far behind from it, when we speak about intonation and flexibility, the realism of realtime playing.
With best regards!

Well wrtitten, great I'm not the only one.
So developers there you go...something to think about

There are some little measures that can slightly help in tuning pianoteq for more realistic hammer hit and the woodness of the sound:
1. increasing hammer noise up to 1.20-1.40
2. increasing the volume of first tone in spectrum profile for few db (1-3), and decreasing of 7th and 8th.

For me another need for pianoteq is the "speed of sound fading setting" or something like this. Because, when you play pianoteq with headphones, you hear, that sound is too vocal. I.e. for me it has very loud "tail". Loudspeakers fix it, probably because of the natural atmospere and distance effect, but in headphones it creates very loud and obvious "background" on a pedal (may be it is realistic for playing in a small room, but not for recording - as mics usually cut/disperse this long "tail"). Decreasing impendance or increasing the Direct Sound Duration makes the sound less "vocal", but it strongly influences the timbre (and it's bad), and slightly - the loudness of string vibrations (that is needed). I tried "q factor" and cutoff but couldn't manage the satisfying results. May be one of the most appropriate desicions, in this case, that i've tried, was to play with one micro in output settings. But it simultaneously influences the quality of the timbre, making the sound poor.
This pianoteq characteristic is not critical, of course. But it would be better to have some opportunities to control it

Briefly the most required changes in future models for me are:
- more woody sound (оr setting for this parameter). Especially strong and woody ff and fff (as Emil Gilels, for example, had)
- better interaction of string-hammer (the moment of the hit is not realistic enough, in my opinion)
- setting for the loudness of sound tail (or the speed of fading). In classical recordings sound is obviously shorter, it decays quickly

But without any doubts, i love pianoteq! And truepianos, Ivory and etc. are far behind from it, when we speak about intonation and flexibility, the realism of realtime playing.
With best regards!

But in my opinion TP can't compete against pianoteq ...

Regards