Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About schmiefel

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. Yes, I'd like that idea, too... well and it has an interesting civilian component today, if you have a look at the Flying Bulls Alpha Jets ( Regards Michael
  2. Hi Jari, I think it doesn't make much sense to discuss that much deeper ;-) ... I won't follow your approach of "downloading but not paying not-100%-perfect-products" ... it's your decision to do it that way and I don't want to blame you for that - it's not my way! I simply read between the lines of marketing and real product features when publishers/developers tell me something about their product... and, yes, sometimes I get products that don't fit what they proposed...that's live ;-) But maybe you should think about, if games like FSX are the right stuff for you, or you better should look for something like that: Aerosoft "Airline Simulator 3, Pilot Flying" (Discussion Forum: ... as much as I've followed the discussion there, the focus will be on the simulation of the job the PF will have to do ... and not the simulation of a whole world with flying stuff around ... Kind regards Michael
  3. Normally I don't reply to personal messages in such discussions... but in that case I couldn't stand to make some remarks: - first: why do you download and play products that you don't like at all? - second: I think you mixed up some things. That kind of simulator you're looking for you can rent on an hourly basis or so (e.g. ... but for prices you can buy FSX and some of the best add-ons that are available today ... and not only use them for some hours but as often as you like! I think that even when Aerosoft talks about a next generation flight simulator (compared to FSX today) they are anyway talking about a "computer game" at all... the difference between that and arcade style games like HAWKX is that Aerosoft tries to get as much reality simulated as possible for their kind of market ... and from that point of view you're getting a lot of simulation feeling for a more than fair price! To get me right: some of your demands should be done in a next generation pc flight simulator - but "punishing" the developer/publisher for that they may not achieve the "reality" you only can get in professional systems for much higher rates than most of the simmer community could ever afford, seems not the right way for me. Minimum you should respect the developers work and give the refund they demand for, when you want to "play" with their products - or leave it, if it does not meet your needs! With kind regards Michael
  4. Hello, well, "ease of use" starts in my opinion with ease of setting up the sim and proper installation of add-ons. 1st: I remember very well how often and how much time I have to spent to set up FS9/FSX right to work with my actual hardware. So it would be very helpful if the sim itself determines what kind of hardware is running and then tunes the settings properly. That shouldn't be so difficult if you maybe work with classes of hardware. Maybe for extreme simmer there should be a fine tuning mode, too. But for me as a passion simmer it's much annoying when I have to spent hours of my very rare spare time configuring for acceptable FPS-settings... 2nd: Proper automatic installation of Add-Ons is also very important if i think about ease of use. there should be no need e.g. to sort sceneries to the right order on your own. This should be done by a kind of administration function built in in the sim that every add-on designer is forced to use. 3rd: The complexity of planes is no matter of ease of use for me. Because I only buy and fly those planes I understand and have time to get used. That means that developers should perhaps make a decission help with some kind of a rating system and if possible offer different versions in complexity or let the user decide when loading a plane how difficult it should be. 4th: Maybe there should be better assitance in preparing and using systems - some kind of virtual co-pilot e.g. As an example: I bought the PIC B-737 but didn't get further than using the instruction flight because all that FMS programming goes far beyond my time I could afford in simming. So it could be a good advice to built in a button with which I could get a pre-programmed FMS depending on the flight plan and route I choose. You mentioned in several postings that one shouldn't expect to operperate a plane on it's own when this is designed to be operated by two professional trained pilots. So there should be some bulit in helping aids for the single simmer... All in all: ease of use should be one of the most important parts in development and beta-testing! Regards Michael PS: I did a lot of software testing in my past times as an editor for several PC magazines ... and ease of use and getting used with a software and its functions was one of the most important parts of my software-tests
  5. A very good topic... I am using 3Dlights with FSX but it still lacks a lot of realism Just as a guess: what about all that emergency lights, on the cabin floor e.g. etc. Not as necessary for operation and flying but could increase ambience a lot. Maybe have a look at this document I found doing a quick research: http://www.goodrich-...xpand=1#Landing,_Taxi_&_Emergency_Lights Regards Michael
  6. Just a small notice - correct me if I am wrong: But what about some kind of a NOTAM system - though it is not really necessary for correct navigation it maybe very useful in multiplayer online sessions, e.g. some like doing aerobatic or train for formation flights in a certain terrain or even when doing something like a virtual airshow with a dedicated airspace you need to inform participants or other aircraft in the airspace around about the necessary rules and other information... Regards Michael
  7. Just some more general thoughts about choosing default aircraft: Why not taking the types of different planes from the beginners point of view up to super professionals so the simmer could increase its skills step by step. E.g. have a look how Lufthansa Flying School or German Luftwaffe, US Airforce etc. does training new pilots from a PPL-beginner to the captains chair. Then you should automatically get 1st the most actual / popular / best used types and 2nd you could build up a more realistic training course as part of the sim?! Besides this so to say "training aid" default aircraft and in addition to the aircraft mentioned so far it would be nice for me to see a Tiger Moth, BO-105 or an A-10 in a default set, because they had some fame in aircraft history and should not be too complicated for a more simplified attempt as a default aircraft. Maybe it could be a good attempt to build two or more box-sets of your new sim - but not like Microsoft with FSX did, but more to adress the skills of the users and interest of the simmer community?! Additional remark: And please keep in mind, even if you don't want to make default aircraft too complex, that even non professional simmers like me like to have aircraft cockpits that look like the real ones instead of those "simplified" cockpit designs Microsoft gave its FSX default aircraft - better give beginners the opportunities to select a more simple aircraft behaviour, system complexity or even make this by default simple and leave more complex versions to the add-on business etc. than reducing the original look&feel to something like a sample of gauges ... Regards Michael
  8. Hi interesting attempt in my opinion ... just some thoughts that came to my mind when thinking about this: - maybe it could be worth to think about something like a "flight sim console" - based on or/and adressing pc-standards (you could sell e. g. in corpration with a manufacturer an optimized base system, users can by upgrade-kits for more convenience (triple-head, double/triple graphics card for multi-monitor, cockpit-building...) oder build based on your software kit a complete system on their own or even use their FSX-PC in multiboot-environment ...) - basic OS - maybe Linux-derivate, downsized to the minimum needs (or if you look at something like BeOS was: highly multithreading, multicore, multimedia-OS...) - X64 code, OpenGL, standard interfaces and protocols (important to connect joysticks and other stuff like that) - Open SDK (for hardware _and_ software) ... use flight-sim community to enhance and improve your system - add-ons could be incorporated via product CD/DVD, download, live-download ... - network-balance/distribution-options (better use of multi-monitor setup or for complex cockpit projects...) So you could get rid of the need to support multi OS and become independent from Microsoft and its unpredictible behaviour Just some thoughts - maybe too complex, expensive, but integrating the simulation engine with a standtalone operating system could be an interesting attempt getting a more optimized less computing power consumpting system... Regards Michael
  9. Hello to all, esp. Aerosoft, my second post to this great topic... but after sitting another weekend (and still in progress ) with FSX' configuration of hardware issues and graphics for testing and tweaking for Windows 7 I recongnized ones more these most uncomfortable things with that actual Sim... -> maybe it could be a good idea to implmenet some kind of (open) database with common configurations for certain hardware, e.g. special settings when using dual core intel/amd system with nvidia/amd graphics and 5.1 surround sound plus some standard resolutions and depth of simulation depending on something like a "power index" of the users system... just as an idea... I am not a coder and maybe it's very complex to deal with power consumpting add-ons / plug-ins...but I tthink there should be a complete new attempt to get the simmer (even the advanced ones) where they want to be: flying instead of wasting time with endless configuration, testing and tweaking... best wishes for your project - may it combine the best of all what we have so far and make it better Michael
  10. Well, after reading so far I am very impressed about a lot of the ideas and the whole stuff. So just to remind about some things, let me add some thoughts: - modularity (not only to import scenery, planes but also e.g. for a better flight training system than in FSX...) and scalability (to say vertical for different system power and horizontal for different user experience) would be mission critical I assume; - the quality of overall graphics are mission critical too I think; - and also the quality of flight and simulation physics - maybe could be a good idea to take a look what the guys at DCS (famous russian Black Shark helicopter simulation) are doing now and in future - but keep in mind: even that I am a simulation enthusiast, too, who wants to fly as complex and near to real life as possible, that all has to be done by very simple PC-kind of hardware (even if it's getting better and cheaper in future) - if you ever have visited (and I am sure you did more than once!) a real system and procedure simulator, you know what kind of super-computing and imaging devices one need only for the system and physics simulation; graphics in those system look even in todays systems more like FS98 than anything else but there is no need for training procedures etc. to have a real live looking landscape - but for a highly enjoyable gaming experience landscape, surrounding and in-flight graphics as near to reality as possible are very important to have the fun we all have when sitting at home and thinking about take-off in heavy rains at Munich an landing on sunny Canary Islands some time later... - last for the moment: keep it as open as possible so community and off course commercial 3rd party developers could fix certain problems or integrate new stuff (I like that earlier mentionend idea of a x-stage development project) that's so far some for my remarks to that surprising aerosoft decision of developing a NG flight sim regards Michael
  • Create New...