bandsma

On the clouds, I personally care less about what they look like and more about whether they are 3d, volumetric renderings. That is, can the more accurately simulate Cat III conditions which at this point FSX cannot?

I thought it was obvious I was referring to the more recent posts as opposed to the original subject which ended about half way down page 2.

I'm having trouble figuring out what any of this has to do with Aerosoft or flight simming in general.

Please. I think its all downhill from here:

Best point I've seen on this whole issue. Despite everything Microsoft has done for this hobby in the past, where are they now in terms of actually asking the community what they want? They are making it pretty clear they could really care less what we all want. Thanks to Aerosoft we don't have to rely on them anymore for the future development of the hobby.

Just so you know the free demo has some issues with airport elevations being off. Naivasha (HKNV) seems to be the most extreme by being off by about 400 ft.

I just want to do a little bit more beating of this dead horse. An add-on that introduces combat to FSX is not debatable. It IS happening. So you can discuss it all you want but there is really nothing you can do except not buy it. The market will dictate if people want it or not. Aerosoft as mentioned above is not interested in combat capability except maybe as separate product. So this whole debate is a moot point (US def). About crash effects, crashes are already modeled in FSX and even some moderate damage is modeled (though not visually) such as destroying the front landing gear on hard landings. The desire for crash effects, at least for me, is that crashes could add more to having a scale of damage rather than binary. Like how A2A added a bit to the damage model with the J3 exhibiting the effects of prop strikes. I think it is safe to say that most of us are into this hobby because we have a passion for flying but flying in the real world is an expensive proposition. So we want to learn as much as possible and fly as close as possible to what it would be like in the real world. I would appreciate a more complex damage model simply because I know that some of the landings I've pulled off in FSX would have likely resulted in some damage. Yet in FSX there are limited repercussions. It's hard to tell how bad of a landing you did by degree. If there was some sort of feedback on the severity of the damage incurred I think it would help us all improve our landings. Just as when A2A came out with Accu-Sim many people realized that how they were operating their plane in the sim would be severely damaging to the engine in real life. It's kind of the same idea. I don't think anyone hear is advocating that they be able to crash into buildings and see explosions and body parts. More like people want to know; if they hit an obstacle does it total the plane or more simply require having a dent pounded out?

It's not really my business or anyone else's to dictate what others can or cannot do with their flight simulator so long as the revenue model is a one-time licensing payment for software that resides on the licensee's own hardware. If there is a good number of people that are attracted to combat functionality then, even though I have no interest in such an add-on, I hope it gets commercialized. The more people participating in our hobby the more attractive it becomes for developers to create new add-ons. I don't think Aerosoft would complain if they could increase sales of their non-combat products, by let's say 20% for arguement's sake, because the addressable market is that much bigger. Or would it deny sales to people who plan to use their simulator for combat? If it costs Aerosoft €3 million and 2 years to produce the Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 then it would likey need to generate a minimum €4 million EBIT profit to justify the investment. If the marginal cost of adding combat capabilities to the simulator is minimal versus the potentially greatly expanded addressable market then it could turn a no-go decision into a go. Ergo everyone benefits. Of course it is not my business to say what Aerosoft should do with it's capital - presumably the company is closely held by a very small number of owners who therefore have every right to inject their individual moral judgement as part of their investment decision process - but it is my opinion that at the very least it would make sense from a profit maximization standpoint to try to broaden the company's addressable market as much as possible so long as it is within its current capabilities.

I was refering specifically to the Lotus Sim L-39 and the RealAir Duke v1.5. I don't have them (yet) but every review I read says they are both frame rate friendly.

This is obviously doable as there are several developers that have already integrated this feature, as well as visible icing on the windscreen, into their products. It's just a matter of willingness and capability.

Agree with having profiles. My kids use the sim as well so I don't know what hours are mine or their's. Also it would be nice to have the profile include a modifiable avatar that loads up into the pilot seat as well.

Are you saying Dutch Harbor X is a frame rate hog?

Ability to water bomb forest fires http://www.pbyma.org/images/22164whidbeyPBY-dropping-water.jpg

Thorsten, If you're ever looking for beta testers on this project I would really like to be concidered. The Aleution Islands, along with the Florida Keys and Cape Cod, is one of areas that I have been wishing someone would make a scenery area for quite some time. I was listening to your past interview on FSBreak this morning and have to say that I share your appeal of out of the way places. Especially ones that have challenging flying characteristics.

As far as what I can tell the Outerra engine is entirely devoid of atmosphere. Since we are discussing a flight simulator and not land based vehicle simulators I would think that what is more relevant is the fluid dynamic model as well as the weather model.