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 JM1053139

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Just so you know, there is a feature in FS2004 and FSX that can do this. It's called "Visual Flight Path", and you can get to it by going to Aircraft -> Visual Flight Path in-game. That said, the idea could definitely be improved upon. For example, in MSFS if you deviate too much from the flight path the guides simply disappear; it would be helpful if they simply remained there.
  2. Well, we already know that Aerosoft knows the market well (publishing titles from companies such as PMDG), and so I would assume that they will be careful to avoid the kinds of limitations that have plagued FSX. At the same time, I'm glad that this issue is being pushed. FSX limitations have resulted in missing (or incomplete) features in some add-ons. At the same time, I have heard of X-Plane add-on manufacturers using techniques such as putting another wing inside the wing in order to get the desired results. It would seem that while basing the flight model on the visual model has its advantages, it doesn't work 100% of the time the way it should, which can be an even bigger disaster than look-up tables. I'm really hoping that AFS2012 can resolve this problem. Another issue: during late fall all of the airports near where I live are covered in snow in FSX, while the area around them uses fall textures (with no snow). I've attached a screenshot of KCLE to demonstrate this effect. In reality, there might be a little bit of snow on the ground, but there might be none. 1) The airport shouldn't use a winter texture while the surrounding area uses a fall texture; and 2) FSX simply can't handle a light dusting of snow that well, and unfortunately this occurs very often and is very widespread. I'm sure there are several different ways that a more realistic weather effects system could be implemented.
  3. Very true; on many flight over oceans I can see the ocean below quite well and it "glimmers" way too much. Another thing that bothers me is that when you look at ground textures, to simulate cities they just made them "light" color to distinguish them from rural areas. It would be nice to see real lights, as this looks much more realistic. Just compare FlyTampa's Hong Kong City & Kai Tak Airport with the FSX default scenery. In the default, the ground is lit up like a Christmas tree at night. In FlyTampa's rendition, there is enough light from the city itself that the ground texture doesn't need to be illuminated. If this is asking too much, don't do it. I don't want AFS2012 to be plagued by the low framerates and problems of FSX.
  4. It's been a while since I commented here, and I just wanted to chime in: It seems kind of odd that I have read that the simulator will require Windows 7 and DirectX 11 and yet it will only be 32-bit (from what I have seen). It seems that if you really want to move forward, 64-bit would be a logical choice. Before, they hardware was there but the operating system, the drivers and the software weren't. This has changed immensely, and with many mainstream setups selling with 4GB of memory now, by 2011 I can only assume that 64-bit OSes will be very widespread. On the other hand, I do hope you can somehow include DirectX 10 support, even if it isn't the officially supported setup. While 64-bit has been here for a while, DirectX 11 is only just emerging on the scene. Graphics cards can be expensive and not everybody can install them on their own, leading to more expense. And that's not mentioning what could happen if simmers misread the requirements and purchase your product anyways: they could become extremely frustrated with the high requirements, and pass your simulator off as another "FSX" resource hog. P.S. When signing in today the page looked strange. Instead of regular names it contained element names such as "enter username" and "form_invisible" for "Username" and invisible sign in. Not sure if it might just be the browser (Chrome).
  5. Heck, no argument on that from me. I was simply stating that, with ACES gone and no other group producing a simulator (yet), determining just how many people are still using FS9 and won't use FSX could prove difficult. With computer hardware advancing like it is now, more and more Americans will switch to FSX. That certainly doesn't mean that Aerosoft should start producing American airports. In fact, I would say that one excellent reason that Mathijs didn't include is that their team is simply doing what it does best and enjoys doing, and will therefore put out a better product. It's kind of like how everyone wanted a certain developer to make a 777 for FSX after their 767 was released. Instead, they began work on a 757. There was a big fuss over why they would make such a decision, but in the end, one fact rang true: the group developing the product will do best at what they enjoy developing the most and are best at. In the end, you say that Aerosoft must have information to tell them they are doing the right thing. I would speculate that any venture, especially in this small market of ours, carries significant risk. It's the name of the game. The good news is that Aerosoft is succeeding.
  6. That was at the first thread with a sample of some new work, where it was stated that the work was for a new specialist simulator (I'm not sure if it was for a contract or what). The May thread (and this thread subsequently) were created for the discussion of a new complete simulator to replace FSX.
  7. I posted before, but after reading all of the other posts in this and the thread for the previous month, I have a few additional thoughts. 1. The sim should regularly be updated with new runways and terminals for airports. It can get annoying when FS doesn't have the right configuration, and you are left with a choice of bad freeware or expensive payware to fix the problem (or, other times, nothing at all). 2. On the topic of damage modeling: I would avoid it. Perhaps you could instead just give better support for the simulation of irregular events (failures) without showing them externally. I believe this would be the best option because: a) Modeling the damage on the visual model would be far too difficult and not worth the penalty involved, and; I know that some might think that I'm "one of those people" who are trying to restrict their rights (I'm not) but I don't think that it would be good for the new simulator. The media along with other fanatics would run around screaming "PLANE CRASH SIMULATOR! = BAD" and making Aerosoft look bad, scaring away potential new users. Also, the ERSB would be bound to give the game a different rating for such a simulation. I really think that keeping the sim real while ignoring the visual effects of the failure or damage is the best course of action. 3. As far as people everywhere goes: I feel that a compromise may be possible. Perhaps people in the terminals could be done in a way that doesn't require them to be modeled (part of the texture). Also, it would be nice to see people on the ground at the airport for maintenance, ground crew, etc. But everywhere else is superfluous, especially since you can't see them even when flying GA aircraft in real life unless you're pretty darn low. The lack of people in cities does not detract at all from the realism. 4. We all know that sattelite imagery may be impossible to do. This definitely presents a problem for VFR fliers. Perhaps a VFR module could be included that streams imagery to just the area that the plane is in at the time, kind of like Tileproxy or similar utilities except more optomized. When the plane leaves the area, the imagery could be deleted. Some areas could be saved for future flight (such as the area around one's home airfield). This could be awesome for VFR flight specifically. 5. The topic of a flight model is an interesting one. Perhaps a hybrid system could be used, that incorporates lookup tables and uses blade element theory taking the tables into consideration for a more precise flight model at any given time. 6. It would be nice if charts could be downloaded in-sim. Perhaps you could partner with Jeppesen or another provider, and offer them on a chart-by-chart basis or through a subscription. In planes with glass cockpits that support it, the charts could be displayed on the screen as they would be in real life. Otherwise, they could be displayed on an interactive, moveable clipboard. 7. Obviously there will be some that start off with lower-end systems. Perhaps you could have an option to turn down settings related to the visual environment that don't matter as much (reflective windows, blowing trees, etc.) in favor of the aircraft systems and realism. What I'm trying to say is that in MSFS, when you start turning down settings, you can start losing realism in the panel and other areas where it counts. Doing this would allow these people to get a foothold before purchasing a new system that can run the sim to its full potential (or upgrading their old one to the same effect). 8. I don't belong to a virtual airline, and I don't know what percentage of simmers do. However, you might consider adding features useful to VAs into the simulator, such as pilot ratings and built-in support for checkrides. These could be useful for the everyday simmer, to boot. 9. With different modes, you could keep performance despite some added features. Flying GA, you don't need the ground handling crew for the airport. Flying commercial, you don't need the ground detail when flying at 35,000 feet, but you want it to look good while you're up there. Also, you should be able to have different add-ons depending on the mode. That way, if a GA pilot decided to hop into a tubeliner, their detailed VFR scenery doesn't have to be there to drag down their framerates. 10. I believe that somebody already touched on this, but it would be nice if it was realistic when you fly through clouds, instead of them just fading away. 11. Support for multiple eras. I'm sure that developers such as A2A could benefit immensely from this. 12. It would be nice if the simulator could have online features for those who can use them while being perfectly useable offline. 13. It would be nice to have at least a rudimentary copilot by default, letting others expand, but making it easier that flying alone all the time when normally two crew members might be required. 14. On the topic of a "app-store" market like I proposed before, Aerosoft could institute a rating system for all products, first- and third-party, that identifies the target audience (i.e. "Pro"). This could make it easier for consumers to decide which add-ons to buy. Users could also rate products, and of course Aerosoft products would maintain top-spots. Also, you could have a "featured product" section that developers could place their products in for a fee. 15. As far as online play goes, I think there should be a system for reporting pilots for misconduct. At the very least, there should be some way of maintaining order outside of forcing a server administrator to sit watch 24/7. 16. Finally, I think that settings should be very open. Those who don't want to have to configure the sim much shouldn't have to, but those who want to edit their setting should be able to easily and to the fullest extent possible without giving away any Aerosoft trade secrets. In conclusion, I would simply like to remind everyone that simply because ACES has been disbanded doesn't mean that Microsoft won't develop a simulator in the future. Microsoft is one giant to compete with, and I believe that if Aerosoft develops a simulator, it has to be prepared for the possible return of MS to the market with their advertising machine. Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to get everything out there. Again, I wish Aerosoft the best of luck should you decide to go through with this.
  8. Okay, so I don't have time to read every post in this thread. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here are my thoughts: I always considered the Flight Simulator series to be a base on top of which simulations are built. The default planes were never that good, the scenery decent, etc. With FSX, I think that the base package has more to offer to beginners. But what really made the FS series was how open it was to add-on development. I believe that what any hypothetical Aerosoft simulator should do is provide a better base for new add-ons. Consider how many add-ons contain push-back panels and the like. It would be nice if this was standardized, making the jobs of add-on developers easier. That aside, here are some more points I think could be addressed: -If all of these hypothetical features are added to the game, the frame rate hit would likely be astronomical. It would be great if there were optomizations to make the sim faster. For example, if the user's plane is on one side of the terminal, the other side is not textured unless the user is in a mode that allows them to see it. Such optomizations should be able to be turned off at will, so that those with faster systems can take advantage of their processing power. Even better, make the simulator automatically make the decision based on hardware, and allow the user to expiriment. -The simulator needs more feedback. For example, it can be hard to even notice turbulence in FS series games. -It should be very open to third party add-ons. Perhaps you could impliment an "app-store" style approach, where users can search using various methods to find add-ons, which they can then purchase in-game and download and install on the spot. This could also offer an additional stream for revenue: you could charge a small fee per download. I'm sure the developers wouldn't mind, especially since said small fee would help make the platform they are developing possible. -While I believe there should be boxed versions in stores, they should not be for existing users. Instead, the client should be updated by download. Additional revenue could be generated through unobtrusive advertisements placed in the client. With the amount of users you should have, this would be a tremendous source of revenue. -Design the simulator so that the user can hone in on what part of aviation they enjoy most and get the most out of. For example, GA fliers could start out at their FBO or hangar and go from there. Tube-fliers could do a go-around, communicate with FAs, etc. I'm not saying that you should offer everything on all the default aircraft, just the engine to make this easy. -Wiki-style scenery. Users could optionally load scenery that other users have contributed on-the-fly (no pun intended). This could be done by making a scenery editor available with standard objects that can easily be placed by those who know the area. Quality add-on scenery makers would still thrive because of the quality of their add-ons. -Cater to both the begginer and the expert. Have pre-defined settings for those who have never used the sim before, casual fliers, and those who know their stuff. That's it for now. I wish Aerosoft good luck in their efforts.
  • Create New...