[A new simulator]

FSX did pretty badly at simulating clouds. The "overcast" isn't overcast at all. It's just a bunch of broken sheet-like clouds bunched together. There's never any, as my great-grandma calls it, "smooth cloudy." When it's overcast, there shouldn't be a single break in the cloud cover. Also, the simulation of flying through a cloud in FSX is some of the worst I've ever seen. It just looks as if you're flying through a bunch of 2D sheets. IL2 does very well with clouds and fog. I love the low-lying fog in the morning in IL2. This is what I'd like to see in AFS2012.

['Englisch' typo]

y'all -> you all? As in how are y'all today?

Exactly!

['Englisch' typo]

I've also noticed these spelling errors. I'm studying German, so maybe I should just read the German version. I'd also like to ask a question. When I say the word "y'all" do you understand what I'm saying? I use it occasionally in my posts. It's a word used in the Southern US (which is where I live), and I was wondering if those of you from other countries understand it.

[Topic: User Interface]

I kind of like the way X-Plane loads your last flight at start-up, and then you can make changes. But I think the following would be a better way to do it. AFS2012 could load your flight the same way X-Plane does, but it could place your aircraft on the ramp and have you standing on the ramp looking at it. It could have buttons placed around the edges of the screen allowing you to change things , and then it could have a "Done" button to save the changes and make the buttons disappear.

regards,

dylan

_______________

Simulation pret

You copied my post. Were you trying to quote me?

[A new simulator]

I agree with you, but my point is that people are not going to throw away 6 years of add-ons when ASFS 2012 is out, or are they? On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to upgrade to the next version of MFS like every 2 years during the past 10 years and it worked out very well. Of course we cannot keep using FSX forever, so that Aerosoft takes the initiative is very good. So maybe I'm just alone in my opinion and people will be actually happy to upgrade from FSX to whatever Aerosoft releases

I have seen others with similar opinions, but I am not one of them. I'll be happy to have something totally new. I want AFS2012 to be totally new and free from previous versions of Flight Simulator, and I don't mind giving up add-ons for something that I believe will be much better.

[A new simulator]

Here's another little thing that would be nice to have in AFS2012: segmented circles. I don't understand why they were left out of FSX.

[A new simulator]

Here is something we can up with recently. An clickable external model! To open doors, remove 'remove before flight' stuff, wiggle things on a walk around check etc...

That's what I was saying in this post:

One thing that I think would really add to immersion is the ability to conduct a realistic pre-flight. I'd like to be able to do the external checks like checking the fuel for contaminants. Why not be able to walk around the plane and conduct your pre-flight and then walk up to the door, open it, get in, close the door, start the engine, put on your headset (which would muffle the sounds), etc? Some people may think this is too "game-like," but why not? It would add to realism and immersion. If we're trying to make it realistic, then why eliminate something that pilots have to do in real life?

[A new simulator]

I still don't think simplifying the physics is a good idea, for the reasons already mentioned (bad habits and all). Besides, it's just so incredibly - unrealistic. But I realize we have to cope with some unfortunate limitations in our little virtual world. For example, on intro flights I tell the prospective student pilot to put their toes lightly on the pedals and feel what I do with the rudder. Can't do that in a sim with non-force-feedback hardware (if the novice sim pilot has special hardware at all).

Judith

Even with force-feedback hardware there are still limitations. I have a force-feedback joystick, but it's still not the same as it is in a real plane. In a real plane, the airflow over the controls just tries to neutralize them, but a force-feedback joystick does some weird things. Also, I have no pedals; so I use the twist on the joystick for rudder, but the twist has no force-feedback. Because of all of this, I just have the force-feedback for the controls turned off and just let the spring centering handle that. I downloaded a demo for some software that made the force-feedback very realistic, but I don't really want to pay for the full version. I think that FSX may be the cause of the weird force-feedback, because the force-feedback seems realistic in RoF.

[A new simulator]

I was talking about the beginners not us old veterans ^^.

Good point. Haven't thought of this. Well I think for the first flights it would be good. Just to see how thrust, ailerons and elevators work. Then a message can appear to push the settings to realistic. FS9 already has this, you can configure the amount of realism of flight physics. I think a big amount doesn't wan't to see in their first try how winds or g-forces drift you off.

Emmanuel

Now I see what you mean. So you're saying have this at first so that they can see the basics of aircraft controls. That's a pretty good idea.

[A new simulator]

I agree that our efforts might be better spent in asking for what each of us personally wants in the product, as opposed to spending energy arguing against ideas from someone else.

Hopefully, we can get a lot of what we want and what others want and they don't all have to be mutually exclusive.

The flexibility that could allow this might be the same thing that allows adding features not yet imagined, in the future, without breaking existing features.

Having said that, people will write what they want, of course; I am just saying, one person's scenario need not be implemented at the expense of others' ideas. It all depends on how the framework is designed.

So, in my opinion, it is important that we can find areas where we want choices to be available and say what those choices are, individually, knowing that future choices might also be doable as well, and in doing so, show Aerosoft those areas that we want to be extensible for flexibility.

My question for Aerosoft is, is this your intent, or are you looking for a few fixed ways of doing things, based on polling or what you decide is best after considering all input? My guess is a little of both depending on the area involved.

Just wondering, I know this is Aerosoft's forum for their own purposes, but it would be interesting to know what you are thinking, so far.

I agree that flexibility is the key here. The flight sim community is very diverse. And the only way for AFS2012 to be a success is to be flexible to the needs of as large a crowd as possible.

[A new simulator]

Well, I'm not in this one. We have to have complex aircrafts and their systems. I fly the Level-d B767, the captain sim 727-100/300, the stratocruiser from A2A simulations. That is the comlexity I wan't in the Aircrafts, and maybe more complex if that is possible.

I agree. I just said that because I don't fly airliners; I was speaking for us GA pilots. If AFS2012 could be as complex as A2A's Accu-Sim aircraft that would be awesome!

[A new simulator]

If I have to attract a crowd who doesnt have to do much with flying before I would try to get them back to their simplest motivations, like discovering, experience.

What we always hear when we tell a friend that we like to fly virtualy, is something like "cmon thats mad". So me too not long ago. Then I showed him a great video about a L-39, by EFSFilms (

, 0m 45s), he was impressed. Why? Because the video shows the great things of flying, cutting is great and the music goes great with it. Simple: You can nearly feel the speed and freedom.

Then I showed him a other video, CATII approach:

(2m 54s) and I dont know nobody who isnt impressed by this. Also it looks simply great when the runway lights come out of nothing and the glow that feels kind of warm and relaxing.

If AFS2012 can convey feelings and motivate people to discover then they will give it a try.

Who didnt want to see their home from above? Mountains? Other cultures? Destinations like hawaii, which is a bit expensive for the most of people? A sightseeing flight around Paris? etc.?

For those who doesnt know to fly, example flights which shows them the power of the simulator in atmosphere (clouds, lighting (sunset, sunrise, ...)), landscapes, cities and so on would be great. The flight physics are simplified and maybe a virtual pilot acts as a copilot and demonstrates whats possible and teaches how a plane flies, how thrust is applied, why ailerons, elevators are important and so on. The basics.

But I think the basic intention should be to amaze and to let the user discover the little things which makes a sim great. Thats also why eyecandys are important even if its just a bird which flies over the runway before takeoff.

My 2 cents

Emmanuel

I agree with everything except this: "The flight physics are simplified..." I agree with your other ideas about teaching beginners to fly, but why do the flight physics have to be simplified? If the flight physics are simplified, the beginner will have a hard time flying when they try the realistic flight physics. They'll form bad habits that will be hard to break later. Are you saying that they should learn with simplified flight physics and continue to fly with simplified flight physics later? Or are you saying that they should have simplified flight physics during training and realistic flight physics later? If the latter is the case, then they will have a very hard time flying with realistic physics, because they were trained with simplified physics. Also, are you saying that the flight physics should be simplified for all users, or are you saying that there should be an option of simplified physics for beginners? Sorry if I seem dogmatic. I am just a firm believer in maximum realism. I don't really care if there's an option of simplified physics, as long as we still have the option of realistic physics.

[A new simulator]

Now you do understand things. You worked for ACES or one of the many people who tried to make money with serious sims and failed?

It's also a bit of a non issue. We know we will have to sell 5 copies to people who see it as a game to 1 to an enthusiast. BUT we can start to sell addons to the enthusiast so in the end both kind of customers are about equally important. Anybody who reads this belongs to the second category. We got 500 customers of a addon like the F-16 that do not read these forums to any one that does. Basing your ideas on what happens online gives a very warped impression.

I have a question for you, Mathijs. How do you intend to make this sim appeal to the casual crowd? I'm fine with simplification of the UI and anything else that doesn't have to do with the actual flying. I'm fine with some things that some people would say are too "game-like." But I'm not fine with simplification of flight models or aircraft systems. How will Aerosoft approach this? Will AFS2012 have a highly realistic flight model but still have "game-like" features such as missions? Or will the flight models and aircraft systems be "dumbed-down" and simplified? From what I've read of your posts, Mathijs, it seems as if you will take the first approach that I mentioned, with a realistic flight model but features such as missions. Is that correct? I hope so.

BTW, don't misunderstand what I'm saying about simplification of aircraft systems. I understand what you were saying about one person doing the job of two when flying an airliner, but I hope that the systems won't be simplified in the small aircraft also.

[A new simulator]

Here's something else that I hate in FSX: those huge "welcome mats" around the airports. I think that I mentioned this a long time ago, but I wanted to get the point across. Those things drive me insane! They look ridiculous, and they take away the challenge at many airports that have trees close to the runway in real life. They especially ruin the grass airstrips. Most small airports don't have huge clearings around them. I like to fly at small airports, but I won't fly at most of them in FSX because they're ruined by this. Please make the clearings around the airports in AFS2012 match up with the ones in real life. Also, it would be nice to have more accurate representation of the small airports. Those are my favorites. The short, narrow challenging country airstrips. But they look terrible in FSX. I would probably fly in FSX twice as much if it weren't for this; all of my favorite airports look nothing like they do in real life. Please pay attention to the small airports in AFS2012. Maybe you could get someone from each region to make all the small airports in that region.

Here's another idea. In Google Earth, users can make 3D models of buildings and place them in it. In some places, every house is modeled. Why not have a feature like this for AFS2012?

[A new simulator]

One thing that would be nice to have in AFS2012 is random failures. X-Plane has this feature, which I didn't fully appreciate until last night. I was flying in X-Plane when out of nowhere I heard an exceedingly loud, "BOOM!!!" I almost jumped out of my skin! It was a bird strike, and it caught me completely off guard. It killed one of my engines, and I had to think fast. I was flying an F-22, which, as you may know, is totally unusual for me; I usually fly single-engine props. So I had to land a plane that I'm not used to flying with one engine killed. I was able to make a very ugly landing. I didn't get it down until about halfway down the runway, and I ran off the end. But now I think that this would be a great feature to have in AFS2012. In FSX, you can set failures to occur between "X" and "X" amount of time, but then you're expecting it. It would be much more realistic to have random failures.

[A new simulator]

I see we are back to Ye' olde Sim/Game debate.

My take on it is that Aerosoft may be comprised of flying enthusiasts, but they can do what they do only because they are also money enthusiasts. IE they are in this to run a business, and that business needs to make money to survive.

Flightsim software history has always seemed to me to be littered to me with the corpses of developers that wanted to model every little niggle and detail: which made a select few people very, very happy but left the majority pretty much adrift at sea.

I remember being very interested in flying, but looking with deep chagrin at the Illuminated, Gideon-bible sized instruction manuals that began to be standard in the enthusiast flightsims as the hobby flew up its own navel. Couldn't it be just a bit more accessible to the more casual crowd? NO! Said the super enthusiasts, everything must be just as authentic (if only instrument-wise) as if you were flying a real plane!!

And...... flight Sims went away.

Look around. There are many flight games, but how many quality flight sims???? Only Microsoft stayed in the game making a good profit, and guess what? They did it by keeping it accessible to ordinary people as well as those with greater ambition. X-plane has it adherents to super-realism, but it also has reams of people who were very interested and gave it a try, only to stumble away, bruised and disoriented by the impenetrable interface and general unfriendliness to any but the most committed would-be fliers.

I would not expect a company as obviously committed to flying simulations as Aerosoft to come out with some super-dumbed-down Ace Combat clone. (There are already plenty of those and there are a steady supply of more) but I really, really hope they wont go too far the other way either, and make something only a the stiffest of stiff upper lip real pilots-in-training could love.

Unless they are aiming deliberately to be a niche product.........

Interesting thoughts; I'm not quite sure how to reply to them. I would say that I disagree with you, but you make some decent points. I would like to see something as close to flying a real plane as possible (You can see my reason for that in my post on the first page of this topic.). But I say this because I'm not a part of the casual crowd. I've been using flight sim for years; I hope to get my PPL someday, when I have the time and money. Another reason that I would like to see maximum realism is that I fly single-engine props; I'm not concerned with being overwhelmed by complex systems in a Cessna or a Cub.

It may be that Aerosoft could make the most money off of a game-like product, but by doing this they would disappoint their most dedicated customers. Whom would Aerosoft rather please? A casual simmer who may not ever even buy another flight sim again? Or a dedicated flight sim enthusiast? I wonder how many people don't use flight simulator because it isn't realistic enough. IMO, if you really enjoy something, you'll learn how to do it. People who give up on flight sim because they think that it's to hard don't really love flying. It's not easy to learn how to fly in a realistic flight sim. But if you really love flying, you'll learn because you want to learn. And these are the dedicated customers that will buy every version of AFS for years to come. Does Aerosoft want to please these people, or someone who doesn't really care about flying anyway? I think that in the long run, Aerosoft will make the most money by satisfying their most dedicated customers.

[Topic: User Interface]

I thought too of that idea but it has a big problem.

For example: If you like EHAM and use Netherlands 2000 in FS9 and have your default flight there. The loading times are taking very long even on a RAID. If you just want to fly around a bit in the plain desert it takes you 5 minutes to load, set up a new flight, load again. Thats the problem and I see a lot of users who don't have that much time . And AFS2012 will sure load a bigger amount of textures, models, gauges after some time than FSX does at the moment because there will be more advantages for developers.

Emmanuel

Good point. For me, I don't fly at big airports with long loading times, but many people do. As a matter of fact, I suggested this approach because I think it would cut down loading times in some cases. It really depends on how you use the sim; that's why I think we should have the option of either built-in.

I do not like to start a simulator on a runway. I think the simulator should allways start at the gate or ramp. Newer on a runnway. In reallife you do not jump in a plane that is sett on a runway.

But for testing purposes you might jump to the runway to save som time when you know you have to do the same over and over again. But by default i think the sim should allways start at a gate or ramp in a cold and dark cocpit.

For people that are new to flightsims, might have some help through training "missions". But default chould allways be pro dark and cold.

I agree. In my second post, I changed it to starting cold and dark on the ramp instead of the runway.

[Topic: User Interface]

I, for one, am not in favor of having the sim load the last flight at startup. Since I would not want to fly again the same flight it would mean end the flight eveytime to get back to the main menu and a waste of "clicks" and time. I think this would better be a settings option for anyone to choose what suits one better. This is already possible in FSX with the default flight loading or not at startup.

Let me clarify my former posts. In the UI that I was suggesting, you wouldn't have to end the flight to get back to the main menu. I was suggesting something more like the X-Plane UI than like the FSX UI. In my suggestion there wouldn't really be a main menu. The flight would automatically load at startup (It wouldn't have to be the last flight. It could be a default flight), and then you could change the settings there. I just dislike having to wait for the FSX UI to load and then wait for the flight to load also. I'd rather have the flight load first, and then be able to change things if I want to. I think this would have a better appearance also. I'd rather start up the sim and be standing on the ramp looking at my plane than have a main menu like FSX. Even if Aerosoft does decide to do a "main menu" style UI, I'd like it to look as if you're standing in a hanger with your aircraft in front of you. I prefer realistic-looking things like this to a menu style UI. I agree that probably the best approach would be to have the option of several different built-in UI's.

[A new simulator]

Mathijs:

It seems like a good move on Aerosoft's part would be to have at least 2 or more versions of the new Sim. Each priced by the number of features and detail included. I think you may have mentioned a Professional version but it was not clear if that level would be for the advanced home user or more for the use of Flight schools or similar applications. In reading through all the requests and desires, I find many examples of a plea for the new sim to work on a two year old Laptop followed by a request for something advanced like more real world ATC or weather functions. If you have the time to maybe expand on the possibilities of multi-level sims, it would be a great help.

Thanks

Sam

It's my understanding that the Professional version will be for flight schools and the like. Not for home use.

Hey !

Just a word about slope runway (or runway slope, im not sure ?!)... I think airport, runway, and taxiway should be stick on the mesh upon which it's placed (hope u will be able to unterstand this sentence lol) ! It's really annoying to have a cliff at the end of the runway.

Thx !

Very early on in this project I remember Mathijs saying that AFS2012 will include sloped runways. Which will be great!

[Topic: User Interface]

I thought more about my previous post and thought of a better idea. As I said, I kind of like the way X-Plane loads your last flight at start-up, and then you can make changes. But I think the following would be a better way to do it. AFS2012 could load your flight the same way X-Plane does, but it could place your aircraft on the ramp and have you standing on the ramp looking at it. It could have buttons placed around the edges of the screen allowing you to change things (which could appear live as you change them), and then it could have a "Done" button to save the changes and make the buttons disappear. Then you could walk up to the plane and perform your pre-flight, etc. (See my post here.)

[A new simulator]

@BPL: I'm 17 and in the same boat.

Yeah, it's too bad we're in the same boat and not the same plane!

One thing that I think would really add to immersion is the ability to conduct a realistic pre-flight. I'd like to be able to do the external checks like checking the fuel for contaminants. Why not be able to walk around the plane and conduct your pre-flight and then walk up to the door, open it, get in, close the door, start the engine, put on your headset (which would muffle the sounds), etc? Some people may think this is too "game-like," but why not? It would add to realism and immersion. If we're trying to make it realistic, then why eliminate something that pilots have to do in real life?

[A new simulator]

The most important thing to fix is the immersion. Again coming back to PS3 and Xbox 360 "simulators" I will take the example of the new Need For Speed Shift game where you can hear the little rattle of the car as you drive and the vision becomes blurred as the vehicle vibrates more and more which is what happens. When taking-off from an airport I would like to be able to feel the center line because of the bump from the reflecting lights. A hard landing would lead to a shudder and blurred vision.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I believe immersion to be one of the most important things in a flight sim. The only reason I use flight sims is that I don't have the time or money at this stage of my life (a 16 year-old high school student) to take real life flying lessons. Therefore, I want to feel as if I'm really there. No matter how realistic the flight model is, or how good the graphics are; if the little details that create immersion aren't sufficiently developed, you're not going to feel as if you're really there. The things in any simulator or game that stand out to me the most are the details that make you think, "Wow! I can't believe they thought of that! That's amazing that it does that!" I don't think any flight sim I have tried has had sufficient immersion. Immersion seems to be ignored in the development of flight sims in favor of concentration other things. It shouldn't be. Immersion is what gives the "Wow Factor." I think this is the most important thing for AFS2012 to improve upon from other flight sims.

[Topic: User Interface]

I kind of like the X-Plane UI. When you start the sim, it loads the situation from the last time you used it. You are sitting on the runway at the airport to which you were nearest the last time you closed it, and you are in the same aircraft with the same weather and time of day (unless you have it set to follow system time) as the last time you closed it. If you want to change anything, you move your cursor to the top of the screen and a toolbar appears. This seems faster than the FSX UI does. It may not be, but it seems that way. Sometimes I'll start up X-Plane instead of FSX, because it's faster and easier to use X-Plane. The FSX UI is just a hassle. You have to wait forever for it to open. Then you have to select your aircraft, airport, weather, and time (And each menu takes forever to open.). Then you press "Fly Now" and wait forever for it to load. I think AFS2012 needs a simpler, faster UI than FSX.

[Topic: ease of use]

Here are some of my ideas on how to teach beginners. One thing I miss from FS2004 is videos, some of which were done in real aircraft. I was disappointed by the lack of them in FSX. I think some videos taken in real aircraft would add interest to the sim. I love to watch videos taken in real aircraft (Videos taken in flight sim are kind of boring to me because I can fly in FSX any time, but I don't get to fly in real life very often). I'm a very visual person; I can learn something much more easily if I can see it. I think this would be an excellent way to teach beginners. You could make tutorials with videos at the beginning. For example, if you had a tutorial on how to land, you could have a video at the beginning showing how to do it; then the student could try it. These videos could be taken in the sim. I thought the tutorials in FSX were a pretty good idea. I flew a few of them to check them out. But I'm not exactly sure how effective they are at teaching a beginner, because I was a beginner about 5 or 6 years ago. But it seemed as if they would be helpful to a beginner. They seemed simple, yet informative. Most beginners would probably be overwhelmed by the FS2004 style flying lessons. I went through them from the first lesson to the Private Pilot checkride, and I think a beginner would give up pretty quickly (I already had some basic skills by the time I flew them).

I think we all would enjoy some real life videos. Maybe you could make videos about different types of flying and put them into the sim. Maybe a video about bush flying, a video about airliners, etc.

Sorry for the long, rambling post.

[Topic: ease of use]

I must say that, since I fly simple single-engine props, I like for everything to be functional. I hate switches you can't flip and buttons you can't press, like the default aircraft in FSX have. Even if it's totally useless in a simulator, I still want it to work. For example, I want to be able to turn on cabin heat and cabin air. Obviously, the temperature in the sim doesn't affect you, but I still want these features. I think things like that add to immersion. I like to be able to pull down visors, open windows, etc. That's one of the things that makes you feel as if you're really there. I understand that if you're flying a 747 by yourself it may be overwhelming, but please pay attention to the little details.

Oh, BTW, please make the "OFF, ON, ALT, TEST" switch on the transponder functional. That drives me insane that it isn't functional in the default FSX aircraft.