Rune_ENHD

hi there, I see it beeing discussed the landclass-formats/issues Please if do decide on a "new landclass-system", make sure that you the use right/correct orrientation regarding to the "realworld placements" of roads and texture-alignments.. That way we can sort of have a detailed photo-landclass system, which will be correct to the real-world.. if you do this, every default scenery and addons, will be put perfectly on top of the excisting scenery. Even the "photo-real addons" should have no problem fiftting on top of that I think?? Actually if this thing could be done right, I see no need for "photo-real" textures. If the the "textures used as default" in the landclass and buildings, and airports is detailed and has a system which can be regional and diverse enough to get "that unique look" for all places, it will be as good as photo-real in my opinion. But only "IF" you can get the "right alignment" of textures and roads and buildings realative to "the realworld" The roads should go where they go in realife, "not cutting into" the autogen buildings and textures, thy should also not stand out as a "sore-thumb" as they do in fsx in realtive to the textures. Maybe autogen should also be faded-out when you are "above it" around a height of 15000 feet?? you will see nothing except: clouds, textures, water rivers, mesh and landclass/waterclass, and perhaps a high-detail "silhuette-cityscapes" And Please do get scales for trees,buildings and roads right, "do not do" what aces did "blow something out of scale" make "everything the right-scale(1:1)" The trees are just "out of whack" scale-wise, it's a bit anoying been hit by a 200-feet tree on final to a city-airport!! LOL BTW, Here's new idea I think, I may have read something similar in one of the "bigger" home-cocpit forums.. Also regardin the weather graphics performance, how about a "solid 3d model" which you can't see trough, below you when it calls for overcast condition, then the scenery-engine can cut everything out and only concentrate on whats "above that solid deck", and you will get get a superdetailed atmospherics lighting environment and weather because you now have "spare resources" to use.. This solid 3d model should ofcourse use the "newest graphics tricks" to make it look super-realand sort of evolve reagarding the weather at the area, an gradually fade in the real scenery when it clear or you decend trough it.. ok, hope that give you some ideas.. thanks regards Rune S.

I agree with the many excellent advice/features lately, I would also like to have good offline ATC, but with a "bit less robotic" voices than in FSX(so they feel more real), and perhaps add "a bit of background noice/static" other than that, very good suggestions As the others say "Immersion" is everything when it comes to a simulator that, and the sounds, sounds, sounds LOL Better jet-sound generally(both airliner/buisinessjets/turboprop and millitary jets ), with waay better startup and shutdown than in FSX, but do as many things as possible to improve on all sounds both piston and helicopters also .. Much better AI takeoff and landing sounds (flyby-style) and add realistic start-up and shut-down sound for AI aircraft also.. How about a correct implementation af AI-helicopters that take off from helipad's or similar helicopter-sites vertically, and lands vertically. If they could tilt forward on takoff and tilting backwards before landing as they do in the real world, to either gain speed, or to brake before landing would be a VERY cool and realistic behaviour Mathijs, I would also be willing to sign a NDA and give some some proof of who I am. The polling thread for this was closed before I even had a chance to think about what you asked about.. if I could get a chance to help out, or atleast know more about the product(AFS2012)earlier than others that do not sign a NDA regards Rune ENHD

Mathijs, Those rendering are quite good pictures but they look a bit fuzzy/hazy(the pictures that is, it might not be the graphics-engine fault), can you show the same two pictures to us in a higher image quality 200-600kb each instead of 63kb each please?? Was that high altitude (over 20.000feet), or low (as in 3000-12.000 feet) vas that daytime(noon) or dawn or dusk? Thanks in advance Best regards Rune Skjoelingstad Norway

Yep the "MS office vista look" tab interface is like a step back in workflow "in nice wording I completely hate it!" The professional 3D programs(Solid Edge and Inventor) have regrettfully done this to all its customers, we use Solid Edge ST at work, and I and my co-workers am really irritated by the approch to tab-based interface, please don't do this in FS also.. You have to do 4 click sometimes to do something that was perhaps max 2 click before this "faboulous MS-Office interface" and sometimes it hides really important features behind other tab's ... when are supposed to have everything you need on current tab in use "Doh.." (to quote Homer Simpson) Also as some have reported, REX is not that good a interface, it is infact very confusing , "visually pleasing and fancy" but a bit confusing Other than that I really like programs like REX, and am quite pleased with it Some user have given suggestions on using a map for choosing airports, well that method was used in Flight Unlimited's "Glory-days" I really like what one user posted, like having a "check list" of what is done before you start the flight, that would boost the workflow in sim much more.. and you could easily check if you forgot to set the load-manager, or if you forgot to set the weather for the flight.. After all this is a flight sim what better way to check your setup before flight than a checklist?? Also I like to having the menu-window "locked" like in FSX by holding down the "Alt-key" for a short while and it stays on instead of press it once, then loose focus of window or wrong menu-settings, and then press alt once again ,like in fs9 and older FS versions, that was a bit tedious sometimes.. Regards Rune ENHD

I agree with 64 bit version of simulator, it would seem be the best for memory requirements as Mathijs say they really need more than 3GB of memory, and if a boost could likely ocur going with 64bit, I vote 64bit version sim If this sim is going to have any future, 64bit seems to be best choice for that. I think there are loads of computers/PCs worldwide which are 64bit now and there would be a lot more within 2012, so what's only missing is 64bit OS and 64bit Simulator, And if you don't have a machine which is 64bit hardware it would seem highly unlikely to be able to run AFS2012 in year 2012?? Simulators,Let's face it ARE demanding games, so many may have upgraded later this year or next year or in 2012, Too just have 64bit compatible hardware is not that expensive, AMD & Intel have made 64bit computers, and 64bit hardware-parts for many years now(ie AMD Athlon 64bit since 2003), so in my opinion what is ONLY "really missing" is the Operating system part. And also if you have a 64bit capable hardware, but only have 32bit OS, you can always buy a new OEM OS, you don't have to pay that much then as a retail OS, I never buy Retail version OS, Also with Aerosofts decision to go with Windows 7 and DirectX11, you would mostly have to upgrade anyway because you need a new Graphics card most likely at the least.. I Hope no one gets offended with this statement, It's not my intention at all, sorry in advance if you feel so Best regards Rune Skjoelingstad

Mathijs, Looking Glass studios Flight unlimited 3 had the pulsing landing lights simulated on the Beechjet 400A around year 1999 Also Eaglesoft have implemented this in their version of the Beechjet 400A, I think perhaps maybe Abacus had it also on "corporate pilot" addon This is a cool feature I think, and seems to be good for safety also. Mathijs, if you have the time, take a look back on FU3(just for some ideas), it was quite good at special features, had good clouds, great nightlighting(for the era), fotoreal terrain, nice ATC ,and many more things, they had weather radar and a good autopilot also.. also had a proper reversing mechanism, and you could get flameouts on the engines in the air if you really gave it some speed, and in rough cold weather(heavy rain) it could flame out also if you did not have ignition-starter switches on flight-setting if the conditions called for it Also It had a really cool random weather generator, wich was easy to use, which you selected season-spring,summer,fall,winter settings and it would generate weather based on the probablility that of kind of weather for the given season, quite nice. That program manager from FU3 is now actually a Beechjet 400A pilot he helped the development for Eaglesoft's Beecjet400A project

Replay is nice to have, I use it a lot, but it was much better before in fs2004, I really liked the possiblity to place the tower where I wanted to watch from. The replay in FSX is just full of bugs in my opinion, we got all these cool views, but is it smooth? nope.. It's very choppy stuttery The fly-by view is not any good, and you don't get to place the camera where you would like to have it either, I have seen much better alternatives/implementations in other fightsims even older(fs2004).. Actually I use all pages in fsx sometimes, heh.. allways nice to have options/features, as poster "nolanh" has said. also I agree about the learning center and training flights, I don't use it because it is so limited. That is why I asked for better training-tutorials for all aspects Pilots records, is that for only for fsx missions?? if , then I don't use that Aerosoft, what if you come up with a list of things you think about keeping, and a list which you are thinking of removing ?? then we could say "no", or "yes" more easily LOL So I could actually sum up that I dont use: failures, pilot records, flight recorder, learning center, training flights, because they are so limited, and I don't feel like I am gettting something from them. I Don't like "dry teory text-book" reading that much..you see

Please don't misunderstand me as miljonaire, because I am not.. But several people have spare computer parts leftover from upgrading hardware, I only have 4 comps, but very low-spec though compared to to the FS-computer.. which is q6600 cpu, 8800gtx gpu, nothing really highend other computers are strictly for project magenta(flight-instrumentation software)around 1-ghz and 32-128mb vram It would be Nice if we could get licence a wich could be divided towards all theese computers, But I am willing to pay a bit more for this functionality..

Mathijs, This is so noble of you to open up a topic like this, absolutly exellent!!! I'm amazed at the involvment with the users with this sim(AFS2012) Some exellent Ideas have allready surface from other builders I can see. Ok I will repost my suggestion about having the possiblility to use "distributed-computing" meaning "no limit" on how many computers/PC's you can add to the sim: -Ok lets say you have one "Master computer/PC" with the"AFS2012-core-simulation software" The simulation is running ok, but you want a better experince(don't we all?) so you add one more PC to run as extra power for graphics.. Hmm ,still not running at 60FPS lets add one more pc? Well now it has good performance, but I really want those maxed out 3d-volumetric clouds & sky to look real. Well lets add one more PC to make it really shine with regards to maxed out settings and performance for graphics Woow smoking performance and graphics it looks real.. Ok lets try a one more PC to max out the Traffic settings, And so it goes on... only limit will be your wallet BIG but , It should not limit the type of graphics (ATI/Nvidia) to only add similar PC as the master computer. It will be extra processing power, so it would help even if you added your laptop, with a lame motherboard driven GPU.. And please do NOT fall in the same trap as MS with a preference for Nvidia-cards and Intel based PC's, any computer tech should work well with software, and It Should have a really good performance out of the box, But having the ability to offload if you feel you need extra power and smoothness. If you could sort of divide the the sim in parts or modules, you could have example: - Graphics module for water ,skyes, clouds, clarity of textures - ATC/traffic module for getting better performance with lots of lots traffic - physics module- to really calculate all those advanced physics, perhaps this could be used to calculate more advanced water settings(shaders) and more 3d- clouds and atmospherics , so it is not so graphics intensive(overhead) for the main Master PC - flight-Instruments - and so on You could sort off, have this on a separate page or tab in sim settings, you could connect PC's and choose a module to offload to a second PC say eg you want to have more traffic, so cross of offload to a new PC in the settings I hope this all makes sence, It could be a challenge, But I really think this "would blow everything" out off the water... Thanks for listening Also with regards to settings, all features for controls, should be added , today you can't controll all lights in a proper way. Many aircraft have pulsing landing-lights(beechjet 400A), a couple of sets of landing lights(737), logo-lights, putting all this functionality on 1 lights-switch is just NOT cutting it.. I would like all lightsources to be separate switchable as in real life ,say if I want to turn on recognition-light the same time as a nav-light, then I should just wire it up that way, not having to compromise on funtionality because of that way it is programed to funtion.. (PS , English is not my native language so please, grammar isn't perfect ) Best regards Rune_ENHD Norway

Well ok, I admit and realize (my fault) that It should be able "to have both" a "Sandbox-mode" as FS allways have had, and a "Career-mode/training mode" But in Career-mode you start with training in a piston engine aircraft and you would advance progressively from there. Thanks for reminding me that I sometimes also use a casual-flight in my own tempo, but I have been a casual simmer for too long I feel, and would like to get somewhere with my virtual career, not just buzzing around in the sky all the time, but that is fun also sometimes Excactly what I was trying to get through to the users & developers: the "why you do it" questions? , and the "when you do it" questions? Things that pilots know, but we don't because whe have not yet received the training

Arista, you have some good points there, I feel Aerosoft should not concentrate on "this learning module" but they should instead delegate the right team/teams to these tasks But leaving it out the learning would be a major loss What I would like to have is less overhead with "dry textbook-teory" and much more tutorials for everything with interactive learning. But less reading and much more examples, espesially in the simulator, and perhaps with acompanying videos from real-life if it gets to diffcult to see it performed in the sim.. And also you should be teached why and how you are doing it all. But I disagree with the learning being so basic, we should be able to to do highly-realistic handling of aircraft operating procedures and all that. But I see no reason to why it should be not be possible to learn "without all the dry-text"?? I am trying to "think out of the box here" so to speak.. I don't actually exspect this advanced training to beeing included in the retail-box, but it should at least be avaliable the same day or week as the AS212 simulator is released, from a third-party partner/wendor of Aerosoft. thanks for listening. Best regards Rune_ENHD

I so agree about the the interactive learning stuff, Please, WE NEED IT! I can't fly like a pilot, and I would really like to learn how to fly like a pilot does. But we need "proper training" for that first, and it should be interactive, with lots of tutorials about navigating how to perform ILS-landing, and how to operate the different aircraft, using checklists, weather-reading and etc. etc. These tutorials should start with a piston engine and the proper training for that aircraft type, continuing to the next type of aircraft when you are skilled enough to proceed with a different type aircraft. But you should not be able to start training in a jet or turbine aircraft, before you have the skills required(Navigation and everything just like in the real world) to a fly basic piston engine aircraft(ie a cessna 172 or a piper or something similar) That would sort of introduce a "carer mode" when you think about it But the career-mode should not be "the main part of this sim" just a learning-tool to use to enjoy AS2012 like a pilot would enjoy flying in real life, using procedures, checklist and everything a pilot need to know to safely fly a real aircraft. That's what I posted on "Page 6 - post #108" with my concerns about The FS-series, what could actually be improved Flight unlimited 1, 2, & 3 was very good here I think, You really felt that the instructor was there for you "like a friend" and not "the enemy" lol , he guided you trough a flight in rough IFR weather, and it was a really good imersion-feel it was just gray sky from takeoff to landing, you could clearly hear the wind and rain hitting the fuselage.. (that was only one flight from the training-section) But as we are hitting year 2010 I feel something could made more easy with regards to learning in the sim.. Text-Books teory is "old-style" when we can get a interactive-learning experience instead. But.. Aerosoft should not concentrate on this, they should hire a "pro-team" for that task, and concentrate on the "main core-sim" As you said you would need all your partners and even the competition in FSX to be in on this task to make a new sim BTW Aerosoft, It would be "Totally AWESOME" if we could get something like that "Winward Nimble" does, those videos really felt like you were interacting with "the mother-nature" and "not a game" even standard FSX-textures with those environment and lighting-effects would just be absolutely mindblowing for a new sim But also that Rise of flight engine seems promising, what about R.O.F physics and Nimble atmospheric effects WOOW that would be something Best regards Rune_ENHD

I also agree with no backwards addon-compatibility with FSX or FS2004, except FSUIPC network-based addons like Project-Magenta, Widewiew and similar This is our chance to get our NEW NEXTGEN SIM with truely nextgen-technology which would scale with hardware technology when it gets avaliable to use in our games/sims. So please let us not not spoil our chance to start from scratch, and do right this time. I am quite a MS-sim buff myself and I have many addons.. But it is not fun to be stuck in the past with regards to graphics, physics, and realism. By buying an expensive up-todate PC or upgrading your PC with the latest hardware-parts, you would expect the sim to take advantage of it, but as FS series have showed us it is allways CPU-limited and we need to have 5Ghz computer to run it like the devlopers intended. Also graphics is using an outdated engine and relies on 1-core GPU , when we have gone completely over to using multi-core GPU's and muliti-core CPU's and Network-based addons In my opinion there is a couple of things that severly buggs me with FS-series, and that is the: * the perfomance of the sim is just too low and low FPS, stuttering when you turn your ac on the ground * Glued to the runway feel * Feeling like the aircraft is running on rails in the sky * We should get the feeling that "we will" fall out of the sky if we are not obeying the laws of physics and weather, hehe espesially when difficulty in the sim is set on "Realistic" do not make it harder than in the Real World, but atleast make it "way more" real than on "beginner settings" Pilots in the real world know about theese dangers, and so should we if decide to not play by the AFS2012- physics-rules * Sudden wind shifts is a big problem right now * Sudden visibility issues, and the "sharp horizon line" is not nice it should fade away lightly, strange looking clouds sometimes with rotating billboards and too transparrant, and no overcast-deck to fly over * The severly limited regions for landclasses and things like that for textures is severly limiting developers possibility to make the world like it should be.. Just check out ORBX and GEX series because of limited options theese developers have gone seperate-ways to acheive their result, I really like how Nick Needham and Anthony from GEX make the best out of the limited options and regions. Imagine what the result would have been if the world would have much more texture-regions and and landclasses It would not look like MARS anymore. Also it would be nice if the oceans can have the same system as the onshore-landclass. Then we could see great barrier reef as it should, and it would not resemble other places around it with diffrent colered waters and stuff. Please what ever you do, DO NOT limit the developers ability to use textures creatively * Trimming the aircraft and auto-throttle use which do not work as it should, it is not reading the position where you put the levers before you engaged autothrottle or disengages it * SOUND Engine-imersion and quality * all the ATC-trouble * No sloping runways * And just the lame attempt to show landing lights which do not help at all, and looks like it is a FS98-implementation of polygons instead of a light-source * And the computed voices of fs is just too repetitive and not diverse to all the accents and language of the world * There should be much more danger associated with flying in the atmosphere in this FS, all weather effects must be included and modelled, hopefully all weather-fenomens also. * Winter flying should have icing-conditions like in RW and proper procedures for carburator heat, and de-icing of fuslage, iceing should build up visually also just as fast as it does in RW * Slippery runways when wet and iced over runways * Proper fog should be shown when it is foggy conditions * Also please give us the right rain effects, hail and snow effects, drifting-snow in winter-conditions would be cool , frozen lakes where applicable wich would be landable with skis or tundra-tires * And I would really like to fly like a pilot in the real-world, using the same tools and navigation methods, But we should have Learing-area in the sim wich would show us: How to do it the sim, with a instructor with a bit of humor and sarkasm more in the line of Flight Unlimited series. With videoes in the sim with overlays and stuff, instead of reading dry teory(though some teory if you would want to read up on it or recap), showing you how to do it, and how NOT to do it and stuff like that. Tutorials showing you how to perform ILS-procedures. But if it could be possible to learn all this, with the right tutorials or without reading anything in front, it would boost the learning-eagerness in people. This should of course have instructions how start turbine-engines, muliti-engines or helicopters & shutdown procedures the right way explaining about hot-starts, flameouts, and similar stuff the pilots of the real world know, but we casual simmers do not know about. We should be shown how to plan our IFR or VFR route/plan and how to read the weather-situation and with lots of examples in in the sim, as it will be quite qrucial to flight now with improved weather-physics Lots of tutorials about all aspects of flying is my request here. P.S. I do not expect Aerosoft to do all this work on their own, but the work should be spread out to all your sim-partners (both freeware and payware partners) Just my two cents(ok maybe a bit more LOL) someone else may have a different opinion than me I will seriously check out "Rise of flight" to see what could be possible in a comming sim. I am a bit sorry about the longwinded-post but, I really feel it sums up the short falls of FS series, and that you should not get yourself stuck in the same pitfalls as ACES/MS did Regards Rune_ENHD

Ok fair enough, that might be be the best choise no hard feelings on that subject But what about my suggestion about "distributed computing" as Steve Lacey(former ACES Graphics artist) once called it??? I have tried and posted about this a few times now, and I feel this would really benefit those of us with leftover hardware-parts. Then they can build a new computer to share the load between more computers instead of only 1 computer doing it all?? Thanks in advance Regards Rune_ENHD

I totally agree with Albrecht..