Jump to content

A New Simulator (May edition)


Recommended Posts

  • Aerosoft

Talking about formats and structures...

I am at this moment almost 100% sure we should use the Open Flight format for all visible objects. It's a format we at Aerosoft are well acquainted with because all professional projects are delivered in this format. It also saves us a lot of issues with compiling as there are many compilers already available.

We got at this moment around 30 high definition airports available in this format, all of them far better then any FSX default airport. You know many of them as airports we sell for FS2004 and FSX, so this would give us a great start on databases (in the professional markets they only speak about 'databases' (or 'scenes') and never about 'scenery'.

A simple Google on Open Flight will tell you a lot about this format and I am VERY interested about any negative ideas on using this format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize what I'm about to say is probably outside the scope of this project, but I had suggested it to the ACES team before and maybe it could be a long term goal of this project.

What I would like to see is not a flight simulator, but a world simulator. I think of it as creating the world first, and adding water that conforms to the surface at a set elevation, so that the water bodies have depth. Then adding the atmosphere, weather, etc. As someone mentioned earlier, in the long run, this could enable developers to develop their own worlds, but that isn't my main point.

After you've created the world, you make a "flight sim engine" module for it for people developing for flight sims. You could also add modules for car dynamics for racing sims and train dynamics for train simulators and a maritime module for ships and subs, etc. I realize we probably aren't there with the technology yet, but if this was designed from the beginning to incoporate these sort of add-ons down the road, I think that makes the ROI much better for the project, providing I'm not adding too much overhead at the start.

I would also like to have scenery classes/eras available. Meaning, right now, all of the buildings and man made objects and possible texture sets are in a single class that I can turn on and off. For instance, you may develop the "modern world" set, which is everything as it exists now. However, add on developers could create their own "era sets," such as a 1950's era or a 1930's era. As a user, I could then decide that if I'm going to fly an old Cessna, I want to fly it in the world in which it was originally developed in, instead of as an antique today.

Also, I do like the way the flight model is developed in X-Plane, but I prefer the visual models of MSFS much more. I think it would be great to combine the two, where the flight model would be developed like in X-Plane, but the visual models would be developed like they are now for MSFS and then just make the ref point the empty weight center of mass to coordinate the two, just for an idea.

EDIT: I forgot to add, I would also like to see a flight control reference scaling calibration screen. What I mean is, for when a developer designs a plane and uses a certain j/s to develop the flight model with, the ability to make the calibration of my j/s similar for that same plane would help out. For instance, I use a Saitek, but a friend still uses a ms js. He thinks the plane is too light in aileron and I think it's too heavy. But that might be because one degree movement of my js causes two degrees of aileron whereas one degree of his causes eight degrees of aileron. Someway to scale these effects, or calibrate, per plane, to a reference file made by the developer would probably be helpful, if it's doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, my first post on the Aerosoft-forums!

Here are my thoughts:

  • Please try to make realistic runway use part of your new sim. If you look at Amsterdam airport Schiphol (EHAM), the runway usage is quite complex and FS just can't get it right. If you write a basic script for runway use, like in games such as 'Operation Flashpoint', you can overcome this problem. (I.E. "IF wind >230 AND <290 Take-off = runway 24, Landing = runway 27") I'm not a professional scripter, but your programmers must be able to come up with something like this. ( I guess...)
  • Ground movement of AI traffic. Somehow FS2004 just gives planes the fastest route to a gate, not the most realistic one. And during taxi on a field like EDDF I've had lots of conflicts with traffic driving in the opposite direction on the same taxiway. (Or they just pushback straight in front of you...)
  • ATC: try to make the clearances more fluently. It can be done, hence Radar Contact. In FS2004 you always get your clearance like 200 ft before your assigned altitude, which results in disrubted climbs. (the plane is already leveling off when the clearance for the next flight level comes in... that's not nice for the passengers :) ) ATC plays an immensly important role in aviation, so I wouldn't just leave it out... (It would be really nice if ATC could give you a SID on clearance delivery!)
  • Maybe you can make an 'Aviation simulator' where the player can not only be pilot, but also air traffic controller. (In example: give instructions to AI traffic)
  • For laung haul flights, allow for an AI co-pilot which can handle communications and autopilot modification. This allows users to take-off, and do something else inside (or out of) the house for some time, while the plane keeps flying! In FS2004, if you dont stay with the pc, ATC will cancel your IFR plan because you didn't reply... This can be resolved, hence Radar Contact.
  • Make the new sim compatible with the add-ons for FS2004/FSX, if you can manage that you'll have a huge potential in customers, since people don't have to start over again buying sceneries etc. They can use what they alreay have!
  • Make it possible to update the sims default navdatabase with AIRAC cycles. Right now I use FS 2004, and the navdata in the FMC's are different from the ones FS uses. So my flightplans in the FMC are always different from the ones ATC has... This is quite annoying, since I get constant messages telling me I'm drifting off course, while the FMC tells me I'm spot-on. (Or youll get the 'not in database' message in the FMC if you try to enter the flightplan you created in Co-Pilot Pro...)
I hope you can do something with these suggestions and I am seriously interested in the development of this project! Please keep us posted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am sure this is way beyond the scope of the project we now envision.

Okay Mathijs...had to ask the question. Please consider multiposition though. We already have co-pilot capability, so it would be nice to have a real live flight engineer and navigator on something like the A2A Stratocruiser. If systems replication is the thing of the future, it'll be great to have an engineer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any chance you could come up with a windows replacement too so it doesn't crash every five minutes?

But seriously, you are the only guys that can save us!

Good luck

Ceri :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This project really has me excited.

I agree with Slater. I would really like to see weapons implemented to open it up to the virtual military community.

I second FSXaddict's concern for online play. Perhaps THE most important feature in my opinion is being able to fly with fellow pilots in multiplayer. FS9 was laggy and FSX has big connection problems with GameSpy, so a system that (1) makes it quick and easy for clients to find and connect to servers, (2) allows for the easy setup of a server, including the ability to run a dedicated server on an average PC (the way FSHost does), with powerful administrative features and (3) a smooth online flying environment (lag-free) is critical.

Along these lines, seeing animations on other aircraft (beyond just doors and control surfaces) would also be a big plus. For example, leave several slots that a developer could assign to things like a refuel boom/drogue, etc.

Although I don't know how do-able this is, I think it would be great to make custom aircraft visible online without having to download the actual aircraft another user is flying. Maybe something alow the lines of what VATSIM does with lower quality models, but generating those models dynamically. In other words, if a fellow pilot is flying an aircraft you do not have installed, a lower quality version of his aircraft would be generated (or included in the aircraft package when downloaded off the web) and sent to other clients to be displayed. What I'm looking for is some middle ground between manually downloading the other user's aircraft, but not having a Cessna 172 show up to represent a 777 :S.

Lastly, one of the advantages of X-Plane over MSFS that I have always heard is the way it handles flight characteristics. I believe it looks at the actual aircraft model and then calculates how the aircraft should fly, which results in a more realistic flight model. If this is true, it might be something to consider for this new simulator.

On the issue of ATC, I think you have to consider how your audience will be using the simulator - online or offline. I do almost all my flying online, either with a human controller on the radio or just chatting with friends, and never use the built-in FS ATC.

Edit: Wow this topic is growing a new page every couple of minutes. I love seeing everyone's input and ideas :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I would like to see DX11 support. As fas as I know it isn´t very different to DX10 but it has a lot of new functions and therefore better performance. It would also be nice if the sim would be more scalable in hardware terms. Today DRAM prices are quite low but until now it made no sense upgrading to 8 or even more Gigabyte. To reduce loadtimes (HDD is a bottleneck) especially during flight it would be nice if the RAM would be used to save scenery objects, textures etc. even in the far distance, depending on the amount of RAM and the memory of the GPU installed. The "function" may also take into account the flight route or heading to load and save the required data more precisely. This should help to reduce blurry textures and framerate-drops caused when loading from HDD.

Multicore support should be handled similar to FSX meaning one or two cores calculate the flightmodel and other stuff and the rest of the cores handles the scenery. Another idea would be using the GPU for calculating the physics of the flightmodel as they are pretty much faster and more exact doing it. With the upcoming open source software supporting ATI as well as NVidia cards this might be an option too. Multi GPU systems would also profit from it.

Best Regards,

Marcy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I will say congratulation!

- I would like to see some improvement in how the light works. The contrast in FX is far from acceptable. Dark areas are not dark. Objects tend to look flat. It does not matter how high the resolution of the texture is. If the light is not right, it will never look convincing. Tom Clancy's HAWK does look good. The same does the addon air ports with pre rendered shadows.

- Make it easy to make you own scenery. I would like to modify the terrain mesh directly by adding more polygons, moving vertexes, adjusting coastlines etc. Many creative people are using too much time in order to find out how to do things than to just be creative. It would have been nice to be able to import the mesh directly into 3DS max, Maya, Lightwave or other 3D software.

- Please try to make the water look right. There are no ocean waves on rivers and lakes. They tend to be dark and flat and reflective. The underwater part of beaches and coastlines are in real life visible to a certain depth. I hope that will be the case in you simulator as well.

- A lot of people know how to use 3D software. What if all those people would like to contribute with their own favorite building, airport, their own house or even a city. Is it possible for you to implement those objects in the new sim world? Just think about the possibilities. I know you are making a living by making addons, but you cannot make the whole world.

Reco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell us what FSX does wrong, tell us what FSX is missing.

Here are my suggestions, of what is missing:

1. Follow Me Cars / fire trucks

2. SIDs/STARs

3. realistic emergency procedures (communication with ATC, fire service on the airport)

4. "Shaky, wagging effect" while taxiing, turbolences and crosswind

5. rising water/snow during take off on wet/snowy runways

And what you might think about is to make FSX addons compatible with you simulator...which would make it much more attractive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe that you will have "done your homework" so far... so i will sum-up..

the topic is :"a new flight simulator" and it needs certain things in order to be a simulator..

1. a world correctly moddeled and accurate to fly in.

2. since it is a simulator in general and not a combat or civil simulator it must have all civil and military aspects employed which leads to:

A. acurate modeling of avionics, flight model, weapons/weapons envelope for military aircrafts (at least as far as you can go..)

B. acurate flightmodels, avionics, atc, sid/star, for civil aircrafts(as far as you can go.. again!)

3. smooth multiplayer code (a simmer doesn't want to fly alone!!!)

4. give the ability on the user/simmer to enhache the product (by adding, editing, replacing things/parameters.. ..yes avionics too!!!)

no matter how perfect you make the sim you will miss something(murfy's law) give the user the option/freedom to fix it!

make a steady platform that can incorporate all the above..

i have been flying open falcon 4.7, msfs(both 9 and x), x-plane, lock-on for several years.. every single one has it's advantages and disadvantages.. but they all have one in common...

...they are not combined into one great sim.. make that happen!!!!

ONE SIM FOR EVERY ASPECT OF AVIATION combat, civil, atc... ...the dream of the simmer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but the FSX gound texture looks really fake. I would want a world that uses google earth sattelite image of the ground (or maybe any other satelite image provider), and 3-D objects like building, brideges and etc on it. It is an excitement when you fly above the area you live in, yet in FSX (mostly) what you see is a large area of generic mesh. It's very disappointing.

Another thing is the FSX jet engine sound sounds faker than ever. And for some reason, the many add-ons that are supposed to make engines sound more realistic do a reverse job because they are not compatible with the FSX system. I think the engine sound is what many other users are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things I would like to see are:

  • Realistic engine fire animations
  • Flowers (More color to land mesh/textures)
  • Smooth trancistions between land textures
  • Realistic runway/taxiway textures (Like in Real Environment Extreame)
  • Being able to slide on the runways/taxiways if there is ice on the runway/taxiway
  • Realitic fog/haze
  • 3D clouds (real looking clouds)
  • Windsheld wipers that acctually move rain and snow out of the way.
  • De-iceing animations at your gate
  • Real looking airports
  • Real looking Gates/Jetways
  • Airplane VISUAL damage witch effects flight
  • Real airplane dirt/rust/ etc
  • Snow build up on wings and nose if not de-iced
  • Realistic ATC
  • Manages AI well
  • Better pushback truck
  • "Fallow me" car (if requested)
  • Ground staff (Prefer gate marshaler)
  • 3D Contrails
  • AI 3d Contrails
  • Road traffic, train traffic, sea traffic
  • Moving aircraft carriers
  • Mid-Air Refuling
  • Emergency Vehicals that rush to your plane after landing if need be! (Firetrucks, Police Cars, Ambulence, etc etc) :lol:
  • Realistic Turbulence
  • Acctual passengers
  • Realisic roll out, not like MSFSX where you stop before 1/2 the runway.
and everything else VORJAB said. Thanks VORJAB!!!!

If all of these are in this new flight simulator, I would be willing to pay $3,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

__

www.youtube.com/user/JetlinerXPilotXFSX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many others, I can not even begin to tell you how I excited I am for this project!

I agree with many things that other members have posted, such as more realistic weather, ATC, etc.

The one thing I would love to see is some sort of career mode, comparable to FSPassengerX, where you log hours and rank up

gaining new ratings (Private, Instrument, Commercial, etc). With each new rating you are allowed to fly new planes (single prop, turboprop, multi engine). Just adds to the realism factor that Aerosoft is trying to accomplish in my opinion!

I look forward to this project and Aerosoft has my support the whole way!

Best of luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the Aerosoft team all the best in the development of a new flight simulator.

With Microsoft recently revealing the new Touch Pack for Windows 7, to showcase the OS's touch abiltiy, it would be great to take advantage of this new interface. For simpit builders especially it could open up a whole new world of possibilities for manipulating virtual aircraft panels and switches, intergrating hardware with touch screens. I think they already use something similar in some commercial flight simulators.

I have enjoyed reading this thread.

Rhydian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good simulator, you say?

1. Realistic landscape

a. really changing landscape (instead of flying all Europe seeing the same textures)

b. realistic different towns and cities

c. 3D-looking forests (especially at lower altitudes)

d. regional autogen flora (based on realistic biodiversity)

e. regional autogen architecture (no more of the same building types everywhere!)

f. not repeating ground textures (a good algorythm creating fictional but realistc looking texture diversity)

g. no sharp-line boundaries between landclass tiles

h. convincing texture sets (deserts looning like deserts, snow like snow, etc)

i. no ground blurries finally, please!

j. realistic timezones

2. Realistic weather

a. real weather influence (runway friction, icing, humidity, OAT, etc)

b. realistic haze and fog (with gradual visibilty, light effects, etc)

c. diversed clouds (just like ground textures mentioned earlier)

d. windshield wipers visually removing rain and snow

3. Realistic ATC

a. considering SIDs and STARs

b. considering local transition altitude / transition level

b. managing AI very well (no go-arounds, frozen queues, etc)

4. Realistic navigation and flight planning

a. updatable navdata (maybe paid and done by Navigraph?)

b. a realistic flightplanner (something like FSNav/FSBuild)

c. a moving map with selectable details

d. standard FMC (might be a bit simplified) integrated with the ND, instead of GPS

5. Realisting airport services

a. standard pushback and followme

b. basic animated ground staff (marshaller, wing walker, etc)

c. GPU and refuelling really working

6. Realistic traffic

a. AI visible from a long distance (with gradually dissolving 3D contrails)

b. basic ground service for AI (jetways and pushback)

c. basic fictional naval, road and train traffic (seen at low altitudes)

7. Easy scenery adding

A (relatively) simple application letting simmers make and add scenery objects like buildings, local ladclass, mesh, etc.

This way we all could build up the simworld adding our own areas for the use of all simmers.

Now it requires an ocean of applications, conversions and knowledge. Enough to discourage 99% of us.

Of course there will still be a lot of room for professional addons to sell.

If you ask me.

Best regards,

Rafal

P.S. I'll add more if something jumps nto my head.

Sorry for possible matches with someone else's ideas

Honestly I don't know if i could have said it better myself. I am all for a "realist" airport. I think MS lacked in the airport realsim. They left out the ground crew, as in people even though they had a luggage cart and a moving jetway, it wasn't that great. I think we need a marshaller, a wing walker, a refuling truck, and just everything.lol I wasn't very satisfied with the airports at all. I would really love to see the airports with realist traffic. Now the ATC part, i could go on for ever about this. One other thing about ATC is i think their should be a dispatch system where you would have to file a flightplan before taking off and it would give you a printoff of your release. It needs to be more realistic just like vorjab said in number 3...(i think this guy read my mind) and also the aircraft had NO FMC. In MS their is a picture of one in the virtual cockpit, but it doesn't work. I also think that the aircraft operations need to be realistic ex. before flight you should pressuerize the cabin. MS didn't have that feature, i think that it would add more realism to the aircraft. I think that ALL the buttons in the should be opperable not just there.

And also don't forget about the virtual cockpit

Raymond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one, but if we allow MS IE to work in windows inside FS (as the checklists now does), we would have most of that right?

Is this truly as elegant a solution as it at first sounds? IE does a lot of what it does via plug-ins (acrobat reader, flash, java, countless media players and associated codecs) with each one subject to patches, fixes and updates on a very regular basis. Not to mention individual user settings. What are the chances of things going wrong here with all these variables beyond your control? IE can sure be a part of it but whether it should be the total solution is another issue. There are other "alternative" solutions to most if not all these aspects (some open source) so perhaps "locked-down" versions of said alternatives would be a better long term strategy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all, this is my first post at Aerosoft's forums. I'm glad to be here to present my own inputs regarding the new Aerosoft Flight Simulator.

I have found excellent, ideal considerations for additions into Aerosoft's new Flight Simulator from the community here, which is very important in creating an experience more rich and realistic than what Microsoft's FSX has to offer. But what needs to be gravely embedded as one of the highest priorities during this development is the Performance Factor.

FSX, as many of us have been concerned with, has horrible performance on the highest settings with even the most powerful systems on the market today. The problem generates from the poorly modeled FSX Engine, which makes the Simulator way too CPU based rather than being more dependent on the GPU, or graphics processor. For a Simulator or just about any program to be in the public's favor, CPU and GPU performance demands need to be balanced to where all users with even a moderately ranged system can enjoy what the Simulator has to offer, without suffering from poor frame rates. The same ideals go for users with high-performance machines. Nobody wants to spend $2800 for a top-notch PC, and sit there flying around Manhattan in a payware jet achieving only 15 fps.

More eye candy, more features, more phsyics is what we all want, yes? But what is sacrificed for all that, is the Simulator's performance. Some things need to be substituted, adjusted, or even removed so that the new Flight Simulator runs smoothly even on midrange machines. I'm sure none of us would like to see a Simulator with excellent features and eye candy, but as the same with FSX, run at a dreary 15~25 frames per second even when we own an excellently capable PC.

That, is my sincere input, as well as my concerns in this development. Please discuss this topic where needed.

Best Regards,

FlightEngineer806

Computer Technician, Graphical Software Development

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here are some things that preoccupy us in real life operations especially in short take-off and landing operations and do not exist in FSX.

One thing is the relationship of runway state and associated contaminant and its effect on braking action. This is a big issue. Altering the braking coefficient according to the precipitation/contaminant ( depented on type and amount ) present in the simulator is the easiest way explain it. it . The ATIS or the controller / tower in real life must include these information when passing on the airfield WX and that is something that can also be sought to be implemented.

Another thing is the use of brakes . To some it may sound unimportant but that is actually i big issue for some planes in short take-off and landing operations . Braking with too much pressure at too high speed leads to overheating of the brakes . Exceeding a certain temperature will cause the brakes to fail. In a turn-around the cooling of brakes is monitored because if the brakes are not cooled enough , the accumulated heat from the braking after landing , plus the heat absorbed in case of a rejected take off afterwards will cause them to fail.

I do not think that it will be very hard to implement such things and need not be activated by default (they can exist as options in a realism settings menu). These are things however that make a difference between perceiving a pc based sim as a game or an entertaiment title or serious , procedural tool .

I'll try to think more things that are considered vital in everyday real-life operations and are not implemented in FSX. But i would like to get a short comment from Mathijs on these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want a flight simulator with better atmospheric and physics modeling (air & ground), this is where I feel other products really fall down and to me these are the most important aspects because they are the actual simulation. If the underlying simulation is no good then I dont care about anything else that is built upon top, like visuals, systems, UI etc.

1) Air Physics: I want the aircraft to behave correctly throughout the entire flight regime and envelope. Especially the extremes of controlled flight and departure from controlled flight. For example try, spining, side slipping, crosswind landings, in either MS flight sim or X-Plane and you will see the results are poor. You could do this the parametric way like MS did or the finite element analysis way like X-plane. I think a hybrid would be best, so you model the air flowing over the 3d geometry but also have a config file which can tweak the overall effects.

2) Ground Physics: MSFS does a poor job here. Think about taxi thrust, creeping forward with brakes set etc. Slopeing runways would be nice as would dynamic runway friction based on surface type and contamination. Correct wind effects is important aswell, no more MS FS in a crosswind where the plane slides accross the runway at an angle to its direction of travel.

3) Atmospheric Physics: A weather engine that looks at all the METARS and TAFS and then using a good atmospheric model comes up with consistent and coherent precipitation, tempreture, wind, turbulance etc, effects. The flight physics engine must respond to the atmosphear realistically, i.e iceing effects etc. It should be possible to draw a precipitation radar picture in the cockpit which is coherent with the outside visual and physical effects. If you fly in to an active towering CB then the aircraft should be practically destroyed for example.

I think if you got the core simulation really good then everything else will just come naturally on top of it and finally simmers will have the platform we deserve.

AndyM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple more suggestions:

1. Flight session restore feature: If for any reason a flight is terminated without using the exit option (power outage, system crash etc) when restarting you would be presented with the option to continue your previous flight or save it for future use. Saving complex panel states in the background may be an issue but the functionality would be pretty cool!

2. Visual Airport Selection: As maps are an integral part of any flight sim it would make sense to be able to select your desired airport(s) visually in the GUI, as opposed to endless drop down menus currently used for this purpose. Click on Europe, click on Germany, click on Bavaria, click on Munich International... Nice n' easy. Obviously you can still insert EDDM in the relevant box if you want to.

3. Default photorealistic (or similar) base?: This is a bit "out there" perhaps but is there any sense in Aerosoft spending huge amounts of time and money simulating a "fake" algorithim based planet only to then have customers spend big wads of cash to replace it wherever possible? Sure, doing this for the whole planet in one go is simply not going to happen but for Europe, Oz and the USA/Canada perhaps it could? One major issue, at least for me, with lots of base scenery addons is that they differ so from developer to developer and flying from Austria ProX to VFR Germany to Swiss Pro does a LOT to remind you that you are flying between different PRODUCTS as opposed to between different COUNTRIES, like it should be. Perhaps some sort of consensus could be reached between the major developers with regards to a "unified and universal" approach for all this base scenery which guarantees (as much as possible) that things will at least look remotely unified from product to product/country to country. Sounds a bit like trying to herd cats perhaps but what a difference it could ultimately make!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the flightdynamics and flightphysics are still far away from whats real and what it could be.

I still have to state that the physics of Looking Glass' Flight Unlimited was the best and still is the best, even if the

graphics are more than outdated.

But afaik MS bought looking glass a while ago, they have not got the physics in their system and this is still the most weakest point

I see in MSFS. Also the weathermodel was much better in FU.

I would like to have a more realistic physics and dynamics System, on which then all other addons also have more and more space

to develop more realistic addons. This is what would be my biggest request to a new development.

Also I would like to have a more and easier SDK with manuals that the OpenSource Freeware Community can still build their products,

with more functions but easier to access. I think that has become more and more difficult with the time and Freeware is still the biggest

Addon Factory. That does not mean anything against 3rd Party Payware, but I would like to create some things that payware developers do not

develop, and there is no manual how to do create it and which things I need there for.

So If you dont got the skills times ago, its hard to learn, and there are thousand of things I still like to create, which is not interfering any payware.

I wouldnt do so if I could buy it ;)

Mainly the idea is a great thing which is absolutely a right thinking, and may work with enough partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a landclass algorith makes better for sake of the disk space. A precise one, of course. If all the terrain in the world was to be mapped using satellital imagery at, let's say, 2m/pixel we'll end up with a default installation of ..roughly... 4,8 - 5 Terabytes of data!!! and 2m/pixel is not what you'd call good texture resolution. Double the required space if 1m/pixel were used.

Instead, It would be nice to use satellital/aerial imagery for the main cities only. But in case any city of your preference was left out, Aerosoft could have available standard certified high-quality photoreal textures of this city ready for you to download at a reasonable price. This way ensures we won't get the feeling of flying between different products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw you can fly helicopter in the game "Grand Theft Auto", it totally amazed me. With a fake flight-model, yet with a near perfect realistic environment. I wonder a fully animated ground is achievable in FS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a landclass algorith makes better for sake of the disk space. A precise one, of course. If all the terrain in the world was to be mapped using satellital imagery at, let's say, 2m/pixel we'll end up with a default installation of ..roughly... 4,8 - 5 Terabytes of data!!! and 2m/pixel is not what you'd call good texture resolution. Double the required space if 1m/pixel were used.

Instead, It would be nice to use satellital/aerial imagery for the main cities only. But in case any city of your preference was left out, Aerosoft could have available standard certified high-quality photoreal textures of this city ready for you to download at a reasonable price. This way ensures we won't get the feeling of flying between different products.

Good point! I was going to add Photorealistic (or similar) to my post in retrospect so the "default" could be something like a mix of UTX, GEX, FTX etc. The main idea being some sort of UNIFIED approach to all this. Photorealistic major city limits (with custom autogen) as an optional extra are a great idea. Like Indianapolis and San Francisco...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please use an graphics engine compatible also with OpenGL not only DX.

So you can easily port to Linux and MacOS X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use