A New Simulator (May edition)

[Slater 0]

One reason more to partner with nvidia. They have the best OpenGL ICDs. Their chips perform fantastic on OpenGL.

[Seamus733 0]

Environment

1. People

Cities, townships, beaches, etc need to be populated

Sporting arenas and local sporting facilities (such as tennis courts, football fields) shouldn't always be empty like FSX

2. Regional Traffic

Ships/Boats should be specific to that area (For example, coal ships in the port of Newcastle, Australia)

Train lines & stations should be faithfully portrayed (For example, Central Station in Sydney, Australia)

Higher quality traffic on roads (realistic movements, vehicles parked on the side of streets)

3. Water Effects

Visible currents

Changing tides

Realistic waves/transparency of water (For example, the ability to view aquatic life and terrain under the water) - think REX

Differences in water levels (For example, dam levels differing in seasons)

Rain effecting terrain appearance realistically (For example, roads look wet/slippery)

Swelling of rivers/drains/etc

4. Better Animal Life

Aquatic life (For example, schools of fish swimming near coast lines (as well as sharks, haha))

Rural regions populated with cattle, sheep, horses, emus, etc

Wider variety of bird life appropriate to area (For example, seagulls near coast lines, pelicans in Australia)

5. Effects of Wind on Terrain

Sand blowing off dunes

Dirt/etc blown by aircraft operations

Atmospheric effects (For example, sand/dirt travelling through the air, see: here and here )

6. Realistic Flora

Trees/Shrubs/Grass should be 3D (Performance pending...)

Movement of above by wind

Trees of differing textures and heights

Flora specific to region (For example, Eucalyptus trees in Australia)

7. Effects of Mother Nature Evident

Bush Fires - Probability determined by season, humidity, smoke blocking light

Rain from clouds visibly falling more accurately than FSX (see:Here )

8. Realistic cities

Cities should light up the night sky as they do in real life

Minute elevation changes such as curbs/the edges of streets should show. That really annoyed me in FSX that everything was so flat

9. Sound effects

Traffic noise (Vehicles beeping, sirens, boat and train noises)

People noise (Especially evident at major events such as sporting arenas)

I would love to see support for Mac OS X!

[Avalon 0]

Mind boggling ideas and I am hugely enthused.

I skimmed most everything and didnt see anything about cloud shadows - on each other and the ground - along with corresponding light rays that relate to cloud location, weather and sun location.

With that said, this is an immense task. It seems that so many of these ideas are phenomenal but would be massively difficult to implement and maintain a reasonable level of cpu/ram/gpu demand.

Good luck and Kudos for the courage and tenacity. No other company is worthy of this I think.

[Er!k 572]

One of the most important things in my opinion is that the simulator must be 'open' for the community. For instance for adding AI aircraft etc.. It would be nice to have some detailed descriptions about how to do that and so on.

[Experimental 0]

What about to take also good ideas from X-Plane into account?

I'd love to see a better flight physics (dynamic) model. I heard from many real pilots that the airplanes feel more realistic to fly in X-Plane.

And what about restricted airspaces (like military airbases, Area-51.....). Would be cool to get notified when you are going to enter such areas.....

By the way.....I'am very happy to hear that there is a slightly chance of a new flight-simulator!!!

[flying-w 2]

There are many ideas that are going round in company emails right now. Just this morning somebody wrote that the new sim should be able to speak FSUIPC to external applications. There is no reason why it should not and this will hundreds of external applications immediatly compatible. That was one line in one email and it made the whole project more likely to happen.

Please consider a Simconnect and .net interface too. At least some of us developed entirely in this new FSX environment rather than FSUIPC. And anything you can do to include the small (one-person) develpers in the discussion would be great too, there's quite an army of us out here!

Regards

Simon

[Scout59 7]

Hello Mathijs,

first of all congratulations to the idea of a new simulator. After reading this topic, I mostly agree with all ideas and wishes mentioned, but to be realistic, if all would have to be implemented, the sim would never be finished. I mostly agree with the the point of view of Snave's input to this blog. See http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?s=...st&p=162670.

I work in a software company, and the mayor problem we have is the support of older Operation Systems where customers refuse to upgrade to a new OS and/or program version. This makes development and maintenace very difficult. I can only recommend that Aerosoft doesn't do the mistake to support older OS or FS versions. Don't look back, see the future! The Power of Hardware is speeding up, so I expect that the new SIM is written in 64bit code. XP has reached its EOL (End of Life) cycle, and shouldn't be supported anymore. WIN7, Linux MacOS and beyond is what is important. Make it modular, easy to adapt to new hardware and addons. Like Snave wrote, start of with Level One, and continue from there on. It will take years until all the ideas we be implemented, but that is part of the fun to see how the simulation gets better and matures.

Looking forward to the next generation!

Cheers,

[sfox72 0]

Hi,

some ideas from my side:

- Nonblocking Multithreaded System

Watching the processor market, it seems to be that the amount of cores are rising but the MHz dont. A new Flightsimulator should not be limited by the speed of processors, only by the amount of available cores. Performance intensive addons like Weather, ATC, AI and complex aircrafts could reserve a single thread for own operations to keep the overall framerates high. Do not think 640k is enough, mabye today but not in 5 years. Keep the core scaleable.

- Don't develop complex systems where other developers could do it better

In my point of view there is not such a big difference between FSX and X-Plane out of the box. Microsoft has the Market, X-Plane not. One big difference between both is the amount of high quality addons. PMDG, Leveld-D, DA, HiFi and all the fantastic payware and freeware sceneries has done a better job then Microsoft. Keep your resources on an eye candy flight simulator for the mass market and clever third party developers will do the parts for the more in deep enthusiasts.

- Open APIs/Libraries

Keep the system open for everything. There is no need to hide anything. Often I see notes from addon developers that they are not able to do things because it is restricted or they need scrappy workarounds.

- Offer compilers: Sample; in FS9/FSX often you have the problem of elevation with mesh and Addons Scenry. Keep the scenry structure in XML/layers and let the user modify and compile his world, if he like. X is not working with Y? Some clever person is able to write a small patch to correct this. Same for land classes, navaids, airways and so on.

- Define addon APIs: Sample; PDMG MD-11 and FS2Crew, horrible. The addon must simulate mouse clicks to interact with the airplane, if the window lost the focus, its getting mad. An addon API with defined ways to interact in the system could save a lot of workarounds. Addons should be able to offer ro/rw variables, functions and events to register if something is happen.

- Easy access to the core system. Sample: The fresh simulator is out and all are happy about these masterpice of software apart from me. My old (and truly expensive) GoFlight modules arent working anymore. Give me a well documented and easy to use API and I will do this for my own.

- Offer APIs and Libraries for anything. Sample; There are so much things to improve a flight simulator: ATC, AI, Weather Systems and of corse Elefants in Jungle. Ok Elefants not for me, but where is my VATSIM interface? Think about an scripting language which is compileable for easy tasks.

- Module depencies: Samples; Addons should be able to request modules. If I'm doing VFR-Flights there is no need to have AES eating up memory but I would like to have these hidefinition mesh and graphics. If my addon requieres an old sound or navigation module it should be able to load this on demand. If my ultracomplex airliner needs navaids from Navigrpah and diffrent flight dynamics like FBW make it interchangeable.

- Open Set/Depency-based configuration

Do not stuff like binary configurations or Windows Registery. Keep it in XML that all the config stuff could be modified with third party tools like config and scenery managers. The system should be moveable to a different folder and backuped/restored without reinstallation.

- Define a clever way for product registration

I have a lot of addons which need to be activated. Horrible, I wait for the day where my system crashes, I have to buy new hardware and flight1 is dead. Find a way that addon publishers can do activations based on a private software key, not based on hardware.

Regards

Stefan

[Sjef Gielen 0]

My two most important items:

1) ATC - don't simply leave it out, it is used by people who simply cannot fly online (VATSIM for me) every flight. I'd like to combine the ATC discussion to the procedures. (SIDs - STARS). I think it would be a nice feature to be able to ad the procedures you want for your flight. I allways use downloaded charts during my flights. I'd like to be able to edit these with something like a simple procedure editor so I'm not forced to buy updates every month for something I use 1% of. ATC should be able to actualy use these procedures and assign them using realistic runway assignments.

2) Visual effects: I love the way the eye point changes when (de)accellerating on the runway. I think this should be taken to the next level, the way it is implemented in FSX is just a teaser. We now know it can be implemented but at moments of toughdown it is not used enough, the bump is missing, when reversed thrust is deployed there is no shaking.

[Bromarock 0]

This is really a great, great news!

If you *need* a support of a flight simulation community, PVI (http://www.pvi.it) is at your complete disposal.

You know, we are very proud of every Aerosoft product and a *definitive* flight simulator will be very welcame!

We'll look forward for any news!

[Airlifter 60]

Environment

......

8. Realistic cities

Cities should light up the night sky as they do in real life

Minute elevation changes such as curbs/the edges of streets should show. That really annoyed me in FSX that everything was so flat

I agree that city lights should be much more vidid, adding to the illusion that the city is alive.

But with regards to seeing the elevation difference between streets and curbs... I'm sorry, but do you realize what you're saying?

I think you need an array of 10 Core i7 - 965Extreme's for those calculations alone...

We have to stay realistic here.

Besides that; when flying in real life, you will not see the elevation difference of the curbs....

...

9. Sound effects

Traffic noise (Vehicles beeping, sirens, boat and train noises)

People noise (Especially evident at major events such as sporting arenas)

Sorry... again... Stay realistic. It's a FLIGHT simulator we're talking about. Not a new version of 'Sims' where its possible to fly an aircraft.

Also again; when in a real aircraft, you will not be able to hear any of this....

Regards,

Frank

[Bobby9768 0]

One thing I would love to see is the ability to control all aircraft functions using keyboard commands and/or axis and NOT having to left or right click the mouse. Having to use the mouse is the one thing which stops me from buying in particular the Catalina and the Dornier and which is why my ATR72 has been consigned to the storage box.

[FlyTweety 0]

In my opinion Aerosoft should not even try to implement all (or almost all) of the features mentioned before.

My understanding of the new "SimulatorNG" is to provide or create a powerfull engine with wide open doors for any kind of developers.

That means, a mighty SDK is much more important than the Sim himself.

My thoughts:

• ATC

  I don´t really think, that a better ATC is important for the Box.

  Online-Pilots doesn´t use them, so, why should they pay and wait for the development ?

  But of course there should be Add On´s like Radar Contact or PFE, which can offer that service much better because they has already the experience and the algorythms to make me happy.

  Just wipe out the limitations of the MS Sim´s and provide a communication API from the Sim

  This also contains, that also the AI Traffic will be fully controlled by the Add On ATC in the air (on the Jetways, not crisscross at the sky) and on the ground.

It´s allways hard to see, when i use FSC a a moving map on the Laptop, that the AI-Traffic flies arround me like a swarm Mosquitos

SimulatorNG must have a upgradable AIRAC-Database by default.

And maybe there is a chance ( but not a must), that SimulatorNG contains a very simplyfied ATClight similiar to AESlight.

• Ground Handling

  Bush pilots doesen´t need it, so, why should they pay and wait for the development ?

  But of course there should be an Add On like AES, which can offer that service much better

  Just wipe out the limitations of the MS Sim´s and provide an communication API from the Sim

  Never again it should happen, that theres no way to push me backwards into the parkposition after landing (EDLW)

  This also contains, that also the AI Traffic will be fully served by the Add On

In my imagination i´m sitting on the virtual visitors platform, with my virtual binoculars and watching all the AI or Online-Traffic coming in and out, served by the Groundhandling.

Wy not spending an afternoon beeing a virtual spotter, but with more "action" like in the current sim ?

Anybody mentioned a improved control center.

That is highly demanded!

In the future the Add On´s must communicate much more better with each other.

Take a normal flight nowadays:

You choose a route in a Flightplanner like FSC or FSBuild.

Only if you a lucky simmer you can export the route to all your Add Ons, but normally not because the Plane uses a different Database than your weather program, additional different than your ATC, additional different to the Sim himself.

You enter the Plane and connect to your virtual F/O

He is able to deal with the Plane, but unable to communicate with the Add On ATC.

FS2Crew can request refueling but no Fuel Truck will appear, because FS2Crew hasn´t one.

With AES you can call a Fuel Truckand there will be appear one, but... the Truck is not able to refuel the Bird, because there no connection to the Fuelplanner of e.g. PMDG.

FS2Crew can call a Mech, but you will nerver see anybody, because even if AES would keep one in the maintenance, he cannot be called by FS2Crew.

Now you try to taxi to the RWY and will allways rammed by the Ground Service or look into the eyes of the FO of the Airplane right in front of you.

And so on and so on.

So, communication between the Add Ons will be the most important thing in the SimulatorNG and it will be one ofe the challenges, to provide a controllcenter much more powerfull than FSUIPC ever was.

Not additional Features is the goal, the ability to implement Features is requested an setting exact ONE expandeble standart for the interaction.

[sfox72 0]

Hi,

some things I have forgotten. They are more special related but mabye easy to implement in a new system:

- Moveable/editable sceneries: Sometimes it is very annoying when scenries are fixed in location and elevation. I have some sceneries which are not matching for example Ultimate Terrain or when online flying VATSIM with FSX these new airports are not matching older FS2004 sceneries. An offset with changeable coordinates and height would be a great improvement. The best would be that a scenery has a XML-Config with these data containing. Also for example the German Landmark scenery, how cool it would be to move some of these objects for repositioning even disable only some of these objects if they are double.

- Gauges: Very often I would like to exchange some gauges in GA planes. FS9 with 2D is no problem but now 3D with TrackIR or multiple screens are state of the art. Most of the FSX airplanes are not allowing repositioning or exchanging gauges in the 3D cockpit. For example it would be really nice to have an state of the art AP/GPS in the Twin Otter or Real Air Duke.

- The navigation database: In Microsoft FS navaids, control zones and airways are fixed. Most of the time flying GA planes the standard GPS would be enaugh to check visual navigation but these data is outdated and not changeable. Crap. It would be a great improvement (and maybe nice upsell for you) to have these data actual. These also could be a great factor for a more professional consumers.

- Multi-PC API: Often I use 3rd party addons and tools on a second or third pc to save cpu power. Think on FSUIPC/WideFS when developing APIs.

- In simulation scenery editing: A very fine addon in my point of view is EZ-Scenery. I could be really nice to have an editor inside the flightsim like EZ-Scenery to add, edit and improve standart sceneries. In a short time a lot of the standard scenery could be improved by the community.

Regards

Stefan

[jt8d-9a 1]

In my opinion Aerosoft should not even try to implement all (or almost all) of the features mentioned before.

My understanding of the new "SimulatorNG" is to provide or create a powerfull engine with wide open doors for any kind of developers.

That means, a mighty SDK is much more important than the Sim himself.

...

That's exactly what i love about FSX, but i think that this concept failed for the community.

Failed because many wishes in threads like this one are already possible with FSX (some even with FS9).

FSX is very open and you can do nearly everything (many - or the most - things not really perfect), but many people don't really use this freedom.

[Mike... 2]

Comments from others on that please? Keep in mind that we need to get NEW users in the sim as well and they will expect some ATC in the base sim.

On the other hand I seriously LOVE the idea idea of making this a sim that depends a lot on online things. For example I would like it a lot if the sim would offer me a few options in scenery (freeware or commercial) when I insert a flight plan. So when I plot EHAM to EDDF a server would tell me I could download a nice EDDF for free while I an enroute. Technically this is not too complex, we can insert scenery while the sim runs right now.

The sim should not depend on online things. Online can provide added value, but I do not like this trend of moving everything from my PC to god knows where. The sim should be good enough out of the box and not need an internet connection for anything, period. Knowing Aerosoft, that also means foregoing online activation.

ATC is tricky, I know MS wanted to do a lot between FS2004 and FSX but when they found out the complexity they more or less dropped it. At the same time we got seriously good human ATC online most of the time.

Online ATC coverage is only a fraction of what the default ATC in FS9 and FSX provides around the world, 24/7. This new sim must have at least an ATC that is similar in quality to what we have now in FS9/X (no major difference between the two), that is a given I think. But at the same time it must deal with some of the limitations that we are confronted with every time we fly. Like basic SID/STAR support and smoother vectoring both horizontal and vertical. That would already make a huge difference. I'm not asking for ATC in umpteen different accents or voice recognition. It does not need to be ProFlight Emulator or Radar Contact, but we need at least that.

Closely related is AI. If MS would've made significant changes to the AI system, I wouldn't still be using FS9 at the moment. That's how important it is to me and many others. The AI engine must be improved. Ideally the sim should treat user and AI the same, ATC wise. The sim should know where the user is in relation to AI and should deal with any problems that may occur. Approach separation, for example.

But also pay attention to "airport management". What we can do now with Afcads is very limited. We should be able to configure runway ends independently from each other. We should not need the star technique to unlock non-parallel runways. Allow for more control what lands where and when (how many airports don't have some sort of night time plan in effect, that's what I would like to control through an Afcad). I would like to see more intelligent taxi behavior instead of the shortest route from A to B. Make it smooth.

Don't hardcode it all like MS has done, don't do exceptions like MS has done. Give the user more control. You may think this is more suited to be done by third party devs, but really, these are basics and would be only "minor" improvements over the current system. That is I think the very least we should expect from this new sim.

Finally, a complete set of documentation and tools should be available to third party devs, both pay- and freeware, as well as complete access to the sim. It should talk more than FSUIPC.

[Juergen_LOWW 21]

Totaly agree, the new sim should also run in offline mode. Thus ad-hoc online access should be possible.

[bumprock 9]

Mathijs, I don't imagine that you realized, when you opened this door, what an increidble outpouring of brilliant ideas would be put forth. It is important to note that in spite of their diversity they suggest a clear direction towards the univeral or omniapp as the ideal solution: simplicity for the SDK backed by a highly complex open framework.

While only touched upon directly, there is an underlying thread in nearly all of the contributions for interchange or compatibility as in a network. Basically the solution would be to take the simulator from its current role as a stand alone applicaiton with on-line connectivity to a platform for a virtual community supporting a population of users and developer/vendors.

Basically it would be the next big step, and if done right, the FaceBook of Flight. Nice part is that it minimizes Aersoft's risk, while increasing its potential for revenue exponentially.

SW

[The Jedi 0]

It's a great idea! The things I'd like to have in this new simulator are:

-real textures, cities and weather (maybe connecting the simulator with Google Earth)

-Default FMC

-realistic boarding operations, loading operations, fuel etc...

-AI Aircrafts can crash (tecnical failures, human errors etc...) with emergency operations and vehicles

-AI Military traffic and combat

-AI emergency traffic (like firemen airplanes, air ambulance, police etc...)

best whishes.

[banzaiontherock 0]

Hello Everybody!

In my opinion, a few effects could provide us a more realistic and immersive simulation, such as

heat effect and water steam (in bad weather) during thrust!!

Bye

Banzaiontherock

[BlinkNFG 0]

But also pay attention to "airport management". What we can do now with Afcads is very limited. We should be able to configure runway ends independently from each other. We should not need the star technique to unlock non-parallel runways. Allow for more control what lands where and when (how many airports don't have some sort of night time plan in effect, that's what I would like to control through an Afcad). I would like to see more intelligent taxi behavior instead of the shortest route from A to B. Make it smooth.

I agree - airport management is one area I would like to see greatly improved (either direct in your sim or more likely through making the code such that it is easy to add in by 3rd party developers - I really like the modular idea proposed earlier in the thread)

Aside from the things Mike mentions I would also like to see more intelligent parking of AI aircraft. AI aircraft should taxi to the gate and then if its next flight is not for 6+ hours it should be moved to a distant 'parking' gate leaving the 'terminal' gate free for other AI aircraft. I tire of seeing a 747 attached to a jetway when it is not leaving for 8 hours when an airbus A319 is leaving in 20 mins but has to park next to the maintenance hanger as there is no other free space.

[Turkish Air 6]

framesfriendly

EDIT: And with real flight physics like x-plane or better.

[JJJackson 0]

Hi

I'm an old man 60+ so it might not count what I think, but I'm a little bit surprised when reading 8 pages of postings where people have long wishlists, nice but....

So finally I read a posting with a simple word "frameratefriendly" !!!!!! I really would love to have everything in your wishlists in the "NEW-FS" BUT if I can't even run the program in basic mode with framrates over 10 fps..... what's the use to have all theese fancy things in the program?

So my wish is: Priority ONE, a program designed so even people without an extreeme, high end PC can enjoy the program.

Jack

[Isra 0]

Aerosoft, please do not put any Animals into it, we are mostly in the Air, not on Ground!

FS9 was actualy not bad, with a better Effect and Weather-Engine we would not need a FSX!

And my last Wish, do not make a Game, make a Simulator!

Thank you!

Isra

[LufthansaPilot 4]

Hi,

1. Better frames!!!!

2. Better frames!!!!!!! (nevertheless do not neglect the graphics plz)

3. Bird strikes would be appreciated.

3. Improved camera options

4. Not always from the Pilots-eye-view, but also from the passengers eye, (or from airport workers such as Ground handling).

5. Realistic airport atmosphere

6. IMPROVED NIGHT LIGHTING! THE NIGHT LIGHTING IN FS9/X LOOKS LIKE A BIG IMITAION. LIGHTS SUCH AS XENON LIGHTS SHOULD CLEARLY DIFFER FROM OTHERS. BEACON LIGHTS WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ON GROUND SHOULD BE REFLECTED BY THE GROUND.

7. Improved Sky (Sun dawn/rise, moon, especially clouds should be impressive they are all looking the same in FS...)

8. Outside check(s) by the Pilot(s).

9. Not a "one" man crew, multi crew would be appreciated.

10. Plz make the world a little bit vital (that does not mean that you should place running animals around the world...)

11 .Oh plz do not waste your time making planets like mars or sth...

By the way why aren't you guys working together with google earth???