Jump to content

A New Simulator (May edition)


Recommended Posts

At this stage, there are a lot of broad, almost philosophical (!) decisions:

- Reproduction (e.g. satellite) vs. simulation (e.g. landclass). A mix ?

- Mesh: the square approach I don't like: makes things roundish. Perhaps triangles?

- I always thought that some fractal stuff somewhere would be a way to go. That includes clouds that could be generated on the basis of pressure/humidity/temperature. etc.

- Coverage: what is better: focus on a few areas and expand: make lots of people angry or the whole world: make everybody somewhat ######y.

- Light: seems like there is stuff around that would allow to have a realistic light-source engine. That includes scenery color too.. I remebre Fly! having had many ways to adjust the color/reflection and such.

- OS specific? Not even sure it's possible but dragging the weight of bloated OSs is not helping the sim. Is there a simple platform that could be specific to the sim? Like, you would have it on a separate partition: no more checking e-mails while flying though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat shimmer effect from Engines and APU would be nice.

Bird Strikes <<<<<<<<< I like that Idea

Reflections ............... on aircraft, buildings and water

3D water...............with waves

Shadows on everything.

Bigger better crashes.

Better clouds and smoke effects.

Good and smooth animations.

Better SKY AND LIGHT RAYS.

Better Night light effects.

Frame rates are very important.... we dont want anything like FSX! >(

Better looking trees.

And the last thing................. a system that is easier for the developers to understand so that they can develop better looking sceneries and aircrafts for it. It would be better if you can make it compatible with FS2004 and FSX aircraft addons :D

Regards,

A developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Custom content downloader for multiplayer. Like in Source games. Basically, if it detects someone else on the server is using 3rd party software the user doesn't have, it will automatically temporarially download it for the session. This means, no more seeing someone in a 3rd party F-22 flying a Cessna 172.

-Walk feature for the VC. This would make exploring Virtual Cabins much more fun!

-Dust kickup/water spray effect. If you fly low enough, you either kick up a lot of dust on the ground below you, or create a trail of water spray behind you. Just think how hardcore that would look!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, after reading so far I am very impressed about a lot of the ideas and the whole stuff. So just to remind about some things, let me add some thoughts:

- modularity (not only to import scenery, planes but also e.g. for a better flight training system than in FSX...) and scalability (to say vertical for different system power and horizontal for different user experience) would be mission critical I assume;

- the quality of overall graphics are mission critical too I think;

- and also the quality of flight and simulation physics - maybe could be a good idea to take a look what the guys at DCS (famous russian Black Shark helicopter simulation) are doing now and in future

- but keep in mind: even that I am a simulation enthusiast, too, who wants to fly as complex and near to real life as possible, that all has to be done by very simple PC-kind of hardware (even if it's getting better and cheaper in future) - if you ever have visited (and I am sure you did more than once!) a real system and procedure simulator, you know what kind of super-computing and imaging devices one need only for the system and physics simulation; graphics in those system look even in todays systems more like FS98 than anything else ;) but there is no need for training procedures etc. to have a real live looking landscape

- but for a highly enjoyable gaming experience landscape, surrounding and in-flight graphics as near to reality as possible are very important to have the fun we all have when sitting at home and thinking about take-off in heavy rains at Munich an landing on sunny Canary Islands some time later...

- last for the moment: keep it as open as possible so community and off course commercial 3rd party developers could fix certain problems or integrate new stuff (I like that earlier mentionend idea of a x-stage development project)

that's so far some for my remarks to that surprising aerosoft decision of developing a NG flight sim

regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

couple idea from me,

Damage effects: meaning small details like birdstikes, d\slightly dammaged aircraft body when doing a belly landing ect

Wake turbulance: when flying behind a aircraft you get realistic wake turbulance on land ect.

like someone else said a carrer mode where you can buy aircrat, and sorta do it like a living

and pretty much all the realism you can possibly add!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

I didn´t read everything but I hope it was not already said

1.

I hate it to fly very low VFR because the scenery textures look so terrible.

All the textures.. ( Payware or Default) look only good from above.

I think it would be wonderfull if you could manage it, that the textures are looking good

if you are looking from very low

example 1. (looking from low)

http://www.abload.de/img/exbp5a.jpg

example 2. (looking from high)

http://img2.abload.de/img/ex24t0c.jpg

the textures are looking bad (ex1.) but in the second one much better. :)

2.

Of course weather is VERY important...but I think the BIGGEST mistake the Fsx has got, is the visibility.

I mean if you´re on FL360 and you´re looking as far as possible, at the end there´s just a cut.

ex 3. ^^

http://www.abload.de/img/ex37kt7.jpg

That looks terrible.

My suggestion, make it like they did it in the game HAWX.

You can´t see very far, because there is dust... hiding more.

But you don´t have a nongood feeling.

And the Frames are getting better :)

Okay 2 Suggestions

I´ve many more but I don´t want you to get an "Overflow Error" ;)

Regards

P.s I´m looking forward, to hold this new sim in my hands ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

First of all, this is exciting news and I wish you the best of luck. I will defer to the experts regarding specific software capabilities; all I ask is that the sim is efficiently coded so that the CPU doesn't spend its time fighting bloated programming like FSX.

I have to agree with leaving out ATC. There is no way that you are going to satisfy anyone who is remotely serious. If you design the sim so that add-ons are plug-and-play, then existing 3rd party developers who specialize in (IMHO) "fringe" elements such as ATC, real weather, and AI traffic will flock to your door. There is always VATSIM for us hobbyists. Hopefully you would be amenable to providing them beta code and an SDK that would allow them to co-develop so that they could release their products closely following your initial release.

Sign me up as a beta tester!!! :) Again, I hope this really happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very new to the Aerosoft forums (2nd post here) but just had to reply to this. This is really exciting because with Microsoft disbanding the Aces team this may fill in a huge hole, and Aerosoft make such quality products. (the Hughes H-1B is perfect is so many ways)

I think that is very good to look forward with new technologies and ideas but it is also very important to look at what FSX did right as a base. I just want to list a few things per Mathijs' request for short posts.

IMHO what made FS so succesful was that 1) it was tutorial and progressive in that a noob simpilot could jump in and take those baby steps in being an aviator. This really is what captured people and lead to advancement and the abiltiy to fly a realistic flight model. There were even flight lessons! 2) I think the missions, rewards, logbook, and flight analysis are important 3) The vast amount of airports and real weather is vital, and made for a real 'world game'.

For modeling it would great if there was a way for different software users to coexist, i.e. Gmax, 3DS, Maya, Blender users could all develop models and contribute.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that some fractal stuff somewhere would be a way to go. That includes clouds that could be generated on the basis of pressure/humidity/temperature. etc
I like This a lot!! It's a great solution to the always repeating clouds textures/sprites. A particle systems could be used to generate these humidity/weather relative clouds and it will make them look actually 3D.

We don't need animated people or animals. That's too much expensive for rendering in ths current computer generation. Keep the sea/street traffic and add train/ railroads traffic.

Custom content downloader for multiplayer. Like in Source games. Basically, if it detects someone else on the server is using 3rd party software the user doesn't have, it will automatically temporarially download it for the session. This means, no more seeing someone in a 3rd party F-22 flying a Cessna 172.

One way to let players see the other players' custom planes would be compiling an "extra" lower quality model along with the .mdl/.flt file so this low-res model could be downloaded quickly and thus preventing this downloaded plane from being flyable for players who haven't bought/got the actual product. The model.cfg file will kinda look like:

normal=P-47D23

interior=P-47D23_interior

Multiplayer=P-47D23_MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an extremely important question. Will the new sim be compatible with FSX addon scenery by Aerosoft and other third parties? I have spent large sums of money to greatly improve FSX and I Could not even think about starting over (nor would I want to) with this new sim if it was not compatible with the Many addons I have purchased for FSX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping Microsoft would reveal some FS-news on upcoming E3, but this was even better!

Wanted features:

-Not just cloud shadows, but improved lightning (overcast day darker than clear skies day for instance).

-Please give me a solid horizon to horizon overcast... even if it means a flat texture.

-Autogen fading in at distance not just pop up (check out HAWX to see the effect on the autogen trees there, very nice fade-in, and makes altitude changes beautifull).

-Scenery/autogen and ground textures integrated(3d houses should be on the sides of the textured streets, not overlapping them etc)

-Nicer GA airport areas than FSX. FSX ships with mostly GA planes, then they only make the airliner gates detailed.. odd decision.

-Performance is important. Developers and not the PC should do the work. Rather have developers run their planes/scenery though converting tools rather than loose performance by supporting too many types of scenery/planes.

Wishing best of luck with the project!

-Kinetic2080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I really like about the FSX are the missions. I think it is important that you have something to play for the pilot, which is not interested in online or procedure flying. So a good system for the missions would be great.

For me it will be ok, if the basic sim, when ready, has only a few more abilities than the fsx. The producers of addons needed to be ask for their wishes and known problems, so that they will provide us with a lot of great stuff.

I wish you luck and sucessfor your new baby.

Oliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think FSNext should have the following features:

1) 99% "open" FDE, that allows devs and users to adjust the flight dynamics fully, without significant amounts of proprietary data. MSFS Air files have proprietary data, and certain entries in the ".air" files are a mystery to developers. I have nine years of FDE experience!

2) Realistic ground friction! MSFS Beta testers complained about the unrealistic friction coefficient, but nothing was ever done.

3) AI traffic performing Holding Patterns in congested airspace :)

4) AI traffic with Offline ATC system. You could develop a system similar to the FS9/FSX system for offline users. AI traffic without offline ATC would make no sense! Most "simmers" are offline flyers .... no ATC would be a show-stopper!

5) Smoother weather transitions. FSX still has sharp weather transitions, especially wind layer transitions.

6) Separate reverse thrust key/button command! MSFS was not realistic in that respect ... you could activate reverse thrust by accident.

7) Effects: Independent smoke effects for each engine; Rain and snow that is blasted by jet engines, especially on takeoff/landing!

8) Realistic engine failures: Jet and piston engines need time to warm up before takeoff. If you don't give engines sufficient warm-up time .... get ready for problems! This feature could be switched off by default, for "lite" users! Compressor stalls when using reverse thrust at low IAS (not all aircraft suffer with this).

9) Realistic Ice simulation. FS8, FS9 and FSX are not very convincing! Also .... hail!

10) AI planes must have realistic engine sounds for takeoff/landing!

I hope my post is of some use :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idea I had immediately brings up what is (imho) the biggest problem of this project...

FSX is released on dvd and contains the complete world. Of course this means it isn't a very detailed world. When I read all messages here I immediately think 'what they want won't fit on 10 dvd's... you will need to distribute this sim on an external 500 Gb Hard disk. (Which, btw, isn't a bad idea, if you ask me... ;) ) Anyway, this made me think: wouldn't it be an idea to sell the new sim in parts...? I mainly fly in Europe (unless I am flying above FTX). I don't need Asia, Africa, South-America, so... why not sell the sim in parts of the world?

Next logical step would be to offer the sim as a download and not on dvd. This way everyone can easily pick the part(s) of the world they need. You might even think about some sort of message you get when you pass the edge of the map you own, like 'You have reached the edge of your map: would you like to buy the map you are entering online?'. Something like that. However, there are of course a lot of people (still) who don't have good enough internet connections for this... So you still might want to sell it on dvd, but those would still be regional ones (Europe, North-America, South-America, etc.).

But now the problem I was talking about... When I buy a dvd with Europe... I expect it to be great, ready and awesome. So I'd rather NOT have to buy yet another scenery package! But of course all those companies who are creating addons right now, will still want to do that! And that may become one of the biggest hurdles to overcome... How good and perfect do you want the initial release of the sim to be...?

When I read all posts in this message it is clear that people want the BEST right out of the box (even though the BEST probably won't run on ANY current hardware). But I wonder if all companies really want the best...! Because if the sim is perfect right away, who needs addons...? If we get what everyone is asking for, then all addon developers will have lost their jobs!

Now you can of course aim for a certain base sim pack on which you can build and add anything you like or what is important to you. This is in fact the way it is now with FSX. So maybe... a lot of the tips and advice everyone is giving in this topic, shouldn't be in this topic but in a topic called 'Which addons would you like to get for the new sim?' And this topic should be called 'What should really be part of the base package?'

In short: I think you need to decide before you start the project (or well, while making it) what will be the core business of the main sim and what should be left to the addon developers. One thing is clear: if everything that is mentioned in this topic makes it into the sim it will cost about 2000 dollars at least, it won't run on any system, it won't be released before 2018 and the addon developers will be out of a job. :P

I hope you get the idea of what I am trying to say here: it's about the general idea, not the details I put in it. I also think it might be a good idea to communicate early and clearly that a new sim will be a base you can build on (if you want to go that way, which I think you have to, otherwise you will never get all companies together...)

Another thing: I am a graphic designer and I know from experience that when people want something NEW... they come with OLD ideas that already exist... I just had to redesign a magazine and so I made a NEW design. Before I knew it they wanted to add all kinds of little things they were missing from the old design! They did this without knowing it!!! If I hadn't said 'HOLD IT' we would have ended up with the old design in some sort of new jacket...

When I am reading this topic I think 'Everyone is thinking with FSX in mind...'! Take AFACD's for instance: well, I don't want AFCAD's anymore!!! I want something NEW that works better and easier! The BIGGEST problems the devs of this new sim will face is to come up with REAL new idea's! You got to let go of all you know otherwise it will simply become a new sort of FSX! You don't want a new FSX, you want a new sim altogether! This means letting go of ALL you need to know. (This will also prevent legal issues with MS...)

Of course it's logical for everyone to think in FSX-terms, so this part of my post isn't meant as an attack on everyone who posts some really great idea's, but it's directed to the people who will work on the sim. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing for me is the small airports, the one's nobody has heard of. When people buy a sim, the first thing they do is load up their favourite aircraft at their home airfield, which 99 percent of the time isn't a major airport. I would like to see real attention paid to the smaller airports. Needn't be very detailed, but at least have all the buildings in the right place. For instance Bristol Filton [EGTG] My home airport, under default FSX scenery the airport is unrecognizable as Filton, the aprons aren't even in the right place.

A weapons system would be very nice, but a good one. If it's not going to be realistic, don't bother. You could include it in the multiplayer mode to allow people to dogfight etc. Have missions based around military missions. You could even have missions based on real world missions that have taken place in the past.

Other than that I think I speak on behalf of everybody when I say we want realistic crashes. Explosions when you crash or are hit by a missile :blush: , Gear collapsing when you land heavy, wings falling off when you overstress the airframe etc.

Another sim is something I would like to see and I think the whole Flight Sim community is gasping for a break from Microsoft's monopoly on the genre. Do it.

And please, PLEASE give us some realistic flight physics.

One idea I had immediately brings up what is (imho) the biggest problem of this project...

FSX is released on dvd and contains the complete world. Of course this means it isn't a very detailed world. When I read all messages here I immediately think 'what they want won't fit on 10 dvd's... you will need to distribute this sim on an external 500 Gb Hard disk. (Which, btw, isn't a bad idea, if you ask me... ;) ) Anyway, this made me think: wouldn't it be an idea to sell the new sim in parts...? I mainly fly in Europe (unless I am flying above FTX). I don't need Asia, Africa, South-America, so... why not sell the sim in parts of the world?

Next logical step would be to offer the sim as a download and not on dvd. This way everyone can easily pick the part(s) of the world they need. You might even think about some sort of message you get when you pass the edge of the map you own, like 'You have reached the edge of your map: would you like to buy the map you are entering online?'. Something like that. However, there are of course a lot of people (still) who don't have good enough internet connections for this... So you still might want to sell it on dvd, but those would still be regional ones (Europe, North-America, South-America, etc.).

I think both the Hard drive and Download ideas are brilliant, Perhaps some kind of bittorrent download, otherwise it will take months.

As for selling it in parts, I couldn't disagree more strongly, I mean sure I might want to fly around the UK for a while, but what's to say I don't want to jet off to JFK or Antarctica. Selling it in parts means you're confined to a small space we don't want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A solid sim along the lines of FS that runs well on mid-level hardware - addon developers can add the candy.

Realistic flight dynamics.

Realistic weather and effects (gusts, icing, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, where to begin. :unsure:

So many great ideas, so much detail......nothing short of a Cray will do, I suspect.

This is a daunting task you fellows have decided to under take. My thanks and congratulations for having the "Right Stuff" to do this.

I have sooooo much money invested in FS2004 and FSX that I could have probably bought a real plane, I know, I know.

Here is what I think every time I fly...........THIS IS NOT REAL! It does not FEEL Real, I can be flying in an Awesome Creation by a talented developer,

flying over some Awesome Scenery created by another talented developer, with Beautiful Clouds created by another........and on and on. I can be totally

enjoying the financial purchases posing for some Beautiful Screenshots, but alas the world "even with some irratic moving boats, cars and a bird or two",

yet I become dissapointed by the lack of humanity and our friendly animals. There is so much missing, no matter how pretty it all is.

OK, here is what I miss when flying:

1. Seaplanes that do not interact with water, they create spray and clip waves on landing and take-off, they bounch and bouy around when they sit or taxi.

2. The transition from land to water "and vise-versa" is currently a joke. There are waves washing up on pristine beaches as your amphibian moves up and

out of the water, it should not jump from water to land and flop back into the water.

3. Lifeforms, are a big part of our natural world, so where are they in our current sterile invironment?

4. How many See-Though Clouds do you come upon on a daily basis? Where is that thrill of flying through the puffy white cloud tops?

5. Do you really fly through a Tunnel, where Rain and Snow only surrounds the tunnel?

6. How Awesome it would be to get in your car and actually drive to the airport where you can pre-flight your Bonanza "etc." before climbing aboard and

doing your thing. How Awesome it would be to sit aboard your own boat watching others going out for a fishing trip on their boats or taking off in their

Seaplanes for a hunting trip. Your kicking back watching the sun slowly sink while the Gulls cry for scraps as the waves gently lap at you hull. Suddenly,

a gentle shower passes overhead and you see the rain drops dance on the water surface in the shimmering last light of the day.

So, am I nuts? Probably!

Here is something I wish could be thought of as development becomes serious:

Think of and look at other Games/Simulations out there. Crysis, Far Cry 2, Battlefield 2, Test Drive Unlimited, Need for Speed, Call of Duty and many other

games have all of what I talked about above. (I know.......they have a much different focus),

BUT.....

A Dynamic Environment is a "Localized" Scenerio. The World may be re-created with all the forests, cities, lakes, rivers and airports, but they are in essence

Static. The Environment could be coded to the location on the planet within a specified, variable area. The specific elements in the area being flown could be

programed to use/enable different Environmental Elements based on Time/Season. Things like Ice, Ice Flows and Ice Bergs would be elements triggered by

the same means. I am by no means a programer so I do not know how difficult this would be, but I do know that Environmental Elements should not be hard

coded in the Base Simulator. It possibly may be controlled by XML code commands.

All I know for sure is that these things can be done, I have seen all of it in games that already exist. I just do not know if a Flight Simulator can acheive the

Dynamic Beauty of a Natural Environment that a number of these games do so well. Physics are the future and there seems to be no limit to the imagination

of so many talented developers.

Good On You Aerosoft! Best of Luck in you endevour.

Old Crow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are a million great ideas on here and it is clear that Mark Twains' adage "you can please some of the people.." etc is going to apply.

From my perspective, I enjoy virtually every single type of aviation related activity that you can imagine (clearly many others do too) so the modular/ open format would be the most obvious route to success.

I would LIKE maximum realism in eveything but I realise that it will be impossible for one simulation to provide this and I think that FSX in particular has tried and (to a large extent) succeeded due to the generally high quality of addons that can be obtained. Indeed many of the things that have been asked for here in this thread are available in FSX via paywear. Nonetheless, there is a great deal more to do to improve realism which could only be done in a new sim.

So here's what I WANT: a simulator that recreates an experience that is as close to flying a real aircraft as it is possible to do whilst sitting here on the ground. Brilliant flight physics, great eye candy including ground activities and a living world with people animals etc, proper atmospheric and weather modeling, great sound, damage modelling, ability to use hardware peripherals etc. I would like the terrain below on my flights to be realistic including proper seas, jungles, glaciers roads and train tracks etc. I want missions/ scenarios such as a full training course for PPL, CPL, ATPL, military pilot etc including being graded and awarded the qualification ONLY after suitable effort has been expended as well as the fun stuff. Kind of like FSX but much better.

Most of all, I want great PC performance. For example, I would like to fly over a realistic London into Heathrow with my all singing all dancing 744 using the correct ATC (with British accents and procedures), with full AI traffic, over cars stuck in a traffic jam on the M25 without my frame rates dropping down into single digits (despite having a top of the line PC with 12 Gb of RAM) and then to be able to replicate similar experiences elsewhere on the planet.

Currently, you need a large amount of disposable income to indulge in this hobby properly (for me, it would have been cheaper learning to fly!) and there are clearly many who are prepared to pay for those addons and who enjoy "tinkering around under the bonnet" so a new sim will have to retain that flexibility with sceneries etc from other communities eg rail ship etc able to appear to all other users.

I think that there is great merit in the "World Simulator" idea that someone came up with so that different communities can fuel their own interests. I like the idea of driving to an airport and then flying the plane or sailing a ship, enjoying the scenery, interacting with others, piloting a spacecraft etc in a vast world that can be modified in a similar way to the basic on-line concept of something like "World of Warcraft" or "Second Life".

Add on virtual economies, politics, regulation, war etc and voila we have the real world!! Imagine virtual countries/ regions forming and co-operating or conflicting with each other and the opportunities that provides for some very interesting flying and other activities. I am sure that there is plenty of mileage in this idea and it would appeal to a mainstream audience outside of flight sim thus providing for a greater revenue stream e.g. buy the base pack for the sim then purchase a flight sim, rail sim, people sim etc addon pack. Maybe there could be a monthly subsciption allowing access to further content (which could be provided by many of the existing developers out there now) based on the level of realism would be appropriate instead of buying endless airports, sceneries etc (which are lovely, enhance my enjoyment, keep things fresh and exciting but add up to be very expensive).

Finally, maybe someone could invent a utility that could create elevation meshes from Google Earth or similar so that the buildings etc appeared in 3D. Just think virtually real 3D scenery wihout having to create millions of individual bgl files.

So I think that the choice will come down to satisfying the absolute purists who want to specialise in one particular activity or the generalists (like me) who like a bit of everything from sight-seeing to hardcore "as real as it gets".

I admire your courage and vision and wish Aerosoft and its' development partners every success in this venture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news and a bold move if you're going to do it.

Many good ideas have already been posted. So here are my two cents.

1) Well, due to the nature of the simulator (spending most of the time in the air), I think you should put one of your main efforts into an in-depth realistic atmospheric model. As you mentioned, also humidity/moisture among all the other factors should be considered. The realistic rendering of it is just as important

2) For me, most of the immersion comes from the visuals. So the graphics engine should be capable of producing accurate atmospheric scattering, volumetric clouds (cloud buildup?) and cloud shadows. The latter has been mentioned before, I just want to emphasize how much cloud shadows add to the immersion. They really give a "feel" for being at altitude, for the distances between the clouds and the ground and therefore improve your spatial perception.

Regarding the atmospheric scattering, some nice approaches can be found here for example. Also, HDR lighting would be great. For example cockpit windows at cruise level overexposed when looking down on the instrument panels, or the bright shine in your cockpit with stark contrasted (self-casting) shadows as soon as you break through the cloud tops from a murky overcast weather below, where the cockpit and surroundings were just dim.

That is exactly what I am missing most in the current simulators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya Mathijs and everybody

I have been a life long simmer since FS5issss on a Atari and all this has been motivated by 30 hrs towards a PPL in the 80’s.

This is the best news we have had since the Ms/Aces announcement and we have to thank Aerosoft for considering this challenge . Feels very reminisant of the “FLY” days. Afraid the Fsx/Vista/dx10 saga was all a bit disappointing.

The real opportunity here is to start from scratch, something I’m sure m/s would have liked to do, but was not possible.

For me Flight Simulation has always been a series proposition. I accept lots of people want different things and the need for fun which is still possible. FS9/X as achieved so many goals in pilot training(in the states), during its life span, it would be nice to see this in Europe with AerosoftNG.(May take time off course).

PHYSICS (Stick & Rudder Bit)

Has to be on top of the pile, I need to feel I’m flying a Cessna, or a b757 and therefore be able assess my abilities.

Realistic ability to Trim for altitude/Speed

Must have spins, Sidesliping and Asysmetric thrust.

Prop affects on Takeoff(wake Turbulence/Slipstream), Braking(realism), Undercarridge Elastisity(damaged Airframe), I could go on……

ATMOSPHERE(Weather Model)

I loved the thing about calculating visabilty from moisture in the air.

That must lead on to Turbulence/Wind Shear/Icing/humidity.

The atmospheric Model just needs to portray the real world as a hostile place as much as is possible within the limitations, it self elementary really…

EARTH(Scenery)

Surely in todays Technoledgy we need to use Satalite imagery(Streamed online, only areas applicable for Flightplan) low level(Detailed)high level(less detail), I realize this creates probs with seasonal/Night textures.

Sloping Runways(A must/Could be Hard)Runways (reflecting weather conditions)

GRAPHICS(Detail)

Better Aircraft Lighting and Runway Lighting(3d app Lighting)

Airport Buildings as detailed as Aircraft.(photorealism may be )

Graphics Linked to Atmospherics(Airframe/Runway)

SOUNDS

Differing sounds for softer/harder landings

Wind noise around airframe(Fast/Slow Speed)

ATC

Basic Provision(Better interaction/(voice Reconition)). Could be a Addon ( like Voxatc)

Good interaction with Ai aircraft (Ai aircraft could be a Add on option)

GENERICS(Housekeeping)

Open Architecture/Good SDK

Frame Rates/fluidity.

Good hooks for Goflight/Pfc/Simkits (Must for Cockpit Building)

Good Networking(Spread load of Processing on Multi pc’s)

Backward compatibility(Not at Price of progress/ Prefer a better sim than a bodge)

Hours building

Standardisation in Programming/Formats

I think all of the above, or most of it, where feasible, is about providing the parameters(Core) to enable (others) to provide the detail, Aerosoft/Partners can be also be(an other as well). As suggested in “Snave’s post” with a Modular Approach. people buy the bolt’on they want, GA, tubepilot, Bush, Military, flightschool, ETPS Course, etc

We watch with baited breath and hope you have the support/partners to make this happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the previous 9 pages... Intel should make 2x more powerfull CPU then the i7 is if the new FS will contain all of the features written above :blink::lol: Anyway... It could be more realistic then the real nature is with those features :lol:B) However... FSX with all of the best stuff from aerosoft or simmarket is pretty enough for me ;) And what if the project won't be succesfull?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great idea and I can't tell you how excited I am to hear this. Excellent news, you just made my year!

With regard to suggestions, I have a few, but I think it's important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I fly in both FS9 and FSX - mostly in FS9 because of framerates - and I think the goal should be to provide framerates comparable to FS9 running on a quadcore (between 30-50FPS). While this might limit how many extras can be added, it can always be scalable so that you can add additional features as you increase the performance of your PC.

As I said, there's much to like about FS, but also much that could be improved. Ideally, a blend between the best of FS and X-plane would be fantastic. So, with that said, here are a few of my ideas:

INTERFACE

The FS interface should be the goal. X-plane is far too complicated for the novice.

The interface should be more intuitive and walk the pilot through the various steps of preflight (i.e: start with aircraft selection, then pick a route and departure gate next/, then move to fuel planning and aircraft loading, then import real world weather and selected the time/date of flight, and finally, hit ready and load the flight at the selected departure point and go flying)

SCENERY

I like many of the current FS global scenery addons, but I think you should follow the X-plane model and provide users with 60 gbs of default scenery (or more, given today's hard drivers, 100 gbs should be no problem for most simmers). This would allow for better and more unique looking global scenery. I don't think using FS Virtual Earth or Google Earth is realistic for most of us, especially since it would be near impossible to add dynamic water and seasonal information for the entire world. You'd need an army of scenery developers working for several years to do that with any degree of accuracy so I'd go with something more like what X-plane has done.

As for default scenery, it would be nice if all cities around the globe were detailed, but that just isn't realistic, so I would ask that consideration be given to making at least some of the more popular cities (say the top 20, determined by airport passenger volumes) around the world detailed, and then allowing the developer community to populate the rest.

AIRPORTS

Again, the top 20 busiest airports highly detailed would be nice. But if that's not possible, then how about the top 10.

As for ground vehicles, I would like to see pushback tugs, baggage loaders, baggage trailers, catering vehicles, fuel trucks, servicing and emergency vehicles but only when you call them. Instead of having them sitting at your gate (as in FSX) taking up frames, they should only be visible when called for. They should also come from a few central locations from around the airport (i.e. fire trucks from the fire station, baggage loaders from parking areas, catering trucks from the catering kitchens, etc.) This would reduce significantly the frames used at large airports and free up space for more AI.

As for AI aircraft, the pushback tug would only come around at two minutes before takeoff. The fuel truck at say 10 minutes before takeoff, and baggage handling about 30 minutes before takeoff. And to limit the number of AI aircraft at an airport on initial startup of a flight, only aircraft departing within 2 minutes of the simulator time should be populated - I believe FSX currently use 15 minutes before.

FLIGHT PLANNER

I believe this has already been said, but adding NAT routes would be a must. The current FS planner doesn't do this well so when we in Canada try and plan a flight from Toronto to Europe, we end up getting routed through Alaska. I know there are a number of addons that fix this, but if this is a wish list, then this is one of mine.

ATC

Regional voices is a must, but I don't think the current ATC is that bad. I understand it has limitations, but for those of us that don't fly online, it's pretty good and I wouldn't want to see it changed much, especially if it will mean, as it often does, paying for the service somewhere else. I do think SID/STARs would be a nice feature, as would better spacing between aircraft and better vectoring around hills/mountains etc. All in all, it's not bad now and I think with a few minor changes, it could be improved to address most of the needs of simmers.

WEATHER

The current weather systems in FS are pretty good. I know there are better clouds and modelers out there, but all in all, it's not bad. Several things that bother me about FS weather are the lack of hurricanes, wild wind gusts at altitude and the lack of a really good turbulence simulation. Admittedly, these are nits, but they are things that if improved would add greatly to the overall simulation.

As well, cloud coverage is terrible in FS. On overcast days, you often get light spots as you look out over the horizon, as well, I hate flying in for a landing and one moment, it's clear skies and unlimited visibility to the airport and the next, you're in a fog. Improving this would be fantastic. This is something X-plane does much better than FS, as well as global colouring. In FS, the world appears too bright, especially when overcast. While X-plane may be a tad too dark, it does a much better job of modeling weather than FS. Somewhere in between the two would be really nice.

As for rain and snow, I always thought it would be easy to just create a dark set of textures (for each season) that could be called up when it's raining/snowing. This would give the simulator the appearance of wet pavement, without seriously complicating things for the simulator's engine. Much like AES does now.

EFFECTS

I think FSX has made a number of great improvements, especially the spray effect from wheels on the ground. This should be retained, and complimented by jetwash on payment and grass etc. As for the other effects, it would be nice to see an exhaust effect, but that may be too complex for today's computers, unless you omit them from AI traffic.

Aircraft ground lights also need to be improved. The current lighting system looks like triangles emanating out from the light source. Better blending as has now been possible for several years for aircraft textures would be nice.

AIRCRAFT

I agree with all that's been said regarding aircraft flight dynamics, especially thrust vectoring and crabbing. This currently isn't modeled well in either FS or X-plane. It would be nice if it were. As well, my biggest beef with FSX is ground handling of larger aircraft. They either don't move or they slide all over the place. Better friction modeling would greatly improve this, so I would recommend this as a priority, as well as turning that truly reflects the direction of the front wheel(s). Both FSS and X-plane do a terrible job of this with heavies.

As well, for those of us that fly the heavies, how about a separate set of keys for ground steering. I find using the rudder controls ok, but it would be better if they were separate.

JOYSTICK

Lastly, I know Aerosoft doesn't make hardware, but how about a flightstick modeled on a gamepad that provides us with a thrust axis and a rotating nob for front wheel control on the ground, in addition to all the other standard buttons for flightsim. I know, it's not what you do, but I think there would be a huge market in it for you guys, especially from guys like me in my 40s that are embarrassed to leave out joysticks and flight control modules around the computer...hint: it would make it easier to hid my obsession from my wife and friends!

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. Good luck with this project, you know I'll be looking for it soon on your website.

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not in the slightest surprised? ;)

I would be willing to pay more and sacrifice backward compatibility to all existing sims - although I recken we're about as far as we can get with FSX and all the current third-party artwork and 3D modelled addons

My "wishlist" would include:

Multi-engine rotorcraft

Ground friction so that any surface movement - car and plane - is real

Better mesh interpretation so that changes from the horizontal to vertical can be sharp angles instead of curves (cliffs for instance)

To go with the above - vertical textures.

To go with the above - prevent rivers apparently flowing along aqueducts because the terrain messh and waterbody mesh mismatch

Smaller water ripples

Bump map terrain so that forests, woods and major stands of trees, shrubs, agriculture stand out from the mesh

Better tree density for autogen vegetation

Better road flattens so that mountain valley roads, for instance, don't jink as they do in X

Ditto river flattens and slopes

Angel Falls (Salto Angel in Venezuela) ;) i.e animated waterfalls

Multi-core CPU usage

When it comes to PC power don'T try to aim at future developments - that was one FSX problem, where they imagined CPU speed would double within a year of release. Remember we were around 2.5 Ghz for average CPUs at the time and went multi-core. ACES missed that completely and aimed at 5 to 6 GHz cores.

If I think of anything more... well I know where to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Probably listed already):

- windshear

- mechanical turbulence on short final (besides normal turbulence)

- updrafts and downdrafts on short final

- weather not only based in METAR and TAF interpolation, but also in weather imagery and its predictions

-WX Radar that actually can see weather

-WX Radar that actually can see weather

Just my 2 cents. (WX Radar repeated on purpose) :D

Best wishes ;)

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