Jump to content

A New Simulator (June edition)


Staffan

Recommended Posts

Here are some things that I would like to see in a new sim:

Dense, realistic forests with accurate autumn textures. I really miss good forests because I usually fly in Alaska and Canada.

Sloped, bumpy runways

A user friendly SDK (even if it's just an object placement tool and something like ADE)

Accurate flight dynamics (especially helicopters!)

Realistic water, sky, and clouds (maybe incorporate a future version of REX?)

Missions

I'm sure I'll think of more later, but that's it for the moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At some point earlier it was stated that it will be aerosoft's intention to build the new sim for multicore CPUs .

If in the best case the development takes 18 months and it begins in the best case in half a year , then we should expect the new sim the earlier in mid 2011.

My question is ,just as FSX runs better on dual core ruther on quad because it was designed as such , will the new sim be designed to run on a specific number of cores or can it be designed in a way to be handled by any number of cores? Because the time in between now and then will see decisions about hardware purchase and many may fall in the trap on going too extreme with multicore whereas in fact there may be a specific design for multicore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with the guy up here. I just wish that this FS could be able to run great on any computer. For example, on MSFSX, I can't run it on Ultra High configuration (I think that an i7, 6GB RAM and a 285GTX are enough).

Aerosoft shouldn't focus on graphics, but also on performace. Graphics advanced at such a rate (I think you can remember Asteroids), that nowdays, you can nearly find computers capable of running a game as it was planned to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with the guy up here. I just wish that this FS could be able to run great on any computer. For example, on MSFSX, I can't run it on Ultra High configuration (I think that an i7, 6GB RAM and a 285GTX are enough).

Aerosoft shouldn't focus on graphics, but also on performace. Graphics advanced at such a rate (I think you can remember Asteroids), that nowdays, you can nearly find computers capable of running a game as it was planned to...

I think better that it has a wide configeration of settings. Those who have high end computers, should be able to take advantage with them and those who have older computers, should also get as much as they can from the sim.

Performance interface should be very user friendly so you don't have to be an IT professional to understand it. There should be a simple setup interface with "Advanced" options for power users, so that any level of user can quickly identify the class of computer he is using with the sim and "Advanced" options could tweak that performance to a finer level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinkng about this request for input from the flight sim community and, just a wild stab in the dark, I would guess that the vast majority of us do not have real practical flight experience. Yet in the end most of the input to date boils down to a desire to have a flight sim that is truely "as real as it gets." Therefore I would suggest that what most of us would really like to see is the development of a new flight sim that leans heavily on input from an advisory panel of sorts that consisted of experienced real world pilots and CFIs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-crew capable without the requirement for any add-ons in the sim to be coded specifically towards this. It's fun, and can be used for instruction.

Best regards,

Robin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi There

With the current wish list and flexibility requirements I think the sim should be ready for Alpha testing by 2030 at the earliest :rolleyes:

To my mind the most important thing is true multicore coding support and DX11 compatibility.

If we ended up with an FSX clone with these two features then it would be a winner from day one and could be enhanced incrementially.

I would truely love to have most of the features on the wish list but I would rather have something sooner rather than later or rely on a future product which is too big to be ever delivered.

Regards

Lufty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do yourself a favor and use a existing game engine like for ex. from idsoft. This is not only top notch but also working on Linux/Mac etc.

Myself I'll soon run all my Windows applications with wine and not upgrade Vista anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

User-Defined Vehicles: If someone wanted to implement a blimp/Zeppelin or a hot-air balloon for the sim, I think they would need to be able to implement the flight dynamics themselves. Perhaps some way of a user-written DLL/module that the sim calls and that then returns vectors for the new position at the next simulation time could be the way to allow this. Others could then even implement their own flight dynamics if they wanted instead of using possible built-in parameterized models. While I am at it, a hot-air balloon or a Zeppelin/airship added to the sim would be cool too.

Parachutist: While we are in this category of features :-), it could be cool if one could jump out a plane as a parachutist and then try landing at a specific spot.

Cheers,

Siggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Aerosoft decided which graphics program the sim will use?

Apple's OpenCL seems very interesting, and it has backing from AMD/ATi, Intel, Nvidia, and other major companies. What makes it interesting is the program has the ability to offload some of the workload to the GPU. For instance, the sim could use the GPU to process weather data, AI data, physics data, etc... Many of us have very powerful GPUs that are underused in FSX, but we still get bad FPS because FSX is very CPU intensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_CL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOME COCKPIT BUILDER’S NOTES

Hi,

here are my suggestions:

[user Interface]

- More sliders (more parameters to adjust);

- “Stress test” option for optimal performance auto adjustment.

[Graphics]

- GPU-accelerated game physics to reduce CPU loading;

- Full advantages of DirectX 11 with its backwards compatibility with DX10 hardware we have now. In two years of sim development DX11 cards will settle users PCs as Core 2 Duo have done.

[scenery]

- More accurate mesh (at least 19m worldwide for mountains areas and sea-coast lines) even if it costs much more DVDs in the release package – we’ll buy it! Please don’t make it an add-on because of the risk of mismatch between sim objects levels and add-on mesh levels (remember flying lakes in FS Global 2008);

- Round curved coast lines;

- Different countries airports features (coloring of vehicles for example).

[Weather]

- REX weather engine is a good example.

[ATC]

- ATC as real as possible included in the main platform (with SID, STAR procedures, online update);

- The real range of ATC radio contact.

- Please make a try to create ATC with ability to modify it for use in different countries (ATC SDK?)

Someone may say we have VATSIM and no FS ATC needed. But what if I just have bought an excellent add-on airport and I am going to fly there but “unfortunately” there is no Vatsim Fly-in to that airport?

[API]

- Interface module as powerful as Simconnect (at least);

- User friendly SDK with extended set of .NET examples;

- New “aircraft control surfaces load” variables to get aircraft controls feedback;

- New settable variables for RMI instrument “RMI needle ADF/VOR mode: index 1,2”

- extended set of GPS variables to simplify programming of GPS receivers replicas;

I think it would be great if Pete Dowson participate in the new API development as one of the most experienced Assembler/C interface programmers in industry. His powerful FSUIPC module is wide known in FS community.

[Hardware compatibility]

Those options would be very useful to simplify cockpit hardware assembling and configuration:

- Ability to map extended set of sim events on the keys and USB HID device buttons (as FSUIPC do);

- Ability to use two mapped buttons in “encoder” mode (incremental encoder);

- Ability to use mapped button in “toggle switch” mode;

- Wideview configuration resolution support up to 5040x1050 for use with TripleHead2Go;

- “Windscreen View” option with FOV and view angle adjustment to create visuals with multiple displays or projectors (outer forward view);

- Ability to get the same picture on a networked PC to get outer side views (the same clouds, scenery objects, traffic etc.)

Maybe it makes sense to include some of those features in the Pro version for cockpit building enthusiasts (more DVDs, more features and higher price). As for me, I am ready to pay up to 500$ for the Pro version with most of the features mentioned above.

Please don’t forget us home cockpit building enthusiasts, who keep spend a lot of time and money to feel the Reality of Flight. And Good Luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Aerosoft decided which graphics program the sim will use?

Apple's OpenCL seems very interesting, and it has backing from AMD/ATi, Intel, Nvidia, and other major companies. What makes it interesting is the program has the ability to offload some of the workload to the GPU. For instance, the sim could use the GPU to process weather data, AI data, physics data, etc... Many of us have very powerful GPUs that are underused in FSX, but we still get bad FPS because FSX is very CPU intensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_CL

Ok, if you consider FSX a very CPU instensive, let me correct you. FSX uses only 30% of my CPU (i7 but FSX uses only 2).

The problem is GPU, not CPU. Data that could be calculated in the CPU HAVE TO be calculated there. There is no need for calculations to happen on the GPU...

I think that first, you should fix yourselves into nowdays computers. Also, use multi-graphic. You may use Apple's OpenCL for MacOS, OpenGL for Linux and DX10 (or 11) for Windows...

Edit: Try setting the co-pilot to handle radios. Firstly, because it doesn't sound real. Have you ever heard FSX ATC? It sounds like a robot.

It would sound just like Missions Co-pilots :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Wideview configuration resolution support up to 5040x1050 for use with TripleHead2Go;

Please make that <insert your favorite resolution here>. ;) Or, better yet, don't create any arbitrary restrictions in the first place. I'd really like to be able to open any number of windows on any screen at any size/resolution, showing any view the sim is capable of rendering, as long as my graphics card(s) can handle it. Or alternatively, it'd like to be able to run more than one instance of the sim on the same computer (assuming the sim will support multiple views via multiple networked instances). It should be possible to have each window completely fill its screen, without any visible title bars or borders. Moreover, I'd like to be able to adjust the camera position, viewing direction and FOV numerically, individually for each view/window. The option to save different such configurations and to auto-load them based on the selected aircraft would be way cool, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that first, you should fix yourselves into nowdays computers. Also, use multi-graphic. You may use Apple's OpenCL for MacOS, OpenGL for Linux and DX10 (or 11) for Windows...

idsoft's engine has an abstraction layer and uses both DX and OpenGL for rendering. Try the upcoming Wolfenstein :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Good and realistic flightplanner, allowing for trans atlantic/pacific crossings, complete with accurate loadplanner and fuelplanner

- AES-like groundhandling at all airports

- ATC including SID/STAR, company-based gate assignment (or at least capable to), updateable navdata, oceanic crossing clearance and traffic separation.

- Careermode

- Did anyone mention sloped runways? :lol::lol:

- high resolution mesh in mountain area's and near coasts.

- Snowy and slippery runways

- ACARS simulation

Regards,

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea to save harddrive space, since the amount of drivespace that is needed for FS is exploding further with each new addon that comes to market.

Would it be possible to make the installation modular? So upon install, you can choose which continent(s) you want installed. If you want them all (and have the HD space to sacrifice for it) choose them all; if you only fly USA and Europe, you select only USA and Europe. The rest of the globe could then consist of looooooow resolution generic scenery.

Maybe a similar approach could also help in reducing startup and loading times. Before start of the sim, select which continents you want to fly and the remaining ones are disabled in the scenery library.

Regards,

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

am not a fan of military aviation, a few days ago I tried ACE COMBAT6 on XBOX360, I was really more than impressed graffically speaking, I dont know if the graffic engine requires a strong computers or not far away ahead from FSX graffics, you really fell the altitude, YOU REALLY HAVE THE FEELING THAT YOU ARE IN THE AIR :wub: may be the cities are not really modedled but it doesnt matter since you have the feeling of realistic environement(SUNSHINE, CLOUDS, LIGHT EFFECTS BUMPMAPPING, SHADOWS ECT...), I hope that nearly one day we will be able to make such a graffics in any Flight Sim, if we expect to make a Flight Simulator we have to start thinking about such a graffics, the after that we can start looking for a realistic phisical engine.

Thank,

Arslan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
I kind of agree with the guy up here. I just wish that this FS could be able to run great on any computer. For example, on MSFSX, I can't run it on Ultra High configuration (I think that an i7, 6GB RAM and a 285GTX are enough).

Aerosoft shouldn't focus on graphics, but also on performace. Graphics advanced at such a rate (I think you can remember Asteroids), that nowdays, you can nearly find computers capable of running a game as it was planned to...

The problem with FSX was that the game engine does not scale well with performance. Take for example the fact that high end graphics cards (like the 285 GTX) SLOW DOWN fsx instead of helping it along. All the game engines we are looking at will not have this problem, meaning that you will always be able to buy your way out of low performance. It's far to early to speak about performance, but the simple fact is that all new high end games will demand new high end systems. It would be plain stupid to build a sim for a platform that is outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Has Aerosoft decided which graphics program the sim will use?

Apple's OpenCL seems very interesting, and it has backing from AMD/ATi, Intel, Nvidia, and other major companies. What makes it interesting is the program has the ability to offload some of the workload to the GPU. For instance, the sim could use the GPU to process weather data, AI data, physics data, etc... Many of us have very powerful GPUs that are underused in FSX, but we still get bad FPS because FSX is very CPU intensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_CL

No one of the first decisions we have to make is indeed the games engine, it is however to be expected there will be many more that will support DX11 then Open CL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! Just registered to post.

Congratulations to Aerosoft for even thinking to do something like this. If not you, than who else!

Here is what I am thinking.

1) A lot of posts are talking about ATC.

How about creating modular ATC engine, so it can allow the following:

Make ATC part of an add-on airport. Create a frame, and let whoever developing the Airport, record ATC (Approach, Departure, Tower, Ground, Transition levels, etc. ). Allow for multiple frequencies at big airports.

You Aerosoft can record Centers.

The only problem with this is: How do you make it sound realistic?

The good thing, you will have a lot of variety.

2) I personally want to see rain from the distance (under clouds). Someone here already posted about rain being linked to a rain cloud. Please do not rain if it's raining, link it to rain clouds!!!

I hope it makes sense.

THANK YOU!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with FSX was that the game engine does not scale well with performance. Take for example the fact that high end graphics cards (like the 285 GTX) SLOW DOWN fsx instead of helping it along. All the game engines we are looking at will not have this problem, meaning that you will always be able to buy your way out of low performance. It's far to early to speak about performance, but the simple fact is that all new high end games will demand new high end systems. It would be plain stupid to build a sim for a platform that is outdated.

Mathjis

Is there anywhere that I can read up on this slowing effect of high end cards with FSX? I'm in the process of looking to get a new PC and the GTX 285 is high on my list. I've tried googling on this topic but not had much luck. I even have a vague recollection you might have mentioned this before?

Thanks

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I don´t know if somebody has discussed this before:

I´m a VFR pilot and I use the MS Flightsimulator to prepare me for flights I will do in reality. For this it would be

nice to have actual airspace boundaries in the flightsimulator and optionally being´punished´ if violating a warning or

danger area for example. So I would appreciate an interface for different airspace file formats as they are used for GPS

Navigation devices. There exist also open source formats like the OpenAir Format, which could be used. I am not a specialist

with that, but perhaps somebody other can complete my idea. Eventually the airspaces could be coupled with the

ATC activities more intelligent than in FSX.

OpenAir Examples: http://www.strepla.de/strepla4/deutsch/kar...hl/luftraum.htm

My second idea would be a much more complex influence on the user interfaces (joystick). The user should be able to define for each airplane nonlinear elevator, aileron and rudder properties for deflection. Deflection and also damping have to be airspeed-dependend, I suppose. Most airplanes in FSX are too much sensitive. You have to consider that in reality the pilot gets much more information about his situation (by ears, g-loads, larger range of vision..) and so it is much more easy to hold the airplane calm and stable. Flying in a simulator could be felt like more realistic, if some disturbing movements of the airplane are eliminated, which in reality are only noticed by your body and not by your eyes.

Greetings, Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My second idea would be a much more complex influence on the user interfaces (joystick). The user should be able to define for each airplane nonlinear elevator, aileron and rudder properties for deflection. Deflection and also damping have to be airspeed-dependend, I suppose. Most airplanes in FSX are too much sensitive. You have to consider that in reality the pilot gets much more information about his situation (by ears, g-loads, larger range of vision..) and so it is much more easy to hold the airplane calm and stable. Flying in a simulator could be felt like more realistic, if some disturbing movements of the airplane are eliminated, which in reality are only noticed by your body and not by your eyes.

This is a very good point. I have only flown a real plane once, but in that one flight I noticed something very different than in flight simulators. Real planes are easer to fly! It felt much more natural. I noticed that the plane was very easy to hold strait and level, and I found that I hardly ever looked at the instruments. In FSX I have a bad habit of staring at the instruments, but you pretty much have to to fly well in FSX because you can't feel anything, only see it. I know that is a limitation that can't be eliminated, but maybe you could change the flight model somehow to make it "feel" more realistic. X-Plane has a feature like this that can be set manually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m a VFR pilot and I use the MS Flightsimulator to prepare me for flights I will do in reality. For this it would be

nice to have actual airspace boundaries in the flightsimulator and optionally being´punished´ if violating a warning or

danger area for example.

I agree. I mentioned this somewhere above but in relation to the level of relative tension experienced in real flight. Up there, you know at all time that if you screw up there will be consequences, whereas in FS, there's none. I had suggested some form of "punishment" as well, like a lock of the program for a number of days, for example, depending on the error... (better than death!) I believe that this particular tension might also contribute to other aspects of the experience, may be even sensory as well (the brain is all powerful.) This is a completely psychological element that has been ignored so far, I believe. If one doesn't count MFSF sending you back to 1200 when you don't comply fast enough with ATC.

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