Jump to content

A New Simulator (June edition)


Staffan

Recommended Posts

I think that as the topic is a new simulator, it might be useful if posters thought about a real paradigm shift in what we want from a new simulator rather than keep asking for things that are already available....

Just do a bit of searching around guys and you will find that 95% of the "improvements" that have been suggested are already available for FSX (usually at a price) and in some cases would be a step back e.g. consoles (required storage space alone would not make this a viable option, or RAM or processor speed or target market or expandibility etc etc)

Although this report http://flightsimulatorxworld.com/component...l-give-up-on-fs seems to suggest that microsoft is planning to go in this direction and looks likely to use the "world simulator" type idea that I suggested in my first post http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry163287

(I'm sure that they thought of this without my help though!)

Dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The most important thing is delivering realistic flight dynamics. Flight dynamics are the difference between a mere video game and a true simulator.

FSX doesn't properly model turn-coordination (requires rudder input long after ailerons have been neutralized in turns) and over-oscillates.

X-Plane doesn't accurately correlate power changes and speed changes. Pull the basic C172 back to idle and your RPMs hardly come down at all. The descent rate is absurdly low.

Games like Gran Turismo became legendary because they put a lot of effort into real world telemetry research for the cars they modeled. The realism of the controls and dynamics based on extensive real-world data were revolutionary.

The only reason X-Plane survived alongside FSX was because its fans believed it to be the more realistic sim. Take that crown and you'll always have a market no matter who you compete with. Do it with good eye-candy and you'll have a monopoly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a suggestion: Time-bound sceneries and models.

Having time-bound sceneries would be a great way to relive different eras in aviation. There needs to be a "date/time" setting in the sim which can be applied when you're setting up flights. For example, setting up a flight out of, say, Croydon Airport, or Tegel the 10th of june 1935 would render the airport as it looked at that time, provided someone has built a scenery fitting that era of course. Several other aspects would also be affected, such as AI, ATC and navigation: Only models/airlines that operated in this era would be seen taxiing, landing and taking off around the simmer. As we take off and head our way things would be very interesting without fancy GPS or VORTAC's!

While this would open up new grounds for modellers/developers (you can sell several versions of the same scenery) I do realize several combinations of era/area would be sparsely rendered for some time untíl developers marketed them. Possibly, the internal model format would have to be set to simplify building the same scenery for multiple eras. Also, likely, the sim itself needed to support navigational aids that's no longer around.

Just my €0.02 ...

/Jonas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important thing is delivering realistic flight dynamics. Flight dynamics are the difference between a mere video game and a true simulator.

FSX doesn't properly model turn-coordination (requires rudder input long after ailerons have been neutralized in turns) and over-oscillates.

X-Plane doesn't accurately correlate power changes and speed changes. Pull the basic C172 back to idle and your RPMs hardly come down at all. The descent rate is absurdly low.

Games like Gran Turismo became legendary because they put a lot of effort into real world telemetry research for the cars they modeled. The realism of the controls and dynamics based on extensive real-world data were revolutionary.

The only reason X-Plane survived alongside FSX was because its fans believed it to be the more realistic sim. Take that crown and you'll always have a market no matter who you compete with. Do it with good eye-candy and you'll have a monopoly.

I totally agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that nearly all suggestions done in this thread are relevant for either simulators in general or for simulators of civil aviation. Very few ideas pertain to military simulators. Is this because there is relatively little interest in military sims or because Aerosoft produces primarily civil aviation add-ons and hence this forum is primarily visited by civil aviation enthusiasts? Or perhaps because FSX is primarily a civil aviation sim?

Insofar as civil and military features can go together in a simulation, I would very much like to see ‘military’ features like carrier operations, aerial refuelling and the like to be included in the new sim. If air combat would be possible that would be even better, even if it were only gun (WWI and WWII era) combat. I do not know whether including military features is a strategic choice in the sense that it must be at the expense of other desirable features, but if at all possible I would applaud if Aerosoft would at least keep the possibility open of developing either a combined civil/milirary sim or two separate sims based on the same technology and know-how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that nearly all suggestions done in this thread are relevant for either simulators in general or for simulators of civil aviation. Very few ideas pertain to military simulators. Is this because there is relatively little interest in military sims or because Aerosoft produces primarily civil aviation add-ons and hence this forum is primarily visited by civil aviation enthusiasts? Or perhaps because FSX is primarily a civil aviation sim?

Insofar as civil and military features can go together in a simulation, I would very much like to see ‘military’ features like carrier operations, aerial refuelling and the like to be included in the new sim. If air combat would be possible that would be even better, even if it were only gun (WWI and WWII era) combat. I do not know whether including military features is a strategic choice in the sense that it must be at the expense of other desirable features, but if at all possible I would applaud if Aerosoft would at least keep the possibility open of developing either a combined civil/milirary sim or two separate sims based on the same technology and know-how.

I would love a military application but where I the producer/developer I would think hard before I decided to include it in combination with an online mode. I've "fought" in a few online environments and it is an awesome experience. However, I have also seen the endless slamming the developers has had to deal with from simmers that feel they are being treated "unjustly" in terms of victory conditions, equipment, weapon modelling and rules. As a simmer I would applaud this aspect but as a developer I would be very cautious.

Cheers

/Jonas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point, Jonas. I suppose that aspect depends on how active the developer wants to be in hosting online combat sessions. You could leave that to the gamers themselves. As for me: I never fly online and would be satisfied with good offline military sim features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can understand shying away from true combat simulation. Modeling of the weapons, radars, targeting systems and so on must be exhausting for a developer. But I do agree, I'd love to see some non-combat aspects modeled. In particular, aerial refueling and carrier ops (which FSX made a big step, but we still need some things like moving TACAN).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can understand shying away from true combat simulation. Modeling of the weapons, radars, targeting systems and so on must be exhausting for a developer. But I do agree, I'd love to see some non-combat aspects modeled. In particular, aerial refueling and carrier ops (which FSX made a big step, but we still need some things like moving TACAN).

It is good to hear suggestions for functions such as moving TACAN. Perhaps land and sea based TACAN would tremendously enhance the flight sim activities for simulated military ops. A similar enhancement might be for military AI planes to fly carrier patterns.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the planned development tool for this sim? With the introduction of FSX the window of freeware development seemed to get smaller. Gmax is no longer supported by it's developer so my question is pretty much what is going to be the tool of choice? Obviously not everyone can afford 3DS Max so what are the choices. I remember the talk about FSXI not having gmax support. We all know that one of the things that made MSFS successful was all the freeware development. It was a sim for everyone, from people like me that constantly buy addons to younger folks that depend on freeware to enjoy the sim because they can't afford the addons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I certainly miss in FSX is some kind of realistic flight dynamics.

e.g. : Making a flat spin is nearly impossible in FSX.

What I also would like: immense possibilities for helicopters !

In FSX some functions like the usage of a searchlight isn't possible.

And finally, more functional systems and buttons in the standard aircraft. (Or as far that this is possible with permissions from manufacturors)

I think that's about it for the moment. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commercial Airline models and Airline Liveries

I would really like to see more commercial airliners and Airline Liveries be incorperaited initally instead of haveing to go and buy or downlaod the add-ons. Just being able to flying 747 and 737, A321 and the few others is fun but it would be nice to have more options and veriaity like the 757, 767, 717 and the 777 and so on, like other makes such as bombardier. It would also be nice to see more Airline Liveries like Amarican Airlines, Delta, Nothwest, southwest, united Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines and those are just a few out of the top ten in the US. I would rather pay a highier shelf cost than to have to downlaod or buy add-on. the whole add-on thing is kinda a pain because most of the time there is a type of hicup and somthing dosnt work quite like it should.

Well i dont want to write too much so I cant wait to see what you come up with and I am really excited Just hope you dont change too much from FSX. GOOD LUCK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, don't build a game. Build a simulator. X-Plane is a simulator but lacks all the dynamics and fidelity of FSX with FMC and systems modeling.

You would do well to look at Linux and how it came to be what it is today. There are many lessons one can learn from looking at the Linux phenomena. Embracing the developer community will surely be the ticket to success.

My advice would be to develop a powerful simulator core with lots of handles for extensions, add-ons and enhancements along. With tools for the community, your new Flight Simulator will take on a healthy life of its own. Customers flocking to buy the core, pros developing hi-fidelity payware and hardcore flyers posting excellent shareware and the casual pilot pushing out cool freeware.

Pull the developer together around a great idea and you will surely fill the void.

100% behind your efforts,

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, don't build a game. Build a simulator.

I personally can't agree more with what has already been mentioned.

But to add to your scenario as a scope to add more flexibility to a greater crowd is to look at you F-16 modeling you have already done add to it by making the F-16 weapons capable and maybe add Mig's to your list and other coalition plane's (a-10,18,22,35 ect ect)

The ability to utilize the DTC (data transfer cartridge) ability to make precision steer points. Make good use of the ICP and DED onboard the F-16

full utilization of the 3d world (6DOF - touchbuddy - ECT ECT)

Can not really go into the side of the commercial virtual flying as it isn't my cup of joe but that said I love a good sim but I buy GREAT SIM'S

2 J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Just a quick note that this development has nothing to do with Rise Of Flight as some people already asked me in emails. Fully separate projects, actually I mak the only thing that combines the two things, lol.

I'll be answering and commenting on some ideas here tomorrow. Today I got the day off and am fighting French Nieuport's over the front line. I just got shot down by a guy that was in an observer balloon! Dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick note that this development has nothing to do with Rise Of Flight as some people already asked me in emails. Fully separate projects, actually I mak the only thing that combines the two things, lol.

I'll be answering and commenting on some ideas here tomorrow. Today I got the day off and am fighting French Nieuport's over the front line. I just got shot down by a guy that was in an observer balloon! Dammit.

That is a shame. From what I have seen of this project, maybe Rise of Flight's engine could have been adapted to make a great civilian flight simulator. It looks like a real winner. Trust Aerosoft to be distobuting it! Well done guys!

It doesn't surprise me that neoqb is another Russian developer. Along with Oleg Maddox's team, these guys are a really talented bunch. Rise of Flight surely proves that a new game engine for a highly advanced modern flight simulator is very viable and can be achieved by a developer other than microsoft. To be totally honest given the market for a new FS, I am surprised that we haven't heard of more dev's and distrobuters trying to announce a new simulator with MS out of the picture.

Rhydian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with Oleg Maddox's team, these guys are a really talented bunch. Rise of Flight surely proves that a new game engine for a highly advanced modern flight simulator is very viable and can be achieved by a developer other than microsoft.

Well, Fly! was pretty good if you ask me. Their engine was/is python-based. Because of its quality, it had started to gather a serious chunk of devs and independent initiatives. Bean-counters at TakeTwo could have made it into a big thing but chose to consolidate their bottom-line and put their interest elsewhere, wherever the quarter return was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
Well, I can understand shying away from true combat simulation. Modeling of the weapons, radars, targeting systems and so on must be exhausting for a developer. But I do agree, I'd love to see some non-combat aspects modeled. In particular, aerial refueling and carrier ops (which FSX made a big step, but we still need some things like moving TACAN).

You know the only thing that makes something like a TRUE weather radar impossible for FSX (and FS2004 for that matter) is that the SDK does not explain where to look for rain. We have asked for that data a long time but simply never had access to it. In my opinion that's stupid. We do not intend to make a weather radar or radar targeting systems, but we see no reason why they should not be possible when the platform is open enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Fly! was pretty good if you ask me. Their engine was/is python-based. Because of its quality, it had started to gather a serious chunk of devs and independent initiatives. Bean-counters at TakeTwo could have made it into a big thing but chose to consolidate their bottom-line and put their interest elsewhere, wherever the quarter return was.

Fly! certainly was fantastic and well ahead of it's time in my honest opinion. Funny, I was reading the huge manual that came with it just the other day. It's a shame that Fly2! was so buggy but it looks like it could rise again (kind of) with Fly Legacy still in development.

Rhydian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly! certainly was fantastic and well ahead of it's time in my honest opinion. Funny, I was reading the huge manual that came with it just the other day. It's a shame that Fly2! was so buggy but it looks like it could rise again (kind of) with Fly Legacy still in development.

Rhydian

Why not buy the rights to Fly! II and develop on that fine platform?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly! certainly was fantastic and well ahead of it's time in my honest opinion. Funny, I was reading the huge manual that came with it just the other day. It's a shame that Fly2! was so buggy but it looks like it could rise again (kind of) with Fly Legacy still in development.

Rhydian

As I recall from back then, they were pressured time-wise by Take Two (million bucks and run). And Richard Harvey was actually dying... I will always remember the feeling I had while emerging from cloud layers into the blue.The transition was breathtakingly realistic. Stuff like that hook you up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often hear suggestions to build deployable weapons into the next flight simulator and wonder would any developer ever consider taking a program like Falcon 4.0, improve the scenery to include civilian airports and program flyable Commercial and General Aviation into it. The mission builder would allow the user to generate civilian and military flights to include training missions and formations. Maybe this idea would be impractical.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often hear suggestions to build deployable weapons into the next flight simulator and wonder would any developer ever consider taking a program like Falcon 4.0, improve the scenery to include civilian airports and program flyable Commercial and General Aviation into it. The mission builder would allow the user to generate civilian and military flights to include training missions and formations. Maybe this idea would be impractical.

Keith

x2 totally agree

proven software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion a civilain and a military flight simulation are two very different things and I do not for a second believe that the two could somehow be merged into one.

For one thing a military sim requires whole theatre of war management where battle scenarios for land, sea and air are put together and executed from (excuse the pun). Add in things like real time battle damage which affects flight performance (very system intensive and takes a lot of dev time); all the various (and highly complicated) weapons and their respective guidance systems (fire and forget/gps/laser guided air to air missles as just one example); all the various miltary radars (both on land and in the air) and you can quickly see why the merging of a civ and a military flight sim has not already happened a long time ago.

Correct me if I am wrong but was the F-16 Falcon series manual not a huge 500+ page affair? Back in the day when such big manuals actually came in the box. And that was just for one aircraft and most of it was taken up with complicated radar targeting and weapons deployment instructions etc if I remember correctly.

And you guys want the above all mixed in with a civilian flight sim where one can just as happily fly a PMDG 747-400 from one mega airport into another one? Or do low level VFR flights over 60GB of photoreal scenery (and this is just one country's worth!) in something like the PBY Catalina using 4096 cloud textures?

Not gonna happen gents!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
I often hear suggestions to build deployable weapons into the next flight simulator and wonder would any developer ever consider taking a program like Falcon 4.0, improve the scenery to include civilian airports and program flyable Commercial and General Aviation into it. The mission builder would allow the user to generate civilian and military flights to include training missions and formations. Maybe this idea would be impractical.

Keith

Believe me, it IS impracticable. The engine they used was out of date when they used it and is about a decade behend the curve now. We would step back to FS2002 scenery if we would use it.

Though I loved and still love that sim. Fly it at least once a month.

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