Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content
Staffan

A New Simulator (June edition)

Recommended Posts

If the new platform is to be truly extensable, the SDK needs to be addressed, developed and coded up front and in parallel with the rest of the sim. Document early and often. Oh, and don't forget us freeware folks.

Yeah, I have a shopping list too, but the SDK is more important. I'm a positive guy. I'm too busy working with what we do have to complain about what we don't.

Jim Dhaenens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one issue I would like you to consider.

It is impossible to make all the ground animation (like peolpe bordering, or the ground team getting you to move) when there are some people that just want to grab their plane on the nearest runway and simply fly!

Considering this, there should be two main ways to get you to fly in the menu: FREE FLIGHT and PREPARED FLIGHT.

In the free flight, there should be no tower neither sofisticated ground animation so you can fly as quickly has possible.

In the prepared flight, there should be a required flight plan and all the animations (as close to real as possible) could come up.

Hope it could give some help,

Best regards,

Tomás Monteiro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that you might want to consider, since the wish list is going to get very large, is to develop alongside of the boxed version your talking about here, a subscription online version, that will be dynamic and can have all of the bells and whistles, always be updated automatically, have full multiplayer, realistic weather, etc. The sky would literally be the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

You said you dont like long texts, so Ill write a short one :rolleyes: .

Many good things were said and I dont have to say them again, but I think

what most Useres want to have is a well Damage Model (today this would be not a greate problem)

The Terrain = OK ,, The Weather = OK ..... All these things are OK for now, not perfect but OK.

But without Damage Modelsa hugh reality "thing" is missing.

This also contains Weapon-systems for Fighters. It should not be a Jet sim but it should be a "Flight" sim,

so you now what I mean not only a Jet sim but a bit more realitic for crashes and fighter pilots.

Max

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Mathijs,

For the "autogen" side, how about look at the tecnology that this people are developing:

http://www.c3technologies.com/

Here is a video that shows it better than words:

Video

I think it is a natural choice for the next step in "sim's reality".

Oh my word, that's amazing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Mathijs,

For the "autogen" side, how about look at the tecnology that this people are developing:

http://www.c3technologies.com/

Here is a video that shows it better than words:

Video

I think it is a natural choice for the next step in "sim's reality".

Now that would make an upgrade to a new flight sim extremely compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the perspective of a gauge developer, some things I will throw out there....

1) Please allow for gauge design that uses a language which has the ease of development and ease of testing inherent in XML, but which also has some of the more robust features of "real" programming languages also... features like file I/O and truly re-callable functions. And being able to hide one's work product without having to revert to the clunkiness of C++ would be a really nice corollary, as that still cannot be reliably accomplished in FSX. Rumors were that ACES was going to use Tua as their replacement for XML / C++. Having looked at Tua some... I personally wouldn't mind the change over a BIT!!

2) Again related to gauges, what would be nice is a way to substitute 3rd party gauges for default ones *even if* the default ones are embedded in the model file. I know this was mentioned elsewhere, but it's worth some real emphasis. The method: I don't know, maybe allow for some kind of text file or even a section within the panel configuration file that allows you to turn off selected model-embedded gauges, and plug in replacements that fit <whatever> parameter??? This is complicated I know (if not impossible) if keeping the same model format as FSX, since there's no way to compile models on the fly, but I'm just tossing out wishes here.

3) Oh, a quick 3rd, not related to gauges. YES, better helicopter flight and vectored thrust are needed!! There's a 2 MB freeware sim from the mid-90's out there called Vertigo, and I haven't seen a better rendition of harrier style flight to this day. One guy wrote this program in his spare time, many years ago, so surely we can get it right in 2009?

4) Okay, 4th, just thought of it: better ground handling model, with no crabbing while taxiing in crosswinds, etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that would make an upgrade to a new flight sim extremely compelling.

Sure would. But that raises another question: where do you put the mark in terms of computing power? Which kinda feeds into the OS question as well. One of the reasons FSX flopped is that they didn't know or couldn't know (?) where the hardware was/is going. Multi-cores, how many, what speed, bigger GPUs, other stuff? You don't want to aim to low, 'cause you need power (c3 is probably not power-cheap) but you don't want to aim too high either 'cause people are gonna get angry. So where? I'd say somewhat above the average (which I have no clue where it's at.) That's a base-rate/selection ratio problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that would make an upgrade to a new flight sim extremely compelling.

I would like to see a boxed version of this flight sim, but an online subscription version along side, could make this kind of technology available, which I think would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure would. But that raises another question: where do you put the mark in terms of computing power? Which kinda feeds into the OS question as well. One of the reasons FSX flopped is that they didn't know or couldn't know (?) where the hardware was/is going. Multi-cores, how many, what speed, bigger GPUs, other stuff? You don't want to aim to low, 'cause you need power (c3 is probably not power-cheap) but you don't want to aim too high either 'cause people are gonna get angry. So where? I'd say somewhat above the average (which I have no clue where it's at.) That's a base-rate/selection ratio problem.

I think this tecnology is a start, and the degree of detail may change on the sake of our money $$$ to buy the new simulator.

I may be wrong but the guy in the video was running the presentation in a notebook??? :blink: Sooo, maybe the tecnology is not to hard to handle in our little pc's. heheheh

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as ATC is concerned, if it was only online it would suddenly make the sim a daunting task for anyone who is new to the hobby. The person has to immediately jump in and know exactly what they're doing or get thrown out because they crash into a wall or try to land on a runway where others are taking off? Flight Sims definitely have a learning curve - much more extensive than other computer games. An important point is to try and make the learning curve easier and more straight forward rather than much more difficult or completely impossible. Otherwise, only experienced pilots need apply, and this will gradually turn into a dying hobby, where only real-world pilots will actually be able to participate.

If a new sim pilot could go through lessons as the co-pilot of an experienced pilot (and a patient one at that), that might make going directly online for the newbie doable. I don't think there's enough people out there that want to teach, unless it can all be done with AI. Maybe start with some initial AI training, and graduate to learning from volunteers that like to teach? Which gives me an idea...

As touch screens are the next change that will coincide with the coming Windows OS, how about the ability to point by touching a button or gauge on the screen, so someone else could see what you're doing? That added level of interactivity could make learning much easier for the student.

At the same time, I go along with a previous comment that it's important to be able to run the sim without having to go online. Either the Internet connection may be down, or you just want to fly without worrying about the sim community.

And my overall theme for this post is, it's important to keep the learning process in mind, and don't let it get pushed aside by the desire for better features and realism, as important as that is. The quicker and more easily new pilots can be brought up to speed, so they can genuinely enjoy what they're doing rather than being frustrated, the more the hobby and the flight sim community will thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- No possibillity (or not a default one) to be able to start a flight directly on a runway. A holding point would be ok, but if you add the Multiplayer (compatible to vatsim, ivao, etc please) people shouldn't be albe to log on while beeing on the runway. I don't know, how many planes I already crashed, which logged on there

- better physics at all. Starting with ground handling, to aerodynamics up to water physics. If you would offer a physX support, that would be awesome!

- I think I read it somewehre, but that Idea with creating your own pilot, beeing able to walk around inside and outside your plane gets more and more interesting for me. I know, it's a simulator, and it has to stay one, but it would really be cool to have a little customizable character, you can walk around with, doing pushbacks or else, to have some little variety in what you do...

- Passengers & Cargo! Adding moving passengers boarding the plane and taking a seat, or cargo vessels, loading and unloading the plane would be a cool addition. With fs right now, you're just flying an empy plane in a dead world. Adding some more realism there would really be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better support for Very Wide screens (e.g TripleHead2Go). At present things like rain effects only show in the centre portion of the display (ie they don't reach the edges). Also popups appear very distorted and stretched, as does the 2D panel. Maybe the display could be "mixed" from multiple camera positions, to eliminate the fisheye distortion you get in FS from zooming out far enough to fill the display.

Also an "out of the window" cockpit display would be useful, where there are no internal panel elements, but the external model can still be seen -- ideal for hardware cockpit builders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see this project emerge as not simply a flight simulator, but a WORLD simulator containing accurate world geography (roads, rails, docks,etc) so that not just FS developers but other simulator teams can add content related to Farmsim, Trainsim, Shipsim, BusSim, etc. The longevity and myriad of potential addons would be mind-boggling. Just provide a mechanism for them to add the content right on top of your world.

Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the greatest selling points of FSX as with many microsoft products is that they provide third party developers with a rich set of API interface that allows them to develop equally great products such as

1 - FS Passenger

2 - ASA

3 - RC4

Its important that Aerosoft seperate the develoment of the basic platform from any sweetners they might want to add to the design, so that there is no conflict with work from third party developers.

For example those of using PMDG aircraft with FSpassenger in FSX suffer all kinds of conflicts.n Where PMDG is trying to simulate failures , so is FSX , so is PMDG, and so also is FS passenger. Hope the design architecture you come up with avoids duplication and conflicts of functionality.

All i am saying is, The greatest thing about FSX is the Addons, welcome third party developers with open arms, and by all means compete with them.

So for example are you going to have SDK for developers as with FSX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something that you might want to consider, since the wish list is going to get very large, is to develop alongside of the boxed version your talking about here, a subscription online version, that will be dynamic and can have all of the bells and whistles, always be updated automatically, have full multiplayer, realistic weather, etc. The sky would literally be the limit.

I will never buy plane sim or any software on subscribtion basis. It will just chase folks away.

And given the kind of issues we have with FSX, auto update is not good idea, cause what if sim starts to act funny after auto update.

What could be usefull is a widget like Gamebooster that puts the PC in Sim mode, so all tasks not relevant to the game are shutdown when you start the sim , and restarted when you exit.

Also , are you planning to support Hyperthreading.

VERY IMPORTANT, Anyway you can, make it easier to reinstall this sim and restore A state unlike FSX.

Also ability to save not just display settings but also control settings, cause i am always having to adjust FSX control settings between flying a prop, and an A380. So i can save control settings for each aircraft or plane category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will never buy plane sim or any software on subscribtion basis. It will just chase folks away.

I completely agree. Online/subscription requirement will instantly remove a good percentage of your potential customers.

Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post, thanks.

There is something you forget however. We sell you the sim cheap when needed because we want your credit card number to buy addons :rolleyes:

But in the end this has to be a new platform for all to work on, that's our most important consideration. so the sim got to be affordable in the base version. You will then select the functionality you want (airports, aircraft etc, just as you do now) and buy those as addons. I hope we will able to offer existing customers low cost cross platform updates for products they got now. If you want Mega Airport Frankfurt for the new sim and you got it for FSX/FS2004 I think we should offer you the new version as a lower cost upgrade and not a complete new product. $49 is the sweet spot of course.

A big selling point would be, if all our addons with FSX could also work on this proposed new plaform.

I suppose for this you will need FSX code from microsoft, are you going to try to purchase this code from Bill gates.

It would be very nice if your new sim would be compatable with FSX, cause folks have got so much invested in addons already that, they may not pick up the relay when platforms change.

So its important to make it a smooth transition from FSX, rather than a fresh start. So that its worth investing some effort to buy the FSX source code from microsoft.

For many its not just the cost of new having to buy new addons, but some of us are old and too busy to want to start from the bottom of a new learning curve for not just addons, but the whole sim application and file structures.

So please pay a lot of attention to the fact that most folks would prefer if you copuld actually make FS11,

rather than Aerosoft Sim1. Cuase the learning curve would be much much less. That is reason why many are still refusing to dump FSX and move to Xplane. Its the learning curve and whole new set of Addons to buy.

It would be great to be able to use most if not all current addons with new sim, then you can have out credit card numbers for updates as they come along.

Any chances of you purchasing FSX source code from Bill Gates as a starting point. ?????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

You said you dont like long texts, so Ill write a short one :rolleyes: .

Many good things were said and I dont have to say them again, but I think

what most Useres want to have is a well Damage Model (today this would be not a greate problem)

The Terrain = OK ,, The Weather = OK ..... All these things are OK for now, not perfect but OK.

But without Damage Modelsa hugh reality "thing" is missing.

This also contains Weapon-systems for Fighters. It should not be a Jet sim but it should be a "Flight" sim,

so you now what I mean not only a Jet sim but a bit more realitic for crashes and fighter pilots.

Max

Damage modeling is one of the most complex bits possible. Not only do you have to make the visual model far more complex by adding the damaged bits, you also have to make code and detailed collision detection, but you also got to adapt the flight model when a flight control is damaged. And all this code and modeling is not used most of the time and will drag framerates down. As an example in some of the race games the damage modeling FAR exceeds the undamaged model. The F-16 would grow from the 24 Mb it is now to 100 Mb rather easy. That's a whopping lot of code you'll have to pay for and most of it you would most likely never see.

I don't fully understand the demand for advanced damage modeling. You don't fly a damages aircraft, you land it at the nearest airport and don't touch it until it is repaired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A big selling point would be, if all our addons with FSX could also work on this proposed new plaform.

I suppose for this you will need FSX code from microsoft, are you going to try to purchase this code from Bill gates.

It would be very nice if your new sim would be compatable with FSX, cause folks have got so much invested in addons already that, they may not pick up the relay when platforms change.

So its important to make it a smooth transition from FSX, rather than a fresh start. So that its worth investing some effort to buy the FSX source code from microsoft.

For many its not just the cost of new having to buy new addons, but some of us are old and too busy to want to start from the bottom of a new learning curve for not just addons, but the whole sim application and file structures.

So please pay a lot of attention to the fact that most folks would prefer if you copuld actually make FS11,

rather than Aerosoft Sim1. Cuase the learning curve would be much much less. That is reason why many are still refusing to dump FSX and move to Xplane. Its the learning curve and whole new set of Addons to buy.

It would be great to be able to use most if not all current addons with new sim, then you can have out credit card numbers for updates as they come along.

Any chances of you purchasing FSX source code from Bill Gates as a starting point. ?????????????????

Well there are many more reasons not to pick Xplane. In fact I would think most of our customers tried it as some point but almost all come back to FS for many reasons. This makes the Xplane platform so small that it is impossible for us to do add0ons for it.

Out of the box compatibility will not be possible for legal reason and would be a very stupid decision for us to make. We would inherit all thew problems the sim has and could not really make a new step. For the same reason we are not interested in the code for FSX. It's a great sim, but not the platform we have in mind at all. But as I said, all the modeling that is done with standard professional tools (so not gmax etc) could simply be compiled for the new sim, and depending on the company sold at update prices to existing customers.

If you are looking for FS11, simply stay with FSX and the addons we are doing for it. We can't make FS11 and we should not even attempt it. We need to make a new, more modern platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all

I have read each and every post in all the threads relating to this topic and while I am most impressed and excited to consider a new FS from such a great copany as Aerosoft, some items have been rarely, if ever, mentioned that I'd like to present on behalf of the ever-growing full size cockpit builders.

As a full size LJ45 builder, items that I would like to see in this potential product would be:

*An excellent and open core simulator that places performance and ease of 3rd party development at the fore-front. Of course, include bells and whistles similar to the current FS offerings but leave room for yourself and other 3rd parties to create valuable add on software, etc.

*An ultra reliable and extensive Offset & networking capability that allows the use of multiple USB driven hardware input/output devices as well as an internal version of client software that would replace FSUIPC/WideClient.

*A credible airfile system that allows better physics modeling.

*The ability to offer more view options that cater to not only TripleHead2Go, but PLEASE make a way for the forward view to be adjusted for correctly centered FOV for home cockpit builders. As it stands now, you can tweak FS9/X but it still gives the feeling that the copilot is moving sideways vs. down the right side of the centerline.

All of the other ideas are good, but these 4 items are paramount to good full size sim software, and the group of builders are growing monthly. Here is a chance to shine for them too.

PS- Consider the offering of a commercial license so the builders can legally charge money for folks that fly thier sim at airshow, kiosks, etc. I have seen this happen often with near-professional level FS9/FSX sims, but since MS doesnt offer the license the companies around the world doing this will continue to do it, even though it's a violation of the EULA. Make it legal and make more $$$ on your excellent product in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sure if anyone else has mentioned this or not but I don't think I saw it and it's worth mentioning. DON'T FORGET the HELICOPTERS! ;)

LouP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought i heard somewhere at the beggining that this might be a specialist simulator focusing on one aspect of aviation such as just airline's and airliners. Is this still the case or has it been changed to be a complete sim or did i just here it wrong in the first place LOL. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- No possibillity (or not a default one) to be able to start a flight directly on a runway.

Imho, that would be a very bad idea indeed (as is forcing any kind of online mode, by the way). You have to keep in mind that a flight sim needs to not only cater to the 'as real as it gets' crowd, but also to those who only want to fly for fun, as well as those who want to use it as a training tool. Sure, there are probably quite a lot who want to simulate the experience of a complete flight in it's entirety, including all the aspects before startup and after shutdown. But there are probably just as many who want to simulate only the flying part itself. When all I want to do is fly some loops around the Golden Gate Bridge, I couldn't care less for the need to virtually drive to the airport and do a virtual walk-around inspection. If all I want to do is practice some approaches before flying them for real, I couldn't care less for virtual passengers boarding the plane and walking around the virtual cabin, or mandatory flight plans. I think there are a lot of users who wouldn't want to pay for all this 'preflight/postflight environment immersion' stuff in the base package. Moreover, many seem to completely forget the GA world altogether, where things tend to be done slightly differently than in the airliner world. Any new flight sim definitely needs to represent this important aspect of aviation as well. I can envision an optional 'ultimate airliner preflight' module, though, that adds all that and prevents you from just hitting the tires and lighting the fires when switched to 'as real as it gets' mode.

That brings me to a completely different idea for starting locations: I'd like to be able to select a previously saved situation/flight file, but alter the aircraft position, heading and altitude, as well as things like time, date and weather. The saved flight would basically just define the aircraft configuration, like cold and dark, ready for takeoff, cruise, initial approach, etc. It would also be quite handy to be able to select a position in terms of bearing and distance from a nav aid or fix. Both would be tremendously helpful for practicing approaches, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...