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

Great News --

(1) Make it RELIABLE -- crashes and "out of memory" errors are Unacceptable.

(2) Make it OPEN -- Design the Shell system, and APIs ... allowing others to ADD. Future is 3rd party development. Share the development load. Key is GOOD APIs and documentation.

(3) MULTIPLAYER -- The future of Gaming. Interfacing with other Humans is so much more rewarding and exciting, than responding to a pre-programmed computer.

(4) SHARED cockpit for MULTIPLE players ( not just 2 as in FSX. FSX Shared Cockipt was a start)

"Good documentation and Good APIs" - Don't rush it -- DO IT RIGHT [ Learn from the FSX release(s) ]

Best of success... I would get my Credit card out for a decent, new, FS.

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- As beautiful as FSX but with better performance.

- A better flight dynamic

- Better power management

- Better influence of weather on the aircraft (icing etc...)

- A good ATC , multi language

- "Life traffic" (on airport, on the road etc..like in fsx), it increase the immersion feeling

- Cross platform (windows, mac, linux/bsd).(i have planned to use linux only). so support of directX or OpenGL

- Better weather environnement (especially better sailplane support everywhere in the world)

- Open for developpers (well documented SDK)

- Support of all type of hardware like FS (goflight especially)

- Ability to send gauge (and GPS) to PocketPc/smartphone screen and react to their keyboard (or screen touch)

- ability to define input controls by aircraft or by "aircraft family" (by number and type of engine)

- Send views to another PC running a "thin client" and react to their keyboard (so we can use multiple keyboard for command mapping)

- A good ! Multiplayer support (massive multiplayer why not) with possibility to be copilot/passenger of an aircraft

- A traffic controller mode (a good one, so better than in FSX)

- An instructor mode (like in old FS, but in better)

- A good and detailed documentation

- nice printable check-list

- a good flight planner

- support of hat tracking system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this day on, i will save 1 Euro, everyday...

...when the new "Aerosim" is finished, i will have enough money for a new Monster-PC. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ATC should also assign your speeds.

Why?? It's a well known Aviation fact that the airspeed is 250knotts below 10'000ft unless otherwise indicated on the relevant charts (SID's STARS etcetera), therefore, I do not see the relevance of ATC assigning you a speed. Surely a pilot will know the set speeds of his aircraft depending on it's configuration.

Also, if the aircraft you are flying has a top cruise speed of 120knotts then you ain't gonna be flying at 230 now are you! If the general census want a sim "as real as it gets" then be prepared to do a lot more flying with charts etcetera than just by the seat of your pants.

But, saying all this are you the type of guy that want ATC to fly your aircraft for you? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, don't take my lack of comments and reactions as a sign of disinterest. I read every post, made 76 notes in my OneNote database (how could a project manager do without this tool?) and spend an hour on the phone to others. I also learned about 2 new game engines that are made for flight sims and asked for specs on those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?? It's a well known Aviation fact that the airspeed is 250knotts below 10'000ft unless otherwise indicated on the relevant charts (SID's STARS etcetera), therefore, I do not see the relevance of ATC assigning you a speed. Surely a pilot will know the set speeds of his aircraft depending on it's configuration.

Also, if the aircraft you are flying has a top cruise speed of 120knotts then you ain't gonna be flying at 230 now are you! If the general census want a sim "as real as it gets" then be prepared to do a lot more flying with charts etcetera than just by the seat of your pants.

But, saying all this are you the type of guy that want ATC to fly your aircraft for you? :lol:

I have a feeling he was referring to assigned speeds for seperation. ATC does not tell you how fast you should fly your 2,000 NM across the continent (or where ever). But if you are getting too close to another plane, are catching up with an aircraft on approach or what not, ATC will assign a speed to you for temporary seperation. It is not at all uncommon in commercial aviation to get instructions of "maintain mach 0.75 or less" or "maintain 190 kts to the marker".

I would agree that ATC's use of speed restrictions would be much nicer than the current alternative of AISmooth that just sends a plane to fly a missed approach if it would land too near you. Why not just slow you down and/or speed him up on approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a feeling he was referring to assigned speeds for seperation. ATC does not tell you how fast you should fly your 2,000 NM across the continent (or where ever). But if you are getting too close to another plane, are catching up with an aircraft on approach or what not, ATC will assign a speed to you for temporary seperation. It is not at all uncommon in commercial aviation to get instructions of "maintain mach 0.75 or less" or "maintain 190 kts to the marker".

I would agree that ATC's use of speed restrictions would be much nicer than the current alternative of AISmooth that just sends a plane to fly a missed approach if it would land too near you. Why not just slow you down and/or speed him up on approach?

Ah, then I will stand corrected and will research some more as I would have assumed that it would then become a lateral separation if flying in the same direction as opposed to having one aircraft slow down?!

Hence, a further issue with ATC is in this situation of having what some users seem to be hankering for, is that every region has different procedures. A base structure would then have to be region specific as the USA is totally different to Europe and then Europe regions could be different. This would then make this issue one hell of a headache for a developer. Why do you think MS did not develop this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, then I will stand corrected and will research some more as I would have assumed that it would then become a lateral separation if flying in the same direction as opposed to having one aircraft slow down?!

Hence, a further issue with ATC is in this situation of having what some users seem to be hankering for, is that every region has different procedures. A base structure would then have to be region specific as the USA is totally different to Europe and then Europe regions could be different. This would then make this issue one hell of a headache for a developer. Why do you think MS did not develop this.

Well, you are also correct. Lateral, vertical and speed seperation can all be used. Problem is that as you start coming in on STARs and to the runways, everyone needs to be following the same lateral and vertical paths, so speed is used. Typically, speed restrictions are more applicable to terminal arrival airspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Guys:

I've been following these threads with great interest for the last week or so, and I must say that I don't think I have been this excited about Flight Simming since I first 'discovered' PMDG's Boeing 747, and then started learning all there is to know about her. In fact, if anything, I would say that I am way more excited than a very excited thing that has a special reason to be very excited indeed, on national excitement day...

Anyway... :huh:

I am sure that Aerosoft have given this a great deal of thought, long prior to opening the topic for discussion, and I am sure that they would most certainly not even have mentioned this if the market research had shown that it wouldn't fly (pardon the pun). But to throw my two cents into the ring, for what it is worth.

I probably fall into the category of the 'hardcore simmer' as i type this, i am at FL10,100M over Russia heading towards HKG from LHR in my 744 in real time, the flightplan is accurate to the day, the ATC is courtesy of IVAO, HKG is courtesy of the default FS9 scenery, and LHR was from A.N. Other FS9 Scenery developer. The WX is being injected over WideFS by ASA. Life in my world is good.

However, to acheive this goodness, a great deal of add-ons have been purchased, a lot of money spent. I'm still not happy. The runway at HKG will be wet, it will not affect the braking action. The WX radar is non existent so i couldnt plan my way out of the extreme turbulence that i flew through for 45 minutes earlier, the clouds pop, the scenery below is repetitive, the pushback wasnt even close to the line, the Air Bridges didnt move (i had to take AES off - It generates a G3D.DLL error without fail - I'm over it, this is not the forum for it). I'm on IVAO so i was happy with the multiplayer traffic, but as it passes i dont see any contrails. The runway at LHR 'should' have a +2.0 Slope. It does not in FS the lighting is poor in general. and so on.

If Aerosoft are sensible (and i beleive that they are very), then i would hope that they are looking at their best sellers and asking themselves why are they bestsellers. If they can answer that question, then they know what the users want. Wether they choose to include them (or at least their premise) as a default part of their sim is up to them, if they choose to price the sim competitively and maintain their best sellers in a new improved add-on for a new improved sim then fine, but the basic tools required to make it all work must be included in the base code.

Vapour calcs (and therefore the possibility for a true working WX radar, fog, vis, rain, etc), sloped runways, degraded braking, a simple pushback system that gets me to the line, and so on would all be enough. Everything above that a bonus.

Sorry to drone on, but i wanted to (actually, felt that I needed to) offer an opinion, albeit a slightly oft' repeated one.

Many thanks

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i would just like to extend my thanks to you all at aerosoft for taking on what will be a mountain of a task and im sure its one that your not going to regret!

Firstly i would like you to watch a video...its the CAE software that they use for their training simulators. The graphics are not the best but theres this feeling about the simulator that i like and it may inspire you!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...ght+simulator+x

I see alot of people giving theyre opinion on what they want based on the flightsim engine, and it seems like theyre stuck in a kind of box where all they can think around is how that engine works...i say your flight simulator needs a few key things,

1.A solid fast and well suited engine.

2.An easy design editing tool like (airport design editor etc..) this will remove alot of work regarding making scenery as we are able to produce realistic results ourselfs.

3.A physics engine that can handle inertia, grip and lift.

4.A complex weather system that unlike FS9-X doesnt rely on one set of textures but instead calls a variety of cloud formations depending on weather reports etc..adding wet runways, ice runways (the blowing snow)..you get the picture i hope!

5. The ability for the program to mimic real airport environments, FS failed at this terribly. we need vast surface options, solid lights which cast glow and so fourth, and the ability to mimic(as stated some time ago) blended edges, and marks, and finally the ability to create airports with the markings and features real to life.

Please think out of the box, MS did a fantastic job but in trying to mimmic what they did you will only mirror your simulator on old ideas :)

Many thanks Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, that video looks fantastic.

However, the resolution isn't really good, i would defeniteley be ok with a sim like that. - if Multiplayer works ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure that Aerosoft have given this a great deal of thought, long prior to opening the topic for discussion, and I am sure that they would most certainly not even have mentioned this if the market research had shown that it wouldn't fly (pardon the pun).

Personally, I doubt Aerosoft gave nearly enough thought to this concept (but I bet the wheels are tuning now), nor do I imagine that they have much in the way of new market research, beyond that which they knew already and have garnered through this forum. Actually, if they were able to quantify all the directional information they have here, an heuristic analaysis of these verbatims would probably be all of the early stage research they would need.

The problem is that those of us who post here are only representative of the most avid simmers as well as Aerosoft's existing, early adopter, add-on, customer base. In essence it is a case of "preaching to the choir". If you took our word for it, Aerosoft's new venture would be a sure winner.

Sadly, much as we would wish it, this is not the case. There are going to be some hard choices ahead and Mr. Kok and company are going to need all the help they can get. They do not want to repeat the mistake of the ACES team who zigged while the technology (and market) zagged.

If someone is going to make it happen, however, I hope it is Aerosoft, because it is so refreshing to see a company who goes so far to earn the trust of their customers.

SW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

take a look at Simflight.com http://simflight.com/2009/06/10/outerra-gi...arth/#more-5974

there is a nice Terrain Engine (Outerra).

The most important things for me in a new flight simulator are:

  • Realistic Flight Dynamics

Realistic Weather and Environment Simulation

Sloped Runways

Complete and updateable Navdatabase (could be provided by EAG or Lufthansa Systems Flight Nav)

Jan-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would like to see in this sim is more realistic sounding radio transmissions. It would be nice if there were static to make it sound more realistic. Also, speech recognition would be great. There's already an add-on for this (Vox ATC), and they're considering putting this feature in X-Plane 10.

It would also be nice to have a GPS mounted in the panel in some planes, or on the yoke or windshield in others, instead of just having a pop-up 2D GPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also be nice to be able to view sectional charts in flight. The map function of FSX is annoying because you can't fly and look at it at the same time. The ability to view sectional charts in flight would make VFR flying in the sim much easier. Maybe the chart could be a 2D pop-up panel. If you do implement this, please don't make it like a moving-map display. Don't put a little plane on it that marks your position or have it follow your aircraft. Make us have to do it manually; it's much more realistic that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'm sharing the wishlist of many here, with a few precisions:

- Realistic weather:

MS FS was missing any sort of realistic simulation of realistic weather around and inside clouds. It makes navigation around weather totally optional, I never had to worry about any type of weather making my flight difficult, yet this is and has been since the birth of flight a major element of flying. Some simulators in the past did it better than MS (eg Flight Unlimited 3 if I remember rightly), and I would put this a the top priority of any new simulator

- A good and complete SDK,

one example being the ability for third party to trigger and simulate Failures. Dan Steph told us a lot about how difficult it was for him to program his brilliant failure events for FsPassengers and how he had to bypass the SDK. The avaibility to manipulate plane systems, fail them etc should be an important part of the SDK

- Shared cockpit:

to be honest, the very first thing that made me shift to FSX immediatly at the release and not come back was the shared cockpit function - for the first time we could fly capt and fo with my best friend rather than follow each other, and that's really a must for airliners flying. Please don't forget this.

- Event scripting aka "missions" :

I know a lot of people bash them on forums, but it seems to me that missions were a huge progress in the simulation series, they allow to create scenarios that go beyond just "a flight plan + weather", the most obvious ones are failure and emergencies situations. I would hesitate moving away from FSX if this was forgotten entirely (but I do not think that missions, or many of them, are necessary at release, just the possibility for scripting them by 3rd party and the end user)

- Sloped runways: most often when I fly in real life one major visual difference on the ground is how most of runways have slight slopes. A visual detail, but in term of visual progress, that's the most obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. Missions were a great addition and I think they should have their place in the new sim.

There are people who don't like them but they don't have to fly them if they don't like to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you. Missions were a great addition and I think they should have their place in the new sim.

There are people who don't like them but they don't have to fly them if they don't like to.

I agree too. I like the mission feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, that video looks fantastic.

However, the resolution isn't really good, i would defeniteley be ok with a sim like that. - if Multiplayer works ;D

I know that CEA software very well, what what the video shows is NOT what they got right now. Just a few weeks ago I had a few hours in one of their newer sims using a domed display. It was stunning to say the least. And of course stunningly expensive, just the curved screen that the system displayed on did costs more then all of my cars together (some people know that that means a bit...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have braking parachutes that behave realistically. And just a detail: droppable rocket boosters to assist take-off. Some planes used them operationally (the B-47 medium bomber I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to say that It'd be also very welcome an easy Modification tool so we can improve our favourite sceneries.

It would be great if the new sim included a built in feature in which the user could create his/her own Airline/Cargo Company so the sim had an objective apart from "simply" flying from a to b.

Realistic effect of bird strike so the aircraft isn't destroyed just because it flew into a bird.

I'd also be very thankful if the new sim was compatible with our present FSX addons (aircraft at least...)

Perhaps someone already suggested these features... I'm sorry if I repeated them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a feeling he was referring to assigned speeds for seperation. ATC does not tell you how fast you should fly your 2,000 NM across the continent (or where ever). But if you are getting too close to another plane, are catching up with an aircraft on approach or what not, ATC will assign a speed to you for temporary seperation. It is not at all uncommon in commercial aviation to get instructions of "maintain mach 0.75 or less" or "maintain 190 kts to the marker".

I would agree that ATC's use of speed restrictions would be much nicer than the current alternative of AISmooth that just sends a plane to fly a missed approach if it would land too near you. Why not just slow you down and/or speed him up on approach?

CORRECT!!! Thank you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this and the other topic.

I've seen many great ideas. I agree with some, but disagree with others.

Lately, I've been playing Fallout 3, and what is interesting, 60% of it are mods.

I think that Aerosoft should develop a kind of World Editor, so that we could build and correct bugs, and you wont have to release the core's code. (You have the shareware core and freeware scripts)

Concerning performance, Grand Theft Auto IV has a great engine, as it loads nearly the whole world, but it renders only the 3D model (don't tell me that loading boxes is hard) with a background color (usually gray to match the texture color) and blurs it. As you get closer, the texture starts to render in a greater resolution. Even though this would use your computer CPU and GPU's at its full capacity, it would be greater than those "freezy loading areas where you start to freeze" in MSFS.

There is a great add-on for MSFS called MsPassengers, which adds Carrer Mode and V.A mode (you might know it). If it would be possible to work on a built-in mode, it would be great.

And, to increase realism on VC, add models of the co-pilot and pilot, it might eat a few FPS, but would look great!

I just wish I could play this on my actual computer :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, to increase realism on VC, add models of the co-pilot and pilot, it might eat a few FPS, but would look great!

I like this idea, as long as they look realistic. Otherwise, it would just look ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to all,

As a long time user of Flight simulator i want to share some of my ideas.

Lots of forum users stated all the right things about how flight simulator need to look and feel..and that is normal.. it is a simulator!.

So it must look and feel as the real thing.

FS2004 is closer to real thing (life) then FS2002...FSX i closer then 2004 ...

Hope that new flight simulator will be by looks, feel and physics even closer to real aircrafts.

If not ... dont give the name flight simulator...just...the "flying arcade game"

I think that main focus have to be in cockpit ..3Dcockpit!! To look ..to sound (surround sound if poss) to have functions as the real airplane cockpit...

You fly plane from cockpit not from outside view...(i really don't understand all requests for damage textures in non-shooting sim)

So when starting approach and it's raining ...i want to see rain..hear rain and all the noises like wipers working...

landing on wet runway...hear the thumbling and mumbling ...plane "talking" to me thru all the blinks and clings...tryng to look out of my cockpit but the windshield is sooo wet..etc..etc..

I want to have the real thing!

Made a simulator for high end procesors and graphic cards... I dont have one...but when i saw how it looks like i will upgrade my PC..like i done for FSX ...Waited for some time but it was worth it!

Also...my idea of multyplayer:

There is multyplayer way of flying with online ATC ...(IVAO,VATSIM) ..but i would like to see my friend in the same cockpit like i am!

And the friend is 800Mile away from me and my computer...

I want to fly and interact with my friend in the same cockpit (for example Airbus 320) ..we can change seat for every flight, once you are co-pilot once a captain...

In real life my friend is pilot so he can show me lots of thing ..and he dont need to be in the same room as I.

Why not to put option to connect like 4 users in the same plane! If it is possbile in game Call Of Duty or Left4Dead why couldnt be in flight simulator?!?!

You start in Cessna with 3 of your companions for one VFR joyride..two are flying and two are pax.

If you know that specific plane systems then you can teach others how to fly that plane...

Or you can learn from others...

Also there are planes where you can use three or four crew members like 727 in example.

One is navigator ..second is captain ..and third is co-pilot...

Potencials of this coop-mutlyplayer flying sistem are endless.

Please implement also one russian old plane...like tupolev or Iljushin..

Why to issue simulator in one shot... with the whole world in it..

Why not to made it partly with touch for details?

Like Flight Unlimited but ofcourse with great graphic and physcs. So go on market with first part where is only one part of the world made to smallest detail. Made to the last road, three, house and flower petiole.

Ofcourse it will be a little bit odd to fly only from one town to another and not to have all the world in place....but with every part you can upgrade previous parts and add some new feature to look and feel even better...also the world for flying will grow with every part and people would wait every next part impatiente. New part of the world...new planes..new details for prev. part!!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...