Jump to content

A new simulator (July / August issue)


Recommended Posts

OK, I have no problem with that. At a guess I would say "have a look in the Aircraft.cfg file and edit out what you want to disappear", not really tried it.

Ha, right. Obviously had a senior moment with this one blush.gif I cannot really see hardware developers having a real hard time with this as all it would mean is adding a bit more movement on the throttle but having it offset so there is a small movement behind where the throttle would sit in idle to compensate a reverse thrust sort of movement! Surely it can't be that hard for them to figure this one out, or is it?!

Lets just agree to disagree on this one then as personally I would not like to be in a developers shoes when the finished product left their warehouse for distribution and sale! I did not want to bring this up but I think it is a prime example as to what I am trying to get across. Think back to 9/11. What agro etcetera did Microsoft get over Flight Sim from both the media and general public. Say no more....

Ah, but there again, those add ons have their advantages/disadvantages. I still have some that start cold and dark with no chance of them being updated. At times I think it's annoying but, you just get on with it and the more times you do it the quicker I would assume it would get. Again, this would have to be something that the developer would have to consider prior to it's release.

" James A'

Just a few final thoughts on the Flight simm / Combat simm combo thing as I think there is a very valid point to be made. I note what you say about 9/11 and it is indeed a very sensitive and delicate subject. BUT, the fact of the matter is that, if

someone is weird enough to want to fly an airliner into a tall building you can do so in FS8, FS9 & FSX if you so wish. Secondly, there are many stand alone combat simms out there such as, Lock On , Falcon 4.0 Allied force, Battle of Britain 11 and

so on. None of these got banned from sale after 9/11 and nor should they be. To conclude, I really dont think a flight simm / combat simm combo should cause any additional cause for concern to any developer. Its all out there already and has

been for a long time !!

busterbvi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No 2D Panels anymore? I think this will be a big step back. What if I want to show some gauges on a second monitor? Imagine the price of a 19" touchscreen in three years from now... we finally could use our NAV/COM radios or FMC in a far more realistic way - without having to build a complex home cockpit!

If you don't want to include 2D panels with the default aircraft - ok. But we should be able to write a short XML file (gauge names, x and y coords and gauge sizes) and send this "layer" to a second monitor. I think this is easy to implement (?) in the sim and writing such a XML is also no big issue.

[...] Besides, as 2d panels have no place in a new sim (the world simply is not 2d and asking developers to make haf the cockpit twice just won't work), we will need views that are 'aimed' at certain panels. Even if you use a TrackIr. [...]

Besides here's another idea related to XML files:

I would be pleased to see XML config per aircraft so it is possible to have different joystick and key stettings: FSUIPC for example is able to filter the joystick data to influence the sensitivity of axis controls (linear or logarithmic etc.). Another problem with FS9 / FSX in my personal opinion is trim control: the default sensitivity of the elevator trim key is OK for a Skyhawk, but for a 737 it's far too rough. Again FSUIPC can help here by defining keys for trimming and setting the step size per key press. Unfortunatly CH and Saitek yokes don't have a trim axis, so what about using the mouse wheel without having to point at the trim gauge (e.g. by simply pressing SHIFT + mousewheel)?

In general, I'm thinking of hierarchic config files: default settings are stored in the "main" XML config, but some custom values may be overwritten by aircraft specific XMLs.

Best regards,

Quax / Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I want to show some gauges on a second monitor?

Open a second 3D cockpit window, move it over to the second screen and resize as needed, move, rotate and zoom the view point as necessary, click View -> Save view... to add your new custom radio stack view to the list of default views, and click View -> Save window layout as default to make the change permanent for the current aircraft. Or something like that. ;) For better performance, hook the second monitor up to another PC running a second copy of the sim, connect it to the first copy, and open the second 3D cockpit view there. If that's possible, the death of the 2D panel is fine with me (provided the 3D cockpit gauges are smooth as X-Plane, but I take that for granted in a new sim).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One nice feature would be the option to wear or not wear headsets. With headsets, outside sounds would be muffled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Arista, this might work, but i think it's a bit to complicated :-)

1. I don't want to buy a second copy of the sim only to display something on a different screen.

2. If a use a second PC for that, it has to be quite powerful to display the 3D cockpit. If you use just a layer with some gauges, a future netbook with touchscreen would probably be enough for that.

3. With having 2D cockpits... no, let's better call them "layers", I can pick the gauges I want and align them to fit on the second screen. This is not possible in the 3D cockpit, because we can't redefine it's layout.

4. Probably I even do not need a second PC for just rendering some extra gauges to the second graphic port (which all modern graphic cards already have on board).

The only problem I see is that the gauges of an aircraft are directly compiled into the 3D model - so we don't have access to them. But this could be simply solved if the designer also saves the gauge to a second file seperately. To avoid copyright issues (if he does not want me to use the gauge in a freeware aircraft for example), there should by a simple way for the sim to check that the seperate gauge file can only be used with the original aircraft.

Regards,

Quaxx / Daniel

Open a second 3D cockpit window, move it over to the second screen and resize as needed, [...] For better performance, hook the second monitor up to another PC running a second copy of the sim, [...]

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminded me of a request I would like to make. In FSX, if you move your eye point, it's almost impossible to get it back where it was. You can press Ctrl+Space, but then you lose any previous adjustments to your eye point and have to readjust it. What I would like to see in the new sim is some sort of "make this my default eye point for this aircraft" button. Then you could position your view, press the button, and then if you moved your eye point, all you would have to do to get it back is press Ctrl+Space (or whatever key command is assigned). Maybe you could put the button in the "View" tab of the sim, or even give it a key command.

fs9 which has this feature is as good and practical as it gets. It is the same in FSX except that the use of TRACK IR in fsx permanantly overrides the eye point commands whereas in FS9 it doesnt . what the sim will need is simply the way this feature works in FS9 All other ideas placed , such as defining your height and by that you get your eye point accordingly is just extra unnessesary stuff .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the people I am in contact with who fly big jets, the vast majority use 2D cockpits (most of us with multi monitors).

It is all to do with ease of use. Sometimes you want to click lots of switches in quick succession, WHILST at the same time looking out the front and flying the aircraft.

When I fly in real life, yes it is 3D, but you use physical memory to carry out a lot of commands. This means you flip switches without really looking at them, and whilst still monitoring what is going on out the front or on the main panel without having to look between the 2 continuously. You cannot do this with a virtual cockpit.

Before I get flamed, I do have TrackIR, I do sometimes fly smaller aircraft in the virtual cockpit, but it is so much easier (and clearer) to fly big jets in 2D. I have the main cockpit instrumentation on one monitor, the overhead on another and throttles on another etc....

Please, leave it in as an option. If the developers of the aircraft still want to provide us with 2D, and lots (and I mean lots) of people still want to fly using 2D, why not give us the opportunity to use it.

Thanks

NeilC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the people I am in contact with who fly big jets, the vast majority use 2D cockpits (most of us with multi monitors).

It is all to do with ease of use. Sometimes you want to click lots of switches in quick succession, WHILST at the same time looking out the front and flying the aircraft.

When I fly in real life, yes it is 3D, but you use physical memory to carry out a lot of commands. This means you flip switches without really looking at them, and whilst still monitoring what is going on out the front or on the main panel without having to look between the 2 continuously. You cannot do this with a virtual cockpit.

Before I get flamed, I do have TrackIR, I do sometimes fly smaller aircraft in the virtual cockpit, but it is so much easier (and clearer) to fly big jets in 2D. I have the main cockpit instrumentation on one monitor, the overhead on another and throttles on another etc....

Please, leave it in as an option. If the developers of the aircraft still want to provide us with 2D, and lots (and I mean lots) of people still want to fly using 2D, why not give us the opportunity to use it.

Thanks

NeilC

Agreed- Especially as a full size home cockpit builder; please dont remove the ability to have just an open front view like pressing Shift+1 does in MSFS. This is imperative to use full size builders.

thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. I think 2D panels are still so popular because of a few key flaws of the current 3D cockpit implementations. But I believe that these problems can be overcome with some thinking outside the box:

3. With having 2D cockpits... no, let's better call them "layers", I can pick the gauges I want and align them to fit on the second screen. This is not possible in the 3D cockpit, because we can't redefine it's layout.

I would really like to see a 3D cockpit design where it is possible to rearrange individual instruments at will. That means each gauge should be an independent 3D model, and the panel itself is just that: A flat piece of plastic or metal with nothing on it. Just like in the real world. In an airliner's 3D cockpit model, for example, the overhead panel would be nothing but a frame. All the sub-panel modules are individual 3D models. All the knobs, switches and instruments for a particular system would be part of its sub-panel's 3D model, not the cockpit's. Finally, all these independent 3D models would be linked together by a simple XML file. I guess such a design would need some load-time (or even creation-time) optimization of the 3D mesh, however, to keep performance up. But on the up side, you can rip apart the 3D cockpit and add, remove and rearrange things to your heart's content with just a few lines of XML. And you could easily populate a pseudo-2D view or three with any gauges you want to have on a second screen.

As far as I understand, the problem with 2D panels is that developers really want to model their gauges in 3D, and more importantly, they don't want to model everything twice. The design outlined above would meet that desire, and at the same time solve some of the problems with the current monolithic 3D cockpit implementations. Moreover, it would probably streamline the creation process by enabling developers to concentrate on one gauge at a time, and making final assembly extremely easy.

4. Probably I even do not need a second PC for just rendering some extra gauges to the second graphic port (which all modern graphic cards already have on board).

No, it should be possible for one instance of the sim to render multiple independent 3D views, of course.

1. I don't want to buy a second copy of the sim only to display something on a different screen.

If you buy a second (third, fourth, ...) PC to display additional views, the cost for additional copies of the sim is negligible. If everything is running on a single PC, you don't need multiple copies. Moreover, the license terms could be such that you only need one copy for a single sim setup, no matter how many individual PCs that comprises.

2. If a use a second PC for that, it has to be quite powerful to display the 3D cockpit. If you use just a layer with some gauges, a future netbook with touchscreen would probably be enough for that.

Yep, that's might be a problem, depending on how the 3D cockpit is made, and how much it can be optimized for a pseudo-2D view.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed- Especially as a full size home cockpit builder; please dont remove the ability to have just an open front view like pressing Shift+1 does in MSFS. This is imperative to use full size builders.

thanks!

I would definately have to agree with Tomlin and NeilC. I think to do away with the 2D cockpit will be a huuuuuuuuuge mistake. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, leave it in as an option. If you want

to save yourself some work then do away with the rest of the unesesary stuff that nobody ever uses !! Personaly I would not purchase an add on if it did not have a 2D cockpit. I hate 3D cockpits

espcially in FSX, it looks awfull.

busterbvi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i've been following this post all the way through and thought i need to make some of my own opinions!

ATC:

As has been said, its going to be near enough impossible to create a "realistic" ATC service without it taking up ridiculous amounts of time to make and upkeep, aswell as completely trashing framerates and memory with all the different sids and stars in the world.

What needs to be said is that, while we have all these great ideas for the new Flight sim. I would much prefer the essentials to be there, with addons being able to add the little things we love that make a difference.

What would be good with the ATC service is the following:

- Better intergration with AI traffic. (how many times have we been put on the approach to find another AI plane either overtaking us about 30ft below, or just being stuck about a mile behind the plane in front.

- I would love to be able to get put in holding patterns if the plane in front is too close, or a lot of traffic at one point

- A user defined distance between approaching aircraft (much like Ai-smooth) but to be better intergrated and to include the User aircraft too)

- More fluid procedures on the ground e.g. (line up and wait after approaching aircraft goes past to land)

- Important : We all know we cant have completely realistic ATC which we can use with SIDS/STARS.

What can be done relatively easily, when planning a flight is to have real world waypoints and stations that are the same as the waypoints used in the FMC. We can then add these waypoints to our FSroute that atc will want us to follow.

These can include the waypoints used in the SID/STARS so that we can follow the departure through our FMC without being told we are going the wrong way by ATC. It could also give us the option to click where the SID/STAR ends or starts. The ATC could then just say "follow standard departure" or "follow standard arrival"

This function is sort of available through flightplanning on FS2004 as it is, but you have to manually search for the waypoints. Typing them in and selecting the correct one would be a lot easier.

We could also select which altitudes we want to be at, and cleared to at certain points on the route.

This could be implemented quite easily on the flight simulator route planner and implemented by ATC. We could also click at which point ATC wants to take us off our flightplan to give us Vectors for the final approach.

If that dosnt make sense, ask me to elaborate, its hard to explain!

- Carrying on with ATC - We could also have more options to select with ATC, which pressure system to use. Transition altitude, Speed restrictions on arrival if ai planes

are too close. I have so many ideas for ATC which i believe could be implemented if the developers would want to hear them!

- AI planes - Pushing back should be turned to face the taxiway, and then have a few minutes to disconnect the tug and get ready for the taxi. Pushback tug would be

great so see on AI Planes.

EFFECTS:

- Someone earlier on was saying about Immersion, how to make it feel more realistic. It isnt an easy option, but there are a few things that could make it more realistic:

- FSX implemented a very basic system of weather effects, I'd love to see contrails, vapour on the wings, more importantly, if its raining id like to see the effect

the jet blast has on the runway picking up the water and creating a spray.

- Id love the AI traffic to have that deep rumble sound effect on takeoff that you always hear from the plane.

- JET BLAST - Some addons included a jetblast that came out the back of the aircraft where you could see the superheated air coming out the back of the jet

exhaust. Brilliant effect and a real sense of power.

- Landing lights, please could they be more realistic!! with Fs it seemed like you were sitting on a floodlit runway when you turned the landing lights on, they

should just be spots on the ground that are quite faint and quite small like in reality.

- Carrying on with the immersion idea, i'd love to see things like, forgetting to put the pacs on leads to consequences!

Big Idea: How about using the Default ATC - if devoloped, and using that in an online arena. I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription, if monitored. Like VATSIM but less professional, Could include AI aircraft aswell as Multiple User aircraft from all over the world. Could follow the atc instructions. Would make flying a lot more realistic with user aircraft there.

Im not too fussed about all the optional extras at airports with fantastic scenery etc because these can be all created as addons just how it is done at the moment. What i really want is a realiable base software which has the Potential to be built upon. Not only that, but on its own, i want it to be VERY framerate friendly. The problem with FSX is that its so heavy to use on its own that you can hardly add anything without returning to a powerpoint presentation with the frame rates.

Lots more ideas if they are welcome, or am i barking up the wrong tree?

Chris

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be cool to have animated water. What I mean is having actual waves that make it more difficult to land a seaplane. For example a small lake in Wisconsin might have smooth glassy water, but the Bering Sea would have 20-40ft. swells. Now this would change depending on the weather. I feel this would suit your Catalina well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another ATC idea:

Leave the ATC open to editing by 3rd parties.

Many of us fly the same sort of routes over and over. I Generaly now fly to only places that have AES.

If you did this 3rd parties could perhaps add their own ATC for that airport alone including SIDS/STARS that the user aircraft and AI aircraft can follow. That feature alone could become a project almost as successful as AES if it worked well.

Fully functional, professional ATC services which you can buy credits for specific airports. Just like AES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

2D panels are a must IMHO. No VC can produce the crystal clear displays as in 2D. A VC looks nice at first glance, but it is a gimmick for professional use.

Look at the screens bleow of a 744 sim (in development, it's not a MSFS addon, and it's not aimed at the mass market). All displays can be resized and panned and no matter how big you zoom, they are always sharp.

And it's 2D, the 3D effect is implemented in the 2D panel. So, what looks better, this one or a fuzzy 3D panel?

But anyway, l'm looking forward for your new sim.

Cheers Walter

post-25848-124720957154_thumb.jpg

post-25848-124720961023_thumb.jpg

post-25848-124720962555_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi !

It would be great if your sim would be TrackIR compatible. Also, the new 3dvision by Nvidia seems very interesting :

http://www.nvidia.co...on_Main_uk.html

It's similar to what is used in theaters for the new 3D movies (Ice Age 3, etc...)

It would sure feels great having a device like that in a VC :)

Is there a way we could do the walkaround without using the gimmicks used in FSX to do it (view management software) ? So that would be a real phase of the flight, and that we could discover things like a damaged tire (and choose to replace it or not), for example ? I know you said you won't develop damage models, but maybe more simple visual damages like this could be useful.

Deniz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that some people want 2D panels, but what I don't understand is what people are saying about VC's. Modern, well-made VC's are not fuzzy. Just have a look at some of Aerosoft's add-on planes. While you're at it, check out RealAir's planes. Yes, the VC's found in default planes in FSX do look awful, though. And I will admit that although most well-made VC's do not get fuzzy when you zoom in, they sometimes get fuzzy if you zoom far out. I think the difference may be in the type of flying you do. I never fly jets, only single-engine props; it seems as if most of the people who like 2D panels fly mostly jets. The death of the 2D panel would not bother me in the least, but I think it would upset many people in the FS community. Maybe Aerosoft should consider leaving it as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn I posted the other day.

I was curious about the lack of reaction to a suggestion

I had regarding scenery.

Perhaps I didn't press the submit key as I thought I did.

In any event, my suggestion is to use a muli-layered / multi-tiered

scenery approach. It would be great if we could have photo-real

scenery for altitudes above say 2-3000' and then have another layer

of scenery (especially for custom airports and such) below that.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems Microsoft even considered

this, but decided against it due to the huge amount of disk space it

would require. But that was years ago, and storage is so dirt cheap

and plentiful now that it would not make sense NOT to consider it.

I really would appreciate feedback on this..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn I posted the other day.

I was curious about the lack of reaction to a suggestion

I had regarding scenery.

Perhaps I didn't press the submit key as I thought I did.

In any event, my suggestion is to use a muli-layered / multi-tiered

scenery approach. It would be great if we could have photo-real

scenery for altitudes above say 2-3000' and then have another layer

of scenery (especially for custom airports and such) below that.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems Microsoft even considered

this, but decided against it due to the huge amount of disk space it

would require. But that was years ago, and storage is so dirt cheap

and plentiful now that it would not make sense NOT to consider it.

I really would appreciate feedback on this..

I think it would be a great idea, my area (Southwestern Ontario Canada) is so woefully unrepresented by the Developers (freeware and payware)I would be more than willing to update my available disk space to accommodate such an option. Maybe through a connection to Google earth or Microsoft's very own Virtual Earth.

very cool B)B) just the thought of that,if possible, would be very cool

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn I posted the other day.

I was curious about the lack of reaction to a suggestion

I had regarding scenery.

Perhaps I didn't press the submit key as I thought I did.

In any event, my suggestion is to use a muli-layered / multi-tiered

scenery approach. It would be great if we could have photo-real

scenery for altitudes above say 2-3000' and then have another layer

of scenery (especially for custom airports and such) below that.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems Microsoft even considered

this, but decided against it due to the huge amount of disk space it

would require. But that was years ago, and storage is so dirt cheap

and plentiful now that it would not make sense NOT to consider it.

I really would appreciate feedback on this..

Why not just source all scenery from google earth and only keep the visible area, say 100 miles or so, locally. No scenery to keep updated, no 20GB dedicated to places you aren't flying in and it's always the real deal.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please make the sim take advantage of Windows 7 64 bit and the extra memory that can be addressed (I have 12 Gb) and also please make AI traffic more integrated into what is happening, e.g. make it (and ATC) aware of the presence of all other a/c and also (a particular bugbear) please make it so the lighting for each is asynchronous (so that there is not a night sky full of simultaneously flashing lights)

Thanks

Dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many wonderful ideas in this thread as to how a future replacement for FSX could and probably should be developed. Getting back to basics, Mathijs originally said

'Aerosoft is currently seriously investigating the development of a new simulator, directly aimed at replacing FSX.

This project is in very early stages, far from even started. We are now talking to each other and developers we trust to come up with a project definition. With this definition we'll look at the market potential and finances, we are talking a multimillion Euro project here after all. Now the investments do not scare us but the building of a platform we can all agree on bothers us tremendously. If we get that wrong we lost even before we start'

My question is: Having now had some time to look at the market potential and finances, has Aerosoft now made a decision as to whether it is going to pursue this venture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has already been requested but what about ramp handlers actually loading the aircraft with bags/cargo.

If the aircraft has a mechinical fault engineers are called out and work on the aircraft and fix it or if its to big of a problem the flight is cancelled/delayed or you have to choose another aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t know if this had been posted on the previews treads but:

- I would like to have some sort of dashboard on the sim wich could allow me to use for example internet explorer without leaving the sim, or messenger, or adobe acrobat and so on.

- I would also like to have a calculator integrated on the sim.

- I would like to se the rain flowing naturally on the windows, and I would like to see some fog on the windows due to humidity wich would force me to turn the defog/windows heater.

- I would love to have an interactive sound on the airplane, for example, some noise from the passengers as we hear on a real flight, people talking etc, screams when we do something stupid, aplause when we perform an expectacular landing after some sort of emergency.

- I would love to se my airplane getting damaged from abuse.

- Bird strikes, freeze rain, lightning strikes, natural problems that could affect my flight wich could be used with some sort of possibility to occur percentage.

- I remember when I started with flight simulation "some" years ago (on FLY!) there was a magic key (Z if I recall) wich would land the airplane perfectly, that helped me a lot when I started simming as I could see how to position the airplane etc etc. It might sound stupid but it is a good feature for a newbie

- Atc working with metters on russian airspace (that would force me to use the calculator included in advanced mode for example)

- A good balance between the game/realistic feeling. I believe it is possible to please everyone as the addons might please both strands of the gammers as they are released.

- A tool wich could allow me to take ingame movies and post them in youtube for example (or in some sort of server dedicated to the new flight sim), I know fraps exists but most people don't want to spend time looking for those tools so they end up by not making movies.

- And finnaly, you could include some sort of flight sim painter, wich could make easier for the average user to paint the airplanes according to his taste.

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