A new simulator (July / August issue)

[Legend 3]

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I would love to see the possibility to choose "era's"; the way I see it is that the scenery is just "the world". Over this world then comes a layer with airports, traffic etc. of a certain time period, e.g. "the 1950s" or "the 2000s". Financially (and time-wise) it may be wise to start with the current situation, and release other eras separately (and for a fee).

I know it's been done (sort of) before with Bill Lyon's Golden Wings TCM for FS9, but, as good as that was, it was still very limited.

[Saikrishna 0]

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I would love to see the possibility to choose "era's"; the way I see it is that the scenery is just "the world". Over this world then comes a layer with airports, traffic etc. of a certain time period, e.g. "the 1950s" or "the 2000s". Financially (and time-wise) it may be wise to start with the current situation, and release other eras separately (and for a fee).

I know it's been done (sort of) before with Bill Lyon's Golden Wings TCM for FS9, but, as good as that was, it was still very limited.

Keep in mind that it will take up a large amount of space as it will need textures and scenery for today, 1950, 1900, etc if this was included.

[Legend 3]

Keep in mind that it will take up a large amount of space as it will need textures and scenery for today, 1950, 1900, etc if this was included.

True... But harddisks get bigger and bigger... and a more elegant solution is that if an era is installed (from disks), the previously installed one would be deleted.

[Saikrishna 0]

True... But harddisks get bigger and bigger... and a more elegant solution is that if an era is installed (from disks), the previously installed one would be deleted.

Also true. Within a few years, we might see external hard drives with 5TB for around $100.

Also, if I understand correctly, you are saying if 1950 was installed, then 2009 would be uninstalled. This may be good for those who stick to an era for some time or those who don't have much space, but if people want to switch between era quickly while flying, then this won't be possible. A solution, for those who have the space, would be to keep both era textures and give the user to switch eras within a few clicks in-game.

[Paul K 93]

Reading through this and the previous thread, there is not much I can add to the wish list. However, I would like to reiterate three big hopes I have.

The first is an expanded multiplayer capability.

We have AccuSim from A2A which, on something as complex as the their B-377 Stratocruiser, cries out for a flight engineer. We have Dave Bitzer and Mark Beaumont's bubble sextant gauge, which leads to the possibility of a navigator. Imagine what long distance vintage flying would be like with a full multiplayer flight crew!

The second wish is backward compatibility with existing MSFS add-ons, at least as far back as FSX. If that meant compromising or limiting the capabilities of this new simulator, then of course we would have to start from scratch. However, sales will get a huge boost if flight simmers can carry their expensive add-ons over from FSX.

The third wish is longevity. I am no expert on programming, or what is possible and what isn't. But please structure it with a view to the future and advances in CPUs and GPUs. No one is going to spend money if they fear getting stung again with incompatibility problems further down the line; they will stick with what they have, namely MSFS. I really would like Aerosoft's civilian flight simulator to be the last one I'll ever need buy, and those add-ons I've bought...stay bought !

All the best to everyone involved in this exciting concept.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Second post that I made in the forums. I would like the flight models like in X-Plane, that are not defined by a .cfg file, that are defined by the 3D plane and air passing through parts like wing, prop, gear, fuselage, stuff like that. And a converter to convert FS2004 planes.

Well one more or less excludes the other if you understand how Xplane works. There are very few (if any) FS2004 aircraft that would be suitable. Converting aircraft is also very low on our list of things to have. We focus on getting the source files compilable for the new sim so it will include all new functionality.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Also true. Within a few years, we might see external hard drives with 5TB for around $100.

Also, if I understand correctly, you are saying if 1950 was installed, then 2009 would be uninstalled. This may be good for those who stick to an era for some time or those who don't have much space, but if people want to switch between era quickly while flying, then this won't be possible. A solution, for those who have the space, would be to keep both era textures and give the user to switch eras within a few clicks in-game.

Yes but while 5 TB files would be great to have, the SPEED at which data is transferred has not really changed a lot. In other words, you would not like to buy an addon that has 10 blueray disk and would take 2 days to install. Let alone download a 750 gb addon.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Anyway, adding to my previous posts, I think to have the most possible realism is the ultimate goal.

Flight prep. etc. all like in a real plane. If you don't do that correctly, like in real planes, you go down etc.

Flying zones etc.

I think you should put all back and implement the ultimate REAL simulation first. All eye candy etc. comes later and

maybe even leave that to addons.

Version 1 consisting only of a Flying school adhering to the absolut realism.- Yea I'd buy such....

You might buy it, but we might be making it THAT realistic would take a decade and tens of million euro's. It would also require our customers to be trained as real pilots and always work in teams of two, assisted by a whole ground staff. Mmmmm that almost sounds like a complete professional simulator. You can buy those right now, no need to us to make yet another one. Just put down a few tens of thousand for the software and a bit more for the hardware and you got the sim you ask us to make.

See you are a very special customer, we only got a handful of thos, not nearly enough to make a viable product. In other words, while you would like that kind of sim and I would love to sell it to you, you would most likely not be willing to pay enough.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Scenery

• Specific scenery complexity check boxes, instead of "cumulative" sliders. The problem with FSX/FS2004 is that sliders are pre-structured. For example: taxi signs are included in the 'Dense' setting, not in the 'Medium' or lower settings. Why couldn't I just enable taxi signs (specifically!) and disable all the rest? Some scenery complexities have functional use (as the taxi signs) while others are just fill ups. Same goes for gates. I would like to specifically enable 'gates' without having to move the slider all the way up to 'very dense' and being forced to live with all kinds of complexities that I don't like to have my graphics card work on. Like the taxi signs and gates, some scenery has functional use while other scenery is purely for sight seeing. I believe this distinction is crucial to make for the next FS. Get rid of the sliders!

I like that idea, but it would mean a HUGE list of items and knowing in advance what scenery developers will come up with in advance. I just don't see that happening.

Thanks for your extensive post, I copied many sections to the documents on my disk, lot to think about!

[dmangham 30]

Ok i put some thought into this ignore my last post about engineers a what ever i put.

Instead what about Airshows, A.I. aircraft doing airshows and ourselfs being apart of it putting on a show of our own then watching the rest of the show. I thought of this whilst i was at The Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford this weekend.

So what's everyones opinion on this.

[Tim_A 1]

It would certainly be fun - there are many hundreds of airshows around the world, as well as the major exhibitions -- RIAT, Farnborough, Paris, Friedrichshafen, Oshkosh, Avalon, to name a few. I don't think this is the province of the core sim though, but it would be nice if there were enabling technologies to make it easy to set up. Same with firework parties displays - 4th July in the US, Guy Fawkes night across the Commonwealth, New Year's Eve etc.

These things are far from essential, but a little fun now and then goes down a treat!

BTW, Visual Flight did RIAT and Farnborough for FS9, although I don't think there was ever an FSX version.

[Arista 64]

Include the ability to easily create curved approaches, such as for KLAS.

Out of curiosity, which approach are you referring to?

It would be better if the G/S is a few hundred feet above/below me.)

ATC should always vector you in such a way that you intercept the localizer a good bit below the glide slope, to make sure you can intercept the glide slope from below. It's considered bad style to intercept the glide slope from above (and in fact, it can even be dangerous). By the way, have I already mentioned that modeling localizer and glide slope side lopes, as well as all the other ugly side effects of signal propagation, would be nice?

I like that idea, but it would mean a HUGE list of items and knowing in advance what scenery developers will come up with in advance.

Maybe instead come up with a couple of categories, like 'functional airport objects', 'eye candy objects', 'off-airport buildings', 'trees', etc., for which there are check boxes in the options window. Then, create as many sub-categories - let's call them tags - you can possibly think of, like 'runway signs', 'close-in obstacles', '3D taxiway lights', 'Navaid antennas', 'large conifers', etc., and assign them to one of those categories. Then, assign every scenery object one or more tags, and make it possible to turn each tag on or off individually via a config file, or maybe even via an 'Advanced settings' button next to each category check box. I'm not sure if more than one tag really is a good idea, but for things like that 50 ft FAA obstacle right behind the threshold, which is clearly a large conifer, but which, as a close-in obstacle on approach or departure, is also a functional airport object, it might make sense.

The benefit of this two-level approach is a nice short list for the general options window, along with detailed customizability for the power users and those short on graphics power. Off course you can't anticipate everything developers could possibly dream up in the future, but with a comprehensive list of tags, chances are they will find something that fits closely enough to what they're trying to model. And if all else fails, you can always add additional tags with the next update.

Judith

[Dimension 0]

IMO, if a new FlightSimulator is ever going to succeed FS2004, you developers @ Aerosoft must start from scratch and forget about anything that exists of FS2004...or even FSX or Xplane. Forget about ways to rehash or port old stuff across.

A possible multi million EUR project? There's some amazing engines out there now that are fluid as heck and will totally blow you away. Also some very good development teams that you could interact with for help and advice.

If I were you I'd definitely get in contact with Ubisoft; the makers of LOMAC and HAWX. Whilst they have expertise in combat flightsim, my main focus is on their expertise in flight simulator atmosphere, special effects (condensation, heat blur, lighting) and coding. I'm certain that an engine similar to what they used for HAWX would be the one. Unfortunately I doubt you would be able to obtain it as theirs was made in house specially for HAWX. But I'm sure they would be willing to point you in the direction as you guys already have your own expertise to probably whip one up anyhow. Or even use one and tweak it. If something like this possible, don't be negative about the visual comparison of Ubisofts product and what your sim could look like because after all, the main focus is on the engine itself. Once you have the base, you can tweak and "paint it up". Even Laminar research's engine for XPlane is fantastic, yet it probably looks poor as they chose not to use DirectX10 as they believed they could get the same effects with openGL...and look where that got them.

Along with Ubisoft, its well worth getting intouch with GeoEye and USGS/EROS to create a very realistic representation of Earth and scenery. If you got hold of those guys, the Earth work is done!

ATC - The gents over at JDT LLC - Radar Contact - Why not hire their expertise. IMO They're pro's a this one and I believe they could expand even more with a better engine and funding.

Once the simulator is put first, the rest such as third party development will flow, whip up the SDK and hand it out and I'm sure the current third party developers in the FS9/FSX sector will eventually find a way to adapt as they already have their expertise along with blueprints of their own current line of successful products. If you try and better on what ACES did and replicate whilst giving the ability to port old stuff across, flightsimming simply won't move very far forward. When I look at the timeline between FS2002 and FSX, I mostly see eye candy improvements.

What we need is a complete change.

My only suggestion for features if you decide to go ahead with a new sim: Clouds that cast shadows! Check out XPlane, they do it well.

[BPL 39]

I just got Rise of Flight today, and if the graphics and flight model of the new sim are as good as this, I'll be the first in line to buy it!

[B727-200 0]

A couple of simple things, I hope:

Assuming that the Sim will have inbuilt ATC, I would like the transition between sectors "fuzzied" a little. In other words if you are flying along a sector boundary you don't get the "contact centre on 125.3", then "contact centre on 129.2" followed by multiple changes between the 2 every minute or so until you clear the sector boundary.

With ground ops, rather than having a 3D line appear on the taxiway to show you how to get to the gate / runway, I would like to have the ability to bring up a B&W airport diagram (derived from the CAD file used to create the airport) in the cockpit view with the option of displaying the path on it.

At any stage during the flight planning or enroute i would like an easy way of knowing the weather at the destination, likely approach and active runway. You can do some of it now in MSFS but it is a bit cumbersome with the map display. Oh, and mutiple active runways including crossing runways.

Realistic failures based on proper failure probabilities. For example, you know that a particular engine will fail once in every 10,000 cycles under normal use, so it would be good to have this event potential rather than the very definite way MSFS handles it. I would also like to see failure for abuse like running at full throttle for an extended period (increases the probability of failure), dropping flaps or gear at too high air speed, or running a piston engine on the ground in hot temps without opening cowl flaps. Once an emergency is identified we would then need ATC to be more realistic in its response (ie. give you priority to land).

With cockpit operations and realism, a number of difficulty levels would be great depending on competency. This would range from a single key/button engine start to performing a full manual engine start sequence. An electronic 1st officer calling out check list items would be great at training to use the more complex settings.

That's all for now

B727-200.

[flyerkg 3]

Greetings,

I agree with the many requests for multiple runway operations. I know for sometime now we have been using different techniques with AFCAD to get cross wind runways, but there are still some variables that prevent FSX from being superb in this area.

In particular, we often times ask for options to other runways which are not primary active when real world weather and other physical conditions permit. While you can select different runways in the ATC pulldown menu, FSX does not always respond realistically. Nor do we ever hear AI voices requesting options for runway usage. Several smart guys came along with techniques in AFCAD to enhance our flight sim experience and I thank each of them for their hard work. I once got to a point when I was doing nothing but revising AFCAD files and perfecting my own things to upload to AVSIM and not flying anymore. It would be nice to say goodbye to star patterns and overlays with multiple afcads for effective cross-runway usage.

AI has come a long way for flight simulation, but what about dumbing down the AI pilots? I know when I first started flying, I never had perfect radio communications. I wonder how difficult would it be for ATC and AI pilots in the next generation Flight Simulator to make mistakes or request to repeat calls? Instead of unrealistic hold-short durations, perhaps have AI give bad read-backs and clog the radios a bit. These are just a few things I hope Mathijs and team consider.

Keith

[JamesChams 108]

Mr. Kok,

I heard your comments on the interview about this and I wonder if you can buy the rights for FSX/ESP from MS and re-develop/fix the areas that shall we say "suck" in their simulator??? That would keep FS alive, have the hidden source code made open/freely visible, and allow the entire community to actively introduce the features, etc. that you're looking for... from FSUIPC code implementations to all the graphic engine functions that one can program in DX10/11 etc. Just my opinion/suggestion; If its possible...

Also, I would love to see the whole water (rain/snow) effects do something like this in FS ...

Check out this video for more really "authentic-looking" features:

PS: The YouTube Code NO LONGER works in these new forums. Maybe someone can do something about it too at some point?

EDIT: Danke Mr. Fletcher; it works now.

Merci (Danke)

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello James,

You can now place the Youtube url to the video into the post my just pressing on the "Insert Media" icon at the top of the editor, its the icon to the far right that looks like 3 monitors one behind the other.

It would then look like the following.

[Quaxx 1]

Hi Mathijs,

ok, if it's going to work this way, fine :-) So I can have totally free defineable views in a second (or third...) window (or monitor) and assign them to any key (e.g. Shift + 2 shows the NAV radios in virtual cockpit)?

If you mean not having the 2d instruments on the second monitor in a non logical, non realistic perspective and completely out of context of the rest of the cockpit, indeed that would be a problem for you. But as you can move the viewpoint in the VC to any location you like, with any view direction, any zoom level AND be able to move this view to a separate monitor right now in FSX (see image), what more is needed, what's the use of a 2d panel? (...)

Some further ideas:

Radios: I think setting NAV or COM radios in a real plane is easier and quicker than in a simulator using the mouse. Why not do it this way: hit Shift + N and type the NAV 1 stanbdby frequency on the numpad?

Constant frame rates: FS2004 is running great on my machine, but in FSX I'm always frustrated when the fps drops immediately before touchdown... when it's needed the most to do a smooth landing! Would it be possible to set a minimum framerate that is guaranteed? Personally I would rather see some distant 3D objects disappear than loosing fps. (What might help is reducing autogen radius while descending.) Of course this is just an option - others may see this vice versa.

ATC: Someone earlier assumed the community will help to create ATC voices/phrases from all over the world. I totally agree with this, it's a great idea! Furthermore, to make it even more realistic and less monotonous, we could create several takes of the same phrase. They could be played randomly to have more variation. Pick some voices and ship them with 1.0 version - anyone can download as many as he or she wants later...

Regards,

Quaxx / Daniel

[BPL 39]

Radios: I think setting NAV or COM radios in a real plane is easier and quicker than in a simulator using the mouse. Why not do it this way: hit Shift + N and type the NAV 1 stanbdby frequency on the numpad?

I like the way RealAir handles this in their aircraft. You left click the knob and move the cursor up or down to change the frequency to the left of the decimal point, and right click and move the cursor up or down to change the decimal value.

BTW, why is most of everything in the forums written in German now? For example the "Add Reply" button says "Antworten."

[Arista 64]

Mine still says 'Reply'. But the info on the left says 'Gruppe', 'Beitraege', 'Dabei seit', 'Gender', and 'Location'. Weird.

Even Laminar research's engine for XPlane is fantastic, yet it probably looks poor as they chose not to use DirectX10 as they believed they could get the same effects with openGL...and look where that got them.

Direct3D 10 is not at all about looks, it's about certain techniques. Basically, it's not much more than a hardware specification. If you don't have good artwork and clever shader algorithms, Direct3D 10 won't help you the slightest bit. Moreover, OpenGL can do most everything Direct3D 10 can, they just haven't created such a marketing hype abound it. If you really believe Direct3D 10 will magically fix your graphics engine, please compare FSX SP2 under Direct3D 9 and Direct3D 10... Oh, and by the way, in my humble opinion, X-Plane looks better than FSX in many departments - not least because most eye-candy effects are way overdone in FSX.

[BPL 39]

The forums are fixed now.

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello BPL,

Maybe this post will here explain the German

[User42 0]

Quote

- 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

Like to get some comments from others on this.

Okay, even though I prefer a sim to a game; if you put this in then I would suggest that when the "magic key" is pressed, that instead of an autoland a ghost plane is spawned slightly ahead of the players aircraft. This ghost then performs the perfect landing (even side-slipping in high crosswinds) and the pilot has to match it's descent to the threshold (where the ghost disappears) and land. The ghost would be almost transparent but could possibly indicate to the following player that, for instance, flaps were being lowered by having the flaps become more visible for a moment just before and during their transit. Or ATC talks the student down, has him/her circle until a following aircraft overtakes and guides them to the field.

It's a "pilot becomes ill, passenger takes control" kind of thing. Perhaps it could be one of a set of increasingly complex emergencies which take the place of FSX missions. 737 develops fuel leak, has to glide to landing, GA a/c gear won't come down until aircraft is bounced off the runway a few times, engine fires need to be extinguished before landing on nearest suitable road, helicopter engine out, autorotate, etc, etc.

[Hiflyer 129]

Small request, but it really is one of my pet peeves in FSX!

In mountainous regions the distortion of ground textures can very bad, to the point of being distracting! Places like the grand canyon stretch the textures so much that they basically become long, blurred straight lines that are very very unrealistic.

I am not sure if there are any corrective technology's for this, but perhaps the ground coverage could be constructed in real time for a perfect fit? (or something like that)

Just a thought.