A new simulator (July / August issue)

[HeikoB 3]

Hi,

interessing thread, here my suggestions/recommendations.

Introduce campaigns / career paths

FSX Free Flight option is 25 years old.

To be financially successfull, you also have to attract 'Joe average Simmer'. Many friends of mine quickly lost interest in FS because there was no goal in flightsimming and no path how to get there. Many simmers even do not know where to fly, how should they? Which route/airport is interessting and why? Add-Ons like FSPassengers, Air Hauler and virtual airlines address this missing aspect of a 'simulation'. Why does every real world pilot claim "I have 2500 hours in a 737, I'm type-rated in A320". A strong foundation for a rewarding system should be in the core product itself!

Visual presentation of the User Interface

FSX UI is 25 years old.

Very important! Why does microsoft design 50+ detailed airports in FSX but does not motivate the simmer to explore them? Why are there no detailed information about airplanes before starting a flight? Why are airplanes modelled externally in superb detail and I can't even do a pre-flight inspection?

There are millions of ideas how to improve the 'user experience' without transforming a flight simulator to a game...

Regards,

Heiko

[BPL 39]

Hi,

interessing thread, here my suggestions/recommendations.

Introduce campaigns / career paths

FSX Free Flight option is 25 years old.

To be financially successfull, you also have to attract 'Joe average Simmer'. Many friends of mine quickly lost interest in FS because there was no goal in flightsimming and no path how to get there. Many simmers even do not know where to fly, how should they? Which route/airport is interessting and why? Add-Ons like FSPassengers, Air Hauler and virtual airlines address this missing aspect of a 'simulation'. Why does every real world pilot claim "I have 2500 hours in a 737, I'm type-rated in A320". A strong foundation for a rewarding system should be in the core product itself!

Visual presentation of the User Interface

FSX UI is 25 years old.

Very important! Why does microsoft design 50+ detailed airports in FSX but does not motivate the simmer to explore them? Why are there no detailed information about airplanes before starting a flight? Why are airplanes modelled externally in superb detail and I can't even do a pre-flight inspection?

There are millions of ideas how to improve the 'user experience' without transforming a flight simulator to a game...

Regards,

Heiko

Very good point. I think some people are so afraid of turning the new sim into a game, that they will leave out some realistic aspects and keep the sim very basic (boring), in order to keep it from becoming a game. I love the pre-flight inspection idea; this is totally realistic and would be a great feature, but there are probably some out there who wouldn't want it because they think it's too much like a game. I'm not saying that the sim should be a game; I'm just saying let's not get carried away with our "game phobia" and make something very boring.

[LufthansaPilot 4]

Hi,

One of the important thing in a Flight sim are the different cloud themes, because you spent the most time in the sky. Therefore stunnishing clouds would be very much appreciated.

We'd like to see more cloud themes not only Stratus, Cirrus and Cumulus clouds.

Please Make:

1. 
   
   
2. Mammatus Clouds,
   
3. Cirrostratus,
   
4. Altostratus,
   
5. Stratocumulus,
   
6. Cumulonimbus (Capillatus),
   
7. Lenticularis,
   
8. Cirrusspisatus,
   
9. fibratus,
   
10. And Hell yea we would like to see an Arcus clouds,
    
11. Visibility of Praecipitatio (and Virga Clouds) on rainy days please.
    

[Hiflyer 129]

Very good point. I think some people are so afraid of turning the new sim into a game, that they will leave out some realistic aspects and keep the sim very basic (boring), in order to keep it from becoming a game. I love the pre-flight inspection idea; this is totally realistic and would be a great feature, but there are probably some out there who wouldn't want it because they think it's too much like a game. I'm not saying that the sim should be a game; I'm just saying let's not get carried away with our "game phobia" and make something very boring.

I have noticed that tendency too.

The problem is that flight Sims (except for the arcade variety) are nearly a dead market for a reason! I remember some fighter simulations with manuals big as small dictionary's, with page after page just to describe the various radar settings. Joe, super-simmer loved it of course, but never seemed to realize that the people that wanted that sort of thing were so niche as to barely be profitable, especially considering all the research, money and time that was poured into the Sim just so somebody could announce that the radar mode did not include some tiny little setting and until it did, the whole Sim sucked.......

Pop! Goes the Sim-market.

MS succeeded by trying to balance the two extremes (games and super-sims) And it can be argued that they succeeded, since they are almost the only ones left standing as a viable mass-market platform. I understand the desire of the pilots and aspiring pilots to fly the Boeing simulator in their living rooms, but if Aerosoft somehow manages to forget the Joe-average casual simmers.........

This new Sim would probably become just as arcane and niche as Falcon or XPLANE.

[Busterbvi 0]

Greetings to the forum once again.

I have been keenly following this thread from the start and I find the broad spectrum of ideas put forward to be quite interesting. I posted a few of my own

earlier on and would like to add a few more.

1/ My biggest peeve in FS9 & FSX is what happens in "spot view". Essentialy I only use two views, 2D cockpit and spot. I like to do a lot of low level stuff

in fast jets and in flight I set spot view to just above the port or stbd aft quarter of the aircraft after I have set my speed and trim. Every damn time, the chosen

view point changes on its own accord and moves around the plane causing hasty fiddling with the HAT and TRIM switches to keep the plane & view point steady.

All to often the plane appears to go out of controll (usually vertical) and sometimes the view will pan right through the plane showing it innards ! I find this more

than frustrating. I feel very strongly that once your plane is set up in 2D cockpit view, nothing should change when spot view is chosen unless there is input from

the controller. This problem really is ruining my enjoyment of flight simming so if anyone knows how to "lock" spot view, PLEASE let me know. I am not sure I have

explained this problem very well and I hope I am being understood here. As I said before, I feel that the views offered in FS9 are quite adequate and if spot view

could be locked at a chosen point, you could do away with the unesesary external views found in FSX that take too long to load.

2/ In an effort to have all the desired functions of flight on the controller, I have the "map" assigned to a button and one click brings it up but to clear it one

has to mouse over and click "OK". Can we have click on/click off with one button for the map when we want to quickly check our position. ??

3/ I would like to see a new simm more GPU dependant. There are some awesome cards out there right now so why not support SLI & Crossfire and take full

advantage of the huge leaps that are being made with graphics right now.

4/ Earlier in this thread I posted a request for a combined flight and combat simm, I note the concerns raised that hackers could find a way in and shoot you down.

I dont see this as a legitimate concern because .... A/ They couldn't do it unless you are on line simming with friends on a network. B/ I am sure that risk already exists.

C/ It shouldn't be difficult to block it. I would love to have a " FLIGHT OR FIGHT " simm purely to have the option of choosing a plane from my hangar and fly it how it

is designed to be flown and used, I.E, fly a 767 from point A to point B or fly a Tornado from point A, attack & destroy things and then back to point A. Only within the confines

of your own personal single simm. With todays technology with graphics and the quality of the add ons that are coming out from Aerosoft Etc, I think it would be quite

awesome indeed but leave out stuff like "Missions" and other unesesary eye candy stuff that might cause it to labelled a game ! Keep it simple with the emphasis on quality

options not quantity of options.

Busterbvi.

"Thy shall maintain thyne airspeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee"

[flyingsub 7]

Greetings to the forum once again.

4/ Earlier in this thread I posted a request for a combined flight and combat simm, I note the concerns raised that hackers could find a way in and shoot you down.

I dont see this as a legitimate concern because .... A/ They couldn't do it unless you are on line simming with friends on a network. B/ I am sure that risk already exists.

C/ It shouldn't be difficult to block it. I would love to have a " FLIGHT OR FIGHT " simm purely to have the option of choosing a plane from my hangar and fly it how it

is designed to be flown and used, I.E, fly a 767 from point A to point B or fly a Tornado from point A, attack & destroy things and then to point

Busterbvi.

"Thy shall maintain thyne airpeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee"

You could turn this negative concern into a great experience. As an attack could only happen online, then one could have a virtual RAF/USAF etc to defend the virtual skies so when an intruder turns up, other players can scramble to defend the airliner, could be fun.

[BPL 39]

Let me add to my previous post. I definitely do not believe that extra features should be added at the expense of realism. I am a firm believer in realism to the highest possible degree. But I also don't believe that we have to make the sim basic and boring in order for it to be realistic. I also have no problem with leaving some things to add on developers, but some features need to be included because no add on developer will bother to make them. I think it would be nice if Aerosoft would include some unique default planes that no add on developer would bother to make. For example, when was the last time you saw an add on for a Piper J-4 Cub Coupe? See what I mean. Another thing that was unfortunately left out of FSX was biplanes. Please include one.

[mikkel 63]

Hello,

Mathijs, very nice interview with FSBreak! It seems like you will be able to pull of an excellent simulator, if you get a green light.

Some ideas:

- Have you thought about using ID-tech 5, or a similar engine. I've seen some of the demonstrations, and I would think that it could be an excellent visual engine for a future-gen flight simulator.

- The landscape/scenery tools should make it impossible to make a totally hard edge. If textures and surfaces blend, the realism will increase quite a lot, I believe.

- The landscape textures or elements, should not really be textures, but a kind of object, with procedural textures/displacements, included on-board objects; like trees, cottages, city blocks or whatever is needed to represent different areas, i guess such a system would behave very much like the auto-gen in FSX, but I belive it should be done like 3d tiles that are streched over the topographic map. Maybe these blocks should lack roads?

- These "blocks" should be intelligent enough to adapt to streetmaps and landclass data. It should be able to place buildings, lights, trees and appropriate textures around the roads. Today, the roads just cut into the textures.

- The textures and landclass data should be design to the same level as ORBX. With a lot of different local flavors, to both buildings and landscapetextures.

Just some ideas.

Best regards,

Mikkel E.

[BPL 39]

- These "blocks" should be intelligent enough to adapt to streetmaps and landclass data. It should be able to place buildings, lights, trees and appropriate textures around the roads. Today, the roads just cut into the textures.

Good point. In FSX the ground textures have fake roads, and only the major roads are accurately represented. With an add on like Ultimate Terrain X all roads can be shown, but in urban areas the minor roads clash with the fake roads in the textures. You have to turn the minor roads in urban areas off in order to avoid this. I think fake roads should be done away with, and all roads, major and minor, should be represented with their own separate textures; instead of having fake roads randomly scattered across the scenery.

[mikkel 63]

Another idea. It would be interesting to have an integrated intelligent automated pushback truck at the gates, that push you the right way and at to the right place without any intervention. For virtual airline pilots, virtual ground crews would also be nice, that operate the external passenger and cargo doors, according to the departure times given on the pre-flight-plan. These functions would eliminated the feeling of playing by yourself at the gates, and generate a more immersive experience when flying online, or with ATC.

By the way. A Mac version would be really nice, you know, a lot of media professionals and musicians are very interested in flying.

[wyoming 2]

Good point. In FSX the ground textures have fake roads, and only the major roads are accurately represented. With an add on like Ultimate Terrain X all roads can be shown, but in urban areas the minor roads clash with the fake roads in the textures. You have to turn the minor roads in urban areas off in order to avoid this. I think fake roads should be done away with, and all roads, major and minor, should be represented with their own separate textures; instead of having fake roads randomly scattered across the scenery.

In my small case, I work the pattern I fly in rw and I need my landmarks and stuff the way they are. Which means Tileproxy.

[wyoming 2]

Hi,

One of the important thing in a Flight sim are the different cloud themes, because you spent the most time in the sky. Therefore stunnishing clouds would be very much appreciated.

We'd like to see more cloud themes not only Stratus, Cirrus and Cumulus clouds.

Please Make:

1. 
   
2. Mammatus Clouds,
   
3. Cirrostratus,
   
4. Altostratus,
   
5. Stratocumulus,
   
6. Cumulonimbus (Capillatus),
   
7. Lenticularis,
   
8. Cirrusspisatus,
   
9. fibratus,
10. And Hell yea we would like to see an Arcus clouds,
11. Visibility of Praecipitatio (and Virga Clouds) on rainy days please.

I had this idea a while back to use a mesh to reproduce solid layers (Stratus) rather than objects.

[wyoming 2]

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.

Always hated this "underwater" look in FS. I seem to recall that Fly! was better at it.

Perhaps wasting the squares and using triangles would be enough?

[Hiflyer 129]

Another quick idea.

I was watching the kids play grand theft auto recently and noticed the very clever ways that distant objects gradually appeared or faded into view, rather than the way FSX tends to abruptly "pop" objects into view which can catch the eye, distractingly.

I suspect that console games use these techniques to keep within the lower texture memory constraints of the consoles, but I also think that sometimes having to work with less can force people to be more creative.

If you watch a game like Grand Theft Auto, it seems there are tons of small, clever graphical tricks occurring to make a fairly limited world seem limitless, and I think borrowing some of those techniques would probably enhance a flight Sim very much, especially some of the very aggressive LOD that allows what appear to a be ton of objects on screen without that necessarily actually being the case.

[Dan2152 0]

In my opinion the default aircraft need to be of a much higher standard which will give people a lot more of a challenge so that you dont get bored so quickly, if this means sacrificing a few of aircraft so that there are fewer but better default aircraft than FSX, please do it because it annoyed me when i got bored of some of the fsx default aircraft within 1 flight.

[Saikrishna 0]

In my opinion the default aircraft need to be of a much higher standard which will give people a lot more of a challenge so that you dont get bored so quickly, if this means sacrificing a few of aircraft so that there are fewer but better default aircraft than FSX, please do it because it annoyed me when i got bored of some of the fsx default aircraft within 1 flight.

Fully agree.

Also, include more switches in the default ones than FSX. I hated the fact that only some switches were included, just enough for flying it.

Off-topic: Does anybody know how to work the autobrakes in A321 as I can't find the switches?

[BPL 39]

In my opinion the default aircraft need to be of a much higher standard which will give people a lot more of a challenge so that you dont get bored so quickly, if this means sacrificing a few of aircraft so that there are fewer but better default aircraft than FSX, please do it because it annoyed me when i got bored of some of the fsx default aircraft within 1 flight.

I also agree. It's very annoying that FSX doesn't have any really good default aircraft. If you want high quality aircraft, you have to buy add ons. This shouldn't be the case with the new sim. Personally, I hope the new sim will feel complete right out of the box. I don't like having to buy tons of add ons in order for FS to feel complete. I love having the option of buying add ons, but I personally don't care for the "base package" theory.

[Dan2152 0]

I also agree. It's very annoying that FSX doesn't have any really good default aircraft. If you want high quality aircraft, you have to buy add ons. This shouldn't be the case with the new sim. Personally, I hope the new sim will feel complete right out of the box. I don't like having to buy tons of add ons in order for FS to feel complete. I love having the option of buying add ons, but I personally don't care for the "base package" theory.

Understandably though they may wish to reserve the better of their aircraft as payware add ons because they will bring in the money for them as people want more advanced aircraft. However it does not stop aerosoft putting in some high quality default aircraft so that people will know what to expect standard wise from aerosofts add-ons.

[Minuteman 0]

Introduce campaigns / career paths

FSX Free Flight option is 25 years old.

To be financially successfull, you also have to attract 'Joe average Simmer'. Many friends of mine quickly lost interest in FS because there was no goal in flightsimming and no path how to get there. Many simmers even do not know where to fly, how should they? Which route/airport is interessting and why? Add-Ons like FSPassengers, Air Hauler and virtual airlines address this missing aspect of a 'simulation'. Why does every real world pilot claim "I have 2500 hours in a 737, I'm type-rated in A320". A strong foundation for a rewarding system should be in the core product itself!

I couldn't agree more...even for me as a "hardcore simmer", I like to have things to do. A simulator on its own is just boring after a period, and add-ons are too often "empty shells".

[RojanTrojan 11]

In my opinion the default aircraft need to be of a much higher standard which will give people a lot more of a challenge so that you dont get bored so quickly, if this means sacrificing a few of aircraft so that there are fewer but better default aircraft than FSX, please do it because it annoyed me when i got bored of some of the fsx default aircraft within 1 flight.

Totally and utterly agree with this comment. I think X-plane suffers from this problem and Austin Meyer was questioned about it in his interview on FSBreak podcast. He refuses to budge on it (his simulator, his choice) but I think it make the sim look unpolished and incomplete. The default MSFS aircraft also suffer from this feeling of a rushed model and airfile. Bar a couple of exceptions it seems qauntity has won over quality. Simulators like Fly! felt like a breath of fresh air in comparison. Their systems modelling and attention to detail were fantastic. IMHO they were a labour of love - in fact the whole simulator felt like that. No wonder PMDG chose it for their first offerings. Doesn't that tell you something?

Just my two pounds worth (not a lot these days!)

Rhydian

[Arista 64]

Simulators like Fly! felt like a breath of fresh air in comparison. Their systems modelling and attention to detail were fantastic. IMHO they were a labour of love - in fact the whole simulator felt like that.

I couldn't agree more. I'd so love to see that philosophy again in a flight sim. You already felt that love for detail even before you had installed that sim: in a time when it has long gone out of fashion, Fly! came with a printed manual. Which was quite a good read, too, by the way.

Judith

[BPL 39]

I couldn't agree more. I'd so love to see that philosophy again in a flight sim. You already felt that love for detail even before you had installed that sim: in a time when it has long gone out of fashion, Fly! came with a printed manual. Which was quite a good read, too, by the way.

Judith

Unfortunately, I never experienced Fly! since I was very young then (I'm only 16 now), but I can say that I love printed manuals. I was very excited when I got Rise of Flight and pulled out the printed manual and map. Personally, I think that the exclusion of a printed manual is one of the biggest mistakes ever made in the universe. Sure you can print it, but who wants to waste ink printing something that should have been printed in the first place. I think a printed manual gives a sim a complete, professional feeling; not the feeling that the developer is trying to save money and cut corners wherever possible. I love it when a sim feels complete right out of the box, and I think that Flight Simulator and X-Plane fail in this department.

[RojanTrojan 11]

I couldn't agree more. I'd so love to see that philosophy again in a flight sim. You already felt that love for detail even before you had installed that sim: in a time when it has long gone out of fashion, Fly! came with a printed manual. Which was quite a good read, too, by the way.

Judith

Hi Judith,

Surprisingly I'm reading the manual right now. It's a little more geared toward the US market but despite that it really puts things in layman terms. Actually I'm using it as bit of light reading when i'm not reading my PPL(A) Flying Training pilot license Book.

Rhydian

[BlackWidow 0]

As a simppit builder I would like to see the ability to use mulitple copies of the sim over a network so that guages could be displayed on one PC and the outside view on antoher PC.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I have noticed that tendency too.

The problem is that flight Sims (except for the arcade variety) are nearly a dead market for a reason! I remember some fighter simulations with manuals big as small dictionary's, with page after page just to describe the various radar settings. Joe, super-simmer loved it of course, but never seemed to realize that the people that wanted that sort of thing were so niche as to barely be profitable, especially considering all the research, money and time that was poured into the Sim just so somebody could announce that the radar mode did not include some tiny little setting and until it did, the whole Sim sucked.......

I beg to differ. Just check our Rise of Flight and see how much progress has been made in in the last few years. And believe me, customers are buying that one.

Of course it is a WWI sim and for that aspect the systems are relatively simple but a wing is a wing and when I brush a tree with one wing tip and feel the aircraft yaw to one site I know I am seeing something not seen before. I agree there is no place for a 99.0% realistic F-16 sim as you would need to be a F-16 pilot to use it. I certainly LOVE helicopter sims but I gave up on Black Shark, I just do not have the time to understand the systems (and those Russian systems are complex like nothing else). I am sure there are people who love it, but I doubt there are enough to make it commercial big success. I am also sure it is a cracking good sim.