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
Irving Grey

A new simulator (September/ October issue)

Recommended Posts

I know this is something that comes at the very end of the development, but once this sim is finished and in the stores, many new users with no FS experience would profit a lot from an easy to understand manual on basic procedures like "how to fly an ILS approach" or "how to correctly use the autopilot". Microsoft has it's pilots school for that, implemented in the FS since a few versions, but i've always found that a little too sterile. On one hand, a printed manual would be grat, on the other a media-based basic flight school, with videos, pictures and text combined.

Since I think our community needs to expand, this kind of "tutorial" as it is available for almost any usual PC game, is important to gain new users and keep them, because the danger of a flightsim is always that the novice user plays it a couple hours and then either thinks "hmm, im through with the game and it's getting boring because noone tells me what else I can do with this airplane" or he thinks "omg, how the hell do I fly this airplane, nothing is working here", gets frustrated because he naturally doesn't know how to fly planes, and throws it away...

So I think a good way of teching new users how to use the sim in an interesting and fun way is important in order to expand (think of the publicity you could use: "You want to actually learn flying? Well have a try in our Aerosoft FS 2012 Pilots school and learn to fly a plane!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find a way to load a gig of data from disk, manipulate it in memory etc, we could. But there is not a lot of progress to be expected here in the next 24 months. With the exception of solid state hard disks of course. They offer great promise in loading things faster. I do share your feeling the user should be kept informed.

Ha, I run FSX from an SSD and it still take forever (3 to 4 minutes) to load.

Of course that is probably because it has to look at the other three or four hdds of data that I have!

So I really hope that some optimisation will enable the new sim to get on with the core business of at least getting the program started even if loading flights is still slow (I have lost count of the times that I have fallen asleep waiting for things to load)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

my suggestion is to have some military/combat function in this simulator (working radar, working weapons, damages and so on) - I'm sure that is means much more customer. It doesn't means that it must be a combat sim, but if someone wants, he/she can use it this way too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very exciting!

Some requests:

Proper ATC with regional voices, e.g if taking off from EGLL and British accent controller and if landing say in Germany a German controller.

Real airport scenery for some of the major hubs

Enhanced weather

Real AI traffic with real airlines

Would these be possible?

Best wishes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs,

I'm curious about the meeting you mentioned earlier to take place on September 27th. Did it take place and if so can you share anything with us?

thanks,

steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs,

I'm curious about the meeting you mentioned earlier to take place on September 27th. Did it take place and if so can you share anything with us?

thanks,

steve

It did (and a lot of other meetings as well). The result is that we had an idea and we now have a project. Serious money is being invested at this moment. I am not cheap, nor or any of my colleagues and I am spending a serious amount of time on it right now. But it is all still aimed at informing our CEO so he can make the final call. It is a LOT of money that's involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would love for ASFS2012 to have is the Blade Element Theory flight dynamics of X-Plane. Is there any chance of this happening?

Okay, now explain me why you like this. Not in theorectical terms but in terms of how a user in 2012 might see a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cockpit builders could need some improvements.

FSX has (only) 1323 controls, which can be used for joysticks, assigned by FSUPIC.

I guess, that is sufficient for Airbus & Boeing jets, but not for multi piston engin aircrafts.

For example the PBY Catalina (one of the best aircraft addons!) was a big disappointment for me, as I planed to build a cockpit.

Many switches like Starter, Primer, Cab Heat, Cowl Gills etc. couldn't be connected to my hardware.

As they are custom programmed switches ( not using standard FSX key assignments).

Using the mouse isn't realy funny in combination with TrackIR.

This is an increasing problem, as addon aircrafts are getting more and more complex.

More default controls and keyboard commands?

There will always be an exotic switch overlooked.

So there should be a big amount of „free“ controls for addon builder, which could be used in this case.

I guess, Pete Dowson could make good suggestions, how this could be managed.

Albrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cockpit builders could need some improvements.

FSX has (only) 1323 controls, which can be used for joysticks, assigned by FSUPIC.

I guess, that is sufficient for Airbus & Boeing jets, but not for multi piston engin aircrafts.

For example the PBY Catalina (one of the best aircraft addons!) was a big disappointment for me, as I planed to build a cockpit.

Many switches like Starter, Primer, Cab Heat, Cowl Gills etc. couldn't be connected to my hardware.

As they are custom programmed switches ( not using standard FSX key assignments).

Using the mouse isn't realy funny in combination with TrackIR.

This is an increasing problem, as addon aircrafts are getting more and more complex.

More default controls and keyboard commands?

There will always be an exotic switch overlooked.

So there should be a big amount of „free" controls for addon builder, which could be used in this case.

I guess, Pete Dowson could make good suggestions, how this could be managed.

Albrecht

I totally agree with this. It would be fantastic to review the way simpits could be built in conjunction with 3rd party software.

Rhydian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs Kook did you ever played the new Need For Speed?

It is possible to put a similar head movement in this new simulator?

I think that is a good ideia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi im new here , sorry if any of the following has been said already.

i find in this day and age one of the most important parts to any game/simulator is online community. it would be rather cool to have a built in carrer mode that u complete in single player and mutliplayer that gains your rank or license.

then setting a feature in servers to allow the host to set it to ranked or unranked. for eg: u join a server with a student rank and u are restricted to aircraft such as a cessna 152 or so on and as your rank increases your planes get more advanced.

this would help in preventing people joining server and messing up a serious game where u have pro atc operations and people would spawn on the runway and do aerobatics around the tower. as well as this u could have aging aircraft in the carrier mode where u need to earn credits by completing jobs to maintain your aircraft , buying fuel , oil , new tires . or even a feature where the more u fly an aircraft the dirtier it gets ?

air refuel tankers with ability for 3rd party aircraft designers to adapt there plane to it.

a good button config with simpit builders in mind , such as controlling radios with axis pots. 1 feature i found on the xplane 9 demo was the ability to upgrade your purchase license to get dome screen support for projectors , some kind of wrap around layout would be very welcome.

and maybe animated fuel trucks and bagage loaders that u watch fueling your aircraft and loading it ?

so many ideas can be said but its early and u dont know what could be possible, but it feels good to share some ideas biggrin.gif

regards

frogger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there should be a big amount of „free“ controls for addon builder, which could be used in this case.

I guess, Pete Dowson could make good suggestions, how this could be managed.

Agreed there's a problem in FSX, but I don't think the solution should be 'more of the same'. Instead, we should start from scratch and think of a more generic solution. For example, in X-Plane, any addon can create a more or less unlimited number of new trigger type controls (known as commands over there) by simply registering new names. Any other addon (e.g. a hardware controller plugin) that knows these names can interact with these custom commands. In the same way, you can create any number of custom sim variables and state- or range-type controls, known as datarefs, that can also be shared among different addons, gauges, animations, etc. These custom commands and datarefs works exactly like their built-in counterpart - you'd never know the difference, were it not for the different naming convention (i.e. /sim/system/action for built-in commands vs. /myname/myaddon/action for custom stuff). X-Plane's solution might not be perfect either, but I think the general idea is well worth considering.

By the way, I also firmly believe that the whole FSUIPC stuff should be thrown overboard. Sure, for the short term, there needs to be a plugin or external addon that translate the sim's native interface to the FSUIPC interface, but the sim shouldn't be designed around this legacy interface.

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see is FAR BETTER looking rain than in fsx, especially on the ground (this has been done far better in other games); spots and scratches on the windows, I think you cannort fly for 10 minutes in real life without your windows looking different from the always impeccably clean fsx windows. As for aircraft quality, I am very satisfied with the A2A products: for example their Piper Cub is a real winner, especially the wind sounds and what you hear with your window or door open or closed. It also behaves very much like real, as well on the ground as in the air in a stiff breeze. I would also like to see the whole flight deck REALLY shake and vibrate when you're accelerating on a not to good runway. As for scenery, I really don't care very much to see every building as it is in reality, apart from the airports, of course; I do like to see better landscapes than we have now, especially mountains whith really sharp edges. Skies are at a very good level by now, no need to improve for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea if its mentioned already but the next idea would be great.

Dynamic change of textures:

It would be great if the ground textures and/or cloud textures could be changed depending on weather and time of day, "on-the-fly".

What I mean is a single texture set for clouds and ground which are loaded at the beginning are unrealistic. Weather can be different from city to city which changes also lighting and therefore contrast, saturation and/or even color. So a technic which can change textures during flying would be great. Probably this can be solved through layers? Masks like in Photoshop?

Just a little idea for more realism.

nice greetings

EK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to FSUIPC I totally support the fact that we should not have to rely to a 3rd party software, even as good as Pete Dowson's, for our add-ons to communicate with the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings to all,

It's absolutely essential to have as much controls as an aircraft systems demanding.

Also, it will be very useful to allow control mapping global (as in FS without FSUIPC) or completly individual for aircraft, which can make general cockipt building and using much, much easier. There's no logic for some commands to work only within jets or only within piston aircrafts, as we currenty have in FS. FSUIPC provides such a way for command setting, but in way not as useful as it had to be - i.e. this should be made this way: there are two command maps. One that is global and related to all aircrafts and the other local, per aircraft, which is individual and as such, completly independent from the global mappings.

As a developer, I would like to see the possibility to export a finished, textured model alltogether with the single texture map from the Google SketchUp Pro, 3D modelling software WAY EASIER compared to all other tools. This would be a major relief for freeware developers enthusiast, even though a SketchUp pro isn't free.

Secondly, SDK should be usable out of the box, without needing to buy bunch of third party tools, just to use WYSIWYG scenery creating. Runway and taxiway texturing (with random or textured skidmarks) which allowes us to use custom textures (in FS, you gotta be a wizard to do that).

For last, but not the least, excluding a stock airport should be much easier than in FS (hint: easy as removing a check-sign within a Scenery Library list is just enough).

That's it, for now. ;)

Keep the good work!

Best regards,

Dragan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 8 & 9 are getting 128-bit kernels.

Yeah, right. There's just one tiny little problem: there is no such thing as 128 bit CPUs - and there probably won't be any anytime soon. In a time where the majority of developers (including Microsoft with their OS, by the way) are still struggling to make the 64 bit transition, for lack of compelling reasons, what would be the sense in 128 bit? As such, Windows 8 & 9 would be the first operating systems unable to run on any computer available at release. That's just ridiculous.

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. There's just one tiny little problem: there is no such thing as 128 bit CPUs - and there probably won't be any anytime soon. In a time where the majority of developers (including Microsoft with their OS, by the way) are still struggling to make the 64 bit transition, for lack of compelling reasons, what would be the sense in 128 bit? As such, Windows 8 & 9 would be the first operating systems unable to run on any computer available at release. That's just ridiculous.

Judith

On the other hand, FSX was unable to run on any computer available at release so it wouldn't be unprecedented for Microsoft.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :rolleyes:

Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not mind, paying a monthly subscription for the future Aerosoft simulator while getting frequent updates on EVERYTHING, Sim engine, sceneries, aircrafts, service packs, weather, AIRAC, AFCADS, also including online experiense capabilities as a replacement to IVAO/VATSIM to an Aerosoft online system, that meets and expands the abilities of formentioned networks.

There are people who paying that fee for (in my opinion inferior in quality) systems like WOW and the like..

How about that?

Nick Poulis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a inclusion of old AE addons would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs, first of all, this is a superb idea, i hope you go ahead with this and i think it is obvious you will have alot of support from us loyal fans and customers. Without going into a huge list, i have a few simple suggestions of what i would love to see in a new sim from you.

1: first of all, don't worry about trying to dissassociate this from FSX, aslong as you improve on it i don't mind if the interface and layout is exactly the same ;)

2: sensce of speed, this is something that usually lacks in flight sims imo, i generally fly only military jets (usually your superb F-16) and i like to fly low and fast. The sence of speed generally isn't as fast as it should be and i would love to see this change if at all possible.

3: Formation flying, this is one of my main loves in flight sims, you can't beat trying to perfect formation flying. It is possible in FSX but it is far from perfect, i think weve all experienced other aircraft bouncing around in the sky when you get too close, this will have to be corrected.

4: frame rates, the obvious one. As much as possible this needs to be user friendly, i have a high end pc and i can't run FSX anywhere near it's highest settings without it turning into a slide show.

5: scenery: Probably the most important thing, FSX has very poor scenery for the most part imo, If you could get yours somewhere close to the quality of VFR Gen X i will cry with joy. Of course considering point number 4 that is probably asking for alot :)

6: finally.... Please let me keep using my F-16 in your new sim, i love that bird :)

We are demanding customers indeed, but i wish you all the best for this project should you decide to go ahead with it, i would be very greatfull also if any of my suggestions were considered.

Best regards, Matt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I like your approach to the flight model. That alone is very exciting.

First and a half! - Please take as constructive info only, I assume you are more knowledgeable and probably much smarter than I am, and I don't mean to tell you anything you don't know. So please excuse any potentially offensive or obvious, or wrong statements. I come in peace! (can you tell I don't post very much?)

Second, I'm sure you are probably doing or planning some form of this, but for the sake of discussion, talking with existing third party developers (for FS9, FSX, Xplane,etc.) who have had to work AROUND the given framework in order to do more realistic modeling, would seem essential.

The idea of course would be to avoid work-arounds where reasonably possible and advantageous, and actually support more functionality, in order to provide increased stability and better integration between subsystems as well as accurate dependent functionality such as playback.

For instance, PMDG aircraft (and developers) have to jump through hoops to use FS for the required level of modeling, possibly because FS does not have as fine-grained an API as is needed or does not have an FMS/Autoflight framework that is flexible enough that it can support third party implementations (I am guessing on the reasons they have to jump through hoops). The result is that flight management and autoflight and flexible lighting and other things have to be coded to run 'outside' the framework, with only the resulting visual information sent to FS in those particular cases. Or something close to that.

This is especially evident in the FS playback mechanism, where certain states of internal (and hence visual) model elements (FMS/AP, etc.) do not all play back for a specific third party aircraft, such as the flap positions/changes, instrument display of speed and altitude, EFIS data, ND data, warning/voice events, lighting events, wing flex events, and others. As an example, try playback on the landing of PMDG's MD-11. Watch the instruments and outside animations. Many of them keep the value/position/state that they had when you stopped live simulation (on the ground somewhere) or some other state, instead of the changing states as they occurred in live simulation. This is an FS problem, not PMDG's.

Every high level add-on aircraft that I have used will fail to playback at least one if not many of these state changes as they occurred in the original flight. This makes it difficult to properly study the flight, and limits the degree of educational and recreational feedback available with playback. This is apparently because of the fact that FS will only playback events/states that are implemented using the FS architecture/API as FS expects that event/state to be implemented, which in some cases, is inadequate for the level of realistic modeling being attempted.

Anything that requires a such an implementation might not be recorded by FS, and hence cannot be replayed. I am sure that other things are affected as well, such that well-known dependencies have to be custom coded outside of the framework.

One idea, just for illustration: where the future framework does not implement replay of an add-on event as needed, use customizable recorded events, so that a given product can define its own events for recording and and thus receive those events back during replay. This would give third parties the ability to replay things that the framework does not inherently model or recognize or record. This could potentially be used by any add-on: aircraft, weather generator, weather renderer, generator of animated objects such as weapons and dropped water, ATC messages, etc. Imagine trying to understand why something happened without all the visuals that you originally had.

The database would of course have to support a generic recordable event of some sort in this particular implementation. The API would allow triggering the recording of custom events during live simulation and the framework sending the same event cues to the originator during replay. In essence, during the live simulation the add-on would be saying "record this as I define it, you don't have to make sense of it", and on replay the framework would say to the add-on, "you sent me 'this' at this point in time, do with it as you will".

Playback is not the only area potentially affected by extra-framework implementation. A well-designed flight management and autoflight system sub-framework, if feasible, or say, three of them for three major categories of such systems (Smiths Airbus, Honeywell, Boeing, whatever, I am ignorant in the specifics), would open up the modeling of more sophisticated systems to more people, as well as provide more stability for future professional-level add-ons by reducing the amount of custom non-framework implementation, and result in a flight simulation framework that really knows more about the 'ecosystem' of a modern airliner.

Ummm.. ok, this was wordy, but there is a point in there somewhere LOL! Seriously though, you know this, you have the opportunity to learn from FS shortcomings and the current add-on development community's knowledge of them. A truly extensible framework (look at Eclipse) would let you maintain an open environment. Making it flexible in the right places in the right manner is the hard part, as you know I'm sure. What I am saying is, look at the reasons for playback non-functionality in FS. Look at how much you can generalize the various avionic subsystems, possibly with a few well-chosen categories of the existing real world subsystems.

Anyway, your potential product is exciting to think about, as is your approach and the fact that you are expecting to spend LOTS of money at an early stage (I'm a 25-yr development veteran).

Good stuff. I'm looking forward to it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...