Current Status

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs, can you comment on the 'approach' that Aerosoft is going to take in regards to the realism/physical side of the simulator, in regards to flight dynamics etc.? I, for one, would much rather see the foundations of the simulator done fantastically, physics engine, with only a single, very well done, aircraft; making it an excellent platform to for third-party developers, as well as Aerosoft, to expand upon.

Complex and potentially controversial issue. I will open a specific topic on that soon. But let me make a few comments.

There are of course two approaches to this issue. The way FSX does it (where the visual model has no influence on the flight model) or the way Xplane does it (where the visual model IS the flight model). Both got serious good points and problems. Take for example the Xplane approach. If you do not have very serious information on the aircraft you can never do a serious model and when you call around to get info on the wing profile of the Airbus 380 or the Euro Fighter you do not expect an answer right? So though sound in idea there are issues there. FSX has potentially even more issue as a table based model has problems when you get to the edge of the flight envelope. Do an inverted spin in FSX and you know what I mean. FSX just does not do that. Xplane also has serious issues. I got 500 hours in a Super Cub and know for a fact that FSX has better flightmodels for that one then Xplane has. Perhaps because nobody cared but for every aircraft I personally flown I can get a better 'feel' in FSX then in Xplane, even though I know the base for Xplane is far more advanced and solid. Clearly we got an issue there.

We do have a nice alternative though. We just love the flight modeling of Rise of Flight. It's a cross between the two and it is totally amazing when seen in the limited aircraft available now. It does not have the 'dead' feeling I dislike in Xplane and it does not have the silly stuff FSX has. To a pilot flying aircraft of the same weight and power as in that sim it just feels 'right'. But we have not seen this flight modeling extended to larger faster aircraft. There it bumps into Airline Simulator 3 that has some very serious flight modeling. One thing is for sure, we know FSX and that's just good enough.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I would like to ask one thing if I may be so bold. Could you make a version of your Sim to run on Mac OSX (please). This would mean using no DirectX (for the Mac version at least).

Sorry but no. It would mean dropping a huge amount of options, increase expenses a lot to gain another 5% of market share. Just makes no sense. Check out what DX11 can do and you understand. Get a modern Mac and you will be able to run this in the way all Windows games work....

[Basss 2]

Great news!

Mathijs can i make a preorder? ) Thx

[BPL 39]

Mathijs, can you comment on the 'approach' that Aerosoft is going to take in regards to the realism/physical side of the simulator, in regards to flight dynamics etc.? I, for one, would much rather see the foundations of the simulator done fantastically, physics engine, with only a single, very well done, aircraft; making it an excellent platform to for third-party developers, as well as Aerosoft, to expand upon.

Not a bad idea, but what aircraft would you model? That could be very controversial.

Complex and potentially controversial issue. I will open a specific topic on that soon. But let me make a few comments.

There are of course two approaches to this issue. The way FSX does it (where the visual model has no influence on the flight model) or the way Xplane does it (where the visual model IS the flight model). Both got serious good points and problems. Take for example the Xplane approach. If you do not have very serious information on the aircraft you can never do a serious model and when you call around to get info on the wing profile of the Airbus 380 or the Euro Fighter you do not expect an answer right? So though sound in idea there are issues there. FSX has potentially even more issue as a table based model has problems when you get to the edge of the flight envelope. Do an inverted spin in FSX and you know what I mean. FSX just does not do that. Xplane also has serious issues. I got 500 hours in a Super Cub and know for a fact that FSX has better flightmodels for that one then Xplane has. Perhaps because nobody cared but for every aircraft I personally flown I can get a better 'feel' in FSX then in Xplane, even though I know the base for Xplane is far more advanced and solid. Clearly we got an issue there.

We do have a nice alternative though. We just love the flight modeling of Rise of Flight. It's a cross between the two and it is totally amazing when seen in the limited aircraft available now. It does not have the 'dead' feeling I dislike in Xplane and it does not have the silly stuff FSX has. To a pilot flying aircraft of the same weight and power as in that sim it just feels 'right'. But we have not seen this flight modeling extended to larger faster aircraft. There it bumps into Airline Simulator 3 that has some very serious flight modeling. One thing is for sure, we know FSX and that's just good enough.

I totally agree with this, Mathijs. The flight modeling in RoF is the best I've ever seen. It's as if they took the best of FSX and X-Plane flight models and combined them. X-Plane does indeed feel "dead," and, to me, the planes in FSX feel as if they're on rails. I don't think y'all can go wrong if you take the RoF flight model approach.

[harvesl 0]

Complex and potentially controversial issue. I will open a specific topic on that soon. But let me make a few comments.

There are of course two approaches to this issue. The way FSX does it (where the visual model has no influence on the flight model) or the way Xplane does it (where the visual model IS the flight model). Both got serious good points and problems. Take for example the Xplane approach. If you do not have very serious information on the aircraft you can never do a serious model and when you call around to get info on the wing profile of the Airbus 380 or the Euro Fighter you do not expect an answer right? So though sound in idea there are issues there. FSX has potentially even more issue as a table based model has problems when you get to the edge of the flight envelope. Do an inverted spin in FSX and you know what I mean. FSX just does not do that. Xplane also has serious issues. I got 500 hours in a Super Cub and know for a fact that FSX has better flightmodels for that one then Xplane has. Perhaps because nobody cared but for every aircraft I personally flown I can get a better 'feel' in FSX then in Xplane, even though I know the base for Xplane is far more advanced and solid. Clearly we got an issue there.

We do have a nice alternative though. We just love the flight modeling of Rise of Flight. It's a cross between the two and it is totally amazing when seen in the limited aircraft available now. It does not have the 'dead' feeling I dislike in Xplane and it does not have the silly stuff FSX has. To a pilot flying aircraft of the same weight and power as in that sim it just feels 'right'. But we have not seen this flight modeling extended to larger faster aircraft. There it bumps into Airline Simulator 3 that has some very serious flight modeling. One thing is for sure, we know FSX and that's just good enough.

Thanks Mathijs, it sounds like a good idea, combining the two aspects of X-Plane and FS9/FSX to make an overall better system.

Not a bad idea, but what aircraft would you model? That could be very controversial.

I totally agree with this, Mathijs. The flight modeling in RoF is the best I've ever seen. It's as if they took the best of FSX and X-Plane flight models and combined them. X-Plane does indeed feel "dead," and, to me, the planes in FSX feel as if they're on rails. I don't think y'all can go wrong if you take the RoF flight model approach.

For the purpose of not spending a lot of time on the 'content', such as aircraft, I'd say model a Seneca/Diamond Twin Star extremely well.

[empeck 0]

Pete, we will only use the latest versions of all tools at this moment. In all aspects we want this project to be ready for the future so we got no choice but to use the most modern stuff. We fully understand this will make problems for amateurs etc but there is just no way around that if we want to a serious project. If you think you got any knowledge I can tap into send me a mail on support@aerosoft.com.

Remember there are plenty of freeware, and small groups of payware designers who can't afford 3dsMAX. Without freeware designers FS9 wouldn't be as successful as it is. There are much less freeware developers in FSX world, and that is it's big problem. Without freeware/cheap tools you'll be limiting yourself to big groups of payware devs, and they are not able to deliver as many planes/sceneries as freeware and payware developers combined. I think the best way is to give your community tools for high-end 3d packages like 3dsMAX, but remember about alternatives. I'm not thinking about Gmax here, because it's obsolete, and obviously unsupported (I was surprised when MS released Gmax plugins for FSX), but there are alternatives like Blender, freeware Softimage Mod Tool, or cheap 3d programs like 3dCanvas (used in trainsim communities).

There are exporters from Blender and Softimage to modern FPS games (like Crysis, Unreal Engine 3 and more). If these tools are good for high-end FPS games I believe they are good for your simulator. These programs are just content creators. You can make high-end object without 3dsMAX 2010 anyway.

[BPL 39]

For the purpose of not spending a lot of time on the 'content', such as aircraft, I'd say model a Seneca/Diamond Twin Star extremely well.

This illustrates my point, though. Not everyone would be satisfied with a Seneca/Diamond Twin Star (I know I wouldn't. I'm more of a Piper Cub guy.). As I said, it's not a bad idea, but few people would be satisfied. I'm not saying you can please everybody, but this would please very few.

[Austin 0]

I would really like to see a good quality private jet in this simulator as well as a good quality VLJ. I think you guys should include a gulfstream of some sort or a mid-sized citation. A good VLJ is the citation mustang and have flown it a couple of times too. I can get plenty of pictures of private jets especially Cessna Citation's if that could be any help.

Thanks

Austin

[harvesl 0]

This illustrates my point, though. Not everyone would be satisfied with a Seneca/Diamond Twin Star (I know I wouldn't. I'm more of a Piper Cub guy.). As I said, it's not a bad idea, but few people would be satisfied. I'm not saying you can please everybody, but this would please very few.

At the end of the day, trying to make even ten aircraft for AFS2012 is going to be a tall-order. I'd much rather see any single aircraft modelled extremely well, showing off what the simulator is capable of, as opposed to 5-10 simple aircraft that people won't want to fly, until 3rd party developers have intervened.

[harvesl 0]

I would really like to see a good quality private jet in this simulator as well as a good quality VLJ. I think you guys should include a gulfstream of some sort or a mid-sized citation. A good VLJ is the citation mustang and have flown it a couple of times too. I can get plenty of pictures of private jets especially Cessna Citation's if that could be any help.

Thanks

Austin

A "good quality" private jet, such as the Citation, can take years to do, I just don't think their time is best invested making something that can be done once the simulator is released.

[Austin 0]

A "good quality" private jet, such as the Citation, can take years to do, I just don't think their time is best invested making something that can be done once the simulator is released.

Yes that is true but in one of the other form topics they were asking about defalt airplane ideas and that discussion is closed so I posted it here. Its just an idea to help with the sim.

[BPL 39]

At the end of the day, trying to make even ten aircraft for AFS2012 is going to be a tall-order. I'd much rather see any single aircraft modelled extremely well, showing off what the simulator is capable of, as opposed to 5-10 simple aircraft that people won't want to fly, until 3rd party developers have intervened.

I was just saying that it would be hard to decide what aircraft to do. Obviously, aircraft of FSX default standards would not be acceptable. But you can't satisfy a huge community of simmers by averaging all the aircraft that they fly. I don't enjoy flying aircraft like Senecas or Twin Stars, and people who like to fly airliners aren't going to enjoy it either. In that case, I would still be waiting for third party developers to intervene, and so would lots of other simmers. Also, beginners are going to have a very hard time flying a Seneca or Twin Star, and most beginners aren't going to be interested in buying payware aircraft, either. This wouldn't be very encouraging to them. But, if you were to satisfy beginners and people like me who just enjoy low and slow aircraft more by making something like a Cub or a Cessna 172, you're still going to disappoint a lot of people.

Mathijs, what are your thoughts on this?

[Waleed 29]

I hope I am not causing a headache with this idea, but I thought I might give it a try:

Reading someone's post regarding a trip from Nice to Monaco by chopper, I figured it would be great "IF" it would be viable to switch aircraft without having to exit the sim, or having to go through the menu window to change everything around. Perhaps a way to choose two aircraft at different locations at once. That way, when arriving at the initial airport, push one button and move on to the next flight and craft.

I know it sounds and probably is a headache for a programmer to deal with, but perhaps worth looking into.

[OPabst 2091]

I hope I am not causing a headache with this idea, but I thought I might give it a try:

Reading someone's post regarding a trip from Nice to Monaco by chopper, I figured it would be great "IF" it would be viable to switch aircraft without having to exit the sim, or having to go through the menu window to change everything around. Perhaps a way to choose two aircraft at different locations at once. That way, when arriving at the initial airport, push one button and move on to the next flight and craft.

I know it sounds and probably is a headache for a programmer to deal with, but perhaps worth looking into.

Good Idea, but as you say yourself, the load of two different aircraft the same time will be the problem. But maybe there is a workaround:

When the simulation give the possibility to move around outside the Aircraft, maybe there is an option to move to the GAT/Crewroom, there you can select the aircraft and its position for the next leg and move back to that aircraft.

Then the simulation engine must only be able to "reload" an Aircraft "silent", without interrupting the visual simulation.

[Frode Skibrek 21]

I was just saying that it would be hard to decide what aircraft to do. Obviously, aircraft of FSX default standards would not be acceptable.

Exactly WHY is it not acceptable? Default A/C in FS2004 and FSX are great platforms for further development and selfteaching.

[harvesl 0]

I was just saying that it would be hard to decide what aircraft to do. Obviously, aircraft of FSX default standards would not be acceptable. But you can't satisfy a huge community of simmers by averaging all the aircraft that they fly. I don't enjoy flying aircraft like Senecas or Twin Stars, and people who like to fly airliners aren't going to enjoy it either. In that case, I would still be waiting for third party developers to intervene, and so would lots of other simmers. Also, beginners are going to have a very hard time flying a Seneca or Twin Star, and most beginners aren't going to be interested in buying payware aircraft, either. This wouldn't be very encouraging to them. But, if you were to satisfy beginners and people like me who just enjoy low and slow aircraft more by making something like a Cub or a Cessna 172, you're still going to disappoint a lot of people.

Mathijs, what are your thoughts on this?

For there to be multiple aircraft within AFS2012, they'd have to be of FS9/FSX standard, considering decent aircraft can take years to develop.

[avrolino 0]

Gentlemen, I will make this a short and sweet post.

Now first of all I got to state that we are NOT yet ready to say that there will be one. But I can say that the probability is a lot larger now. We are currently investing officially money in this project.

That being said , what factors could terminate this project , now that money is being invested into it?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Remember there are plenty of freeware, and small groups of payware designers who can't afford 3dsMAX. Without freeware designers FS9 wouldn't be as successful as it is. There are much less freeware developers in FSX world, and that is it's big problem. Without freeware/cheap tools you'll be limiting yourself to big groups of payware devs, and they are not able to deliver as many planes/sceneries as freeware and payware developers combined. I think the best way is to give your community tools for high-end 3d packages like 3dsMAX, but remember about alternatives. I'm not thinking about Gmax here, because it's obsolete, and obviously unsupported (I was surprised when MS released Gmax plugins for FSX), but there are alternatives like Blender, freeware Softimage Mod Tool, or cheap 3d programs like 3dCanvas (used in trainsim communities).

There are exporters from Blender and Softimage to modern FPS games (like Crysis, Unreal Engine 3 and more). If these tools are good for high-end FPS games I believe they are good for your simulator. These programs are just content creators. You can make high-end object without 3dsMAX 2010 anyway.

The actual tool used is of little consequence, the file format fed into the compilers is of course the only thing that matters. However when you start to use 'material' etc the tool needs to able to use those. As with anything, as long as we document it, others should be able to use it.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

That being said , what factors could terminate this project , now that money is being invested into it?

Just about a million things, lol.

No seriously, it is mostly a matter of getting the right partners and people at this moment. When we do not find those it is silly to start.

[Kwiss 128]

Im also interested in the base specs of what you have in mind, FSX is old in that my 8800GT card wont last forever and to find a future card that runs well let alone a driver that works ok with FSX is a real worry for me. (I just bought a Radeon HD 4890 card and ended up putting the 8800GT back IN!). I was just looking back over the negative reviews when FSX first came out and I think it would be a great thing if we all looked back at them and rememered the frustration of most simmers constant upgrading and tweaking to which most of us are still doing, only to never find the gold at the end of the rainbow! I for one dont mind if the new sim will be low on default aircrafts, scenery etc so long add on developers have more freedom to design and implement the vision they have for the product, without having to waste the time and money on working out how to get around the pitfalls and constraints of the initial base product (FSX). Will the sim just be an 'operating world environment' making it easy for addon parties to develop material and be fully compatible with the sim engine? I take my hat off to Aerosoft, theres a massive hole left in the market now with the demise of FSX, and the reality is our PCs eventually wont be able to run it (old tech and coding the early graphic cards are still best for FSX and its still only a 32bit program) and any up grading of PC components is futile apart from faster CPUs. This will eventually cause a bottle neck for addon developers. If Microsoft had been a big addon player for FSX we would have seen FS11 in the future because the addon market makes more money than the sim base product. I can understand why Microsoft cut Aces, to invest the money in a brand new base product with a complete new engine was never going to happen compered to other Microsoft products FSX was not worth the hassle, and for that reason Microsoft has let the addon industry down. So I back Aerosoft up all the way, we need this new sim urgently, a whole industry is depending on it and our enjoyment of future simming depends on it (and I hope one day I can use my Radeon HD 4890 card and the new sim will love it lol). Sorry for rambling folks, but I just wanted to make the point of how important this project is to everyone! Good luck Aerosoft!

[Kwiss 128]

What I would love to see in this new sim is a realistic oceanic ATC clearance where you talk to Gander and shannon? With real entrey points on both side of the atlantic if possible?

[Milviz 4]

As a developer of aircraft that have mostly been, up to now, military, I'd like to know whether or not combat and weapons systems will be implemented? Tacan, IFF, CCIP, FLIR, NVG's etc etc... It would be nice.

As well, I'm curious as to what the qualifications, if any, a dev will have to have to be able to implement an addon. Will they need to buy something specific such as an SDK?

Given that we at Milviz have planes that run into the hundreds of thousands of polys that will not go into FSX without some serious dumbing down, I'd also like to know what type of specs an aircraft would have to have.

thanks in advance.

kc.

[BPL 39]

For there to be multiple aircraft within AFS2012, they'd have to be of FS9/FSX standard, considering decent aircraft can take years to develop.

If this is the case, why do other flight sims have default aircraft that are much better than the default aircraft in FSX? Check out the default aircraft in RoF, IL2, and other flight sims. They're excellent. I don't expect to have twenty default aircraft of payware quality, but I think it would be possible to have a few aircraft of very decent quality. I realize that Aerosoft will probably have more to work on than a developer would with a combat flight sim, but I don't think a flight sim with one aircraft will go over well. Also, if they can't do it, why did Mathijs ask for suggestions for default aircraft in the following thirteen categories: Airliner, Commuter, Small commuter, Turbo Twin Engine, Turbo Single engine, VLJ (Very Light Jets), Single Trainer/GA, Historical, Helicopter, Glider, Ultralight, Bush, and Fighter?

[BPL 39]

Exactly WHY is it not acceptable? Default A/C in FS2004 and FSX are great platforms for further development and selfteaching.

This is a matter of opinion. I suppose the default aircraft in FS2004 and FSX were decent platforms for further development and self-teaching, but I don't think they will be in three years. But, that's just my opinion.

[empeck 0]

If this is the case, why do other flight sims have default aircraft that are much better than the default aircraft in FSX?

Maule or Cessna were very good default aircrafts for me, better than many payware planes. Same thing with Acceleration aircrafts.

Check out the default aircraft in RoF, IL2, and other flight sims. They're excellent. I don't expect to have twenty default aircraft of payware quality, but I think it would be possible to have a few aircraft of very decent quality. I realize that Aerosoft will probably have more to work on than a developer would with a combat flight sim, but I don't think a flight sim with one aircraft will go over well. Also, if they can't do it, why did Mathijs ask for suggestions for default aircraft in the following thirteen categories: Airliner, Commuter, Small commuter, Turbo Twin Engine, Turbo Single engine, VLJ (Very Light Jets), Single Trainer/GA, Historical, Helicopter, Glider, Ultralight, Bush, and Fighter?

You've listed many different aircraft categories, but only one for helicopters?