Jump to content

Current Status


Recommended Posts

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?

The development of the aircraft in RoF and IL2 can't be compared to the development of a realistic Concorde, or B744; they're just miles apart in terms of complexity, and would take significantly longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The development of the aircraft in RoF and IL2 can't be compared to the development of a realistic Concorde, or B744; they're just miles apart in terms of complexity, and would take significantly longer.

Then why did Mathijs ask for suggestions from thirteen categories? I don't know much about software development. You probably know more than I do. But, I still say that if you were to include only one default aircraft, AFS2012 wouldn't go over very well. RoF got raked over the coals because it only had two aircraft, at first. Later they added the other two for free because they got so many complaints. Also, if you do only one aircraft, I still say you couldn't do something like a Seneca or Twin Star. Beginners would never be able to fly aircraft like that. They would get discouraged and quit, and that would just about be the death of flight sim. I can still remember the first time I played FS98 thinking, "I'll never be able to do this!" It was a long time before I could do it well, and I was flying Cessnas! I can't imagine what would have happened if I had been flying a Seneca or Twin Star. To this day, I still prefer flying small, slow, single-engine props. I could fly airliners, but they're not nearly as fun, to me. I'll be perfectly satisfied if there's only one aircraft, as long as it's a Cub or a Cessna. And I know there would be loads of simmers who would be livid, if there were only a Cub or a Cessna. Just as I would be if there were only a Seneca, or Twin Star, or 747.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did Mathijs ask for suggestions from thirteen categories? I don't know much about software development. You probably know more than I do. But, I still say that if you were to include only one default aircraft, AFS2012 wouldn't go over very well. RoF got raked over the coals because it only had two aircraft, at first. Later they added the other two for free because they got so many complaints. Also, if you do only one aircraft, I still say you couldn't do something like a Seneca or Twin Star. Beginners would never be able to fly aircraft like that. They would get discouraged and quit, and that would just about be the death of flight sim. I can still remember the first time I played FS98 thinking, "I'll never be able to do this!" It was a long time before I could do it well, and I was flying Cessnas! I can't imagine what would have happened if I had been flying a Seneca or Twin Star. To this day, I still prefer flying small, slow, single-engine props. I could fly airliners, but they're not nearly as fun, to me. I'll be perfectly satisfied if there's only one aircraft, as long as it's a Cub or a Cessna. And I know there would be loads of simmers who would be livid, if there were only a Cub or a Cessna. Just as I would be if there were only a Seneca, or Twin Star, or 747.

Well the whole point of me suggesting only having a single aircraft was to increase the development time, and allow them to concentrate on the foundations of the simulator. More aircraft can be added later, both by Aerosoft and 3rd-party developers. Better still, get 3rd-party aircraft developers involved from the start to really allow Aerosoft to focus on the physical side of AFS2012. Ultimately, doing thirteen aircraft is just to please people, as you say, and they most likely will be of FSX standard, which was fine for the MSFS market, but probably wouldn't be for the AFS2012 market. It also depends on how they actually design the simulator, because the PMDG MD-11 may have taken years to do for FS9/FSX, but if Aerosoft were to optimise the way in which AFS2012 can be manipulated, they could probably cut down development time considerably.

I think, for me at least, there's a real need for a new simulator. I personally greatly dislike FSX, it's the product of Microsoft pushing very old engines beyond their limit, so would like to see the Aerosoft Simulator around 2012, if not sooner. My suggestion of doing one aircraft, while counter-productive for the market, was just my way of saying "Get the foundations of the simulator right, and worry about the expandable content once the simulator is released".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole point of me suggesting only having a single aircraft was to increase the development time, and allow them to concentrate on the foundations of the simulator. More aircraft can be added later, both by Aerosoft and 3rd-party developers. Better still, get 3rd-party aircraft developers involved from the start to really allow Aerosoft to focus on the physical side of AFS2012. Ultimately, doing thirteen aircraft is just to please people, as you say, and they most likely will be of FSX standard, which was fine for the MSFS market, but probably wouldn't be for the AFS2012 market. It also depends on how they actually design the simulator, because the PMDG MD-11 may have taken years to do for FS9/FSX, but if Aerosoft were to optimise the way in which AFS2012 can be manipulated, they could probably cut down development time considerably.

I think, for me at least, there's a real need for a new simulator. I personally greatly dislike FSX, it's the product of Microsoft pushing very old engines beyond their limit, so would like to see the Aerosoft Simulator around 2012, if not sooner. My suggestion of doing one aircraft, while counter-productive for the market, was just my way of saying "Get the foundations of the simulator right, and worry about the expandable content once the simulator is released".

I definitely agree with you on this. Excellent idea about getting third party developers involved from the start. Aerosoft could get several third party developers to make one aircraft each. Then, we would have high-quality default aircraft, and Aerosoft could concentrate on everything else. Instead of having several crummy default aircraft, or having to wait for third party developers to intervene. Excellent, excellent idea. Why didn't I think of that?:blush:

Mathijs, what do you think of this idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with you on this. Excellent idea about getting third party developers involved from the start. Aerosoft could get several third party developers to make one aircraft each. Then, we would have high-quality default aircraft, and Aerosoft could concentrate on everything else. Instead of having several crummy default aircraft, or having to wait for third party developers to intervene. Excellent, excellent idea. Why didn't I think of that?:blush:

Mathijs, what do you think of this idea?

Unfortunately, should third-party developers get involved from the start, it'll drive the price of the simulator up considerably, which would limit the market.

EDIT: However, having said that, I think it'd be extremely beneficial should third-party developers be allowed to start designing aircraft/scenery prior to the release, with the intention of there being add-ons as the simulator is released. That would be a very efficient way of getting those on X-Plane, FS9 and FSX, specifically the latter two, onto the platform; as opposed to waiting for there to be development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I just aerosoft, new member. This is really good news that aerosoft will make the flight sim. Request for aerosoft if they can give full details of every airport out there, for example people at the tarmac ground people etc. Better atc services. Real simulation planes which have proper start up. Better texture and scenarie. Well I wish aerosoft the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear friends

We all share the need to fly virtual as many of us can’t fly for real. For many years we trusted Microsoft for flight sim. Now we will trust aerosoft. I say all this for a reason. I see in the forum that you want to build an excellent sim but when?!?! My friends we want live forever. Time is essence! We can’t wait so many years. We are ageing too as flight sim…Time is running!

Thanks a friend from Greece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woohoo Mathijs great news ,ohmy.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif So looking forward to this "next gen sim AFS 2012"

Also now we are starting to see more constructive ideas, and not such wild eye-candy-ideas which would just bring the sim to a halt..wink.gif

I will make some suggestions:

1. If Aerosoft is going to make aircraft, you could make the standard-edition(BASIC-edition) with 3 flyable-craft for a lower-pricepoint maybe target the game-market price to make it more attractive:

- - - - - - - -

The Basic edition could include theese flyable-craft note below, and should be modelled as realistic as possible with regards to physics and weather-physics and systems-modelling for the Aircraft

1 - Cessna type piston 172/182 aircraft, perhaps one version with wheels and one with floats

1 - Jet-aircraft, it should at least include turbine-simulation systems, hydraulics a proper start up procedure and shutdown procedure hot-starts and flame-outs. And do NOT treat it as a big piston as MS did it should be a turbine-engine-simulation,

1 - Helicopter piston or turbine or both??, Perhaps the same here with regards to floats? Also same here, treat it as a helicopter, and take no shortcuts or compromise on the modelling of physics, would be fun to fly a heli as you do it in the RW.

PS. As mentioned earlier in theese posts, there should be a controll-settings config-file wich could be customised to and follow the aircraft, if you change to a heli, the setting would change to better suit flying a heli

The Deluxe editon:

Then IF considering to include your 3rd. party partners at product-launch make a wider selection of aircraft and scenery

And last the AFS 2012 Professional edition

But please make sure that you could sort of upgrade to the PRO-version, and you want would not loose any settings or install from scratch again, to make it work, some kind of patching perhaps to make that work??unsure.gif

- - - - - - - -

2. I really like how it is done in Rise of flight , where the systems is like a living breathing thing, that is the way to do it.. with all its nuiances and quirks

3. ALSO Major concern to get right, the sound-engine it should be so close to real as humanly possible, Please no shortcuts here, this is a major imersion-factor next to the flight-physics

WE just love you guys if you procede with this project!! wub.gif

Man, would that be nice with a next-gen flight-sim done from scratch..

BEST OF LUCK!!! on your quest with making AFS2012 & AFS2012 PRO biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

PS. You should live by the slogan: AFS2012 - As Real As It Gets!! cool.gif

.. BUT not the MS-interpreatation of the slogan.. LOLlaugh.gif

Last PS. I would really DIG IT if you could somehow put my idea of "distributed computing" into the "sim-platform" this would perhaps be more of a PRO-feature though, BUT that would make this sim THE Best and and "truely NEXT-GEN" biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifcool.gif

Best regards from Norway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear friends

We all share the need to fly virtual as many of us can't fly for real. For many years we trusted Microsoft for flight sim. Now we will trust aerosoft. I say all this for a reason. I see in the forum that you want to build an excellent sim but when?!?! My friends we want live forever. Time is essence! We can't wait so many years. We are ageing too as flight sim…Time is running!

Thanks a friend from Greece.

Just take a look at the first couple of posts by Mathijs in this thread...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little Question from a little group of Online nerds ;-)))

Are you planing to integrate or make a possibility to integrate VATSIM or/and IVAO Clients? It is very important for the online community...

And its a possibility for you to work with this communitys together?

Best Regards

Torsten

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little Question from a little group of Online nerds ;-)))

Are you planing to integrate or make a possibility to integrate VATSIM or/and IVAO Clients? It is very important for the online community...

And its a possibility for you to work with this communitys together?

Best Regards

Torsten

VATSIM and IVAO will be directly integrated in the sim. There was a statement on the FS-Konferenz from Winfried Diekmann regarding this topic.

Jan-Paul

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hi Mathijs,

hope you got my email.

-Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

VATSIM and IVAO will be directly integrated in the sim. There was a statement on the FS-Konferenz from Winfried Diekmann regarding this topic.

Jan-Paul

Absolutely. They (and Virtual Airlines) are one of the key factors in the project. Discussions with them will start in the next few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Woohoo Mathijs great news ,ohmy.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif So looking forward to this "next gen sim AFS 2012"

Also now we are starting to see more constructive ideas, and not such wild eye-candy-ideas which would just bring the sim to a halt..wink.gif

I will make some suggestions:

1. If Aerosoft is going to make aircraft, you could make the standard-edition(BASIC-edition) with 3 flyable-craft for a lower-pricepoint maybe target the game-market price to make it more attractive:

- - - - - - - -

The Basic edition could include theese flyable-craft note below, and should be modelled as realistic as possible with regards to physics and weather-physics and systems-modelling for the Aircraft

1 - Cessna type piston 172/182 aircraft, perhaps one version with wheels and one with floats

1 - Jet-aircraft, it should at least include turbine-simulation systems, hydraulics a proper start up procedure and shutdown procedure hot-starts and flame-outs. And do NOT treat it as a big piston as MS did it should be a turbine-engine-simulation,

1 - Helicopter piston or turbine or both??, Perhaps the same here with regards to floats? Also same here, treat it as a helicopter, and take no shortcuts or compromise on the modelling of physics, would be fun to fly a heli as you do it in the RW.

PS. As mentioned earlier in theese posts, there should be a controll-settings config-file wich could be customised to and follow the aircraft, if you change to a heli, the setting would change to better suit flying a heli

The Deluxe editon:

Then IF considering to include your 3rd. party partners at product-launch make a wider selection of aircraft and scenery

And last the AFS 2012 Professional edition

But please make sure that you could sort of upgrade to the PRO-version, and you want would not loose any settings or install from scratch again, to make it work, some kind of patching perhaps to make that work??unsure.gif

- - - - - - - -

2. I really like how it is done in Rise of flight , where the systems is like a living breathing thing, that is the way to do it.. with all its nuiances and quirks

3. ALSO Major concern to get right, the sound-engine it should be so close to real as humanly possible, Please no shortcuts here, this is a major imersion-factor next to the flight-physics

WE just love you guys if you procede with this project!! wub.gif

Man, would that be nice with a next-gen flight-sim done from scratch..

BEST OF LUCK!!! on your quest with making AFS2012 & AFS2012 PRO biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

PS. You should live by the slogan: AFS2012 - As Real As It Gets!! cool.gif

.. BUT not the MS-interpreatation of the slogan.. LOLlaugh.gif

Last PS. I would really DIG IT if you could somehow put my idea of "distributed computing" into the "sim-platform" this would perhaps be more of a PRO-feature though, BUT that would make this sim THE Best and and "truely NEXT-GEN" biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifcool.gif

Best regards from Norway

No. MS messed up the scene a lot with all it's versions. We'll do two. One for you and one for professional users.

It needs to be clean and open. Not messed up by PR and Marketing. They come second. (you can note those as famous last words).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any screenshots yet? Just kidding.

This is great news as the direction Aerosoft has gone with their payware (Hughes H1, Catalina, etc...) exibits great attention to detail and realism...while keeping framerates at a reasonable rate.

Looking forward to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. MS messed up the scene a lot with all it's versions. We'll do two. One for you and one for professional users.

What will be the essential difference between them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AngelsAndAirwaves

so if u create a new sim. all the fsx, or fs2004 addons must be useable in ur sim...otherwise i see no sense..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

This is certainly an extremely ambitious project - but nothing is impossible, simply takes longer to achieve.

There is a monumental volume of things and expectations that have to be considered, used or disposed of. Added to that is many years of Microsoft simming development by hundreds of thousands of independent developers with skills from "expert" to "novice" having pumped out millions of add-ons.

Then there is the "wish lists" that are generated from potentially millions of peoples experience over 10 years of various Flight Sim product use that everyone wants incorporated into the "new program"

There have been some serious excursions along this path of an independent non-MS sim product several time over the years and some have achieved a modicum of success and others have slipped by us with little impact.

And that is not taking into account the consideration of the thousands of various tools developed by third party organisation/individuals that have matured over many years for the development of aircraft, vehicles, objects, scenery mapping, product enhancements and support. AFCAD, FSDS, GMAX spring to mind as just a couple of the mature types of tools that are fundamental to have available for whatever Aerosoft develop.

In a nutshell Aerosoft is endeavouring to achieve a "better flight sim" that incorporates integration of older sim products over a time period that will see technology dramatically change several times during its development period.

Please do not misunderstand my comments, I am not a fan of Microsoft nor their FSX disaster - even with well over 10 years of very expensive and comprehensive development experience they proved that even they can get it very wrong and it cost them quiet a few millions of dollars for that lesson. Simply moved a titch too far to the left - changed far too many fundamental rules from the previous products and generated a lot of angst for developers, both freeware and payware organisations.

I fully understand the concepts of "lets draw a line and start from here" - and I strongly commend and want to support Aerosoft in this project. However, it is something that will require some extremely clever project management with some very difficult and forceful decision making on what can be achieved and what is "dreaming" for a first release product.

If this project is to "fly" then it will required comprehensive support particularly from 3rd party developers, right from the beginning, so that whichever way the product develops there will be a need for a plethora of tools, objects, aircraft etc almost instantly flowing through the pay and free environments to support and encourage "desire" for the product.

The growth and the continuation of the Microsoft product can be fundamentally attributed to the self expanding "add-on" development that sprung up around the FS98 environment and matured through the various sim versions. These add-ons ensured the growth of the product and ensured that the product continued to "live" as hundreds or aircraft, liveries, scenery objects etc were propagated almost every day.

Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim fell into a much smaller market simply because they changed the ground rules on support products and skills required to develop aircraft, models, scenery and repainting - in general too far to the left for those that had too many years of using more mature tools for developing in the "other sim products" - again in a nutshell - this release failed to support easy development of "Add-on's" and suffered the consequences of that decision.

I again stress, I am totally in favour and keen to support Aerosoft in the development of a NEW simming product - wishing them the very best for the project, and keen to help with my limited skills in whatever way that I can to make it a success. However, I also stress that it is critical to draw in 3rd party developers, even other major software houses, to ensure that relevant support tools and a plethora of developers move in unison to the development of the project.

All the very best to the project - keen to help if needed.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if u create a new sim. all the fsx, or fs2004 addons must be useable in ur sim...otherwise i see no sense..

Forget about FSX and FS9 and MSFS altogether. This will be something different and a lot better.

For my part, I will continue using FS9 and join IVAO to start learning about online flying while I wait for ASF2012.

About the graphics engine, I hope you will decide on one that has a lot for headroom so to speak. One that runs well on todays Multi CPU/GPU's

and by 2012 would guarantee a stable 60fps which is really what any game (and yes, a good FS is not a game, hehe) needs to be enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see several people posting requests to not include a built-in weather model or ATC... I beg to differ....

When/if I buy AFS2012, I'd highly prefer to have these in it in some form, rather than knowing full well that I'd have to buy AFS2012 and multiple other addons JUST to get even close to the functionality we have now in FSX... A new flight sim without these things would seem to me like we're back in the FS98-or-earlier days except with better graphics...

I'm not asking for super-complex, super-realistic ATC or ActiveSky quality ATC or weather, the super-realistic stuff probably should be left to 3rd party developers. But I think AFS2012 should include something relatively "on par" with FS9/FSX ATC or weather simulation out of the box... Then at least I can have the *choice* if I want to further increase the realism with the 3rd party addons (like with FS9/FSX), rather than effectively being *forced* into buying them just to have that functionality, period...

That's my $0.02....

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if u create a new sim. all the fsx, or fs2004 addons must be useable in ur sim...otherwise i see no sense..

I do not agree. Please do not let the past limit the furure. But as far as I remember, Aerosoft have been using the Open flight format and can port some oft the addons to the new sim. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Reco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if u create a new sim. all the fsx, or fs2004 addons must be useable in ur sim...otherwise i see no sense..

IMHO No! The new sim should not be hobbled by the restraints of backwards compatibility with fs9/fsx. Break completely from the past and build something better!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use