Topic: ease of use

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

This is one of my pet topics for many years and I like you input.

• In the last 2 decades FS grew in complexity so much that I can not use some of the addons and for me it is not a hobby but my 60 hour working week. I can not load the latest PMDG aircraft and go flying for the simple reason the aircraft is too real, too complex to do so. Now of course there are aircraft with a different approach (for example the 320 bus we are working on) but the fact remains we got products so complex that we ask a single middle aged guy without any training to do the job of two highly trained professionals.
• This results to the simple fact we sell software to people that are not using it. Count me in. I love combat helicopters but even if Eagle Dynamics Black Shark simulator is superb (and it IS) I can't find the time to read the 400 pages of manual and use it fully. It took me 5 minutes to find it on my system because they decided to call it Ka-50 and not Black Shark in my Start Menu. I got ArmA2 installed and I love it. I also know I only use the demo modes and won't even get close to using all functions.
• During many of the shows we attend we get people to fly FSX and we help them make their first landing (question, how many people own FS and never landed? 50%? Less?). That rewards them, makes them feel happy. The same feeling a serious simmer has when he breaks cloud cover at 300 feet, steady on ILS and finding the runway in front of him ( I love that, flying for 3 hours and ending up right where I wanted to be!).

Your ideas?

[Peter Lürkens 30]

How do you think about an automatic realism increase, depending on the amount of logged flight hours? Maybe, with a message box appearing that after while, now a certain system or function has to be controlled by you, and now longer by some virtual copilot. Sort of growing with your job.

This way the beginner will gradually tuned in, maybe not even noticing it, and not being overwhelmed by huge number of tasks at the same time.

It could also be done interactively, by checking in the background how the skills have been growing. By making it explicit it becomes by itself a sort of a challenge, like gaining levels in other games, ahem sorry, cancel "other".

regards,

Peter

[Sharrow 107]

There really should be an option to select your desired airfields via a map system, not from an endless list of airport codes or names. Start off on world map, select your continent, select your country, select your province/region and be presented with a map showing the airports. Click to select and off you go. It would be great to be able to distinguish between major international hubs, regional airports, airfields, heliports, glider fields etc. Furthermore it would be very useful to be able to distinguish which airports you have as an addon and which you do not.

Perhaps there could be a number of filters involved. For example if you select a 747 then only airports which can actually handle a 747 would show up...

[Robert Halmich 8]

Speaking for myself only, I enjoy the learning curve of a complex addon from reading the manual, watching video's, posting on forums etc. I do have time to do this thankfully because of the type of shift that I work and it affords me the time to learn an aircraft and its systems. I like to search out a real route at www.flightaware.com which is being flown (right now I am flying from LIRF to CYYZ, ACA861) but there are limitations due to navigation database errors or flight planning software issues and the list goes on.

I do also understand that there are individuals that would rather sit in a cockpit and fly with all systems running, accelerate down the runway and take off, that is how I used to like it when I bought FS98. It was much different during the inception of FS in the from FS/Sublogic times where you really did not have to know how to fly as it was all trial and error. Perhaps there is a way around all that as you select the type of flying level that you would be most comfortable with, the program is tailored to run at whatever level of expertise and experience the user has, or you build a base simulator and leave the complexity to the 3rd party developers as you will most certainly provide an SDK. The user then will decide whether or not to buy the addon based on their knowledge and comfort level. So whether you enjoy the sightseeing aspect or you like to get down and dirty within the sim and plan a complete flight the sim has to be flexible enough to allow the user to select the environment in which he/she would like to fly.

And finally the program has to be streamlined enough where a user who decides to purchase an addon, whether it be an aircraft, for navigation, weather generation etc. is assured that when it is installed it does not create problems with the sim. I have commented that I have lots of experience playing around with the FSX program and I understand it more than I ever would have if there weren't issues, but is that a good thing? Not sure.

Best regards,

Robert

[Colin Caughie 7]

I don't think ease of use and complexity have to be mutually exclusive, although they generally are in FSX. I may be weird, but I LOVE the fact that it takes me close to an hour to get as far as the runway threshold in the PMDG 747. I don't always want to do this, when I don't I'll fly a simpler plane. But it's great to have the choice.

What is frustrating however is when the complex add-ons don't work properly (i.e. don't integrate properly with the sim) and need tweaking or invoking strange incantations in the correct order before they'll do the right thing. As long as that hour is spent actually doing stuff with the simulated plane, not battling with weird FSX issues, I'm happy.

Colin

[M. Chrenko 3]

There could be option from the 1st time run the simulator like in fs / im novice, i have skills with fs, i am real pilot/ So you can choose what level you are but ofcorse, there would have to be option to change the realism like in fsx "gyro drift" and many other options.

[kubaa.25.0 0]

I´m gamer, not pilot. So make AFS2012 as real as possible but leave there an option to use some basic autopilot (alt,spd,hdg via GPS plan etc.) for every plane and a possibility of start an engine by "ctrl + e" and i will be happy:)

[Robert Halmich 8]

I don't think ease of use and complexity have to be mutually exclusive, although they generally are in FSX. I may be weird, but I LOVE the fact that it takes me close to an hour to get as far as the runway threshold in the PMDG 747. I don't always want to do this, when I don't I'll fly a simpler plane. But it's great to have the choice.

What is frustrating however is when the complex add-ons don't work properly (i.e. don't integrate properly with the sim) and need tweaking or invoking strange incantations in the correct order before they'll do the right thing. As long as that hour is spent actually doing stuff with the simulated plane, not battling with weird FSX issues, I'm happy.

Colin

Actually I forgot to mention that Bryan York of the FS2Crew fame has been producing product to add to the complexity of the addons... you'll have an even busier first hour before flight. I recently tried his adaptation for the Level-D 767 and I was most happy with how it added to the realism. Having a copilot run through cockpit checks, starting engines, setting flaps etc. has made the sim even better. He has been working on voice recognition and recently released a pack for the default 737. I understand that he will be doing voice recognition for all his works.

[Patrick O. 18]

I don't think ease of use and complexity have to be mutually exclusive, although they generally are in FSX. I may be weird, but I LOVE the fact that it takes me close to an hour to get as far as the runway threshold in the PMDG 747. I don't always want to do this, when I don't I'll fly a simpler plane. But it's great to have the choice.

That's me! My family thinks it's weird to spend that much time, but I really enjoy it.

What is frustrating however is when the complex add-ons don't work properly (i.e. don't integrate properly with the sim) and need tweaking or invoking strange incantations in the correct order before they'll do the right thing. As long as that hour is spent actually doing stuff with the simulated plane, not battling with weird FSX issues, I'm happy.

Colin

Ditto! This sim must have good, smooth add-on integration. That is one of the most imperative to-dos.

Thanks for doing this Aerosoft -- the simulation community will never forget your contributions to the hobby/art.

[nolanh 21]

I agree with the suggestions on smooth integration for the purpose of ease of use.

FSX is, for whatever reason, not well designed for the level of integration needed by today's add-ons. It makes assumptions that hobble the add-on developers.

The special cases and jumping through hoops just to make an aircraft work, this sort of thing should only exist because of a fault of the aircraft (or whatever the add-on involved), but instead it is quite often the result of an inadequate and inflexible design - that of the framework/simulator - FSX.

The new simulator should be a flexible framework that makes as little assumptions as possible (while still resembling a simulator).

Add-ons should be allowed to "talk" to each other via this framework, as a normal part of the framework "workflow".

Ease of Use, in my mind, would, for example, mean allowing the following:

* viewing a map of the current position at any point in a flight, including replay mode

* unlimited data sources for such a map

* viewing any available type of map at any point in a flight - add-ons can create different types of maps, such as analysis profiles with unlimited instrument playback

* unlimited data being saved in real-time for later analysis and replay

* restarting at a selectable point in a flight - user could indicate a point beyond which such restarts might occur - to limit when more data is saved for that purpose

These are just things that come to mind concerning only one area - managing situational awareness outside the aircraft environment via external mapping, and using it to do more flexible replay (yes I think replay is a very important part of a simulator).

They are just a small example of things FSX does not allow and things that I would like available.

More importantly though, these items might be made possible by a truly extensible framework that purposefully allows such flexibility.

A different add-on could be used for each of these:

* creating a given map

* saving, reading and interpreting additional data

* restarting at a given point (aircraft, weather generator, anything with a changing state)

Basically the user should only be limited by which functionality has not been added, instead of which functionality cannot be added.

[LH4371 58]

Your ideas?

Out of my head:

- map windows shall not pause the sim, at least as an option

- airport data like ATIS, frequencies and rwy should be available from a list/window easy to be accessed. I do have many Jeppesen trip kits but time restraints let me just fly a flight plan to any known or new destination without studying them and then I need to find the proper freq for the approach (even for aircraft with an FMS).

- ATC APP should accept my incoming flight even without having filed a flight plan, not just TWR controller. I usually use ground/twr for takeoff and then destination twr for landing, the part in between is annoying IMB. But TWR controller within 20NM range is often to close when I fly the big iron. I'd like to start the app sequence with guidance earlier, at least 40 NM away from the airport. Just my 2cents, might be a ATC topic though

- default starting spot for a flight should not be the actual rwy (which is even often wrong if you use real weather like ASX or REX which loads after the flight is loaded), but at an appropriate parking spot/gate (again, at least an option). And if actual rwy then please the holding position.

- taxiway guidance system, i.e. green lights showing me the way and not these fancy yellow arrows. Yes, I admit that I often use them to find the way to the right rwy since I have not the time to look around but also don't want to start at the active rwy straight away.

- For long haul flight maybe an option (for starters, dummies like me and those who leave a flight unattended for meals) to have the copilot take over not only ATC communication but follow those by adjusting FL and course, for example while I am away.

- Rather ATC but: let ATC know the minimum cruising altitudes for a region, i.e. help me avoid terrain.

- As in PMDG aircraft: let the sim pause at the top of decent or any other customizable point during the flight, being waypoint, given altitude or other event.

- For quick shots like me: let the sim fuel my plane with the right amount of fuel for a given flightplan or at least suggest an amount dependent on aircraft and flight plan

- Implement a active copilot who prepares upon request the aircraft based on selectable checklists during the flight, let him switch the taxi or rwy lights, beacons, fuel pumps etc upon request

Phil

[guenseli 76]

I just wanted to add here that I'm a kind of "hardcore-simmer", not interested in any aircraft wich has nearly no system depth. The more system, the better...

But I totally understand, that not all people have time and interest to learn for weeks and month how to fly a bird, even, when this is exact the fun for me...

So, maybe you could implement, that several groups a functions could be disabled/automated by the FS.

E.g. Lights, Cabin pressure, engine is controlled by FS

Next time I can activate that I have control about engines, but FS controls gear and flaps and so on.

Rudimentary FSX has this implemented with the option "Pilot controls aircraft lights"

You can "wrap" this in a virtual coPilot or Teacher which is taking care of the systems....

[HeikoB 3]

Hi,

for me, ease of use means how quick and how long will the user dive into his role as a pilot in the world of flight simulation .

This includes:

1. Careers and dynamic campaigns to

• guide the user to interessting spots in the world
• steadily increase flight challenges by categorization in 'profession' levels (e.g. for using complex aircrafts, weather situations, checklists, restrictions)
• log, rate and reward flights (see FSPassengers, Air Hauler and all the Virtual Airlines out there)

2. State of the art user interface to do the flight planning (incl. detailed aircraft / airport information), preparation and debriefing

For home-cockpit builders & other pros this might not be important at all. They easily dive into the 'pilot' role and do not need additional support by the software. For many others however, this is important to build a long lasting motivation. Therefore, this should be an integrated building block of your new simulation.

Regards,

Heiko

[maxter 4]

Thanks for the opportunity to comment Mathijs,

Being a simmer since 1984/85, I have always dreamed of the ability to replicate some of my real world flying experiences. While not being a certified pilot, I have had many opportunities to control a variety of GA aircraft in all phases of flight. The steady evolution of MSFS into the excellent but still flawed product it is today is the main reason I have stuck with the hobby for the last 24 odd years. It is the reason I have regularly gone out and bought a seemingly never ending stream of Piper's, Beech's and Cessna's, each time eagerly anticipating the next iteration of the realism factor. It is the reason I eagerly bought the next version of the sim to see what the scenery guru's have been able to conjure up.

However I do not believe realism and ease of use should be mutually exclusive. I believe that these design principles should complement each other and where there is a conflict, the developer should err on the side of realism. There is however one area that should be explored and carefully implemented. That is the ability to use fundamentally the same engine to provide features that can be turned on and off as the user desires so that the needs of the casual simmer can be as equally catered for as are the needs of the advanced simmer.

Perhaps systems modelling can have either a basic mode where output parameters are are a simple function of standardised expectations given vague operating limits, or alternatively with the setting of a particular switch, systems modelling can be complex enough to give a good approximation of fluid and or thermal dynamics to accurately reflect outcomes dependent on the world physical model, aircraft model and attitude, propulsion methodology and control settings. That way it gives the third party developer the option of developing for either end of the market or even both if he wishes to do so.

Cheers and all the best with the project,

[Janvw 1]

Ease of use has much to do with good documentation and/or training. My favorite FS 2002 aircraft became the Baron as soon as Microsoft released such a tutorial on how to fly it, with settings for all phases of flight. Landing I truly learned because of the training flights from Rod Machado. I would like to fly more complex aircraft, but never had a computer that managed to handle FS with the complex add on. In the mean time I use the less complex aircraft as extensive as possible. In my ideal sim I would mostly fly a few well documented aircraft in a handful of very interesting areas with as much immersion as the sim gives. One of the things I do not like in FSX is the automatic tuning of radios. It was more fun to do it yourself in the first versions of FS. This does not mean I do not like to have a list of frequencies on the kneeboard in the new sim. And now and then I really want to start with engines running on the runway and have a quick flight.

Regards,

Jan

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

But take for example a system like INS. No matter what you do, in the sim it will always be the real LAT/LON (that the sim always knows) with an artificial error on top of that. I always prefer not to use these kinds of systems in FSX because they are a fake system on top of a simulator. Starting an engine by opening fuel valves, putting power on a ignition system are all 'logical' systems. Real variables used by the sim, they make sense to me.

Right?

Btw, keep in mind that only a VERY specific group of users visits these forums. If all of you say we need to include an INS it only means that the top 10% of users wants it. Joe Average user does not read forums, let alone posts in it.

[nolanh 21]

Btw, keep in mind that only a VERY specific group of users visits these forums. If all of you say we need to include an INS it only means that the top 10% of users wants it. Joe Average user does not read forums, let alone posts in it.

Great point.

This is why an extensible, flexible design is crucial (IMHO); the framework should expect more than one way of doing each of the things involved. The same flexibility could even allow different levels of automation in different areas (I want realistic engine-related behavior and detailed control of the engines, but I don't care about managing the hydraulics today).

[Dave_M 1]

Hi,

I value the freedom to basically do what I like in FS, to fly a B747 from Schiphol to St Maartin using as close to real procedures and systems as possible or explore Tongass fjords in a Beaver Amphibian with the sectional on my lap. I think that in a new simulator preserving that freedom is important, I don't want to have to fly around in an ultralight for hours before I can get into a Cessna.

Looking at the example of an INS, one of my favourite planes in FS9 is the dreamfleet B727 fitted with the freeware Delco Carousel INS, getting that up and running, aligned and navigating with it are a challenge that I relish. I understand the point that this is a fake system but you could argue the same about VOR gauges or an FMS. I think what is important is not that you would necessarily include an INS system in the simulator but that you provide the means for add on developers to develop these systems in their aircraft or in addon gauges that integrate fully with the simulator.

The complexity and system simulations that I enjoy using in Flight Sim are from addons that I have bought or downloaded, I probably would not buy your new Airbus because it would not have the complexity that I enjoy but I bought the Catalina and enjoy it because it provides just the sort of challenge I am looking for. People use flight sim in different ways and it is important that a new sim allows them to do this,wether they are building a 747 cockpit in their shed or fly on a lap top occasionally.

Regards,

David Marshall

[Pi@no 17]

Great point.

This is why an extensible, flexible design is crucial (IMHO); the framework should expect more than one way of doing each of the things involved. The same flexibility could even allow different levels of automation in different areas (I want realistic engine-related behavior and detailed control of the engines, but I don't care about managing the hydraulics today).

Totally agree with this.

You must code something that it's great to improve, a clear code... with many comments in it.

It's the problem of many developers. After a while, the code being so long and so complicated that they are lost in their own code !

I think FSX, for example, is not great to update, because it don't have a clear "road-map".

But you justly seems to have a good working plan of the sim.... Perfect !

If you want, you can make a public road-map like that

http://www.teeworlds.com/trac/teeworlds/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=Backlog (just found on Google...)

With this, it's more clear for the team, and the user can follow the development process

[aguiar 3]

Mathjis,

As others have said, ease of use and complexity are not mutually exclusive, make the new simulator an open platform which developers can build upon, regardless of the complexity of the addon. So that the customers will be able to choose among them.

[frkaipanika 9]

I think Aerosoft should decide in the beginning if they want simple sim like "HAWKS" for Joe Average... or full complex sim for "pro" simmers and those who wants to learn about systems and how aircraft stuffs are working and behave in a real world.

Everything in the middle (with sliders and modes changing) will be wrong! Is it a simulation or a game?

[maxter 4]

But take for example a system like INS. No matter what you do, in the sim it will always be the real LAT/LON (that the sim always knows) with an artificial error on top of that. I always prefer not to use these kinds of systems in FSX because they are a fake system on top of a simulator. Starting an engine by opening fuel valves, putting power on a ignition system are all 'logical' systems. Real variables used by the sim, they make sense to me.

Right?

Btw, keep in mind that only a VERY specific group of users visits these forums. If all of you say we need to include an INS it only means that the top 10% of users wants it. Joe Average user does not read forums, let alone posts in it.

I'm trying to read between the lines here Mathijs... I'm trying to also reconcile your apparent attempts to steer the thought process away from users wanting all the bells and whistles with the original request which was what our thoughts were on your apparent difficulty with finding time to utilise all of the functions available on the more complex offerings by third party aircraft developers.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not having a go here at your comment above, but I am trying to get a handle on exactly what you would like us (the 10%) of simmers to comment on. In fact I think you would have almost answered your original request yourself with the statement that " ...only a VERY specific group of users visits these forums. If all of you say we need to include an INS it only means that the top 10% of users wants it. Joe Average user does not read forums, let alone posts in it." Are you saying if only 10% of the users (us) want fidelity to a particular level, we will get a 10% recognition of what is important in a sim? I just don't quite get your point mate...

Cheers,

[PNyman 0]

Mathijs last comment made me a bit worried to be honest. To me it's obvious that INS should be simulated. EVERY system should!

Ok, I guess the default planes don't need all the bells and whistles but all the possible parameters for each and every system should be there for addon developers to use.

[Colin Caughie 7]

Mathijs last comment made me a bit worried to be honest. To me it's obvious that INS should be simulated. EVERY system should!

Ok, I guess the default planes don't need all the bells and whistles but all the possible parameters for each and every system should be there for addon developers to use.

I think it's unreasonable to try and anticipate every possible parameter that an addon developer would ever want to use. A better approach would be to allow addon developers to add whatever parameters they choose, and have them included in system state, save games etc. That way even if the core sim knows nothing about INS, it's perfectly possible to build planes with INS.

I actually think the same may apply to the lights thread.

Colin

[mlovetto 2]

I have seen a lot of discussion about missions for the new simulator. Scripted missions are fine and dandy and have their place but I would like to suggest something new and different. Something like a random mission generator. This generator would use several factors to determine what missions to generate. These factors could be customizable via the user. You could have a/c type, for example, Helicopter, Gen. aviation, Commercial jet, Private jet, turboprop.. etc. Then the user could set a distance... 50 to 5000nm, and the generator could select several destination airports within that range. After the parameters are set, several mission types would pop up on say, an airport diagram dialogue of your current airport. Passengers waiting at gates, cargo needing to be delivered, etc. A dispatch planner could be included, printable of course, with a fuel load req'd etc.

Those would be examples of some commercial applications. What if you're in a C172? How about a photo flight? Aerial tour? aerial survey? What about helicopters? how about Photo flights again? how about air-crane ops? how about aerial tours? VIP transport? Oil platform transport?

The possibilities are endless. Military a/c could be included in this as well. Say for instance when you get to the gate you have some sort of FSpax type dialogue pop up and tell you boarding times, comfort, satisfaction.. etc. These results could be recorded and published. You could have this be implemented with VAs as well. They could put "parameter files" up for their different A/C, or even set particular destinations. Set time tables that if a flight wasn't available at a particular time, it was inaccessible. So many ideas and possibilities and it really seems like it could be feasible.

Just my two cents to make a great feature for a great simulator.