A new simulator

[JKR 6]

Took the words right out of my mouth guys.

Immersion (a.k.a. WOW factor) is definitely the missing key with all the flight simulators right now.

@JKR: While I agree with the RR analogy to an extent, I still would like the feeling of being there. Cockpit rattling on landing, more realistic inertial head movement, etc.

@BPL: I'm 17 and in the same boat.

I agree with you it was just a way of putting things to try and explain it all... I don't know if you read my post on page 1?

[Patrick O. 18]

I agree with you it was just a way of putting things to try and explain it all... I don't know if you read my post on page 1?

??? ... Ooohhh, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted. So you're saying something like, if AFS2012 is presented as a product that is not attempting to "be real" and we expect that, then we'll be pleasantly surprised (or blown away, maybe) when we actually experience it? If so, then I could definitely agree.

[BPL 39]

@BPL: I'm 17 and in the same boat.

Yeah, it's too bad we're in the same boat and not the same plane!

One thing that I think would really add to immersion is the ability to conduct a realistic pre-flight. I'd like to be able to do the external checks like checking the fuel for contaminants. Why not be able to walk around the plane and conduct your pre-flight and then walk up to the door, open it, get in, close the door, start the engine, put on your headset (which would muffle the sounds), etc? Some people may think this is too "game-like," but why not? It would add to realism and immersion. If we're trying to make it realistic, then why eliminate something that pilots have to do in real life?

[JKR 6]

??? ... Ooohhh, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted. So you're saying something like, if AFS2012 is presented as a product that is not attempting to "be real" and we expect that, then we'll be pleasantly surprised (or blown away, maybe) when we actually experience it? If so, then I could definitely agree.

That is exactly what I was trying to say

[Waleed 29]

I do not know if this was mentioned, but I saw a preview (forgot where ) of a programme that adds motion to the cockpit.

Take-off roll, landing, and more. I cannot explain this too well, as it was a while back, but in the preview, the cockpit "shook?" while doing the take-off roll. It should not be too severe though (sea sickness.)

It sounds promising, and I thought I would mention it for consideration.

Sorry, but it was one of those moments where I did not even get the product name.

[Emmanuel Kurz 36]

You mean ActiveCamera? This software is able to add (virtual) motion to the virtual cockpit.

Emmanuel

[nolanh 21]

Add my vote for immersion elements - subtle turbulence effects, accurate rain sounds, subtle dynamics in lighting, sound, etc. plus the not so subtle, of course. At least allow these to be presented via add-ons. I guess this means allowing any data from the flight model, environment model to be registered for and received via the API.

[Waleed 29]

You mean ActiveCamera? This software is able to add (virtual) motion to the virtual cockpit.

Emmanuel

I am guessing that is it. Thanks Emmanuel. I am getting old.

[Sam-KPNS 2]

Mathijs:

It seems like a good move on Aerosoft's part would be to have at least 2 or more versions of the new Sim. Each priced by the number of features and detail included. I think you may have mentioned a Professional version but it was not clear if that level would be for the advanced home user or more for the use of Flight schools or similar applications. In reading through all the requests and desires, I find many examples of a plea for the new sim to work on a two year old Laptop followed by a request for something advanced like more real world ATC or weather functions. If you have the time to maybe expand on the possibilities of multi-level sims, it would be a great help.

Thanks

Sam

[ludoboss 2]

Hey !

Just a word about slope runway (or runway slope, im not sure ?!)... I think airport, runway, and taxiway should be stick on the mesh upon which it's placed (hope u will be able to unterstand this sentence lol) ! It's really annoying to have a cliff at the end of the runway.

Thx !

[Arista 64]

X-Plane's runways follow the terrain slope by default, which is great on the one hand, but makes some airports completely unusable due to defects in the terrain mesh (i.e. SRTM artifacts). So this problem needs to be considered. One option is to give content creators an easy to use tool set to modify the terrain mesh on a small scale. Another option might be to support different elevations for different points on runways, taxiways and other movement areas in the airport database, and adjust the mesh accordingly at runtime (or load time). Threshold elevations, one or more mid-point elevations for the trickier runways, ARP elevation, etc. are usually easily accessible from charts, and if you have access to the airport, you could even drive/taxi around with your GPS logger and record elevations for arbitrary points.

Judith

[Kenneth 18]

There is some things that I want in AFS 2012.

One is that AFS supports future addons like FSPassengersX. http://www.fspassengers.com/

If Aerosoft implements this in AFS, or if they'd like to make their own addon in the future, or they let that be a job for others, i don't care. But realy, I need an application like this, or a lot better. I've flown sims for over 15 years now, and i find it boring just to fly without a goal. I like the company and cariere mode in the FSPassengersX, it's a must have , and I think a lot of people will agree with that. Someone say that it does not have anything with a simulator to do, but they are wrong. Passengers, carriere and companymode is as important for sivilian flightsims, as being able to use the payload in a combat flightsim.

Crash/damage modelling is wanted. I want to see what happens when I do take wrong descisions. Look at the BlackShark simulator. I'd like to have a crash/damage model that goes from a simple scratch to a totaly destroyd airplane.

AI aircraft, and AI ATC is needed.

realism realism realism

I've had some people watching me fly FSX from the age of 10 to 60 years old. What do you think everyone wanted to see? well they all wanted to see a crash. They wanted to see what happends when we do this and that. I did show them what will happend when I push the nose down in a steep dive to mother earth, going straight in to the ground, and everyone said...... booooriiiiing! Stopping the sim with the writings of ***Crash**** is not realistic, and it is boring! And in FSX, it's nothing in between, you just CRASH. Will I live to tell the tale? We will newer know in FSX. Therefore we need to have crash damage modelling. It's time to put the 9/11 on the shelf.

Some people say that I am inhuman, well, I am not. It's not that I wan't to crash, it's just that I wan't more realism. I use the FSPassengersX, and the last thing I wan't is a crash. As a pilot I wan't to fly from A-B, safe. But the day I am not so lucky, I want to se the drama and action that we all think about flights. Why do you all think a lot of people is afraid of flying? well they are afraid of crashing. This is one of the most important tings about flight, the thrill, the exitement, and the risk!

Flying is fun, nice, gorgeouse, exiting, thrilling, magic, and it is risky! You do not have a real sim without the real complications and the real results of doing wrong tings in the cocpitt.

Nice crach damage models is important, and I guarantee you that you will sell more .

[Kenneth 18]

It seems like a good move on Aerosoft's part would be to have at least 2 or more versions of the new Sim. Each priced by the number of features and detail included. I think you may have mentioned a Professional version but it was not clear if that level would be for the advanced home user or more for the use of Flight schools or similar applications.

It's not for you and me, you will not have enough monney to buy hardware for the pro version. It's not like the MSFS9 smal and pro versjon this time. This time Pro is realy for the Professional, like the flyeing schools and companys. For home ovners they have to tweek it to fitt in to a single PC. For the pro, the buyers don't care, they pay for the hardware they need... a "super" computer...

This has been mentioned before by Mathijs.... not the same words, but still.....

[BPL 39]

Mathijs:

It seems like a good move on Aerosoft's part would be to have at least 2 or more versions of the new Sim. Each priced by the number of features and detail included. I think you may have mentioned a Professional version but it was not clear if that level would be for the advanced home user or more for the use of Flight schools or similar applications. In reading through all the requests and desires, I find many examples of a plea for the new sim to work on a two year old Laptop followed by a request for something advanced like more real world ATC or weather functions. If you have the time to maybe expand on the possibilities of multi-level sims, it would be a great help.

Thanks

Sam

It's my understanding that the Professional version will be for flight schools and the like. Not for home use.

Hey !

Just a word about slope runway (or runway slope, im not sure ?!)... I think airport, runway, and taxiway should be stick on the mesh upon which it's placed (hope u will be able to unterstand this sentence lol) ! It's really annoying to have a cliff at the end of the runway.

Thx !

Very early on in this project I remember Mathijs saying that AFS2012 will include sloped runways. Which will be great!

[HugoAB345 0]

The world's best game engine's (Unreal 3) development kit is now available, free!!

http://www.udk.com/

[ArneH 15]

The world's best game engine's (Unreal 3) development kit is now available, free!!

http://www.udk.com/

But not for commercial use.

[CubDriver 1]

It's not for you and me, you will not have enough monney to buy hardware for the pro version. It's not like the MSFS9 smal and pro versjon this time. This time Pro is realy for the Professional, like the flyeing schools and companys. For home ovners they have to tweek it to fitt in to a single PC. For the pro, the buyers don't care, they pay for the hardware they need... a "super" computer...

This has been mentioned before by Mathijs.... not the same words, but still.....

Why do you think that no "normal" user will have the money to buy the hardware for the pro version? This question is not meant in a way, that some people have more money than others. General aviation flight schools, as customers, will care heavily about costs. You always have to think about a return of invest. This is especially true, if you have a small flight school, but still want to do flight simulator training. For a good general aviation simulation you dont need a super computer or super expensive hardware. You could get the really necessary hardware for a few hundred dollars/euros and from a computer point of view, one could be enough as well, if the software is supporting multi core's and let you split tasks on different core's. So I am pretty sure that the pro version will not scare away people due to hardware costs. It will be more a decision between: Am I doing this as a hobby and for fun, or will I develop commercial training simulation products, using ASFS2012 as a platform.

I assume that the Pro version will not be completely different than the "normal" version. First of all I would expect a different license model for the pro version, in order to be able to build and sell customized simulation products, using ASFS2012 as a platform. Then I would expect more options for the pro users. For example the option to implement your own flight, engine and/or physics model, if you don't want to use the default version. More options to extend the software. More options for external hardware. A well documented and stable SDK with no secrets or hidden information, so one can make use of the complete functionality. The support of the latest development tools like Max2010 and other tools. Things that are required for the commercial user.

I read that Mathijs is in contact with all the important add-on developers, which is great, because this part of the simulation is very important. However, I hope that he will open up a thread here as well, where people interested in producing add-ons and commercial simulation products can exchange ideas, discuss pro and cons, must have's etc.

-Pete

[Kenneth 18]

Why do you think that no "normal" user will have the money to buy the hardware for the pro version?

Hey, like I said, the pro version is not ment for the ordinary man in the street. I did not say that it needed at super computer, I said "super" computer, it's a difference. That there is some people with a lot of monney that can buy it, that is true, but still, the pro is rather different than the "standard". It's not "ment" for the home use.

I just follow up what have been said earlier by Mathijs.

If you have the monney, buy the pro, but it will not onely cost you 100 - 150$, it will probably cost sevral 1000$ just for the software, and after that you need to buy the hardware. As I said, if you have a lot of monney, buy it!

It will be more a decision between: Am I doing this as a hobby and for fun, or will I develop commercial training simulation products, using ASFS2012 as a platform.

Like you say with you're own words.... develop comercial training simulation products, using ASFS2012 as a platform.... is not normal home use for hobby and fun. The pro is not intended for the normal home use, hobby and fun.

I assume that the Pro version will not be completely different than the "normal" version. First of all I would expect a different license model for the pro version, in order to be able to build and sell customized simulation products, using ASFS2012 as a platform. Then I would expect more options for the pro users. For example the option to implement your own flight, engine and/or physics model, if you don't want to use the default version. More options to extend the software. More options for external hardware. A well documented and stable SDK with no secrets or hidden information, so one can make use of the complete functionality. The support of the latest development tools like Max2010 and other tools. Things that are required for the commercial user.

Sorry, but i think you have it wrong here.

-----------------

Edit:

Now I have had to look back on what Mathijs said earlier. If you had read the earlyer threads you would not have missed this one...

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft): http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444&st=80

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)

Question:

What will be the essential difference between them?

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft): http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444&st=140

A few thousand dollars, lol.

Basically the difference will be in support and in the way some kind of files are handled. For the standard customer we know we can't use some file types in the standard format as they will need to be 'compiled in real time' and standard users will not have the hardware for that. A professional customer does not mind spending money on hardware to reach the (silly) 60 herz there documents ask for.

One example... we are talking 2012 here and though we really seriously very much would need more then 3 Gb of internal memory we can not expect all our standard customers to run 64 bits Operating Systems. For a professional customer we can say he needs 24 Gb of mem and a solid state 500 Gb disk that makes a SATA connection sweat. So the pro version would expect less limitations.

Keep in mind this is all only mind games now okay?

[Kenneth 18]

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29801

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?

I was reading the "Topic: ease of use", and I must say that the reading was petrifying. Do you realy intend to make a sim less complicated than the FSX?

Well, then it's not a sim, but a game. Don't even think of makeing the New AFS less complicated. Don't forget that FSX is one of the "games"/sims that people that are more than 13 years old use. Maybe you Mathijs do not want to use some hours to learn how to use a plane that you have bought, but for the old retired MD-11 pilot there is a must that the simulator is realy a realistic simulator.

IF you intend to make a new simulator, make it good. For thouse who dont know how to fly, learn to fly. Use the Cessna before you jump in to a bigger plane. If You(Aerosoft) make a less complicated sim than FSX, you have allready lost in the competition with FSX and X-plane. I must say, even the newbees wan't realism. Make it possible to have auto engine start, and all systems go like in FSX, so the people that do not know how to use the sim can try to fly the plane anywhy, while they are learning. If you want to earn monney on the arcade people, well I have a proposal.

AFS 2012 Arcade(play)

AFS 2012 Standard(real simulator, better than, and more realsitic than FSX and X-Plane)

AFS 2012 Pro(Professional)

I was really dissapointed when i read the "Topic: ease of use", it was like being stabbed in the back.

Realism realism realism, is the onely way to go, i hate it when games and simulations just end up like a grapicaly orgasm with less playability or realism.

If Aerosoft go for less realism, then I will hold on to FSX untill a better sim comes. Maybe I have to go over to X-plane. There is a reason to why complex addons are made for FSX, and that is because people want them, and they want to learn how to use them. FSX was made for the future, and therfore you have to gett a new PC to run it. And still my PC is not bigg enough.

[CubDriver 1]

Mathijs

A few thousand dollars, lol.

Basically the difference will be in support and in the way some kind of files are handled. For the standard customer we know we can't use some file types in the standard format as they will need to be 'compiled in real time' and standard users will not have the hardware for that. A professional customer does not mind spending money on hardware to reach the (silly) 60 herz there documents ask for.

One example... we are talking 2012 here and though we really seriously very much would need more then 3 Gb of internal memory we can not expect all our standard customers to run 64 bits Operating Systems. For a professional customer we can say he needs 24 Gb of mem and a solid state 500 Gb disk that makes a SATA connection sweat. So the pro version would expect less limitations.

Keep in mind this is all only mind games now okay?

Kenneth, I was not saying that your statement was wrong. I was just asking why you think that way

... and thanks for the link to Mathijs comment on the Pro version. Well all this would be even better than I expected. I was thinking about using ESP a few years ago, but my feelings about the product itself, the support from MS and some other issues were not too good, so I stayed away from it. Good choice in the end.

Well there will be such Pro users and such Pro users in the end. Small flight schools might be more interested in the standard version, which also allows to create very realistic add-ons. This might fit training purposes, like procedure training, emergency training etc. They probably dont want to spent thousands of dollars/euros for a Sim. Well, also here it depends on the user, because larger flight schools doing more than SPL/PPL and single engine might have a completely different need. And then we have the schools and institutions that need an official sim qualification, which would again be another league. So the field of use for a Pro Version is very wide.

I am looking forward to the standard and the pro version and I am very interested what will be in there for professional developers.

[nolanh 21]

I was reading the "Topic: ease of use", and I must say that the reading was petrifying. Do you realy intend to make a sim less complicated than the FSX?

...

I was really dissapointed when i read the "Topic: ease of use", it was like being stabbed in the back.

Realism realism realism, is the onely way to go, i hate it when games and simulations just end up like a grapicaly orgasm with less playability or realism.

I think that in the case of the topic, the term "ease of use" means user friendly in the general sense. You can have a good simulation of a complex aircraft which is made more difficult to use than necessary because of countless factors, none of them having to do with the complexity of the aircraft being simulated, and everything having to do with the software design by the aircraft model developer and/or the flight simulator developer.

Software can be easier or harder to use because of logical interfaces and the way different software works together and the ways of interacting with the user.

If the real-world aircraft (say an Airbus with an accurate FMS with all the trimmings) is complex by its nature (which it is) and that complexity can be and is modeled well thanks to the aircraft model developer and the flight simulator developer, then there is the complexity of the real-world aircraft being passed on to the proud owner of the product. This is describing a product which is intentionally true-to-life (as possible).

Whether the software simulation is easy to use as intended is an entirely different matter, and this ease of use is the topic in question.

You can have an intentionally simplified model of an aircraft (say a beginner or intermediate level product) that is not easy to use.

You can have a realistically complex model of an aircraft that is made no more difficult by the software simulator than it needs to be, and this could potentially be termed easy to use by the appropriate audience (people who want accurate modeling of lots of systems).

The ease of use has to do with, how difficult is it for a user who is up to the complexity (that which is being modeled) of the real aircraft, due to the software that is being used to do the modeling.

Ease of use in this sense has absolutely nothing to do with whether the flight simulator will allow realistic simulation.

Also, there are the utilities that make life easier for the simulator user, like maps and flight planning and chart access and playback and the steps required to access these things, and how these utilities integrate. All these things can be done poorly or done so that the user can use them in a way that they are most useful and timely. Ease of use comes into play here as well, and still it just means ease of use of the software.

Anyhow, I've said enough on this and possible annoyed more than a few people, but there it is. I hope it makes sense and helps someone.

Nolan

[Kenneth 18]

Nolanh,Try to read one more time what is being said.

He do not want to use a lot of time figuring out how to start the engines, how to start the APU etc, that is what is said, and that is what is discussed. He do not want complex simulations that make you use a lot of time figuring out what the buttons are for. He want's to fire up the engines pressing Ctrl+E. Thats it!

Why do you think he used Black shark to point his views, Black Shark is a very complex sim, and you have to use a lot of time to learn all of it's systems. Do you understan now?

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.

Reeeeead what it says!

[Kenneth 18]

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?).

This does not have anyting with the problems with complexity to do at all. Thouse who can not land a aircraft, will not buy captain sims 727-100/300 anywhy. They are still strugling to land the cessna. If they can not land a complex model of a B 737, they can not land a simple model of a B 737 ither, it's in the stick, its in your hands, not the complex systems. They might know all the systems, but they still can't land that plane anywhy, bcause they don't know hov to use the thrust, stick and the pedals.

First you must learn how to fly. Thrust, pich, roll, yaw. (cub, cessna) <---- default fsx planes

Then you must learn how to navigate(cessna) <---- default fsx planes

Then you must learn the autopilot(planes with autopilot)<---- default fsx planes

Then you must learn the systems(payware airplanes with complex systems(No longer Ctrl+E to start the engines)) <---- this is you're customers, and you're addon market

Who want's to buy a concorde if they can not land, or use the cessna?

If Aerosoft do not want to make "real" aircrafts, onely play aircrafts, then make sure other addonmakers can make real aircrafts for this sim.

I got ArmA2 installed and I love it.

And realy, Isn't ArmaA2 a game?

Flight simmers love buttons to press and click on.

Is Aerosoft planing on makeing a sim or a game?

[Arista 64]

You do not have a real sim without the real complications and the real results of doing wrong tings in the cocpitt.

How about a function that causes your computer to explode when you crash hard enough, thereby setting your home ablaze and killing everyone nearby? Crashs in a sim will always be inherently unrealistic, because, let's face it, you can't kill yourself in a simulator. Guess what happens when you crash a 'real', i.e. professional sim? Yep, it just stops and displays some messages or graphs on the instructor operating station. Besides, what's the point of investing time and money (and we're talking about large quantities thereof) into a feature every sane customer will try to avoid seeing more than once? When you start talking about modeling the altered flight characteristics of a crippled, but still kind of flyable bird, like after a mid-air, it gets more interesting - but bent aluminum and burning avgas just for the visual effect?

Judith

[Kenneth 18]

How about a function that causes your computer to explode when you crash hard enough, thereby setting your home ablaze and killing everyone nearby? Crashs in a sim will always be inherently unrealistic, because, let's face it, you can't kill yourself in a simulator. Guess what happens when you crash a 'real', i.e. professional sim? Yep, it just stops and displays some messages or graphs on the instructor operating station. Besides, what's the point of investing time and money (and we're talking about large quantities thereof) into a feature every sane customer will try to avoid seeing more than once? When you start talking about modeling the altered flight characteristics of a crippled, but still kind of flyable bird, like after a mid-air, it gets more interesting - but bent aluminum and burning avgas just for the visual effect?

Judith

yes, you have some good points, but still not good enough. Sorry, but we need crash damage modeling. If Aerosoft will not simulate/fake it, let other addonmakers have the possibility to make it.

...but still kind of flyable bird, like after a mid-air, it gets more interesting - but bent aluminum and burning avgas just for the visual effect?

....... it would have ben very nice

I have a question. Will you, or will you not buy a sim with crash effects?

If there was an option to dissable that paricular effect, would you dissable that effect?

This is simple questions for all in this forum .

The reason why i want it, is bcause if you are so unnlucky to have the smalest contact with another aircraft on ground, or a building in low speed, you will have the message ****crash*****. I do not want it this way, I want it realistic. What ever the fault is, its a crash, and in the real world it would be a smal bump. I want the crash damage effect to span from bumps to total and dedly crash with flames and panic. We could allso se some firetrucs and emergencyteams showing up on the crash sight

How about a function that causes your computer to explode when you crash hard enough, thereby setting your home ablaze and killing everyone nearby?

Then we should make the simulator real then, when you fly with fsx, it's not real enough before you sitt in the plane for real. Sure we do not want to set c4 under the PC to simulate a crash.... You understand that you're comment was not a good comment?