A new simulator

[Arista 64]

the engines are well maintaind and replaced every now and then.

But in between major overhauls, engines do tend to deteriorate somewhat, especially general aviation piston engines in the hands of owners/pilots who don't fly regularly. On the other hand, no two aircraft are the same, even when they are the exact same make and model, and even when they're brand new (or so I'm told). Since not even the professional simulators care to model these effects, I'd say it's a bit naive to expect them from a game - oops, sorry, I meant to write consumer flight simulator, of course.

Judith

[Sharrow 107]

I have some concern about add ons though. What software will be dictated for the creation of sceneries and planes and other objects. I know folk will say GMax because it is free. Will any SDK force the potential dev to any specific software - such as four and a half thousand dollars worth of 3DS Max or will other cheaper (but no less capable) software be allowed? Or could you negotiate with the various 3D software companies to agree on a common model standard?

Or have you already got these issues wrapped up?

Hi Chris

As far as I know the issue revolves around file formats rather than any specific software. As long as any given software can compile in the desired file format then it should be good to go. Bear in mind that Aeorsoft will by 2013 have a huge library of addons and it would not be in their own interest to lock themselves (and the various dev teams who work with them) into insanely expensive software. I'll wager that GMax (or the version of it in 2013) will be more than capable.

[Gaura Mohana 23]

My suggestion would be to have a seperate repainting program with the new sim. Something like what Auran did with Trainz 2004.

That way everybody can quickly make a repaint for himself, while the Pro's can still use Photoshop or something like that. Please try to have the texture files in a format that we can open...

[Snave 466]

But in between major overhauls, engines do tend to deteriorate somewhat, especially general aviation piston engines in the hands of owners/pilots who don't fly regularly. On the other hand, no two aircraft are the same, even when they are the exact same make and model, and even when they're brand new (or so I'm told). Since not even the professional simulators care to model these effects, I'd say it's a bit naive to expect them from a game - oops, sorry, I meant to write consumer flight simulator, of course.

Judith

Ooh, variation modelling. I like that idea. It would also finally put to bed any specious arguments from those whose knottage is 1.3 below the stated achievable in the booklet thingy, so there must be something wrong, and I want it fixed NOW, or my money back... cue:prissy fit.

The thought that you might have to creep the throttles, mixture or rpms on your props to get them into parity, or that different engines on the tubes woul ddisplay variations on settings for the same given power output - yes I like that.

But perhaps as an addon module as befits the niche market with separate and dedicated throttle controllers?

[Snave 466]

My suggestion would be to have a seperate repainting program with the new sim. Something like what Auran did with Trainz 2004.

That way everybody can quickly make a repaint for himself, while the Pro's can still use Photoshop or something like that. Please try to have the texture files in a format that we can open...

That's food for thought - a feature-diminished but still capable built-in paint program with import and export capabilities? Part of an addon SDK? Or integrated into the `base` simulator variant? Being able to make minor changes in-game could be a really useful USP. We've all seen there are many `simmers` who prefer tinkering to flying so widens the customer base, in the same way that X-Plane allows aircraft modelling.

Good idea Gaura.

[Gaura Mohana 23]

That's food for thought - a feature-diminished but still capable built-in paint program with import and export capabilities? Part of an addon SDK? Or integrated into the `base` simulator variant? Being able to make minor changes in-game could be a really useful USP. We've all seen there are many `simmers` who prefer tinkering to flying so widens the customer base, in the same way that X-Plane allows aircraft modelling.

Good idea Gaura.

Back in the day Trainz repainters (not me- i was way too young) had two options. Use a Pro Graphic Editing program (such as PS) and go the long way of importing/painting/exporting/copying or use the Trainz Paintshed . Paintshed was a very very watered-down version of MS paint (however using proprietary code) All you could do there would be to Paint the aircraft in a Base color, and then stick logos on it. Then you click Save, Started Trainz - and your repaint was installed. However this was not included with the game. It was a addon that could be ordered for 9USD. AFAIK the last version it was available for was 2004

I suggest that the new Sim have something similiar, Albeit a little more usefull. Also it should be free, and perhaps Integrated DIRECTLY into the flightsim (modules anybody?). Something like what has been in the Last few NFS titles - it was Ingame, and simple(i think underground had it).

Hope i helped...

Gaura Mohana

[Kenneth 18]

But in between major overhauls, engines do tend to deteriorate somewhat, especially general aviation piston engines in the hands of owners/pilots who don't fly regularly. On the other hand, no two aircraft are the same, even when they are the exact same make and model, and even when they're brand new (or so I'm told). Since not even the professional simulators care to model these effects, I'd say it's a bit naive to expect them from a game - oops, sorry, I meant to write consumer flight simulator, of course.

Judith

You're right about the airplanes that is not enirely the same, and still the exact same model. That we also can find in things as simple as Cars. I'm not sure how far we need to push the realism in that direction. If it's possible, ok for me. Other things like more ralistic crashes is more fun than a engine that no longer is 100%, but 98%..... But I guess you Judith know what i think of airplanes crashing, ending i a total wreck and things like that, and i guess I know what you think of that .

[Gaura Mohana 23]

Another idea i had is to have a Realistic Crash Engine (It should be possible to turn off crash detection)

One thing that gets annoying for example is when you fly a 14 hour flight in the PMDG 747, get ready to land, and for some reason the engine over stresses around 10sec before touchdown. Then it says "Stress". It would be much more realistic if the engine just started vibrating, or fell of in the worst case.

Its the same deal with Crashes. If my wing smashes into a tree i'd like to the wing get dented at least. (best if the tree also falls down) Or say if i drive into another plane, and my wingtip touches their wing, it would be awesome if the WingTip could fall off.

In on sentence: Real Crash detection, and Dynamic responses. Not "Crash" in a red screen, and the Sim resets.

[awesome 22]

Another idea i had is to have a Realistic Crash Engine (It should be possible to turn off crash detection)

One thing that gets annoying for example is when you fly a 14 hour flight in the PMDG 747, get ready to land, and for some reason the engine over stresses around 10sec before touchdown. Then it says "Stress". It would be much more realistic if the engine just started vibrating, or fell of in the worst case.

Its the same deal with Crashes. If my wing smashes into a tree i'd like to the wing get dented at least. (best if the tree also falls down) Or say if i drive into another plane, and my wingtip touches their wing, it would be awesome if the WingTip could fall off.

In on sentence: Real Crash detection, and Dynamic responses. Not "Crash" in a red screen, and the Sim resets.

Honestly, I don't think that is a good idea. A crash is so complex that it would be almost impossible to properly simulate it realistically. People will start to complain if it is not realistic. Just wondering, why do you think it would be awesome if the wingtip would fall off in that situation?

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Just wondering, why do you think it would be awesome if the wingtip would fall off in that situation?

Haven't you ever been 14 years old?

[Hiflyer 129]

At the risk of being slapped around a bit, I have to add that I find this prohibition to be a little odd as well.

Car Simulation: Cars crash

Train Simulations: Trains Crash

Flight Simulations: Planes crash

Except in MS flight-sims, where the notion of a crash somehow has become tasteless. I am not quite sure how to follow that logic......

In the military Sims by FS did the option become un-tasteless?

A difference that makes no difference.... makes no difference. (I think)

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Except in MS flight-sims, where the notion of a crash somehow has become tasteless. I am not quite sure how to follow that logic......

Maybe because, to be as real as it gets, it would have to be followed by death simulation (and there are more than enough games around that do it very well)?

[Hiflyer 129]

Maybe because, to be as real as it gets, it would have to be followed by death simulation?

Red herring!

I have seen crashes in many many, Sims and only rarely seen a funeral afterward. (Wing commander)

I am not sure why it follows that a flight Sim would have to go that far. Crashes are an inherent possibility of flight. Landing too hard, collapsed wheels, forgetting to put fuel in the engine....

These are all things that happen while you are still in the plane, and specifically watering them down should probably be just as frowned upon as omitting takeoffs and landings.

[Peter Lürkens 30]

Red Baron used to have a quite touching memorial tablet. At least.

How about planes that you have to send in to Aerosoft for repair after crash landing, or lack of maitenance? Would give some sort of Tamagotchi-effect.

Couldn't resist ...

[Emi 5161]

one big question: can you make this sim in a way that all fsx add-ons can used with the new sim???

[Sharrow 107]

one big question: can you make this sim in a way that all fsx add-ons can used with the new sim???

The reply to that is a most definite no. One of the most important aims of the new sim will be to break away for good from all the legacy issues which, in some ways, have FSX stuck back in the 1990's.

An utterly modern and most likely highly modular game/world engine running DirectX11, native 64bit support (no 32bit support at all), heavily multi threaded, support for both multiple gpu's and gpu assisted compute (perhaps for things like realworld physics, complex weather pattern simulation etc) - these are just some of the things the new sim will have to have to stand a chance of being succesful.

Having said that there is little doubt that addon developers will be able to recomplile and/or recode some of their existing (mostly high-end) products to work with the new sim. You can also be sure that there will be no such thing as upgrade pricing - these will, for all intents and purposes, be totally new products.

But for sure the new sim will be exactly that: new. Willing addon developers will have to come to the new sim's party as opposed to the other way around.

The word "port", so detested by many FSX users, will finally be a thing of the past. And good riddance!

[Hiflyer 129]

The reply to that is a most definite no. One of the most important aims of the new sim will be to break away for good from all the legacy issues which, in some ways, have FSX stuck back in the 1990's.

An utterly modern and most likely highly modular game/world engine running DirectX11, native 64bit support (no 32bit support at all), heavily multi threaded, support for both multiple gpu's and gpu assisted compute (perhaps for things like realworld physics, complex weather pattern simulation etc) - these are just some of the things the new sim will have to have to stand a chance of being succesful.

Having said that there is little doubt that addon developers will be able to recomplile and/or recode some of their existing (mostly high-end) products to work with the new sim. You can also be sure that there will be no such thing as upgrade pricing - these will, for all intents and purposes, be totally new products.

But for sure the new sim will be exactly that: new. Willing addon developers will have to come to the new sim's party as opposed to the other way around.

The word "port", so detested by many FSX users, will finally be a thing of the past. And good riddance!

Speaking of DX11 Uniengine has released version 2.0 or their Heaven demo. Nice stuff for those with hardware capable of running it! http://unigine.com/download/

[Gaura Mohana 23]

Speaking of DX11 Uniengine has released version 2.0 or their Heaven demo. Nice stuff for those with hardware capable of running it! http://unigine.com/download/

In my opinion, that engine would be great for a FPS or something. But it would be pretty unfeasible to put a whole world in it.

[Hiflyer 129]

In my opinion, that engine would be great for a FPS or something. But it would be pretty unfeasible to put a whole world in it.

Nah, I was not talking about flight sims. Just a nice Dx11 preview.

[Arista 64]

But I guess you Judith know what i think of airplanes crashing

Don't get me started...

for some reason the engine over stresses around 10sec before touchdown. Then it says "Stress". It would be much more realistic if the engine just started vibrating

I wouldn't file that under 'crash simulation'. That's more in the limitations & malfunctions department. Of course, if you constantly abuse your engines / aircraft, things should start to go south eventually. If you abuse them big time, breakage should occur. For example, while I was testing something in X-Plane the other day, I did a full power static run-up, and just left the plane sitting like that for a while. Sure enough, temperatures and pressures started to skyrocket after some minutes, followed by an eventual catastrophic engine failure.

it would be awesome if the WingTip could fall off.

That would be way cool for sure (but only if the debris trajectories follow the laws of physics ). But let's face it: if you hit something in real life, the flight is over. It's not like you can go flying with half a wing missing. You have to take the ship back to the hangar and at least have a mechanic look over it. Not to mention the paperwork that even minor incidents inevitably entail.

Train Simulations: Trains Crash

Name one that models crashes with anything even approaching realism. And no, locos that go flying like scale models don't count.

Judith

[Hiflyer 129]

Name one that models crashes with anything even approaching realism. And no, locos that go flying like scale models don't count.

Judith

I would say that even boxcars tumbling (courtesy of Havok or PhysX) is more of a nod to reality than the words "You crashed"

I suspect that the lack of more debris-laden catastrophes, even in games Like Grand theft auto where the whole idea is mayhem has more to do with the difficulty of designing suitable "crumple-models" for the various equipment. Plus, there seems to be no tradition of detailed train crash modeling (unless you count Gomez Adams!)

Nonetheless, there actually are sites dedicated to Simulated train crashes, and You-tube is overflowing with videos.

Unlike train-sims, Flight Sims and Car racing Sims also have a long, long history of crash modeling, since unlike with trains, a crash is a much more ever-present possibility. I also note that one of ROF's proudest boasts is of its detailed crash modeling, and there seems little controversy about that. I am not sure why similar veracity would be undesirable in other flight simulations..........

I guess in the end, its going to come down to the intended target audience. The more serious simmers might find it unnecessary, but the general public would probably feel cheated by "indestructible planes"

As I Gamer as well as a Simmer, I have seen the threads where people have complained bitterly when some licensing agreement or other forbade visual damage on vehicles (bumper cars!) Not pretty!

[ManuelL 71]

I would find a detailed crash analysis afterwards much more interesting than a visual crash model. I personally don't care that MSFS just says 'crash' but I do care that I sometimes don't know why I crashed. I want to know if I did anything wrong (and what) or if I just hit an invisible scenery object or became the victim of the limitations of flight model programming. I think this would be very helpful to improve flight skills - especially to those who are new to flightsimming.

[Hiflyer 129]

I would find a detailed crash analysis afterwards much more interesting than a visual crash model. I personally don't care that MSFS just says 'crash' but I do care that I sometimes don't know why I crashed. I want to know if I did anything wrong (and what) or if I just hit an invisible scenery object or became the victim of the limitations of flight model programming. I think this would be very helpful to improve flight skills - especially to those who are new to flightsimming.

The two options do not seem mutually exclusive to me......

[Arista 64]

Well, if the sim can faithfully reproduce the aerodynamics of a damaged aircraft, I'm all for 'crash simulation'. But as long as most consumer flight sims don't really get even the normal flight dynamics right, not to mention the edges of the flight envelop or departure from controlled flight, I just don't see the point. Where's the sense in a plane with half a wing missing and the fuselage on fire, happily flying along as if nothing happened? Where's the sense in showing the fuselage breaking apart on impact if the sim can't properly simulate the trajectory of at least the nose section (assuming the impact was survivable and you still sit in the cockpit)?

When it comes to the crash - or let's call it damage, shall we - department, I think it would be much more important to slightly (or drastically) alter the flight dynamics when you exceed certain limits. Things like removing the flaps when you exceed their maximum speed, or permanently 'bending' the wing by degrading the coefficient of lift somewhat if you exceed the g limit. While this is still a massive effort to get comprehensive, let alone right, it would be much more valuable.

Judith

[Hiflyer 129]

Well, if the sim can faithfully reproduce the aerodynamics of a damaged aircraft, I'm all for 'crash simulation'. But as long as most consumer flight sims don't really get even the normal flight dynamics right, not to mention the edges of the flight envelop or departure from controlled flight, I just don't see the point. Where's the sense in a plane with half a wing missing and the fuselage on fire, happily flying along as if nothing happened? Where's the sense in showing the fuselage breaking apart on impact if the sim can't properly simulate the trajectory of at least the nose section (assuming the impact was survivable and you still sit in the cockpit)?

When it comes to the crash - or let's call it damage, shall we - department, I think it would be much more important to slightly (or drastically) alter the flight dynamics when you exceed certain limits. Things like removing the flaps when you exceed their maximum speed, or permanently 'bending' the wing by degrading the coefficient of lift somewhat if you exceed the g limit. While this is still a massive effort to get comprehensive, let alone right, it would be much more valuable.

Judith

I am hoping that the limitations you mention are artifacts of old technology, and that things like PhysX, or an entire core (or more) of a Multi-core machine devoted to physics would render those concerns obsolete. Even now with old tech, I suspect that X-plane, for instance could do a credible job of modeling the effects you mentioned.......

I still have the PhysX "tornado" demo that was added to Unreal, and its always struck me that extreme weather conditions even at this late date have never been modeled seriously in a consumer level Sim, even though we probably have the hardware at this time to make it happen.

I could just imagine my little GA plane skirting the edges of a hurricane........

I could be quite wrong, (I often am!) But I think that the hardcore Sim community, less focused on "games" may not grasp sometimes just how far the tech has really advanced lately as far as real-time (in-game) hardware physics modeling is concerned.

And here is some nice flight damage modeling in lock-on (Flaming cliffs) without even using physics acceleration!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CelHMmfphPc