A new simulator

[Frederico Alexandre 0]

I think it should have ice accumulation, e.g. when you're approaching a rwy and ice starts forming in the windshield and in the wings, etc. creating drag and reducing lift

[Gaura Mohana 23]

I think it should have ice accumulation, e.g. when you're approaching a rwy and ice starts forming in the windshield and in the wings, etc. creating drag and reducing lift

IIRC aa lot of addons do have this already. But i agree with you- it would be awesome to stall if you have too much Ice on your wing (recreation of the buffalo flight anyone?) or bad readings if the Pitots are blocked.

[Hiflyer 129]

IIRC aa lot of addons do have this already. But i agree with you- it would be awesome to stall if you have too much Ice on your wing (recreation of the buffalo flight anyone?) or bad readings if the Pitots are blocked.

My idea is a science flight through a huge (Hollywood special effects style end-o-the-world) hurricane to drop probes.

[Snave 466]

Is the effort spent to replicate these extreme conditions worth the time, trouble and expense?

The essence of flight simulation is to simulate flight, and if I were to discover that some sloppy code had crept into the `normal` flight modelling regime because some designer had been forced to spend his time modelling a bloody `hurricane response curve` to flight characteristics and adding bits falling off in violent up- or down-draughts then I'd be mightily p*****d off, as would the MAJORITY of the community who DON'T want to simulate flying into a hurricane, as normal flying involves NOT flying into hurricanes because we DON'T WANT bits falling off our airplanes...

Seems to me that the discussion about extremes in the simulation environment benefit the few, and pander to individuals desires, rather than considering the needs of the greater community. Just how many times would you fly that Hurricane mission? 1? 10? Every single flight...? I think not.

It would hold your attention for minutes, maybe an hour or two, then off you go to your helicopter crashing scenario for another ten minutes, then probably on to some other bridge-crash scenario before you got bored with crashing and decided to try to actually stay in the air - at which point what the hell use is crash physics?

There needs to be some more grownup thinking than this, surely? Can you not consider OTHER peoples requirements and how the features you ask for could be part of the greater good, rather than getting self-absorbed in features and facility that serve no useful function most of the time. I've noticed that this topic seems to be descending fast toward lowest common denominator requests, rather than lateral thinking and overall concepts that would be of use to most, most of the time.

Shoot `em ups and CrashBangBurns NEED superlative impact physics.

Flight sim needs better weather physics far more. In fact every spare Hz of processing power should be utilised to improving the environment the aircraft fly in. Not only would this benefit all, all of the time, the extremists could program their own hurricanes and see how long they last before the aircraft can't take any more. Should be seconds of added value! And perhaps if you want to persist in flying into hurricanes and making bits fall off your aircraft we should include real-world repair times as part of the modelling?

Not being able to fly you fave sim plane for six months because your plane is `in the shop` having a re-spar following overstressing would focus the mind wonderfully on NOT doing it again, wouldn't you say?

[Hiflyer 129]

Is the effort spent to replicate these extreme conditions worth the time, trouble and expense? The essence of flight simulation is to simulate flight, and if I were to discover that some sloppy code had crept into the `normal` flight modelling regime because some designer had been forced to spend his time modelling a bloody `hurricane response curve` to flight characteristics and adding bits falling off in violent up- or down-draughts then I'd be mightily p*****d off, as would the MAJORITY of the community who DON'T want to simulate flying into a hurricane, as normal flying involves NOT flying into hurricanes because we DON'T WANT bits falling off our airplanes...

Is the effort to replicate realistic flight at all worth the time trouble and expense? Who decides which part of flight is worth the time to model? Are loops more important than dives? Spins more important than stalls? Fidelity is fidelity, through all the extremes of conditions, and if a flight model is failing at one side, I would suspect its failing at others as well. I remember you mentioning a proposal for modules with different, specialty capabilities for the Sim, yet here it seems you are suggesting that only certain concerns/desires are legitimate....

Seems to me that the discussion about extremes in the simulation environment benefit the few, and pander to individuals desires, rather than considering the needs of the greater community. Just how many times would you fly that Hurricane mission? 1? 10? Every single flight...? I think not. It would hold your attention for minutes, maybe an hour or two, then off you go to your helicopter crashing scenario for another ten minutes, then probably on to some other bridge-crash scenario before you got bored with crashing and decided to try to actually stay in the air - at which point what the hell use is crash physics?

As a community of individuals we all bring different perspectives to the Sim, and as Mathijs has pointed out repeatedly, the few who frequent forums like this are far from the "majority" of possible simmers. There are different desires: Vfr, soaring, seaplanes and yes there has even turned out to be a market for cities with pretty streetlights, not to mention acrobatics and probably parachuting, if it were available. The needs of the community are varying and diverse, and it seems to me that the rigid focus on purity is what has helped reduce the flight Sim market to its current status.

We could avoid modeling "bloody hurricane response curves" and then, because normal flying generally involves simply going up, traveling to your destination and going down, we could also exclude other unimportant extraneous extras that pander to the few: Sunsets, high resolution clouds, Cars on the ground, moving water (how does moving water and boats help a flight Sim?) Animals (silliness?) and all those other things that so many extinct flight Sims and companies found unimportant.

There needs to be some more grownup thinking than this, surely? Can you not consider OTHER peoples requirements and how the features you ask for could be part of the greater good, rather than getting self-absorbed in features and facility that serve no useful function most of the time. I've noticed that this topic seems to be descending fast toward lowest common denominator requests, rather than lateral thinking and overall concepts that would be of use to most, most of the time.

I myself find it dangerous to imagine that my own desires are even approximately the yardstick to use in deciding what is or is not reasonable. We each live in an echo chamber in which our own desires seem most important, but imagining that that echo chamber contains the most valid form of reality historically leads only to conflict. Whats important to me is not necessarily important to others, and its always good to keep in mind that the reverse is also true, and that seeing the other side and meeting in the middle leads to a lot less conflict. I do not share your focus on some of these things, but it does not follow that your concerns are therefore less worthy. (and vice versa!)

Shoot `em ups and CrashBangBurns NEED superlative impact physics. Flight sim needs better weather physics far more. In fact every spare Hz of processing power should be utilised to improving the environment the aircraft fly in. Not only would this benefit all, all of the time, the extremists could program their own hurricanes and see how long they last before the aircraft can't take any more. Should be seconds of added value! And perhaps if you want to persist in flying into hurricanes and making bits fall off your aircraft we should include real-world repair times as part of the modelling?

Fine by me: Especially if we follow that to its logical conclusion and make days last exactly 24 real hours, Flight clearance times match the actual airports, no fast forward ability for boring stretches of the Sim, no flying in restricted areas, etc. Not the way you seem to be describing it: as a form of discouragement for those who would use the Sim in ways that are not up to some artificial standard of purity.

Plus, isn't the whole point of things like physX and HavoK and even to a certain extent DX11 itself to add these types of effects at relatively low cost, freeing the machine to concentrate on other things? Many effects are, as you know included in library's already prepared specifically to reduce coding time for others using them in their applications. This leaves me unsure as to where the suggested onerous programmer-diverting distractions would specifically be coming from, especially as pure (flight!) games using these effects to good advantage appear again and again after taking only a year or two to create, yet "pure" Sims that do not necessarily encompass larger areas take years and years...... And years.

Not being able to fly you fave sim plane for six months because your plane is `in the shop` having a re-spar following overstressing would focus the mind wonderfully on NOT doing it again, wouldn't you say?

Again, it sounds like a form of punishment for not doing it the "right" way, especially since modeling that type of over-stressing lies perilously close to the type of detailed physics modeling (in this case in response to weather) you believe would be distracting to programmers in the first place....... Future Sim could well decide to go down such a path in some attempt at Sim-purity, and its a perfectly valid decision. I myself would simply watch with great interest to see if that choice manages to break the cycle of what has happened up until now to Sims that deliberately narrowed their audience in such ways.

[second 11]

I'd like to see as many options included as I hope Aerosoft can think up! Let the buyer decide what he/she wants out of his flight game experience. I would think a company would want to reach out to as many willing customers it can sell to.

Granted, I wouldn't want Aerosoft to branch out into areas that would take time, energy, and resources away from builting the next best flight game, but if the premise is to start limiting "areas" that we, individually, don't want or need, then we might, in the end, limit this new game to just another "nice" flight game, and not as I hope, the next great flight sim since sliced bread. :-)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with simulating hurricanes- realistically, since if aerosoft can do this, then simulating realistic wind gusts, wind shears, etc will be available to the rest of us. What a great weather system it would be. And they do fly large planes into hurricanes for reasearch, weather predicting, etc, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Again, lets not limit ideas, imho.

I don't know if Aerosoft is planning to model the whole world or be limited in scope. More of a sim or more of a game. Dumbed down or highly realistic. All I know is, the more they include, the more options available to the player (with in the scope of time, money, etc they chose to throw at this game), the more likely it will be purchased by more customer.

Good luck Aerosoft.

PS: I read the begining of this thread, and they talked about opening a more "closed" forum for picked posters. Maybe that's why the info is not being added here? Maybe there's more talk about this game in that forum? It's been almost 4 months since we saw a post from an administrator here.

PS: I would love to see an option for a three or more display built in feature. Not a stretched front view, but a tru left, middle, right view. I want more immersive play experience :-) My wish list.

[MatthewS 32]

It's been almost 4 months since we saw a post from an administrator here.

Maybe they have lost interest in the idea!

[second 11]

Maybe they have lost interest in the idea!

I hope it's because Aerosoft is very busy laying the foundation for this new flight sim. I know I've read a while back that Aerosoft has been in discussions with a game engine developer. Hopefully, Aerosoft has completed this area or is close to sealing the deal, since I would imagine this would be the base for the game and everything else would be built upon this.

I would love to know which company they are talking to and maybe see some videos of their game engine. I was impressed with "outerra planetary engine", but I don't think they will be chosen.

I just hope we have some new, exciting news soon. Like I have stated before, I believe any news, however small, would be appreciated by most of us here. I know I check here daily hoping to see some news.

Since it has been stated that the game has been renamed (or at least referred to as) "2013", I suspect Aerosoft is still a long way off to disclosing any "big" news

:-( Sadly, because I want this game last week :-) I doubt that this game will be released before 2012 (~a year and a half away).

[Sharrow 107]

I certainly cannot confirm that there WILL be an Aerosoft Flight Simulator, however, I can confirm two other things: firstly, Aerosoft have most certainly not lost interest in the project and; secondly, if it does get done there is no chance of it being available before 2013.

[second 11]

I certainly cannot confirm that there WILL be an Aerosoft Flight Simulator, however, I can confirm two other things: firstly, Aerosoft have most certainly not lost interest in the project and; secondly, if it does get done there is no chance of it being available before 2013.

Then I guess I won't be needing to check in here on a daily basis. See ya in the fall!

[Gaura Mohana 23]

First of all sorry for posting in a old thread; I cannot find a newer one. Anyways, here we go:

http://www.airliners...D-11/1661184/L/

Just from this picture i can suggest the following-

1- To make sure that The game engine supports Realistic Contrails

2- Realistic Sun/Moon effects on the Ground and Water

3- Proper visual distortion

4- Realistic Jet Blast effects? (A few recent games have Used Speedtree. I am sure this can be used for the new simulator/ Jetblast)

5- Higher quality Default airports then what FSX has (not too good- otherwise no one will buy addons )6- Wingtip Vortices (Thanks Arista)

[Arista 64]

What an amazing photo. If this was a computer-rendered scene, it would probably disqualified as completely and utterly unrealistic by many... However, what you're seeing on this shot are neither contrails nor jet blast. These are wingtip vortices, or probably vortices from the tip of the outboard flaps in this case, which cause the water vapor in the air to condense in their cores if the atmospheric conditions are just right. And yes, I want that to be modeled. When you look at how the snow is blast over the ground along these vortices, you know why you don't want to follow closely behind a big airplane, and if you have to, why you want to stay above its flight path and land beyond its touchdown point...

Judith

[Gaura Mohana 23]

What an amazing photo. If this was a computer-rendered scene, it would probably disqualified as completely and utterly unrealistic by many... However, what you're seeing on this shot are neither contrails nor jet blast. These are wingtip vortices, or probably vortices from the tip of the outboard flaps in this case, which cause the water vapor in the air to condense in their cores if the atmospheric conditions are just right. And yes, I want that to be modeled. When you look at how the snow is blast over the ground along these vortices, you know why you don't want to follow closely behind a big airplane, and if you have to, why you want to stay above its flight path and land beyond its touchdown point...

Judith

Wow. Thanks for telling me. I added it to the list.

[Kenneth 18]

Still no news from Aerosoft, this is realy bad.

AFS might have some startup problems. "The left engine will not start....."

I guess we will get great news when we get some new news, or they will be verry dissapointing. I think the AFS is hanging in a very very thin thread. I think it is now a (yes)30/70(no) chance that this sim will be a reality.

The next answer from Mathijs Kok will be THE answer of the AFS future. I guess that the sim already is "dead" but that there is some people at AFS fighting very very hard for it not to end as just a fantastic idea. I see no reason to why we do not get info from Mathijs, other than that the project is in big trouble.

So hang on, this will be a bumpy ride....

[MatthewS 32]

The next answer from Mathijs Kok will be THE answer of the AFS future. I guess that the sim already is "dead" but that there is some people at AFS fighting very very hard for it not to end as just a fantastic idea. I see no reason to why we do not get info from Mathijs, other than that the project is in big trouble.

I really think Aerosoft should put its support behind the Outerra engine.

http://outerra.com/

Just think how Aerosoft could leverage Outerra to build not only a flight sim but also driving and ship simulation too! All using the same engine and datasets!

Aerosoft can't you see how the Outerra vision would be a partnership made in heaven?

If you don't get in now someone else will come along and partner with them and lock you out!

[Gaura Mohana 23]

Still no news from Aerosoft, this is realy bad.

AFS might have some startup problems. "The left engine will not start....."

I guess we will get great news when we get some new news, or they will be verry dissapointing. I think the AFS is hanging in a very very thin thread. I think it is now a (yes)30/70(no) chance that this sim will be a reality.

The next answer from Mathijs Kok will be THE answer of the AFS future. I guess that the sim already is "dead" but that there is some people at AFS fighting very very hard for it not to end as just a fantastic idea. I see no reason to why we do not get info from Mathijs, other than that the project is in big trouble.

So hang on, this will be a bumpy ride....

It is NO laughing matter to make a Addon (what to speak of a completely new Flight Sim)

Mathjis has mentioned before that there is a 50-50 chance atleast (that was a while ago - dont remember where) and that number has risen.

When making a new program you dont just decide its being done, and you "click yes", and release. It is a very very long journey that could take years. There are Immense legal Complications. They also have to choose a Suitable Game engine (which is one of the hardest parts - its a multi million dollar choice that could "Make or Break" the Company.

Just a week ago Mathjis posted the profiles topic, showing that the Idea is still fresh, and the Chances are now higher then ever.

And besides; While the Market requires something Somebody is bound to make it - And Aerosoft seems pretty likely

[Kenneth 18]

When making a new program you dont just decide its being done, and you "click yes", and release. It is a very very long journey that could take years. There are Immense legal Complications. They also have to choose a Suitable Game engine (which is one of the hardest parts - its a multi million dollar choice that could "Make or Break" the Company.

You do not need to tell me this, I have a computer, economic and management education . But you did not know that.

Just a week ago Mathjis posted the profiles topic, showing that the Idea is still fresh, and the Chances are now higher then ever.

So Mathis has been here a week ago? That is great. Can you make a link to us about that Profiles Topic, i did not find it.

And besides; While the Market requires something Somebody is bound to make it - And Aerosoft seems pretty likely

There is allways a market for a product, but is the market bigg enough to make monney from it?

Have a nice Weekend.

[Gaura Mohana 23]

You do not need to tell me this, I have a computer, economic and management education . But you did not know that.

So Mathis has been here a week ago? That is great. Can you make a link to us about that Profiles Topic, i did not find it.

There is allways a market for a product, but is the market bigg enough to make monney from it?

Have a nice Weekend.

Sorry! I was a little cranky that day.

This was the topic : http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=33935

[Hiflyer 129]

Warning! Random ramblings follow!

I have been thinking about the early video game market and business models........

Specifically, with the first video game systems, the manufacturer simply made the console, and software development was strictly up to whatever company wanted to take a crack at it. In fact, in the very early days, the only ones who made games for a given system were that systems manufacturers!

When third party companies began making games, a lot of diversity was introduced but also, a lot of crap was released. With nobody policing quality standards, the consumer was soon faced with gazillions of games from get-rich-quick fly-by-night companies that were barely worth the box they came in.

Nintendo changed that model (after Atari collapsed) by requiring games be submitted to them for quality review, and pretty much every console since then has followed the Nintendo model.

FSX followed the old model. Microsoft made the main program and everyone else was on their own. (caveat emptor)

In the present day, FSX add on quality is pretty random! And its been pointed out by others that some of the add-on "companies" barely qualify for that name. We have probably all seen the promises not kept, products air-dropped from space and barely supported/working etc. We have all seen the "company" forums where you are more likely to hear directly from God than get a response from the developers......

So what I am coming to is that, if the Aerosoft simulator ever becomes a reality, I wonder if Aerosoft has given any thought to the model they might follow. Will there be an SDK and then companies that develop for the sim will be on their own? Or will Aerosoft be proactive and make some attempt to enforce some standards, cohesion and quality control?

Probably a bit early to be thinking about this, but as I said, random ramblings!

[demiboyx 2]

I would like to see vapour on the wings of the aircraft

[Dotsalgon 13]

Great Pics.. But I believe that will scare the kids!! They will probably think that the airplane exploded or something!! (Refering to the last pic with the B777) LOL

[Arista 64]

I would rather not have a flight simulator render such once-in-a-lifetime scenes on a regular basis. If you see something like that every now and then, if the atmospheric conditions are exactly right, that'd be way cool of course. But I think there are much better things to spend development resources on - a working atmosphere in the first place, for example. Rather than just displaying some stunning effects, it's much more important for a sim to properly model water vapor in the atmosphere. Of course, if such effects materialize as easily-implemented by-products of a proper atmospheric model, all the better.

[Hiflyer 129]

Actually, if you watch this video you can see that it probably would not be very hard at all to re-task some current FSX smoke and ground-effects into some reasonable facsimile of this....... http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GR88of4Lv3Q

[maxter 4]

I'm wondering if there is really any point to this forum anymore!!!

I keep coming here every few days to see if there is any news and sure enough, these is none. I guess I am a bit of a slow learner.

[derdoe 1]

Hello all,

my first post here. I read the discussion about Aerosoft's commitment to develop a new flight sim.

I had an idea for the ATC:

Aerosoft opens a voice server running a software similar to Teamspeak. Frequency change moves the user to the corresponding channel on the server. Users that have proven themselves to be good air traffic controllers would be the chosen to manage the traffic. Then you get really well-organised ATC that is not related to any "foreign" organisation like VATSIM.

A second idea:

Flight school system. People that want to fly online have to pass a Flying school with several check rides. I am not sure whether to make this mandatory for everyone or voluntary. But in general i like the idea to "educate" the flying people. Successful check rides would give you additional permissions, e.g. you passed a VFR license and now you are allowed to file your own flight plans. If you dont have the corresponding license, your flight instructor can file a flight plan that you eloborated together with your flight instructor.

And i have a last question, i didnt find an answer to this question yet, sorry if i overlooked it: Will there be helicopters and are you planning on adding scenery especially customized for helicopter pilots? E.g. helipads for hospitals or companys, maybe oil rigs, passenger ship helipads etc?

Dont bash me please if i over looked similar ideas/questions i read previous topics to see if this was already mentioned.