A new simulator

[BPL 39]

Here is something we can up with recently. An clickable external model! To open doors, remove 'remove before flight' stuff, wiggle things on a walk around check etc...

That's what I was saying in this post:

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?

[Hiflyer 129]

And since we are now in the Space Age, I hope that the tradition started by the FSX Space Shuttle Mod of being able to visit LEO (or further!) should be at least possible without major modifications of the code. I wonder who will be the first to model Spaceport America, and the interesting vehicles that might soon reside there!

[Kenneth 18]

Kenneth.

This will be my last response to your rudeness.

I don't have any reason to need to prove anything to you. Anyway, how could I prove anything when you can't even understand my original post.

You were rude and you were, and still are, completely confused about what I said and how it was an honest and logical statement.

Apparently your intention was only to be a jerk, and there you have been successful - over and over.

And as for your insinuating that I had done something wrong by editing, I edited my post to remove the hyperlinks from the quote (which I had not noticed when I originally wrote - it was a partial quotation for clarity) to make it more clear that I was referring to your own words, because you refused to listen to that fact in your response.

But clarity is obviously not what you were after.

Simply, unnecessary complexity of the simulator, and not sophistication of modeling, is what Mr. Kok was talking about avoiding, and what you said sounded like you thought he meant to avoid the sophistication of the modeling.

It's that simple, Mr. Kok even confirmed that you had mistaken his intent, which is what I was trying to say to you in the first place.

If you didn't understand my post, you could have asked me to explain at the time, or ignored me, but instead you insisted that I was not reading things correctly, and that I was not to "get back" to you, until I had found the error of my ways. Incredible! You obviously do not see, in your words (from another of your rude posts to someone else), "how wrong" it was that you did that. Are you 5 years old?

Why you would use a forum like this to be rude to so many people (who you know nothing about) in so little time is something you should determine for yourself.

Kenneth, do not talk down to people as if they are idiots, and as if your word is law, and then expect them not to react.

You edited the post, and it does not look like the original..... at all. There where huge amount of editing in you're post. And still you talk about different tings that I do not talk about.

Anywhy, this is what Mathijs said, and you can try to read one more time! This is not about the complexity underneath, this is about the butons that the pilote(the user) click on. Here we do not talk about the programming of systems, files and databases, this is what the pilot(the user) has to do in order to start and use the plane.

What is behind the engine start procedure and all of it's gauges in programing is not the topic, not either the menu. This is about the complexity of the sim, how meny buttons do you have to click on to start the engine. In FSX you can hit the Ctrl + E and it does it automaticly. We are talking about the range from Ctrl + E -----to----> a full procedure enginge start. Easy vs complexity. Read one more time..... It's not about the menus either....

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.

And Yes, as I said earlier we should make the options to make the complex sim easy, like in FSX, in that way people can get in the air without spending sevral hours to learn the aircraft before the first flight.

[airliner75 0]

I presume is that this FS should concentrate on AI-traffic/ATC.

It's so important to for example make those planes take off faster. Leave the runway faster etc ...

You should take a look at the AI in depth how o make it smoother.

I.e take off...

take off on the fly, directly...

when airlane is rolling, command the one in que to line up (if no approach)

land..

leave the runway faster ... go faster for the exit point or "think" in term of speed which exit to take and adjust landing speed and exit speed to leave the runway faster

[awesome 22]

I think that "ASFS 2012" is going to face hard competition... namely from FSX itself. FSX is not going to have a real successor (any soon), so in addition to all the high quality add-ons we already have, more and more are going to be developed the next years. Look how beautiful FSX actually is with add-ons like REX, FTX, PMDG, ENB series (HDR plugin), Aerosoft sceneries, etc. installed. Only god knows what else for crazy stuff is comming out until 2012.

By 2012 our hardware will probably be able to run everything at maximum settings with 60 fps constantly easily... in the 3 years FSX is out we've moved from Pentium 4/first dual core to things like i7, enormous difference.

It will take time for ASFS 2012 to become better than FSX after it's out, unless we can take all our add-ons to the new sim of course.

[Kinetika 6]

I think that "ASFS 2012" is going to face hard competition... namely from FSX itself. FSX is not going to have a real successor (any soon), so in addition to all the high quality add-ons we already have, more and more are going to be developed the next years. Look how beautiful FSX actually is with add-ons like REX, FTX, PMDG, ENB series (HDR plugin), Aerosoft sceneries, etc. installed. Only god knows what else for crazy stuff is comming out until 2012.

By 2012 our hardware will probably be able to run everything at maximum settings with 60 fps constantly easily... in the 3 years FSX is out we've moved from Pentium 4/first dual core to things like i7, enormous difference.

It will take time for ASFS 2012 to become better than FSX after it's out, unless we can take all our add-ons to the new sim of course.

Awesome:

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but why would or should ASFS limit itself by allowing backwards compatibility with its competitors products?

Half of the battle with the appalling performance of many add-ons in both FS9 and FSX is the developers refusal or inability to follow the FS SDK and usage of outdated texture formats, poor quality ports of older fs release standards to newer standards and so on. Aerosoft need to wipe the slate clean and re-write the rulebook for add-ons that are optimised for their sim. In an ideal world they would authorise all add-ons in a similar fashion to the way that the Apple i-phone team vets all of the Apps (freeware or Payware), but the logistics of making that happen are huge and un-realistic for a small enterprise like Aerosoft.

I'm a little amazed to read the ammount of posts that demand compatibility with the competitions product, and while i appreciate the sentiment, i cannot understand the logic. Here; Aerosoft have the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and redefine Flight Simulation. Tying themselves to outdated methods, that have proven themselves to be innappropriate for modern computing environments, is entirely non-sensical.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Cheers

Paul

[BPL 39]

Here's another little thing that would be nice to have in AFS2012: segmented circles. I don't understand why they were left out of FSX.

[nolanh 21]

...

User Interface

I have a few thoughts on this, but have you considered a networkable 'instructors station'?

So, the scenario is that you start the instructor's station on your laptop; you configure your aircraft, your flight plan, your weather, and your location and then start the sim (within the instructor station) and if you're desktop FS PC is turned on, the Sim starts up. During the flight, you can still tweak your settings, WX, Failures even, from the instructor station.

...

I second that.

[awesome 22]

Awesome:

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but why would or should ASFS limit itself by allowing backwards compatibility with its competitors products?

Half of the battle with the appalling performance of many add-ons in both FS9 and FSX is the developers refusal or inability to follow the FS SDK and usage of outdated texture formats, poor quality ports of older fs release standards to newer standards and so on. Aerosoft need to wipe the slate clean and re-write the rulebook for add-ons that are optimised for their sim. In an ideal world they would authorise all add-ons in a similar fashion to the way that the Apple i-phone team vets all of the Apps (freeware or Payware), but the logistics of making that happen are huge and un-realistic for a small enterprise like Aerosoft.

I'm a little amazed to read the ammount of posts that demand compatibility with the competitions product, and while i appreciate the sentiment, i cannot understand the logic. Here; Aerosoft have the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and redefine Flight Simulation. Tying themselves to outdated methods, that have proven themselves to be innappropriate for modern computing environments, is entirely non-sensical.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Cheers

Paul

I agree with you, but my point is that people are not going to throw away 6 years of add-ons when ASFS 2012 is out, or are they? On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to upgrade to the next version of MFS like every 2 years during the past 10 years and it worked out very well. Of course we cannot keep using FSX forever, so that Aerosoft takes the initiative is very good. So maybe I'm just alone in my opinion and people will be actually happy to upgrade from FSX to whatever Aerosoft releases

[Hiflyer 129]

I agree with you, but my point is that people are not going to throw away 6 years of add-ons when ASFS 2012 is out, or are they? On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to upgrade to the next version of MFS like every 2 years during the past 10 years and it worked out very well. Of course we cannot keep using FSX forever, so that Aerosoft takes the initiative is very good. So maybe I'm just alone in my opinion and people will be actually happy to upgrade from FSX to whatever Aerosoft releases

And of course that depends on what Aerosoft delivers. FSX was....... (I think) Not really speaking to current tech, even at the time it was released. It seems there was just to much legacy stuff, and also, when you have a franchise, there is always a tendency to save a few great ideas for the next version.........

Will Aerosofts Sim be evolutionary, (glitzier, sexier utilization of the tried and true)

Or will it be...... revolutionary? (with all the possible rewards..... and risks!)

[solwell 2]

Sorry,

I just noticed my question was addressed in an earlier post.

[BPL 39]

I agree with you, but my point is that people are not going to throw away 6 years of add-ons when ASFS 2012 is out, or are they? On the other hand, we have had the opportunity to upgrade to the next version of MFS like every 2 years during the past 10 years and it worked out very well. Of course we cannot keep using FSX forever, so that Aerosoft takes the initiative is very good. So maybe I'm just alone in my opinion and people will be actually happy to upgrade from FSX to whatever Aerosoft releases

I have seen others with similar opinions, but I am not one of them. I'll be happy to have something totally new. I want AFS2012 to be totally new and free from previous versions of Flight Simulator, and I don't mind giving up add-ons for something that I believe will be much better.

[awesome 22]

I recommend everyone to listen the newest pod-cast of FSBreak (number 43). It's almost 3 hours long but I found it very very interesting; well-known add-on developers (FTX) give their opinion about FSX and the direction FSX is going to in the future. For example cloud shadows are being developed even as a realistic racing sim within FSX. They also explain why FSX is actually quite good and not so bad as many people think. Aerosofts flight simulator is also being addressed shortly. Of course those are many more topics in the 3 hours.

www.fsbreak.net

[Albrecht 9]

Mesh concept - or: the Alps don't look like the Alps...

Flying over the Alps I always think: they don't look like they should.

And I have FSGlobal 2008.

The reason: far distance views are starting with LOD4 and for short distance views, LOD11 is still not enough.

Solution would be a buffer mesh with LOD13 or LOD14 ???

FSGlobal has already 20GB.

Or someone would find a better way to give the mountains their characteristic sharp peaks with only few data.

Albrecht

[Patrick O. 18]

Or someone would find a better way to give the mountains their characteristic sharp peaks with only few data.

That's why it'll use DX11: Real-time tessellation for aircraft and (hopefully) scenery. But I agree, something has to be done to do the mountains justice. Just keep coming up with comments like these, guys -- Mathijs is listening.

[wyoming 2]

That's why it'll use DX11: Real-time tessellation for aircraft and (hopefully) scenery. But I agree, something has to be done to do the mountains justice. Just keep coming up with comments like these, guys -- Mathijs is listening.

I'm not a fan of server-based computing (after all that was the whole idea of PCs, Mac etc.: decentralizing computing power). But what about Chrome? That's direct access to tons of stuff... Including huge databases, geological, weather, images and such.

[Patrick O. 18]

Hmm... Hadn't thought of that. Definitely an idea worth checking though.

+1

[Arista 64]

Or someone would find a better way to give the mountains their characteristic sharp peaks with only few data.

Maybe a free-form, grid-less terrain mesh would be the answer. That'd have other benefits, too, like the possibility to create truly vertical, or even overhanging, cliffs.

[wyoming 2]

Maybe a free-form, grid-less terrain mesh would be the answer. That'd have other benefits, too, like the possibility to create truly vertical, or even overhanging, cliffs.

Or some fractal stuff.

[awesome 22]

Or some fractal stuff.

or tunnels

[Hiflyer 129]

or tunnels

I am hoping that they go procedural. I just Purchased the new GEX Europe textures, and flying around, it occurs to me that by 2011-2012 FSX will be a very very mature technology, with years of development to bring it to the very peak of its potential.

If Aerosoft does not bring something completely new/unique/revolutionary to the table, you might wind up with the same situation we have now, with FS9 and FSX being so similar that people might hesitate for quite some time to make the switch....

[wyoming 2]

I am hoping that they go procedural. I just Purchased the new GEX Europe textures, and flying around, it occurs to me that by 2011-2012 FSX will be a very very mature technology, with years of development to bring it to the very peak of its potential.

If Aerosoft does not bring something completely new/unique/revolutionary to the table, you might wind up with the same situation we have now, with FS9 and FSX being so similar that people might hesitate for quite some time to make the switch....

Yup. That takes lots of creativity and a large amount of risk. Both of which are not really financial qualities.

[john lima 5]

Dear Simmers,

This is my first post and although I started reading the first ones (may and june stuff) I moved to the "end" to give my oppinion. So, I'm sorry if I'm repeating other opinions, nevertheless I think it is important to repeat important things!

First of all, I love to fly offline. Sometimes I'm doing all the correct procedural stuff, loading a flight plan, chatting with ATC, etc. But suddenly I get bored and I like to do acrobatics with a B738. I know that by using a online ATC this will be a horrible thing to all my online friends and I will be kicked off the session. Having a offline ATC allows me to do EVERYTHING that I want, anytime, anywhere. Of course it is important to have an online option but, please, don't throw away AI ATC. Just to mention...please evaluate "multicrew experience", a wonderfull add-on that could bring more "immersion", reality and interaction with offline ATC and a copilot.

A FS dream to me would be:

- FSX graphics with REX and GEX, running like a FS9 without blurries, framerate drops, etc.

- FS2008 Global

- A PMDG B738 with full FMC

- AES in ALL airports.

- A flight planner like flight sim commander.

- Multicrew experience

- FSPassengers

- FS cargopilot

- Ultimate Traffic 2008

If I had all this in one software I will be more than happy to switch from my FS9+FSX.

I wish all the best to AFS2012!

John

BTW, sorry the large post I will try to do smaller ones

[Kenneth 18]

I have one more request for the ASFS, maybe it's already been debated, but I hate the Zoom in FSX. It uses the same prinziples as a lens. Starting at 0.30 that we see with our eyes, and Zomeing inn. I do not like this way of Zooming. This way the whole world comes in to you're cocpit. I'd rather like the camera move forward in 0.30 than useing the "lens" Zoom.

The view gets wery wrong when you use the lens Zoom. Not onely does the aircraft come closer when you zoom inn on the aircraft, but the whole world also comes in to you're face zoomeing from 0.30 to 1.00. Do not like it....

[Bobykim 0]

Dear all,

First i want to appologize for the bad English grammar.

Mathijs, i've been following this forum since the very beginning but never replied.

You ask a lot of questions...detailed questions like cabin pressure ect., which are in my opinion, not relevant for this huge project. I bet you have a serious team behind you with bloody smart fellows. Take innsbruck for example. That "little" airport for FS9 is in fact what FSX should have been all over the world. There is even a train running!! So many times i take a cessna, slew it in the sky and just watch...

FSX is still on the shelf. Im only flying with FS9. Why?

1) Framerates! It doesnt matter what game genre you are playing: shooting, building, flying, sports, racing ect, good framerates are important and if you dont have good framerates, you MUST!! be able to get good framerates with A) a patch or software upgrade form the manufacturer of a hardware upgrade. Im still waiting for the person who gets 30 frames in FSX with PMDG 747 VC, Flight1 Europe, any hardcore aerosoft FSX addon scenery airport,Active sky and MyftrafficX with all settings to the MAX an a standard resolution of 1920x1080x32 bit. Maybe with a processor in 2015. And even then its not sure if you dont get the out of mem error.

FS9 is installed on a second harddrive with a dual boot so it has its "own" OS. Ive stripped XP from all accesories, useless programs and made a hardware profile that only loads the services that i need (incl. internet services to fly online). I've tweaked dozens of config files, setup my Saitek Profilght with FSUIPC with macro's ect ect ect. If i have to reinstall FS9 the way it is now...im losing about 3 days. I know how to manage such a setup cause i've worked in the IT. Loads of people don't have this knowledge. Why not make a OS just for FS12 so you have all the space and opportunity without being restricted to all MS bullsh.t in their windows 7,8,9,10 ect.?

Furthermore i do hope that you look very deep into a good and solid "after"market support. This is maybe more important and will cost more than building the sim itself. But i bet you knew that allready.

May the force be with you!

Boby from a dark and cold Holland.