A new simulator

[Emmanuel Kurz 36]

What I would like to see in the AFS2012, maybe as addon is the RAAS system by Honeywell.

Those systems are getting more popular in newer airplanes.

Take a look here

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/Products-Services/Avionics-Electronics/Egpws-Home3/raas.html?c=21

and on the minisite with product demo (link on the bottom).

Emmanuel

[Jan-Paul Schuchna 24]

What I would like to see in the AFS2012, maybe as addon is the RAAS system by Honeywell.

Those systems are getting more popular in newer airplanes.

Take a look here

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/Products-Services/Avionics-Electronics/Egpws-Home3/raas.html?c=21

and on the minisite with product demo (link on the bottom).

Emmanuel

+ 1:

shouldn`t be that hard to implement as you can calculate the remaining distances with the threshold coordinates. Here is an specification from Honeywell describing all (customer) options:

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/egpws-documents/raas-documents/SmartRunway_SmartLanding_description.pdf

Jan-Paul

[john lima 5]

Dear All,

I was thinking in a "possible" solution for framerate. Imagine that the FS automatically selects your best config. Of course you can change it, but it will be nice to have a FS that do

all the tweak for me.

Imagine that I have a screen and I select some configuration but I LOCK the framerates at 20.

The FS always give me 20, excluding things that are giving me lower framerates. When it is possible, those things (like Autogen) could appear again.

In a very busy airport traffic is important thing to see but the quality can be a little bit lower than when I'm flying a acrobatic movement with my partner.

Cheers,

[john lima 5]

One more thing,

We all know that the framerate killer is a very busy airport (JFK, LFPG,) near a very "autogened" city.

The main problem is that the most wonderful thing to do is landing in a airport, look around the windows and see traffic, ground services, snow or rain, fog, AI traffic, car outside the airport, the buildings around the airport and taxi your aircraft to the gates. See the jetway moving, the service cars ariving, etc is a wonderful thing that gives me a huge amount of realism and immersion. Do all the pre-flight is essential to feel like reality. Request clearance, hear the copilot checklist, ask the cabin crew to do something, hear the passengers, taxi, and take off makes me fell like a pilot. After, when we are in cruise mode, it is more or less boring, but, it is part of the job!

So, I wrote a novel just to emphatize that graphics must allow us to take off and land without any disturbance and also show us all the airport life!

[Arista 64]

Im still waiting for the person who gets 30 frames

Sorry for being off topic, but I'm happy to report that I do get 30 fps with a couple of add-ons - with reasonable settings. FSX was never meant to be run with all sliders maxed out.

Why not make a OS just for FS12

That's just ridiculous. Do you know how many people have worked for 20 years on what has become Windows 7? Do you really think going back to the DOS - or even lower - level is a smart idea? How many different video chips do you think such an AFS2012OS would support, for starters? And besides, why in the world do we need yet another operating system if the existing ones work perfectly well (and no, I'm not usually a MS advocate)?

I was thinking in a "possible" solution for framerate.

You're basically describing what FSX already does. Not that it does it very well, mind you, but still.

Judith

[Kenneth 18]

You ask a lot of questions...detailed questions like cabin pressure ect., which are in my opinion, not relevant for this huge project.

I think cabin pressure is important. I might add that it would have been nice if you iumplement the "ability" to pass out when you do not have the propper pressuration, in the same way you pass out doeing positive or negative G. I think that the screen goeing gradualy black when you do not have enough 02 is a nice way to implement it.

[john lima 5]

You're basically describing what FSX already does. Not that it does it very well, mind you, but still.

Judith

Hi Judith.

FSX doesn't do that. You can limit the framerate to a TOP, so FSX can theoretically do other things if the framerate is over that value. My sugestion is like the opposite.

You set a framerate and FS NEVER goes lower than that. My FSX is currently locked at 20 fps. Other day I was flying 2 hours and the moment that I was landing, a slutter ocurred going to 7 fps for some moment. I didn't crash but it was a terrible feeling!

Best,

John

[john lima 5]

I think cabin pressure is important. I might add that it would have been nice if you iumplement the "ability" to pass out when you do not have the propper pressuration, in the same way you pass out doeing positive or negative G. I think that the screen goeing gradualy black when you do not have enough 02 is a nice way to implement it.

I agree that cabin pressure is an important factor. Besides that, of course that I prefer a "incomplete" reality simulation (without cabin pressure) if this parameter isn't well implemented or worse, is a framerate killer! A solid but incomplete platform is better than a "have-everything" but with a lot of bugs, specially in graphics.

Everybody forgot about FSX? A lot of new things but not well implemented. It has ground-service, autogen, 3d cloud, car Traffic, boat traffic, even animals! but it works well? not for everyone.

For my POV a SOLID enhanced FS9 is better than a FRAGILE enhanced FSX. Don't forget that if the platform is SOLID, implementing "REAL" cabin pressure, PILOTS walking in the airport, birdstrike, etc can be done by FREE and PAYWARES! FOCUS in a SOLID platform "thinking in expansions" But don't go to far trying implementing all Elements right now.

FSX tried to do everything and they had 20 years of experiences....

[Bobykim 0]

That's just ridiculous. Do you know how many people have worked for 20 years on what has become Windows 7? Do you really think going back to the DOS - or even lower - level is a smart idea? How many different video chips do you think such an AFS2012OS would support, for starters? And besides, why in the world do we need yet another operating system if the existing ones work perfectly well (and no, I'm not usually a MS advocate)?

Is it...

Can't say anything about the development of OS's. Dont think about going back to DOS. Im not saying that im smart. But im not stupid as you suggets in your post. Its just a thought...

What im trying to say is that there are smart fellows in this world with a huge amount of knowledge. Aerosoft is starting up a discussion about a new simulator. Well...thats hardcore, as MS has been the marketleader for years. So they have smart fellows in the house. The fact is that we are still restricted to a OS full with gadgets and stuff that take huge amount of resources that you dont need while you fly. Look at consoles:The main task of a gameconsole is to play games. Thats what is made for. I always hoped that MS would make a separate OS just for FS. Now i've got to strip XP myself, which can be harmful for files if you dont know what you'are doing. Its ridiculous that you must have deep IT knowledge to try to get every frame out of the PC to fly. Just a thought Judith...just a thought like everyone else on this forum. You wont hear from me again.

GR. B.

[maxter 4]

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.

Yup, me too... We need something revolutionary, rather than evolutionary. If the Aerosoft guys are going to make something new, then IMHO they should push the tech to the limits and give the punters a real choice.

Cheers and thanks for that.

[maxter 4]

Ive stripped XP from all accesories

And there's your problem. I am running Win 7 and am easily achieving those frames... Not sure what the problem is.

[awesome 22]

Sorry for being off topic, but I'm happy to report that I do get 30 fps with a couple of add-ons - with reasonable settings. FSX was never meant to be run with all sliders maxed out.

please explain why not? The purpose of these sliders is to make FSX able to run on a very wide range of hardware. In a couple of years hardware will beat FSX (with add-ons) I'm sure!

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....

exactly my point! +1

[CaptainTim 11]

Chaps,

I think you forgot that Aerosoft are making the Sim, dont need to do all the clever stuff themselves. As long as they have provided the nesacery outputs for data extraction e.g. current altitude, ground speed, lat/long, gear up/down then 3rd pary guys can do the extra eye candy bits.

E.g. Should there be an FMC in the plane, as long as Aerosoft have created the correct paths for the FMC ACARS to interface with website, then Aerosoft dont need to make the FMC themselves, that can be left up to PMDG or Level-D, Airsimmer etc...

[Arista 64]

But im not stupid as you suggets in your post.

First of all, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. If I did, I apologize. The point is, a modern operating system provides so many invaluable services to applications and games that it's very well worth the little overhead. Designing a game to run on the bare metal (i.e. with no underlying OS) would delay the project by years. And besides, in my experience, Windows (including Vista and 7) is quite good at getting out of the way of games.

A much better idea, in my humble opinion, would be designing the sim to run on Linux. A Linux system can easily be stripped down to the bare minimum needed to run the one single program you're interested in, while you still have the advantage of a full OS with all its services. And as an additional advantage, being open source, said stripped down Linux could even be shipped with the sim.

The purpose of these sliders is to make FSX able to run on a very wide range of hardware.

Exactly. If you're hardware isn't capable of running the sim maxed out, for God's sake, don't do it. I should've said FSX was never meant to be run maxed out for the first few years. As has no FS release ever been, either. That way, FSX is still capable of taking advantage of the new hardware when we upgrade our computers in a couple of years.

Judith

[Kenneth 18]

Is it...

Can't say anything about the development of OS's. Dont think about going back to DOS. Im not saying that im smart. But im not stupid as you suggets in your post. Its just a thought...

What im trying to say is that there are smart fellows in this world with a huge amount of knowledge. Aerosoft is starting up a discussion about a new simulator. Well...thats hardcore, as MS has been the marketleader for years. So they have smart fellows in the house. The fact is that we are still restricted to a OS full with gadgets and stuff that take huge amount of resources that you dont need while you fly. Look at consoles:The main task of a gameconsole is to play games. Thats what is made for. I always hoped that MS would make a separate OS just for FS. Now i've got to strip XP myself, which can be harmful for files if you dont know what you'are doing. Its ridiculous that you must have deep IT knowledge to try to get every frame out of the PC to fly. Just a thought Judith...just a thought like everyone else on this forum. You wont hear from me again.

GR. B.

Actually I'm with you here, and it is possible to make a smaler OS just for gaming. I actually hoped they did go in that direction when they made Vista(2 startup modes for home users(game/other)), but they did not.

Most home ovners do use the PC for gaming. why not make a OS that is smal, and do not use so much resorces. In the beginning I thought X-box was goeing to bi like that, but i did not.

What we need is a os that is between a X-box and a fully Windows OS like Windows 7. A gamers OS that is easy to turn on or off drivers, progs, aps and regystry options you do not need for a particular game. Or Eveen better, the os has a auto config module so it turns on or off what it need for each game. The game developers might add a tiny CFG file that says what i needs to run 100% And the os adujust for that.

That's just ridiculous. Do you know how many people have worked for 20 years on what has become Windows 7? Do you really think going back to the DOS - or even lower - level is a smart idea? How many different video chips do you think such an AFS2012OS would support, for starters? And besides, why in the world do we need yet another operating system if the existing ones work perfectly well (and no, I'm not usually a MS advocate)?

Those who say it's not possible to make a smal OS is totaly wrang....

The reason why we have big OS now is bcause the hardware let us make big OS. Do you not think they was thinking of OS that was better than DOS for 20 year's ago? They wanted, but they could not, bcause the PC did not have enough power to run it.

Our first PC was a 486 25/50 MHz CPU, we had 4 megabyte of RAM. The GPU was so tiny I do not remember how smal it was. The harddisk was for about 50 or 100 mb, I do not remember. We used the DOS, and we also had a smal windows aplication that we startet in DOS, but it was not multitasking. It was Windows 95 that was the starting of the end for DOS. Finaly we got a multitasking OS.

If I do not remember wrang the PC that was common for the W95 was the Pentium CPU's with 90 Mhz

To day the CPUs has quad core, 3,2 GHz (3 200 MHz), that is 64*4 times the speed back then.

The GPUs has 1 GB of RAM, that is 10-20 times the space of my old harddisk in RAM for the GPU.......

It's kommon to day to have 1 TB of harddisk. That is 1 000 000++ MB and is 10 000 times bigger than my old harddisk.

Now you under stand why we do not run a DOS anymore, bcause we can have a lot bigger one..... but we still can make smaler ones.

------edit----

PS.... I do not say that Aerosoft should make a gaming OS... Microsoft should do that job... or any other who want's to earn som monney. It's a market for a gaming OS for PC that's true, and they might not have to release a new Gaming OS every 3 years either, just updating it for hardware and against hackers and viruses..... And a gaming OS might have 1/2 the price of a ordinary OS. Most people can sett up two OS on one computer. One for fun and one for serious things.

And finaly.... I HATE IT WHEN MY OS START DOING THINGS I NEVER TOLD IT TO DO..... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Yes that also apply for a fresh new install of OS after a total cleen up after formating.

I miss the DOS, back then we had total controll of the OS. When Windows 95 came, i went from being the captain over the PC to being the PC's slave

Sorry for my poor english

[Kenneth 18]

please explain why not? The purpose of these sliders is to make FSX able to run on a very wide range of hardware. In a couple of years hardware will beat FSX (with add-ons) I'm sure!

exactly my point! +1

Yes, the FSX was released for the future and most computers had to use low settings to run it, but still i think it was better to runn on low settings in FSX than the blury and crappy FS9 on max. I still do not have FSX on MAX, I need a better CPU, My GPU is fine though. And I'm glad FSX was ment for the future. We will see som heawy addons for FSX in the future.

MicroSoft them selves said that FSX was made for the future. They wanted a FS that had a long lifetime, and that is also good for us and the third party developers. The sad thing is that some pople don't under stand this. It does not matter how meny time we tell them that they were not supposed to max out the settings in FSX. They don't gett it, and they gett angry when they gett lov fps. They still don't gett it..... Tune down the settings!

FSX is for the future!

[Kenneth 18]

Chaps,

I think you forgot that Aerosoft are making the Sim, dont need to do all the clever stuff themselves. As long as they have provided the nesacery outputs for data extraction e.g. current altitude, ground speed, lat/long, gear up/down then 3rd pary guys can do the extra eye candy bits.

E.g. Should there be an FMC in the plane, as long as Aerosoft have created the correct paths for the FMC ACARS to interface with website, then Aerosoft dont need to make the FMC themselves, that can be left up to PMDG or Level-D, Airsimmer etc...

Yes but they still have to make a FS that is better than a "upgraded" fsx to start selling it. Who wan't to buy a flightsim that has nothing, and is worse than FSX grapicaly and in the options and possibilities on the release? I will not buy it if it's not better than FSX. It has to kill FSX

Remember that maybe 80% of the sellings of FSX is of people that is not "hardcore", and they will not use weeks and months to tune the fs to gett it good looking. ASFS need to be the best from day 1, with the oppurtunity/possibility to get better.... like FSX is.....

[awesome 22]

Yes but they still have to make a FS that is better than a "upgraded" fsx to start selling it. Who wan't to buy a flightsim that has nothing, and is worse than FSX grapicaly and in the options and possibilities on the release? I will not buy it if it's not better than FSX. It has to kill FSX

Remember that maybe 80% of the sellings of FSX is of people that is not "hardcore", and they will not use weeks and months to tune the fs to gett it good looking. ASFS need to be the best from day 1, with the oppurtunity/possibility to get better.... like FSX is.....

I completely agree with you. But we've had the same situation before. When FSX came out there were obviously no add-ons for it yet and there were a lot for FS2004. Today, I can safely say that the majority of simmers use FSX and developers are creating a massive amount of add-ons for FSX. So what is it, that made simmers and developers make the switch to FSX even though FS2004 was "better" at that time? Maybe because FSX is more "arcade" than FS2004 it attracted many new people to flight simulation? I'm wondering.

[Kenneth 18]

I completely agree with you. But we've had the same situation before. When FSX came out there were obviously no add-ons for it yet and there were a lot for FS2004. Today, I can safely say that the majority of simmers use FSX and developers are creating a massive amount of add-ons for FSX. So what is it, that made simmers and developers make the switch to FSX even though FS2004 was "better" at that time? Maybe because FSX is more "arcade" than FS2004 it attracted many new people to flight simulation? I'm wondering.

Well, the FSX was better than my FS9 when it came out, even though I had a lot of addons. What I missed in FSX in the begining was trafic tool(and still miss it) and FSPassengers. I had a setup that was worikng fine. 1/2 year after FSX came out, I left FS9, and I never vent back. Now that I have FSPassengers, everything is fine.

I do not think FSX is more arcade, and what i have read from a third party dev, they do not make addons for fs9 anymore, bcause fs9 has to meny limits. You can make better and more realistic planes in FSX. Yes I know that people that uses fs9 today still think fs9 is better than fsx, but when you talk more with them, you sooner or later dicover that they don't have the monney to upgrade their PC. It's allways like that with some people, if you can't get it, you hate it! Spessialy Norwegians!

One more request from me, and that is, it chould be easy to sett up AI flights.

[maxter 4]

So what is it, that made simmers and developers make the switch to FSX even though FS2004 was "better" at that time?

Perhaps it's so much better at simulating flight, flying objects and the world we live that much better than FS2004 could, which in turn was so much better than FS2002, which in turn was so much better than FS2000... and so on... I think you get the picture. It certainly has been my experience and I have been in this space since Sublogic Flight Simulator circa 1985.

[Chilean FSimmer 0]

Hello,

This is my first post!

I´ve read some of the posts, and I would like to say a few words about what users might be looking for in a new sim.

-Over all flight dynamics accuracy: I think we all agree that FSX was pretty stable on a "normal level flight", however, when you start doing things that defy flight dynamics (like sharp turns, stalls, rolls, etc) you can clearly see huge flaws. Personally, I think that flight dynamics used in IL2 are by far the most stable.

-Flexibility! I know that one of the most interesting things about the best sims out there (IL2, LockOn FC, BS, etc.) is the flexibility this games give to the player. It is very easy to do your own missions, and that is very appreciated.

-Different "careers" in the sim: This explains why are so many add-ons for FSX. Airline pilots, Carrier pilots, Helos and so on. This new sim should include all this.

I could go on... But this is my first post and I woul like some answers.

[Albrecht 9]

If you plan to add some vehicles to the AFS, I would like to have a harvester!

I hate the tree at the end of the runway.

Sometimes, it is a challenge for my bush pilot skills.

But often I would like to have a motor saw.

Or the landclass implementation would be more intelligent.

BTW, there are plenty of post in AS Forums about trees ON the runway...

Albrecht

[Albrecht 9]

ASF 2012 (sorry) will also have elevation data like FSX (airports, rivers,...):

And some of them will be wrong.

What about an error reporting tool and updates?

But please don't touch Kwekwe East (FV76) in Zimbabwe.

Still trying to start, do a looping arond the runway and land.

Nothing for people with acrophobia but I like this airstrip.

Albrecht

[Wally-Bob 0]

Mathijs:

I have been an Aerosoft fan for many years now. All quality products from code to feel has been your strength.

Granted I haven’t read every post in the several threads on this subject, so maybe my post here has already been entered by someone. Negative as some may see this, but none the less you are asking for inputs from potential customers.

By 2012 FSX will be a very mature product with most enthusiasts addon investments adding up to at least an order of magnitude more then AFS2012-RTM will cost. You have said that all/most of the FSX software addons will not work with AFS, albeit developers will easily compile existing source data to the format currently being used.

FSX has many little niche communities which allows users to gravitate toward their area of enjoyment. For me this is scenery design, not as a developer but as part of the freeware community. Most of the threads here complain about FSX this or that, and I want this and more. Nothing will ever perfect as long as there are perceptions voiced as opinions. I enjoy fixing and adding what I can and downloading what I haven’t learned to do yet. I have even made some changes to Manhattan X, in my opinion your best scenery offering to date. By 2012 much of the wish list posted here will have already been accomplished by developers for FSX and many of these items are available now. We will definitely have clouds that cast shadows in 2010. I confidently predict sometime in 2010 we will have our sloping runways for FSX. If the tools required for AFS addons must be from the professional arsenal costing thousands, that will even turn some of the developers away and certainly I will not be on board with you.

Now for my wish list; It will need to run well @ 32b on the first or second tier machines made today, be an order of magnitude superior to what FSX will be in 2012, economic SDK tools, economic recompiled scenery and aircraft from developers available for registered customers, and AFS2012 at less than $80.

If in 2012 Microsoft no longer plans to continue the FS legacy and instead releases the final FSX SDK which opens up the platform on a Linix like level, I believe it will be game over for AFS2012 as an initial product line success. It will mark the beginning of the long process to determine who will eventually capture the recreational flight simulation market.

Mathijs, my final thoughts here are Aerosoft is committed to the long term and will succeed in the professional (Real Pilots in Real Simulators) market. I suspect the AFS2012 product to be the stripped down version for the recreational simulation market. History will repeat again, so I may join you in 2016 when the average enthusiast will be able to afford the hardware needed to run the professional full blown version you will release in 2012. Until then you will enjoy the addon market penetration for both the AFS and FSX platforms and we will enjoy your releases, so it is a win-win for all.

Best of Regards and Successes to you,

Wally-Bob

[Hiflyer 129]

A few other random thoughts:

I have gotten the impression that Aerosoft is not particularly interested in introducing Air combat to its Sim, but it might be a good idea to make sure that at the very least the bare bones of the programming for it is implemented, should "things" change. Its probably better to have one Sim that can do both things now, than to find yourselves later with the need to support two Sim's with opposing goals and programming.

I also note that a lot of people seem to enjoy flying "historic" aircraft and routes, and I wonder if it would be practically feasible to at least partially accommodate that by having the Sim be capable of displaying vehicles (boats, cars, buildings and etc) appropriate with the time period chosen by the simmer. It would seem nearly impossible to do that practically with the current flight engines, but might be a (relative) piece of cake for a procedural engine. Imagine airports that changed geography to accurately reflect the chosen time-period! (or at least a Sim that offered the technology to make that happen)

Lighting! Anyone who has dabbled with 3D modeling (or any art, really) can tell you that lighting can make or break a scene, and thats especially true in 3D environments. Hopefully the new Sim will have a fully modern (and fast!) lighting system so that the slowdowns now associated with bloom and other FSX effects will be just a quaint memory..........