Jump to content
ridgey

Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 - Worries

Recommended Posts

Thank you for your reply Judith, please don't get me wrong by asking this question but are you a developper for Aerosoft? I am assuming you are.......

Now by the way you are answering my question let me tell you...you have a future in politic.....haha

1: OK, your first answer does not help me at all (sorry) so let me ask another way, does a game (AFS 2012) as to be built or coded SLI compatible to be able to use an SLI driver from ATI or Nvidia, yes or no?

2: About the DX question it is not a matter of if you care or not it's a matter of been up to date with what's going on in today's game market, who cared about DX10 when all game were DX9 only.......funny all game (fairly new one) are in DX10 and all future game will be DX11, new vid. card are built with DX11 now, same thing happend with DDR3 memory, everybody on DDR2 were saying we did not need it since not to many board were available for DDR3 memory.....hello...it can only get better.

3: Making the same mistake as FSX did would not be wise, seriously build a game who will use all available core, it may not be something to be taken lightly about synchronizing the additional threads with the rendering thread but maaaan can you imagine ASF2012 using 6 core and by the time AFS2012 is ready we will probably have 8 core CPU.

This is a complain we read all the time "Why will you buy a CPU with 6 core when none of the game on the market can use it", that's exactly my point....be the first....make it work.....make it future proof...make this game a multicore game......I'll be the first one to use my plastic card for a game (sorry) simulator like that....

Judith, I don't know if you are a developer for AFS2012 but with all due respect if you'r not can a developer or somebody who make decision at Aerosoft answer these simple questions?

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Well just a littel thing about cpu core, there is as far as i hear not many games, that use all cpu core but you can pay for a program called "MULTICORE ENVIRONMENT" that force the cpu core to do as you want it to do as you control it but as info it have effect on fsx but not as much as fs9 (works whit other exe files then FS things but think best for FS).

But i must say that i mean that aerosoft should not support fsx things converted to the new fs as i think it would give to many limets to the new simulator. just my meaning but hope we gona se a new simulator :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, can you name three major features that make DX11 better than DX10, just for the fun of it? Or the main advantage of DDR3 memory, for that matter? ;)

As an indie directx developer I suggest :

* compute shaders : use the power of the gpu to perform compute tasks ( physic could be a compute task, but you can use it for so many different kind of job ... )

* shader linking : so usefull, no more spaghetti style shaders

* tesselation : a great tool, but I have not seen a lot of engine using it efficiently ( unigine is clearly imho a bad exemple of tesselation use )

* the capability to run Direct3D 11 on downlevel hardware ( which is imho a better solution than using several renderer d3d9, d3d10,d3d11 : less code, less bug, less work ... )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was taken from airbus forum, from yesterday:

Mathijs looks like your getting a run for your money!

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

NEW FLIGHT SIMULATOR.

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

Well dont think so becaus it is a new team and seems to changes some things i don´t like and think others also dosent. Becaus 1 thing i have been reading yestereday is that they would combinate the realisem and easyer game play.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was taken from airbus forum, from yesterday:

Mathijs looks like your getting a run for your money!

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

Have you seen the latest Outerra video of a C172 flying around Lukla, Nepal region!!!

http://outerra.blogspot.com/2010/08/himalayas-trip.html

Aerosoft can't you reconsider Outerra? These guys are building an amazing (scenery) engine, mostly GPU compute shader powered leaving plenty of CPU power for simulating flight dynamics and systems!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the latest Outerra video of a C172 flying around Lukla, Nepal region!!!

http://outerra.blogs...layas-trip.html

Aerosoft can't you reconsider Outerra? These guys are building an amazing (scenery) engine, mostly GPU compute shader powered leaving plenty of CPU power for simulating flight dynamics and systems!

Nice video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the latest Outerra video of a C172 flying around Lukla, Nepal region!!!

http://outerra.blogspot.com/2010/08/himalayas-trip.html

Aerosoft can't you reconsider Outerra? These guys are building an amazing (scenery) engine, mostly GPU compute shader powered leaving plenty of CPU power for simulating flight dynamics and systems!

they really are doing a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe that we don't have a sim using this engine at the moment.

That video was amazing and several orders of magnitude better than anything I have seen from any other developer to date.

Unbelievable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe that we don't have a sim using this engine at the moment.

That video was amazing and several orders of magnitude better than anything I have seen from any other developer to date.

Well, there are some differences between a good graphics engine and the demands of a real simulation.

As an example: How good can the engine handle interruptions? They sometimes have the tendency to use very long pipelines which can lead to a pretty bad latency.

How much CPU and IO power do you retain for weather, traffic and flight model?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm still with Mathijs on this one... drop in a 200,000 polygon airplane, a repaint, a mega airport, traffic, autogen... and see how fast that engine runs....

I loaded half of MegaAirport Amsterdam into X-plane and the thing went from 70fps to 25fps.... and of course the visibility was still 1/3 of what Microsoft provides...

See it's real nice to run empty scenery like that, then you don't have to worry about building the scene properly for render. But the moment you drop an organic thing like an airport with unlimited placement possiblities, you'll see them buckle under the load, I guarentee it. If it could do it they would have shown it off already, instead of just a forest of evenly spaced trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a conversion utilility for FS to Xplane..that's what I used. The FS9 scenery didn't convert completely, but it was enough to do a comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it was enough to do a comparison.

You have to keep in mind, though, that a converted scenery package will usually be vastly less efficient than the same scenery re-exported from the source files. That's because X-Plane's renderer is very different from FSX', so scenery needs to be optimized differently. For example, FSX is designed to handle many small textures efficiently. With X-Plane this will bite you - it needs few big textures instead.

Judith

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX is great, abut also leaves plenty of room for improvement, but my main concern is computer speed. FSX was published in 2006, but there were no computers at the time capable of running it with all sliders to the right. Please put out a product that will not force us to look for a better computer.

Thanks and best of luck!

Luis

KMIA

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

running it with all sliders to the right.

Here's a flash: All the way to the right is not the only possible setting for a slider. In fact, most slider are not meant to be positioned at the extremes, but rather somewhere around the middle of the range. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a slider at all, now would there? Or put another way, when was the last time you maxed out all the 'sliders' of your car stereo?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are some differences between a good graphics engine and the demands of a real simulation.

The key here is that we have at least seen a graphics engine. It's one that is showing great promise and while there is no guarantee that Outerra will get legs, it actually demonstrates more capabilities than a couple of much vaunted potential products where much has been promised and theorized about, but so little has been delivered to date.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything constructive you wanted to add by spamming three different threads with the same, well-known, and in the end useless link, without any further comments? The Outerra engine has been discussed to death before, and was repeatedly declared unsuitable for AFS2013. Get over it!

Judith

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest, I don't think cross compatibility should be a major question anymore. MS are bringing on their "Flight" as a live game, and what I have seen so far (not much) horrifies me already - online repository for addons is enough to frighten me off simulation for life (just imagine you have to hire FS planes and airports?) We might all be seeing something evil in MS plans, but I still think we should keep the Aerosoft Sim going...

One thing I worry about as a painter is the lack of control we have over our output of other people's models. For instance: many model makers save a few KB by mirroring parts of their models so that we painters can't add assymmetry later. I would welcome a slightly more open architecture of the mdl mapping. It is not difficult to change the mapping code if you have the original 3DS Max or GMax model. It really isn't - if an aileron is mapped to the same UV coords on a texture sheet for both ailerons, then it would be nice if this were in a text file somewhere so that if needed, painters could add another sheet for the optional aileron mapping.

For the modeller it takes only minutes to change the map allocations - I know, I have had modellers do it for me.

For those who are wondering, I shall use Patty Wagstaffs Extra as an example. The default Patty Wagstaff plane is OK as the realworld paint is symmetrical. But her current livery isn't - the underside of the port wing and aileron is black, while the underside of the starboard aileron is silver. But as there is only one aileron texture on the dds sheet, there is no way a painter can get this fixed unless he has direct contact with the maker - and they are willing.

As a painter I can get really high level detail:

th_try_3.jpg th_try_2.jpg

Those images were drafts. But if the wing (or parts of it) are not repeated separately, then:

th_spoiltby.jpg

But sadly, far too many modellers fall short of the mark of excellence by the time they come to the mapping and or painting stage. On the other hand, us painters can't model for anything - quid pro quo. So if there was a way to have all the relevant texture export details available as editable text files, that would be a great improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldest product I run here is 6 years old (LevelD 767).

It would be insanity to try and make it cross-compatible, forgetting the legal issues. Build a new platform from scratch, AND DO IT RIGHT! If it is done right, it will have longevity, and break this stupid cycle of a new sim every 2 years that breaks all existing add-ons. Newer is not better.

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...