• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

I knew this would happen when MS closed their doors on FS!

Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.
Also, I think that he should foremost think of Marketing. The wrong word can scuttle the whole thing.
Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.
I won't give up my Windows XP until they claw it loose from my dead hands. I suspect that there are many others like me.
 
IanP said:
The big problem with any undertaking like this is shown very clearly by the posts that appear on the thread already:

"Must have people on beaches and in cities!"
"Must have 100% accurate landclass and airports everywhere in the world!"
"Must have combat!"
"Must have the ability to walk around inside the terminal!"
"Must use Google Earth!"

As someone said on there... How many top of the range CPUs and GPUs in five years' time do you want to need to have to run this behemoth? :173go1:

They're a very competent company commercial wise, so will rule the totally unviable options out instantly. I'm just concerned that when the "WANT IT ALL!!!!!! WANT IT NOW!!!!!!" brigade get their claws out when they don't see what they demand being included, anything that does happen will be instantly ridiculed very loudly and repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Well put Ian.


Bill
 
Aerosoft are a class act amongst FS add-on developers and I am sure if this ever matures into a real sim that they do a great job. I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.
Though it also might just bankrupt them.
 
Naismith said:
Aerosoft are a class act amongst FS add-on developers and I am sure if this ever matures into a real sim that they do a great job. I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.
Though it also might just bankrupt them.
Click to expand...

I imagine though they better understand the FS enthusiast community. They don't actually have to create the whole world, there's hordes of us who will gladly jump in and do it for free as long as they have a reasonably user friendly developer kit that allows one to utilize geographic data that's freely available online. By relying on the user community to create content in that way, it would drive the cost of producing the sim down quite a bit I think.
 
Also, I think that he should foremost think of Marketing. The wrong word can scuttle the whole thing.
Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.
Click to expand...

I think this highlights a major problem when writing any new game, if you want to use all the latest techniques and tricks you have to use the latest OS to gain access to them. If you limit yourself to XP then you won't be able to do as much as if you use the latest OS, by the time this comes out we'll be using DX11 and 64 bit OS will probably be more prevalent to access more RAM. But by using the latest OS you limit your market to those nearer the cutting edge. Personally if they insist on XP compatibility, which they may well do, I can't see it progressing much beyond what's possible with FSX, after all that gets out of memeory errors in 32bit OS already so apart from tinkering with the balance of elements I don't think it would advance the genre.

I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.
Click to expand...

I think that's unfair on the ACES team, a number of whom were pilots in real life.

IMHO, they should start with as clean a slate as possible, i.e. don't insist on directly adding FSX aircraft as long as there are exporters for the major modelling apps so developers can re-compile there work. Then they should stop listening to the people posting on their forum as they'll never be able to satisfy them all, and develop the sim they want. It's not as if there are any major surprises on that thread, and a lot of the suggestions are from the hard core sim market who aren't big enough to viably market a commercial product at without it costing hundreds of £.
 
Helldiver said:
Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. It's a bit annoying when you've got dark, stormy clouds over your head yet the aircraft is still lit up in all its glory. A tad unrealistic, I think!
 
This whole thing could be distilled into... vaporware.

Let's seriously consider the development lead time for a fresh, competitive FS engine....

Given a huge development budget, and a huge staff.... it should be ready several years after the economy recovers and MS reopens Aces... and maybe only 1-2 years after FS XI is on store shelves.

April 1st was two months ago, the timing on this is way off.
 
A very daunting and dangerous task to give us all we want. And with MS still around they may find a way to scuttle the effort by resurrecting their FS series.
 
Sounds very interesting, and a logical next step for flight sims.

two points tho, a decent landascape is not beyond hoping for with addons to enhance it. A good world wide mesh is easily available, and good world textures. Photo landscapes are too flat without autogen, which adds the essential element of 3D reality, but hopefully the project could be modular which sounds great.

XP is a must. I will never give up mine, so i do hope that reason will prevail and combine XP with whatever else they may want to do. There are many ways to work with compatability. And if MS is not going to continue with their FS engine, they should make it open source and let us move on with it. Either get back in to the sim world or move out of the way.
 
Why develop a sim from scratch?
X-Plane just begs to be given the Aerosoft treatment.
If the parties can get a business case together, it seems a no-brainer to me.
The sim world is not big enough to support FS9, FSX, X-plane, and A N Other.
 
Don't worry, it'll fail. I'll be more interested in where they are in about 6 months to a year. If they're still working on it then, it might have a chance. Personally, I don't think it'll fly but I'm wishing them the best of luck.
 
For a minimum requirement, it should do everything FSX does now or there would be no sense in even starting this project.
 
I find the fact that there is so much discussion about a post that actually right from the start says "We are thinking about doing this" to be somewhat amusing. Don't get me wrong...I wish them success, but consider a few things...

It will be totally new. If Microsoft has anything to do with it (and I am guessing they will) then nothing you currently own will fly on it. IF tools are developed that allow developers to convert existing models to work with it then expect that these will be new products that are not given away, as I fully expect that there will be enough "translation" required to compile an existing model to work in this new sim that you will pay for it. It will be the same thing we went though with FSX when people had to pay for the FSX version of a FS9 model they already had (although there were a few developers that did not do that it was a definite minority)

My two cents at this point. Personally, I think that FSX is just starting to gain momentum in terms of aftermarket development.
 
They're going to make FSX aircraft compatable, they said there is going to be a tool so developers can convert to FSX. Which only makes sense because they develope FSX aircraft and still want to sell products.
 
My point is that that "tool" will come at a price. Anything FSX will have a connection to Microsoft. I highly doubt that they will give that away. Any model formats...gauge formats...etc. Obviously Aerosoft will sell products on a sim they create! My point is that there is no way MS will allow FSX content to be used without getting a piece of the pie...which you will pay for.
 
N2056 said:
My point is that that "tool" will come at a price. Anything FSX will have a connection to Microsoft. I highly doubt that they will give that away. Any model formats...gauge formats...etc. Obviously Aerosoft will sell products on a sim they create! My point is that there is no way MS will allow FSX content to be used without getting a piece of the pie...which you will pay for.
Click to expand...

What doesn't come at a price? Does MS own the individual rights to aircraft people designed themselfs? I don't think so. I'm sceptical also.
 
IanP said:
One of my least favourite people in the hobby did come up with a very good post, discussing making it modular and thus much more expandable and able to evolve.
Click to expand...

Ugh, please no. This concept really screams for moneymaking.

I already shrieked when I saw FSX's shelf price of 70€s. But at least I got a ready-to-go, all-around package.

Now imagine the base sim for 40€s, and "detailed airports", ATC, "commercial aircraft", "autogen" modules at 20€s each. It would be one pricey nightmare to get an all-around package together.


Helldiver said:
Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.
Click to expand...

Certainly nice to have in a flightsim, although IL-2 already did it (at least cloud shadows on the ground) back in 2004.


Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.
I won't give up my Windows XP until they claw it loose from my dead hands. I suspect that there are many others like me.
Click to expand...


I hear you, but I would really prefer a DX10-only solution, since limiting your graphics engine to one system only greatly reduces the risk for any complications and glitches compared to a two-way approach.

And I've heard that Windows 7 isn't nearly as bad as its predecessor.


SkippyBing said:
IMHO, they should start with as clean a slate as possible, i.e. don't insist on directly adding FSX aircraft as long as there are exporters for the major modelling apps so developers can re-compile there work. Then they should stop listening to the people posting on their forum as they'll never be able to satisfy them all, and develop the sim they want. It's not as if there are any major surprises on that thread, and a lot of the suggestions are from the hard core sim market who aren't big enough to viably market a commercial product at without it costing hundreds of £.
Click to expand...

Totally right.

I even dare to say that a remake of FSX with a new graphics engine and continuous support from the developers would totally do the trick.

It might also be a good starting point for further development, since once you've reached FSX's niveau, it can only get better.


Silver Fox said:
This whole thing could be distilled into... vaporware.

Let's seriously consider the development lead time for a fresh, competitive FS engine....
Click to expand...

I fear that, too.


Wing_Z said:
The sim world is not big enough to support FS9, FSX, X-plane, and A N Other.
Click to expand...

We've got FS9, FSX, X-Plane and FlightGear in peaceful coexistence so far, so why shouldn't it work if a completely new civilian flightsim entered the market?

After all, it's competition that keeps developers on their toes.
Just look at the video card market and you'll see what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top