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

[MudMarine]

What I really want is Train Simulator..........

 

[Wing_Z]

...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.

Not sure how TWO video card makers illustrate your point...given that Nvidia and ATI service the ENTIRE PC games industry, (and both have been swallowed by the chipmakers.)
The sim world is definitely not big enough to support civilian versions of FS9, FSX, X-plane, Flightgear, and A N Other.

 

[GT182]

I'm with Ian. I'd like to see combat and all stations useable on the WWII bombers.

I do think it'll take them longer to do it than Oleg's SOW: Battle of Britain II. Which still is a long way off from being completed.

 

[Bone]

Hopefully Aerosoft will have greater luck than the "Fighter Ops" team. I was really hoping Fighter Ops would live up to all the hype, but, it seems to be more of a static display.

Fighter Ops started a special members section called Area 51. You had to pay to belong to it, and some members paid as much as a hundred bucks. A Slick (but slimey) way to help defray dev costs.

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=109576&page=6

 

[Prowler1111]

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.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that MS can scream foul play if another sim engine "sees" their models.I can tell you right now, 3 coming flight/combat simulators are using FSX as a test bed for their 3d stuff..no i can´t say the names..
Prowler

 

[Lionheart]

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.

I can see them perhaps supplying a license. They even talked with me on this, but I wanted a license with FS9 and they emmediately shut down communications.

Quote:Originally Posted by IanP
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.



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.

Bjoern,

I 'think' Ian means the modularity of which FS is assembled, like in components. I could be wrong. Being able to add parts from other sim versions makes it very expandable. Having all the same 'components' of sections using a similar code, etc, helps so that you can fly a war plane in a GA sim, and a GA plane in a war sim, like in CFS and FS.

The modularity of FS is awesome and unique and made it easy to work in for Devs..

I dont think he meant 'different types of versions'.


Bill

 

[tigisfat]

You know what would be cool?

This may have been mentioned already, but compatibility with FSX/SP2 addons would be awesome. There may be some trademark issues, but I'd sure love to use my purchased products in a new sim, even if it's not from Microsoft. That would solve the problem X-plane has been trying to overcome for years. The whole MSFS crowd would gravitate to the new sim immediately.

 

[cheezyflier]

it's a nice dream, but i am not optomistic, because of the expense and complexity of such an undertaking.

in my mind the only way to truly get it right is to clean sheet the entire thing. say no to any compatability between their sim and microsoft's.
that way they will not be limited by fsx's short comings. also, with the level of realism people want, and other features like combat mode, career mode, etc, can you imagine how voluminous the tutorial and the learning center would need to be? someone should mention that to them, but i don't really want to join another forum just now.

 

[mathijs (aerosoft)]

Would somebody tell Mahijs that being color blind, I cannot read his code for registration. Being color blind effects 20% of the male population. I have a severe case. Could he just put the letters in black and white, unless having color perception is a requirement to register in Aerosoft's forum.

Well for sure it is not a requirement, but the only way to prevent the forums to be full of spam is to use one of these 'check if it really a human typing' things. If you write a short mail to support@aerosoft.com we will make an account manually for you of course. Sorry for the problems.

To all others, while I do visit this forum regular don't use it to send us ideas on a possible new sim. Do use our own forum for that please.

Mathijs Kok
Aerosoft

 

[Shaun Fletcher]

Hello HellDiver,

Not sure why my last post to you is not on display!

Shaun Fletcher.
Aerosoft

 

[fliger747]

A very interesting development, which one hopes will come to fruition. The Ms FS series was started in a much simpler era of computer sophistication. The graphics have improved greatly, but we have pretty much stuck with some fairly basic (read simplified) ways of calculating flight dynamics and interactions with the operating surfaces. Certainly including the horizontal stab and elevators directly into the calculations rather than adding the effect as a bias of the main wing would have advantages.

Another area that would improve such things as ski and water operations would be a certain 3D aspect, essentially modeling snow and water as having depth and viscosity, allowing a plane (or ship) to have certain efffects depending on speed. For instance hydrodynamic lift and pitch effects could be linked to the aircrafts speed and air control inputs, to radically improve the realism of seaplane operations. Similarly snow can be modeled for ski planes as something else than a skating rink.

Cheers: T.

 

[gera]

There were a few people discussing flight dynamics and also, more encouragingly, a few people talking about the difference a good weather engine would bring (that directly affecting flight dynamics).

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. That, in my opinion, would be very helpful. Then of course you have the pro VATSIM and IVAO types insisting that all ATC should be canned and their system used instead, the pro-photo scenery types saying that all the terrain should be photomapped... I think the problem with announcing the development of a sim so openly is that all the specific interest groups get to air their views, while those who just want an improvment on the status quo will always be more reserved and quiet. I'm also a little disappointed by those stating that it should natively support existing models (so they can use their FS9/X payware without further outlay). Make it easy to convert models by developers, certainly, but using Microsoft's proprietary code? Not a good idea.

That said, I do hope they go ahead with it, I do hope it's a success and, if it is developed in a modular format, there's nothing stopping the niche markets (or less niche, such as combat) developing alongside the central core. They've got an opening to do something very good here - I hope it works.

I agree with Ian here. What is need is compatibility with existing Addons, otherwise we have to start all over from anew and that costs too much money. It does worry me that Aerosoft is one of the most expensive in the market and am sure their sim or whatever will continue the trend of making our hobby more expensive by the month-----hope they get the project going and let´s see what they come up with.---too expensive, little sales = flop!!!

 

[Panther_99FS]

You know what would be cool?

This may have been mentioned already, but compatibility with FSX/SP2 addons would be awesome.

'Compatibility' is exactly why FSX came out of the box as "terrible" (for lack of a better word) as it did.

We would have a much better & cleaner FSX if Microsoft designed FSX 100% completely new.

However, everyone screamed "backwards compatibility!" & thus some of the new things Microsoft wanted to put in were either discarded or implemented unfinished.

 

[Brett_Henderson]

'Compatibility' is exactly why FSX came out of the box as "terrible" (for lack of a better word) as it did.

We would have a much better & cleaner FSX if Microsoft designed FSX 100% completely.

However, everyone screamed "backwards compatibility!" & thus some of the new things Microsoft wanted to put in were either discarded or implemented unfinished.<!-- / message -->

Profoundly true..

FSX should have been a clean break. If they werre aiming at cutting edge hardware (and they were), they needed to focus on that. As a person who has developed both FS9 and FSX freeware, I know intimately the price we've all paid for backwards compatability. It added unneeded complexity to the FSX "code". And look what has happened.. the plethera of poor port-jobs, has made a big mess, bigger.

The next sim (be it MS or Aerosoft), needs to break clean away with it's own models. How they'll incorporate us freeware designers is a big question. A good SDK and "MakeModel" set up for whatever 3D design software they decide upon, is crucial.

 

[IanP]

Gera, you read my post wrongly. It is a BAD idea to have FSX add-ons inside any future sim. Why? Because of licensing costs for proprietary code. Because of the fact that as Panther says, trying to keep backwards compatibility is what kills every new version of MSFS. FS is the only game (it is a game - don't pretend otherwise) that I know, of the hundreds that I have played, where they try to keep backwards compatibility. As a result, you never move forwards and you end up with nobody happy because you just break everything and end up with an almighty mess. It's much better to have a new compiler that will allow you to recompile existing gmax/3DStudioMAX and possibly FSDS (although I doubt that) models into the new format. Certainly MS's scenery system needs killing off anyway, it's far too limiting. Sloping runways aren't a "nice to have", they're essential in the real world. You find a completely flat runway and you're in a very rare place indeed. Likewise, we're having to use the FS2002 SDK to develop custom ground textures for airports for Pete's sake! It really is time to redesign that entire engine. It's way past its sell by date.

Sorry to all the people who want to keep XP/DX9, but if you want to use an old OS, you get to use old software on it. That means FS9 and X. Again, technology and support for new functions have left DX9 a long way behind. By all means make it work on Linux or Mac and avoid DirectX altogether, but don't limit it to repeat and be constrained by software that is pushing ten years out of date.

 

[gera]

Gera, you read my post wrongly. It is a BAD idea to have FSX add-ons inside any future sim. Why? Because of licensing costs for proprietary code. Because of the fact that as Panther says, trying to keep backwards compatibility is what kills every new version of MSFS. FS is the only game (it is a game - don't pretend otherwise) that I know, of the hundreds that I have played, where they try to keep backwards compatibility. As a result, you never move forwards and you end up with nobody happy because you just break everything and end up with an almighty mess. It's much better to have a new compiler that will allow you to recompile existing gmax/3DStudioMAX and possibly FSDS (although I doubt that) models into the new format. Certainly MS's scenery system needs killing off anyway, it's far too limiting. Sloping runways aren't a "nice to have", they're essential in the real world. You find a completely flat runway and you're in a very rare place indeed. Likewise, we're having to use the FS2002 SDK to develop custom ground textures for airports for Pete's sake! It really is time to redesign that entire engine. It's way past its sell by date.

Sorry to all the people who want to keep XP/DX9, but if you want to use an old OS, you get to use old software on it. That means FS9 and X. Again, technology and support for new functions have left DX9 a long way behind. By all means make it work on Linux or Mac and avoid DirectX altogether, but don't limit it to repeat and be constrained by software that is pushing ten years out of date.

Sorry if I mis-read your post..OK let´s get a brand New Job!!!!.....I really don´t care---I am happy with FSX for now, so a new one might be cute--as you say after all its only a game----and don´t be sorry, each one to his own......-----I have been doing software for 37 years and "backward comptibility is not so bad as you metion---what happens really is that Poor programming and Not using the right techniques mess up the so called new Programs----but again I really don´t care so I stop right here and we´ll see if "anything" really comes out of this ambitious project which does, to me, not sound very feasable as some think....Stop Gera!!!

 

[Lionheart]

Ian,

A good point. I hope they do not use DirectX. What a mess that was. Using OpenGL would enable them to do versions for Mac and Linux. Awesome awesome...

Many other games that have incredible environments do not use directX and have superior frame rates.

A compiler is a very important component to a sim. The FS9 compiler, in older days with slower technologies would take 20 to 25 min's to compile a model. Then, the compiler would do goofy things, like weld vertices together that are under 4MM in distance, (on the interior model only. the exterior didnt suffer this, oddly, and its the interior where you need to make small parts, so go figure).

With the latest FSX compiler, you can compile models in the blink of an eye which makes it a brilliant compiler. But the process of tagging all the parts is crazy. Even the XML parts code. Way too much work. FS9 parts code was brilliant....

my two cents..

EDIT: X-Plane does not use directX and it has brilliant frame rates and tons of things that FSX has plus many things FSX does not have.


Bill

 

[gera]

Ian,

A good point. I hope they do not use DirectX. What a mess that was. Using OpenGL would enable them to do versions for Mac and Linux. Awesome awesome...

Many other games that have incredible environments do not use directX and have superior frame rates.

A compiler is a very important component to a sim. The FS9 compiler, in older days with slower technologies would take 20 to 25 min's to compile a model. Then, the compiler would do goofy things, like weld vertices together that are under 4MM in distance, (on the interior model only. the exterior didnt suffer this, oddly, and its the interior where you need to make small parts, so go figure).

With the latest FSX compiler, you can compile models in the blink of an eye which makes it a brilliant compiler. But the process of tagging all the parts is crazy. Even the XML parts code. Way too much work. FS9 parts code was brilliant....

my two cents..

EDIT: X-Plane does not use directX and it has brilliant frame rates and tons of things that FSX has plus many things FSX does not have.


Bill

" EDIT: X-Plane does not use directX and it has brilliant frame rates and tons of things that FSX has plus many things FSX does not have."

You are so right Bill, but many people"just talk" and have not tried the Sim....I am sure that the way it´s going, in two or three years it will be outstanding and many of today´s "talkers" will be delighted with it.:isadizzy::isadizzy:
I keep involving myself with XP and find new things all the time...mark my words.----------I point out, If the XP group had the Muula the Big Empire of MS has, they would now have the best Sim around.....and there would be no need for "hoping" for another. Changing sims is not like changing "Word or Excel".......but again--each one to his own---

 

[IanP]

I dislike X-Plane. I've tried it and tried to like it many times, but unfortunately I just find it totally lacking any depth whatsoever. It's like taking one step forwards and ten backwards, but at twice the price.

Given that it's developer also ranks very highly amongst the most arrogant and self-centred people I've ever met, it's not a platform I'll be spending any more money on until it has both the support for 3rd party development that FS8 had, let alone 9 or X and it has more reasonable people at the top.

Right now it's a sim for people who don't care about scenery, don't care about system depth and just like the eye candy of blown snow and lots of trees - even if they are in totally the wrong places.

 

[cheezyflier]

also, xplane is rediculously priced. compare what you get in fsx vs xp9, then comapre price. it's a no-brainer.