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

[empeck]

I wonder, why many people thinks OpenGL is superior than DirectX. It's just an API, you can do almost the same on both platforms, it's the same hardware after all.

Linux is another subject. PC gaming is in it's 'dark age', most of big companies switched to consoles, do you guys really think it is reasonable from business point of view to make a niche game for an OS that is installed on less than 5% of desktop computers?

 

[IanP]

The reason is quite simple: People are starting to refuse to upgrade to newer versions of Windows just to get the latest DirectX. By supporting Linux AND Mac AND Windows at any version (by avoiding DirectX) then you might not massively increase your user base, but you do increment it by stages.

MS will, in all probability, soon be releasing an XBox version of FS, which you will download in parts (charged for each) and which cannot physically be expandable without their say-so. Do you really want FS to go down that route?

 

[Bjoern]

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.)

Once one of those two video chip manufacturer throws a product on the market which is two steps ahead of its competitor instead of the usual one, it tends to get a bit lazy sitting on the revenues of the "hot" new chip and at best just works on slightly updated versions of it instead of new developments.
Only when the competition is about to throw their "two steps" or at least an equal product on the market, butts are kicked back to the lab to develop a countermeasure.

In between that, it's all monopoly, monopoly, monopoly and all of its benefits.

Just look at the Geforce 8 series. Dominating the market until ATI got their 4000 series cards on the market.

The sim world is definitely not big enough to support civilian versions of FS9, FSX, X-plane, Flightgear, and A N Other.

Apparently it is, if there's a demand for another one.

I'd rather have one too many flightsim on the market than one too little coupled with the consecutive monopoly behaviour.

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

I see.

Thanks for clearing that up, Bill!

A good SDK and "MakeModel" set up for whatever 3D design software they decide upon, is crucial.

Too true.

As long as the tools are avaiable to get stuff into the new sim, a "clean slate" isn't as bad as it sounds.

A good point. I hope they do not use DirectX. What a mess that was.

It was just a mess because the engine core was from 1999 and got augmented with serveral new shiny features over time, which I don't think was planned that way.

ID software's Quake 3 engine is a similar example in terms of longevity, but then again it was an engine for 3d shooters, which is a totally different deal.

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

You can't compare the environments of other games to a full-blown flightsim.
Games mostly concentrate on an action radius of 2*2km at best and not the whole world.

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.

...yet still lacks a sophisticated AI system and accurate terrain depiction.

 

[N332DW]

give me a bucket of legos and i can build most anything ...

 

[Tweek]

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.

To be honest, I don't think Aerosoft will want to take up too many of the ideas like that. People suggesting that you should be able to walk around the terminal, go to your office and then board the plane before you fly. It's ridiculous the amount of detail you'd need, at several airports in the world, and totally unnecessary for a flight sim. What next? You need to regularly drink coffee on a long haul night flight otherwise you fall asleep at the controls?

 

[cheezyflier]

well, we both seem to agree that the smart move would be for them to ignore those who are asking for the moon. however, i got the impression that they were very interested in doing the whole sim with the ability to switch between an "easy mode" and something more like an "accusim mode"
couple that with the combat ability that it also seems they are interested in, and there you go. operation of the sim becomes highly complex, and, to an extent, somewhat esoteric. hence my comment about the tutorials and learning center. hopefully we'd be spared rod muchado's terrible jokes. otherwise i agree, some of what people are asking for is just...retarded

 

[gera]

There is no need inventing the wheel!!!!....just follow FSX path (not the programming!!), better Scenery projection (there are about six ways to do this with today´s tech!!), smoother flying, couple up with Hi FI for some kind of integration with its weather engine, beef up ATC and AI traffic and there you are--plane design is fine as it is and getting better by the sweat, patience and intelect of many lone eagles out there.....comming up with walking around the airport building is nuts!!! have you been in one---its hell on earth!!!!.....and telling the neat story that it is a Million Bukaroo project is like saying that you don´t have to peel a Mango to eat it!!!!--baloney!!!......if I was 32, I would get the needed people together---today you don´t need even to see their face--you can do it over the net!!!!.......and get the job done!!!!...Money???, that´s the easy part

 

[Lionheart]

I got the impression that they were very interested in doing the whole sim with the ability to switch between an "easy mode" and something more like an "accusim mode"

If you are referring to something like what FSX started, ESP, that was simply FSX with 'help' and added open-end tune-ability. I spoke with and worked with many companies that had purchased it and they felt they were taken by it and didnt really like it. They preferred FSX, but the UEALA didnt allow this, so they were trapped. The sim didnt have extra things in it, only the ability to have them, and was meant as a 'you can do what you want with this' compared with FSX as it could 'not' be used to teach flying with, such as in airschools.

If thats what you mean with FSX, that is the 'market side' of the story, (not corportate views). Personally, I think ESP would have worked for a much smaller price. I think it would have taken off and many schools would have loved having it, but the price was massive.


It would be nice though if the sim could support extreme settings (aerodynamic involvements, like drag from doors being opened able to be programmed in), as well as extreme simplicity able to be used (for those that do not have such capabilities in aerodynamics). Thus the sim could be incredibly accurate if needed. (CF, maybe thats what you meant also).


I hope it turns out well for them and I hope it runs on Mac too. Woo hoooooooo! :d



Bill

 

[fliger747]

Part of the "charm" of FS was the depiction of the whole world to some degree or another. A massive undertaking and one that MS was not wholly sucessful in keeping up with the changes in such a large area. A degree of approximation was used in land class division and designing in suitable autogen with our imaginations filling in the rest. The MS database is huge.

Imagination will always be a requirement for living through a 2 D sim, a vicarious 3 D world.

Where considerable improvement is possible is in the physical calculation of the dynamics as has been enumerated previously.

All these improvements are a possible scenario, though FS has had it's strength from the third parties who have made a much more serious simulation from the bones provided by the basic game engine. What degree of open access to the inner workings might be possible through a SDK? Possibly inclusion of a Jerry Beckwith style "Airwrench" tool? Certainly the necessity to reverse engineer much of the inner workings as has been the case with FS would be an impediment.

A very long term comittment!

Cheers: T.

 

[gamemaster406]

I'm sort of confused, is this going to be a whole new flight sim or an add-on for FSX?

-Mike

 

[IanP]

An entirely new flight sim - if it comes off. Right now, it's just an idea.

The "modular" approach that I was suggesting is not so much "well we'll have a combat bit and a 1930s bit and a space flight bit", more along the lines of "the weather module will be part of the product, but self contained. The graphics engine will be part of the product, but self contained. The AI will be part of the product, but self contained. The glass cockpit avionics will be part of the product, but self contained."

This approach extends longevity dramatically by allowing a sim to receive constant rolling upgrades without having to replace the entire thing at once. Very similar to how X-Plane has developed, actually. Of course a modular approach would potentially allow modules such as combat, spaceflight, etc. to be added as well, but that isn't the primary reason for the approach. It's a lot more difficult to actually write, but a lot easier to maintain and update afterwards.

That's the theory, anyway!

 

[gamemaster406]

An entirely new flight sim - if it comes off. Right now, it's just an idea.

The "modular" approach that I was suggesting is not so much "well we'll have a combat bit and a 1930s bit and a space flight bit", more along the lines of "the weather module will be part of the product, but self contained. The graphics engine will be part of the product, but self contained. The AI will be part of the product, but self contained. The glass cockpit avionics will be part of the product, but self contained."

This approach extends longevity dramatically by allowing a sim to receive constant rolling upgrades without having to replace the entire thing at once. Very similar to how X-Plane has developed, actually. Of course a modular approach would potentially allow modules such as combat, spaceflight, etc. to be added as well, but that isn't the primary reason for the approach. It's a lot more difficult to actually write, but a lot easier to maintain and update afterwards.

That's the theory, anyway!

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[d0mokun]

It all sounds rather interesting to me.

 

[heywooood]

well - if one can do as one pleases with m/s ESP version of FSX - and since it is just essentially a canvas for the artist - why not make IT the core of a new flight sim and save time in developement?

as I understand it - once an entity buys ESP, they have bought the rights to do whatever they please with it - thats why it was so expensive...

maybe thats what m/s was doing in creating and selling ESP...they already knew the FS franchise was over and they were selling the rights to it to as many as were willing to pay for them.

who has ESP?
does the FSX SDK work with it or does it have its own SDK?
since you own ESP and FS has dumped FlightSim franchise altogether, what stops you from creating a new flight sim from it?

I would buy an FSX lookalike that had - better terrain mesh with accurate coastlines and cliff faces

corrected night lighting with seperate cabin / instrument lighting

more and better weather options

more and better ATC options

etc...

essentially - FSX with proper 3rd party enhancements PLUS a few internal improvements to the code

 

[n4gix]

well - if one can do as one pleases with m/s ESP version of FSX - and since it is just essentially a canvas for the artist - why not make IT the core of a new flight sim and save time in developement?

as I understand it - once an entity buys ESP, they have bought the rights to do whatever they please with it - thats why it was so expensive...

maybe thats what m/s was doing in creating and selling ESP...they already knew the FS franchise was over and they were selling the rights to it to as many as were willing to pay for them.

Nope! All an ESP1 licensee has the right to do is develop a "solution" which is then run as a sub-system within ESP1.

The "customer" would have to supply their own licensed copy of ESP1 on which to run the "solution," for which they would have to pay the developer a license fee.

At $899 for a single-seat license, I don't foresee hordes of avid flightsimmers rushing to come onboard...

Nota bene: There are also a host of other limitations involved, but the above is sufficient to doom the idea insofar as adoption by the masses is concerned.

 

[Bjoern]

This approach extends longevity dramatically by allowing a sim to receive constant rolling upgrades without having to replace the entire thing at once. Very similar to how X-Plane has developed, actually. Of course a modular approach would potentially allow modules such as combat, spaceflight, etc. to be added as well, but that isn't the primary reason for the approach. It's a lot more difficult to actually write, but a lot easier to maintain and update afterwards.

That would be nothing short of awesome.

 

[egypt23spitfire]

..i agree with the "sandbox" scenario but with increased layers and depth of tiles.
....ie so a coastline etc can be modelled more realistically without having to be so obvious in repetitions etc
..........the more the community has access to the code the better everything can progress from the outofbox version

.kudos for AEROSOFT of even entertaining the idea

 

[harleyman]

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

Me Too !!!!!

 

[heywooood]

double post
http://www.railsimulator.com/

 

[heywooood]

google railsimulator for Railworks and see what you think...

it was released recently through Steam but will also be available on disc...

http://www.railsimulator.com/ <--------------