Thoughts about MSFS 11

M

Major_Spittle

Charter Member
I certainly hope that MS concentrates on making a " truely " scalable game engine for their next flight sim.

One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

One with model stress/damage based on mechanical physics that can truely be scaled by system performance.

One like FSX that can be supported by 3rd parties for add ons.

I hope that MS makes a game designed to be flexible enough to be expanded upon by them and 3rd parties after release to become the game the purchaser wants ultimantly. I hope they release the basic skeleton of a flight sim with multiple add on packages as they are developed with things like:

Missions
Weather Simulator
Combat
Airlines Simulator
Air Racing

This way MS and 3rd parties can make money through continued support to the product and it can develop over years and fill many roles.

FSX was a good step this direction but the next one needs to be more flexible and concentrate on flight physics, weather physics, and damage physics that can be modeled to take it to the next level. I can't imagine graphics becoming that much better nor would I enjoy better graphics more than better flight modeling.

Anybody else have thoughts on what it will take to get you to upgrade to FS11 and consider it a success?
 
FSX is already a "truly" scalable title. Granted there is always more room/need for improvements and new features.

I doubt you will see any kind of damage modeling from stress, etc as they took it out from how it was implemented in previous versions, but I agree it needs to be added back in.

I also doubt MS is interested in producing addons to the main sim, there are enough 3rd party vendors for that and I doubt it would be cost effective considering the extra time spent on them.

Graphics can be much improved, more details, photo scenery etc. Obviously it's just what is important to each simmer as to what they want improved. I can't imagine no matter how much is invested into the flight dynamics it ever being as believable as the real thing.

Other than what I have with FSX, I'd like to see added to FX11 cloud shadows, new lighting in general, better overhead performance with more realistic system requirements, more photo scenery with custom autogen, better AI including helicopters with real rotary airfiles, a larger expansion on the living world concept, both on land and in the water, and including more people.
 
ATC with an IQ above room temperature would be nice!
AI traffic in multi-player, so I don't feel lonelier in MP than offline.
Proper dynamics for the droppable objects so you can do toss bombing etc. preferably include the basics so 3rd parties can make combat add-ons.
 
Major_Spittle said:
I certainly hope that MS concentrates on making a " truely " scalable game engine for their next flight sim.

One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

One with model stress/damage based on mechanical physics that can truely be scaled by system performance.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. However, If I understood several statements, flight dynamics will be based off an xml "table" that will then be compiled into the air file. How that will work, I'm not sure.


One like FSX that can be supported by 3rd parties for add ons.
Click to expand...

I hope that MS makes a game designed to be flexible enough to be expanded upon by them and 3rd parties after release to become the game the purchaser wants ultimantly. I hope they release the basic skeleton of a flight sim with multiple add on packages as they are developed with things like:

Missions
Weather Simulator
Combat
Airlines Simulator
Air Racing

This way MS and 3rd parties can make money through continued support to the product and it can develop over years and fill many roles.

FSX was a good step this direction but the next one needs to be more flexible and concentrate on flight physics, weather physics, and damage physics that can be modeled to take it to the next level. I can't imagine graphics becoming that much better nor would I enjoy better graphics more than better flight modeling.
[/quote]

That's a given. Remember that the core platform serves Flight Simulator, ESP and Train Sim2. ESP is the commercial product and ultimately gives developers more "access" to the innards of the system. How much of that will make it to the "entertainment" product? My guess is a lot, but there will still be compromises.

My best guess is to watch where ESP is going, and FS/Train Sim will follow.
 
Major_Spittle said:
One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think we need this, as I think the current table based system works just fine, and actually gives better results than the other sims out there that by all accounts, use a toned down physics based FM engine which actually isn't any superior to the FS method!

Granted, it could currently do with a few tweaks and additions so other areas of the flight envelope and aircraft types can be modelled that can't at present (MS/ACES, please give Sparks a call!), but unless they came up with a physics based FM engine/model that is far superior to all those used in other sims at present and can actually do what it supposed to do, I'm happy to stick with the way it's been done in all previous versions of FS.

As for aircraft stress/damage, I'd to would like to see that imporoved upon as well.

I'd also like to see more advanced engine & systems modelling also, in the case of the former, the abilty to properly model Superchargers. For example, you could have a two stage-single speed one if needed, plus the ablity to have it switch autmatically or manually if need be. This would open up things a bit more for the WWII aircraft which are limited at present to using a Turbocharger instead, although FSX Acceleration has attempted to model Superchargers, I don't no how much you can do with them.

I think the other areas that need to be looked at is the ablitity to properly model different types of aircraft that FS doesn't do or do well at the moment, such as VTOL types & Bi-planes And of course improved Helicopter FM's!

Cheers

Paul
 
MudMarine said:
How about a decent multi player! And someday, the ability to talk to ATC.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!!! Well said MudMarine. When will MS catch up to the likes of UBISOFT et al and realize that there are a lot of folk who fly MP.

So much can be done / developed in FSX for single player, the second you try and implement effects etc into MP it all goes pear shaped and is near impossible.

How ever as it stands FSX multiplayer stability is outstanding and cannot be faulted when flown by Peer to Peer (I don't know about Gamespy connections as never used it).

Combat, as we know it, would be nice and certainly a coup within the simming community but I still can't see MS moving away from their "Politicly Correct" stance. A great shame, much could be done dev / addon wise with this sim aspect.

AI is possible in MP... BUT... One has to have a dedicated server to do it - Our online group has AI KC-135's for AAR, US Navy Fleets (Yankee & Dixie) sailing in the Gulf of Tonkin and a host of other goodies flying around, including a working SA-2 SAM system (still in development to polish off a few bugs and improved SAM models etc) that works either as user operated (via FSX radar) or fully auto (AI), it tracks, locks, fires and guides to any flying member. It uses researched firing solution parameters and accurate missile flight profile, the guy behind this is just starting to work on the damage to the users aircraft, IE: to kill an engine, force a fuel leak etc. Anyone who wishes to witness what we have so far PM me. So many things are possible within FSX, as was said to me on this forum once "one has to think outside the box" - FSX is truly a fantastic platform and I look forward to what comes after it in the future.

So many great points are raised here and I agree with you all :)
 
MudMarine said:
Here's a though..........LISTEN to what FS simmers want for once!:kilroy:
Click to expand...

So if 2 users want moving blades of grass worldwide that should be in there?

How about the 3 users who want individual tree leaves to blow in the wind? That would be interesting.

I read that 4 users want to see fish in the waters around Alaska. I wonder if that will make the cut?

Starting with FSX, Microsoft has listened to users more than ever before. Programming choices will always need to be made and all things will not ever be included to everyone's liking.
 
Physics-
Better helcopter flight models
More realistic performance "on the edge": slow flight, stalls, aerobatics, etc.

AI-
Helicopters
Military, including traffic patterns, formation flights, NOE flights, and carrier operations
Random flights: GA and helicopters that fly around randomly, during weekends and good weather, sometimes fly the traffic pattern, do touch and gos, sight see, fly to random local airports rather than having strict schedules. More aircraft parked, even if they aren't scheduled for flights.

Display and Graphics-
Separate display sliders for quantity and quality of AI aircraft, so we can choose a balance between heavy traffic and pretty traffic.
Same for autogen.
Change the way cities are modeled so that they look like cities from a distance. Instead of having buildings disappear with distance (leaving very sparse cities with a handful of buildings), have them "combine" into few large low LOD building that emulates the skyline. From a distance, I think a "lump" of buildings would look better than two or three skyscrapers sticking up in a flat area, and be less graphically taxing than hundreds of individual buildings.

ATC-
So many requests about ATC, I don't even know where to begin. How about spacing the AI so they don't have to go around, handling multiple aircraft in the pattern, and reacting to emergencies?
 
Better use of the graphics card GPU's (SLI, etc.) and less reliance on the CPU. We're kind of stuck in the stone age with this current flighsim's graphic engine. I bet WinXP won't even be supported with FS11 if MS has their way...:d
 
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Major_Spittle
One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Personally, I don't think we need this, as I think the current table based system works just fine, and actually gives better results than the other sims out there that by all accounts, use a toned down physics based FM engine which actually isn't any superior to the FS method!

Bradburger
Click to expand...

I agree. I think we shouldnt try to mix models into aerdynamics, but maintain their present 'characteristics' in the cfg and air files. It would be seriously difficult to make parts like wings to react properly in FS. I believe that the airfiles do a great job.

This had actually come up a few months back between us and Aces in which we talked about making the 'aircraft' config file an XML also which would make the entire 'playing field' of configs in the FS platform a singular 'type' of format, (uniform throughout). Basically its just renamed to XML. That was the talk, anyway. I dont know if it is 'in' FS11.


I think some additional tweak capabilities to the aircraft configs should include a more rudementary ability to tune the aircraft, for instance, actual settings of basisc flight characteristics, such as setting Max Cruise at 20,000 feet at 189 Knots GS, gear up stall at 75 knots, gearup, 75% fuel or less, (etc). With the addition of 'tags' in strings, one could set up a plane to properly fly in perhaps 10 min's without even taking off, and have it fly right the first time, and get away with having it take 1 month to get it tuned to fly exact.

Presently its done by a method that seems backwards, where you try to get a 'grouping' of parameters to create a proper flight file. Some think this is fine, but from stepping back and looking at the big picture from outside the box, it seems very antiquated. This 'concept' for 'taggable' 'strings' (modular quick tunes) would be an add-on to the present 'existing' air/cfg file sets.

And stalls... We should be able to have say several forms of stalls available. Perhaps a set of 'modelled' stalls hard wired into the sim, and one ticks which stall the aircraft should usually do. This way, your plane handles more properly in various stalls. (Rutans that mush down, Mustangs that arch over to the right or left, Cessna 182's that nose up, then drop nose fast into a shallow dive, etc).

Thus you would have a list of tickable stall types.




Ok.... Now.. Here is my mind blowing.. Ultimate... Earth shaking... 'IDEA' for FS11.... :d

Have it be based on OpenGL instead of DirectX.

This way, it can be ran faster, it could run on Apple's OS, it could perhaps be more flexible, more effects with better frame rates...

<---- ducks from on-coming veggy assaults... :kilroy:





Also... (one more cool idea). I think it would be cool that if Track IR lowered their prices to a more affordable level, and Aces/Ms made a partnership with them, they could have optional TrackIR Editions shipped 'with' FS11, (actually in the box, say a side-by-side box set, with a cello cover showing the Track-IR device).

I think Track IR is so revolutionary, and should be made available right off the bat with first timers purchasing FS. Its just toooooo good.

Bill
 
Lionheart said:
Ok.... Now.. Here is my mind blowing.. Ultimate... Earth shaking... 'IDEA' for FS11.... :d

Have it be based on OpenGL instead of DirectX.

This way, it can be ran faster, it could run on Apple's OS, it could perhaps be more flexible, more effects with better frame rates...

<---- ducks from on-coming veggy assaults... :kilroy:

Bill
Click to expand...

Ha, yeah, I'm sure MS would jump at that chance, ....NOT! LOL (have to agree though)
 
MCDesigns said:
Ha, yeah, I'm sure MS would jump at that chance, ....NOT! LOL (have to agree though)
Click to expand...

I know.. lolol.. Imagine though. All those other games are mostly OpenGL and run brilliant. DX I think has become an anchor, (my own two cents there). I have been totally unimpressed with it. Go where the performance is. Perhaps make two editions like some other games do, one for dx, one for OpenGL. The biggest issue with FS is frame rates. Even today, I tried to fly around in FSX and it was an off and on slide show, sometimes 18 FPS, sometimes 7 FPS. Most other games never even talk about FPS. Its smooth and nothing is talked of about it.

FS needs a Lamborghini game engine... Bottom line.



Bill
 
JSkorna said:
So if 2 users want moving blades of grass worldwide that should be in there?

How about the 3 users who want individual tree leaves to blow in the wind? That would be interesting.

I read that 4 users want to see fish in the waters around Alaska. I wonder if that will make the cut?

Starting with FSX, Microsoft has listened to users more than ever before. Programming choices will always need to be made and all things will not ever be included to everyone's liking.
Click to expand...


Whoa, ok I think that was taken a little too literally, I am sure that MudMarine was generalizing there - After all a lot of what FS simmers have been craving for nigh on 10 years has been completely ignored by MS and the MSFS devs, that is undeniable fact.

I am in agreement with MM to an extent, whilst FSX was, somewhat, developed inline with user feedback a LOT of what a MAJORITY of sim users would have liked to have seen was, almost deliberately, omitted - Most of these omissions would have been relatively straight forward to incorporate with a minimum of program size impact (given decent coding techniques).

Lionheart your comments regarding the Flight Dynamics and Graphics engine are spot on and I hope that what you have spoken of here becomes reality.
 
And we also know that simmers are NOT the target audience of the FS franchise. If programming and coding is so easy I am sure that other flight sim programs are just around the corner. If you ever meet the ACES team you may gain a better understanding of what they are up against and their limitations.
 
using OpenGL would be the best step forward -

adjusting landmass rendering at the shorelines and coastlines so that they appeared to rise out of the water instead of float on top of it would be nice

adding more options in the atc panel would be good - being able to declare an emergency or being vectored to the next available airport incase the weather or an accident has closed the intended..etc...

adding airframe damage from overstress and allowing for more realistic belly landings etc...

adding a small, regional map view of the area around the airport you select in free flight would be helpfull - you get to see the plane you select, why not the airfield?
it can be a simple afcad type drawing or a top down view from ingame...

smoother dusk to darkness and dawn to daylight transitions
 
heywooood said:
adding more options in the atc panel would be good - being able to declare an emergency or being vectored to the next available airport incase the weather or an accident has closed the intended..etc...

adding airframe damage from overstress and allowing for more realistic belly landings etc...
Click to expand...

1.) That would be great! *Weather here in San Diego is terrible, and I have a engine fodded, I need to divert!*

2.) Blown mainmount tires on landing would be awesome. :d

3.) Get rid of gamespy as their main form of logging onto multiplayer.

4.) Put some detail into military bases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top