What next for flight simulation?

[TheOptimist]

(Apologies if this has already been done. I've searched fairly extensively.)

With the dissolution of the ACES studio, and Microsofts hesitation to announce anything whatsoever in terms of future developments, where will flight simulation develop from here? I know a few of the ACES team have started their own company, and there are other simulators available (X-plane being the closest example) but without the backing of a huge company like Microsoft it's hard to see much scope for massive improvements.

I think the mainstay of the problem is that as technology and expectations progress the process becomes less and less cost effective. Long gone are the days when every airport was a light coloured gray bit inside a big green bit. Now some poor sod has to go through 24,000 airports, putting a tower in the right place, putting numbers on the runways, getting the correct thresholds etc.

Obviously the role of third-party payware and freeware developers is huge - but I think to truly progress there have to be much more substancial changes. Things like completely redoing the flight characteristics, reworking the graphics engine etc. As much as I love FSX I absolutely can't believe it's nigh on impossible to sideslip your standard aircraft....

Payware and freeware have limitations though, each little download is a big chunk of data and if you wanted to improve across the board you could happily install 200gb's worth of improvements and still not really get anywhere.

Are there any developers out there who would take on these challenges? Is it even legal for them to do so? Is there anyone who would have a proper crack at a completely new flight modelling system?

And if they could make it freeware that'd be lovely

 

[N2056]

I'm at the point where I really am happy with what I have. I can fly over detailed photoscenery of the area I live in, I have the tools to allow me to have the planes I fly in for real, and I have a rig that does it smoothly. I can fly for real, and come home & duplicate the flight on my computer in the same plane in vivid detail.

For the first time in 30+ years of messing with flightsims I am content.

 

[spotlope]

Aerosoft is working on a new sim. No idea when it'll hit the streets, but there's a good bit of buzz over on their forums: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showforum=278

Freeware? Doubtful.

 

[TheOptimist]

I'm at the point where I really am happy with what I have. I can fly over detailed photoscenery of the area I live in, I have the tools to allow me to have the planes I fly in for real, and I have a rig that does it smoothly. I can fly for real, and come home & duplicate the flight on my computer in the same plane in vivid detail.

For the first time in 30+ years of messing with flightsims I am content.

Largely I agree, and in no way am I dissatisfied with what Microsoft or 3rd party developers have done thus far. In fact I'm very very grateful and utterly astonished at the quality of most of the work.

However, I'm always one to push for improvement after improvement.

For example, I can't stand the fact that you can't sideslip in the vast vast majority of aircraft, it irritates me to no end that stalling isn't really modelled, if I see a jagged edge to a road it gives me a hernia etc etc.

Big leaps have been made with REX/GEX and so on, but given the cost of these additions (which isn't high for the work going in to them individually) is fairly prohibitive to your average 'player' and there are compatibility issues the more advanced you get.

Spotlope, did you have to put up that link? I was just about to go to bed. Now I'm in for a good hours reading...

 

[Kiwikat]

FSX is what's next and it will likely be next for 2 or 3 years until something new comes out.

 

[DB93]

I'm content with FSX for the time being, personally, and am in no real rush to see a new flight sim hit the market. In my own personal opinion, I feel like FSX still has plenty of life left in it, giving third-party developers the opportunity to really exploit the engine to its fullest for their add-ons, instead of having to develop for a moving target of a new FS every 2-3 years. Aerosoft's FS2012 sounds promising, and 2012 sounds about right to me, for when I may feel like FSX needs a replacement.

Just my two cents.

 

[thisizma]

It's a great hobby , but like most hobbies , they can get expensive. I also love to oil paint. I could not begin to tell you how much money I've spent on oil paint and sable brushes. If you love doing it,you tend to forget how much you've invested in the hobby.

 

[VFR Reviews]

I'm happy with FSX. I would be just chuffed if devs kept working on it and I think that, just judging by breakthroughs companies like A2A make on a regular basis, I don't think I'll ever really get bored of the good ol' X.

 

[thisizma]

Agreed 100%.

 

[dhl1986]

I'm happy with FSX. I would be just chuffed if devs kept working on it and I think that, just judging by breakthroughs companies like A2A make on a regular basis, I don't think I'll ever really get bored of the good ol' X.

+1

The next release from Lotus, Real Air, or A2A is what's next for me :ernae:

 

[thisizma]

I'm looking forward to the new developers that will appear in the next few... five years also.

 

[cheezyflier]

it was good for the developers (and in turn, us as well) that there will be no fs11. more time for them to develop all the cool stuff, and more time for computers to catch up to the sim.

 

[sparks]

- but I think to truly progress there have to be much more substancial changes. Things like completely redoing the flight characteristics, reworking the graphics engine etc. As much as I love FSX I absolutely can't believe it's nigh on impossible to sideslip your standard aircraft....

There are two parts to the flight characteristics.

1) FSX.EXE calculates acceleration, speed, and position in 6 dimensions based on
2) the physical parameters and aerodynamic coefficients supplied by the 'AIR' and 'CFG' flight dynamics files.
​

FSX is not a trival simulator. There is room for improvement, but I totally disagree with the idea that a total redo of the aerodynamic simulation system is necessary. FSX is quite capable of running flight dynamic files that exhibit very realistic side slip characteristics.

As far as the standard aircraft are concerned, MS has always tended to err on the side of ease of use to insure the standard package appeals to the mass market. The attitude of the ACES studio was, given the environment provided by the basic sim, third party developers could and would provide higher fidelity flight characteristics in add-on products, and I think that's exactly what has happened since the release of FSX.

As far as side slip characteristics are concerned, there are a couple of things to look for if it's not happening in a hi-fi flight model:

1) make sure flight model realism setting sliders are on all 'realistic'
2) if the aircraft is equipped with a yaw damper, make sure it's off
​

 

[Francois]

As far as side slip characteristics are concerned, there are a couple of things to look for if it's not happening in a hi-fi flight model:

1) make sure flight model realism setting sliders are on all 'realistic'
2) if the aircraft is equipped with a yaw damper, make sure it's off
​

I don't care who you are, that's funny !!!!

 

[Francois]

And to the OP, yes it HAS been discussed to no end on most of the major forums and in real life on some of the recent flightsim events. I took part myself in quite a few of these discussions..... which basically all come down to 'crystal ball watching' IMHO.

Indeed Aerosoft is pondering to have a new sim made, and I happen to know that so are 2 or 3 other parties. Thinking about it, planning it and even paying for it are however not the same as actually coming up with something that's much better than FSX.... it is a HUGE undertaking. Look at X-Plane. After so many years working on it, they still don't come close to the breadth of what FSX has to offer.

All we've seen in the past are 'localized' - and sometimes very good! - simulators, just addressing a certain era and a certain area. And most of those cost the same or even more for their little niche than FS(X) cost for the entire world modeled.

We'll be very quiet.... and wait... and maybe see.......

Meanwhile we now have great opportunities to delve deeper into the inners of FSX and come up with better and more add-ons. Win-win as far as we are concerned ;-)

 

[Mathias]

For example, I can't stand the fact that you can't sideslip in the vast vast majority of aircraft, it irritates me to no end that stalling isn't really modelled, if I see a jagged edge to a road it gives me a hernia etc etc.

...

But that's not really a problem of the core product which does both actually quite ok-ish.
The problem here is that the code isn't understood or used to it's full potential, and that includes the stock aircraft which for instance ignore their very own coupled moi equations ever since.
And face it, flight modelling is amongst the least producers bother with as it's neither visible nor audible nor does it nice screenshots and the talk about FM is sooo technical .Most are happy when their FM's somehow meet a few verifiable specs like max speed at SL.

 

[fliger747]

I totally agree with Mr Beckwith that the sim engine is pretty good at simulating most portions of the flight envelope if sufficent effort is put into development of the aircraft flight model. A few areas I personally find irritating, but generally speaking the sim has come a long way, as has the hardware upon which to run it.

Cheers: T

 

[BASys]

FSX.EXE calculates acceleration, speed,
and position in 6 dimensions

F**k me !!!

No wonder Lockeed-Martin bought the source code.
Always thought there was more to the name ESP.

They'll be using it to train up warfighters
to stop Osama and his insurgents
coming and going via wormholes/timetravel.



Sorry Gerry,
couldn't resist, assume you mean't axes.
Otherwise in total agreement.

ATB
Paul

 

[Jwcfly]

And all these years I thought there were only 5...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWVe3AB8OY8

perhaps Billy Preston was the sixth?
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->

 

[sparks]

Ok smart axes, 3 linear (x, y, z) + 3 rotational (pitch, roll, yaw) = 6 dimensions