NZFF

Hi all,

I am starting this thread to try and get some feedback, opinions, and thoughts about a new flight simulator platform. There is a method to my madness so your cooperation is appreciated.

***A Current platform is in development that has potential to support a flight/combined simulator*** your opinions are needed.

I am in an information gathering stage. Please answer maturely and honestly from the perspective of a general simmer, enthusiast simmer, and potential simmer;


1) Would you support a kick starter project for a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?

2) What would your expectations be for a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?

3) What would convince you to switch to a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?



Please think about your current experience(s) either with FSX or X-Plane and other simulator packages you use (including combat sim i.e DCS) and answer as clearly as possible. The more (genuine) responses this thread gets the more reliable the information gathered is.

Feel free to add anything else you think that relates to you (hypothetically) supporting a kick starter project and (hypothetically) switching to another simulator platform.



Yours seriously,

Kelvin.

It would be great to see railways, with properly scaled active traffic.
It would be great to see canals with with boats, as above.
It would also be great to have a machine that could display those things at a good frame rate, and
let me fly in and strafe/bomb the cr@p out of them...but I don't expect that anytime soon.
ATB
MikeW

Thanks Mike for your comments. This is an opportunity to assist in directing the development in areas that we all accept are in deficit using current platform(s) but this is also about gaining people's trust in supporting such a developmentally challenging yet possible venture.

I suppose asking this question would assist in determining how to get support;

***What would help the community develop/build the trust needed to support such a project?***

I think most of us would love to see a new sim which can build on the strengths of current sims and improve on their weaknesses.
The ability to develop the MSFS products has determined their success so any new entry would have to have open architecture and SDK's to allow porting over of current models and tools to make new ones.

The next generation of sim has to improve on the 'feel' of flight and the immersion level of the sim environment by adding more detail and interactivity with scenery and objects. MSFS also has such a huge array of supporting software that the next sim will need to provide many of these features out of the box.
It would be wise to collaborate with current third party developers rather than competing against them. The engine developers should focus on building a stable, expandable platform with a beautiful interface and complex fluid dynamics and variability in the virtual atmosphere. Let the developers with experience focus on the scenery and aircraft.

I'm sure if the product is developed and the suggestions from the community are taken on board then it will have every chance of success and we'll all be willing guinea pigs! However there won't be a massive ship jump, it took years for many to come over to FSX from FS9. To move to a new platform in its infancy will take a long time but if the developers make a long term commitment then the users will likely reward that with support, especially if their favorite third party developers are involved.

Cheers Kelvin - What I want before anything else is good coastlines, and accurate mesh; without them, all else is pointless. After that, well-placed autogen.
As to building trust, well, I had FTX AU installed, after I had previously added VLC for NZ, and then discovered that the FTX installation for Oz, had banjaxed my NZ VLC.
Unfortunately, it seems the ORBX philosophy is "go our way, or p**s off". In that instance, it was their installer+switcher that got things wrong.
All sceneries are Impressionist - but the VLC stuff creates a much better impression than the ORBX offerings.
Just my two cents worth.
MikeW

I want to see more realism. Landing lights that illuminate cloud as you climb or descend through it, realistic rain effects on the canopy/windshield. Clouds that cast a shadow on the ground and move with the wind. All the small touches that we commercial pilots see in our dayjobs but are not currenty replicated in the sim. I love fsx but only in its heavily updated form with addons such as orbx, robs nz airport scenery and quality aircraft from pmdg and majestic just flight etc. To go back to a stock standard fsx scenery or aircraft looks laughable now.

This was all highlighted by Flight being such a failure people want a comprehensive product straight out of the box with quality addons available fsx allows people like myself to practice real world flying scenarios realistically enough to avoid spending large ammounts on approved simulators. It also allows other options such as multiplayer low level hooning in f18s etc its the wide scope of options that suit everybody that make it a winner.If you can get a really good performing/looking base then you cant go wrong in my opinion.

1) Yes.

2) I think scalability would be an important aspect. On the one hand, any kid could start in MSFS whichever version within a
few minutes and get into the air, on the other hand notably later versions allowed amazing aircraft system depth and scenery detail.

An open development environment making it attractive for freeware and payware addon developers would be a must, imho. MS Flight and aeroflyFS lack(ed) both.

Other more technical aspects (DX11 or recent OpenGL support), 64 bit from the beginning, decent performance on an average system etc. are evidently a must.

3) A possibility to reuse MSFS scenery in some form (either directly or via a converter) is not a must, but would help a lot making people (including me) switch.

Personally, I doubt it's possible to create a commercially successful new flight simulator (not only an engine, but including basic scenery, flight models, navigation aids, a collection of airports etc.) from scratch below the resources of 50 man-years today, probably more. I'd be gladly proven wrong, though :-) Besides, there is not much sense in creating another Freeware/Open Source Simulator as there are already FlightGear and Outerra available.

Regards, Michael

Kelvinr wrote:

QUOTE (Kelvinr @ Jun 16 2013,6:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Would you support a kick starter project for a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?

I would prefer just a flight sim, but I could well be in the minority. I think if you combine then you run the potential to dilute the sim.

Kelvinr wrote:

QUOTE (Kelvinr @ Jun 16 2013,6:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2) What would your expectations be for a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?

You can see from my sig that I'm an FSX/ORBX guy and have made a 'reasonable' investment in add-ons, both hardware and software.

I would hope to be able to carry that across either directly (preferred) or by way of a converter. Having said that, if the new sim was good enough and advanced enough that backward compatibility would be a chain around its neck then I think I'd rather go 'new' than be hampered by 'old'. The PC industry is no where near as advanced as it could be due to legacy support and compatibility issues. Look to the future; build for the future.

Any new sim would have to be infinitely expandable and open to third-party developers. As someone else mentioned; include them from day1 and don't shut them out; they will be your sim's lifeblood in years to come. You should look at FSX, note the current core developers and engage with them directly and as early as feasible. FSX has the life it has purely because of these guys. As someone else mentioned; vanilla FSX today is comical; it is all the addons that make it; I myself use ORBX, some planes, some local scenery packs, REX, AirTraffic FX and PlanG, for example. Perhaps consider co-licensing 'basic' stuff in the core release such as a decent scenery library or mesh and have it optional for install. Many of those developers have found significant short-comings in the way some sims (notably FSX) are architected; talk to them and avoid those same pitfalls.

The abiity to network the sim, for a variety of reasons. Multiplayer is the obvious one, for pilots co-pilots and controllers. But also at the pure network level so that, like FSX, you can run mutiple computers linked and have some processing offloaded to another system. This should be via an easy to use interface, perhaps selection boxes, to say 'do <this task> on <this computer>. Don't limit things; allow people to have as many computers as they want; allow the use of multiple network cards / interfaces to improve things like data transfer, latency, etc. Allow some networkable parts to be selected during install so that a user can install just <this task or these tasks> onto a networked PC and not have to perform a full sim install. For networkable parts where you are just computing stuff and not necessarily driving graphics, consider that slightly older hardware can be utilised; this way, perople can build out over time as they replace their PCs with newer faster ones.

From a what I want standpoint; in a word; realism. If you want another; immersion. Texures, real weather, good AI traffic, mesh (all sorts, boats, cars, planes, people, birds, animals, et al), etc.
It is also all the little touches of realism that people notice are absent. As someone else mentioned; rain effects, lighting on clouds, realistic cloud movement with winds, smoke in wind (there is a burning drum in HamiltonX and the smoke always goes straight up, regardless of wind!), waves, blown trees and grass, etc.
Yes, all this will take significant computational power but lets not forget the way FSX and most sims are architected today, trying to maintain that legacy compatibility, are hampered and can rarely make use of all available resource. The new sim doesn't need ot be hampered, though admittedly that requires a gamble. Detect the hardware in use and code to make full use of it; all CPUs/cores, GPUs/cores, main memory, GPU memory and disk types, etc. Above all the 'prettiness' though, I think what people want most of all is accurate flight models and accurate fluid dynamics and yes, that is a big ask for a humble PC!

Complexity but hide it. The sim needs to be highly configurably complex fo those hard core simmers; but also needs to be easy enough to dive in and fly in just a few minutes. Sometimes we want uber-realism in everythign; other times we just want some stress-relief for 20 minutes and don't want to go through massive load times, engine start procedures, checklists, etc, etc. Make the sim accessible to those that want to jump in and go, and have all the complexity for those that want it enabled and configured.

Kelvinr wrote:

QUOTE (Kelvinr @ Jun 16 2013,6:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

3) What would convince you to switch to a new flight simulator or combined simulator platform?

Um, read the above!
But depsite going on about legacy support (! yeah, I know, cake and eat it!), if the sim was good enough and I could carry over most, if not all of my add-ons, then I'd certainly look at it. Especially the hardware; I have several add-on modules and these would need to work as I just can't afford to go out and replace them all; given the Saitek gear uses its own software and drivers (I don't use FSUIPC) then you either need to write drivers (yeah right!), or more likely a third-party interface similar to FSUIPC out of the box and in the initial release so people can convert their hardware easily; if you can then provide 'settings' files or converters for common hardware to ease the transition that would make life easier; that could be as simple as an 'open' interface so people can save settings to file and upload them for others to use. You'd soon get hardware coverage that way; after all, many people do exactly that with FSUIPC.

Thanks for listening to my vitriole...
Dream BIG,
Cheers

Thanks all for your comments, it's amazing the different types of responses I am getting here compared to over at Avsim with these questions.

I know we all got used to beautiful photoreal scenery, and amazing visuals, but let's not forget that this is a simulator after all. I'm not saying visuals aren't important but for me the two most important segments would be:

- SYSTEMS: A2A level system simulations on all aircraft (electrics, hydraulics, engine management), rain/snow/fog on the windscreen, proper icing effects (based on conditions)
- WEATHER: Realistic weather features (no popping clouds, no spontaneous wind direction changes), proper wind shear simulation, realistic precipitation, real down- and updrafts around mountain areas

Everything else would be priority 2 for me.

Cheers
Dan

One important thing for me is how it feels to fly the aircraft. If you fly along with only a slight push from the wind every now and again then its not very realistic. If you have to fight the wind in some cases then thats more like real flying. Another thing is the systems. If you start the aircraft and dont have to wait for anything to warm up or there is no adverse effects from forgetting to turn on the anti-ice then how can you call it a simulator.
And yes I would support a kickstarter if people were willing to put a lot of hard work in to satisfy all our demands

Thanks everyone for your comments. Appreciated and respected, indeed.

In discussion with Brano one of the lead developers of Outerra I have realised that naming this project could help people come closer to the possibility that an engine such as this could provide the basis of a flight/combined simulator platform.

If you are wondering about what project this is or where it is going you can go over here to read further comments about the same post I made here posted over there at Avsim:
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411219-pollqu...r-kick-starter/

You can even find another post of mine here:
http://www.cockpitbuilders.com/community/i...hp?topic=3437.0

It may even be useful to provide discussion over at these forums about comments you have made here so that there is a wide spectrum of talk about this project. Basically, this thread is all about whether Outerra (www.outerra.com) would be able to gain crowd funding and to see where the push is towards such a platform as discussed here.

Cheers,

Kelvin.

Kelvinr wrote:

QUOTE (Kelvinr @ Jun 17 2013,8:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks all for your comments, it's amazing the different types of responses I am getting here compared to over at Avsim with these questions.

I went and found this Avsim thread. Partway through the first page at the moment. Bit of a negative bunch, huh? Rather than saying what they would like, most mention why it can't possibly be done! Hard to get feedback that way, I would imagine...
Good luck, and I see Outerra are backing this ... I'll need to go check them out now I 'spose...

Yes, there seems to be a definitive cultural difference between the forums. I think it all comes down to the numbers. A good metaphor would be comparing Wellington and Auckland...

gojozoom wrote:

QUOTE (gojozoom @ Jun 19 2013,8:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, there seems to be a definitive cultural difference between the forums. I think it all comes down to the numbers. A good metaphor would be comparing Wellington and Auckland...

I notice you don't claim which is which!

jpreou wrote:

QUOTE (jpreou @ Jun 19 2013,2:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I notice you don't claim which is which!

Hamilton and Christchurch ...

A new Flight Simulation ... best answer and solution is make a model (sim) that suits all the FS2002/2004/FSX payware boundaries .. combine and group . A lot of people have invested in these models and many are so good , build with an easy access to MP and lateral access for the airport designers .. create a global world all one fixed level without having one or two dictate true elevations , have a one piece mesh for a start . Idea remove a large portion of the MS base and build away but able to encompass and generated interest with current concerns , maybe P3D glued to Outerra with the extras of MS .

A fearless prediction I made in 2005

"Maybe one day, creating a flight in FS will launch one of those little unmanned spy aircraft at the same location in the real world, and then we will have perfect scenery to fly in. (Imagine all the collisions ). Until then all scenery must be representational, and I am not sure we need to model every blade of grass."

http://www.visualflight.co.uk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4437

I can understand the mood in Auckland at Avsim, there's certainly been plenty of discussion over there on the next big thing, but not much actual result. Still, we definitely do need a new sim, so I'd certainly support something new. However I do agree with some of the points at Avsim, in particular:

• Any replacement for FSX would need to at least match the existing features;
• Using a modern rendering method to free up the CPU is necessary;
• Allowi\ng third party developers would keep me in work for a while;
• MSFS didn't just appear as FS2004 or FSX: it has been growing for 20 years, so even ACES didn't start from scratch;
• The Avsim estimate of 50 man/years seems a bit optimistic, so I'd want $10 million to cover development