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

[grunau_baby]

...great news from a great source:jump::
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=25954

There´s so much in my head to add I cannot compile it into one single post:icon_lol:

Alex

PS: this should be a sticky IMHO!

[harleyman]

Thanks for this link..

I just added my 2 cents........:bump:

[SirBenn21]

WOW That's great news! :ernae: :applause::applause::applause: :ernae:

I just hope they get it right. It would be great if all communities would pull together for at least Release 1.0

I also hope it will not be another XPlane!?! :kilroy::pop4::kilroy:

Ben

[hinch]

Hmm, I do hope it is a small and neat program. Since they're starting from scratch I'm sure they can do it.

Their train sim looks like it is well done so fingers crossed in a few years they'll have a worthy piece of software.

That or I'm sure Xplane 10 will be good, I know they're designing a new interface.

[IanP]

The big problem with any undertaking like this is shown very clearly by the posts that appear on the thread already:

"Must have people on beaches and in cities!"
"Must have 100% accurate landclass and airports everywhere in the world!"
"Must have combat!"
"Must have the ability to walk around inside the terminal!"
"Must use Google Earth!"

As someone said on there... How many top of the range CPUs and GPUs in five years' time do you want to need to have to run this behemoth? :173go1:

They're a very competent company commercial wise, so will rule the totally unviable options out instantly. I'm just concerned that when the "WANT IT ALL!!!!!! WANT IT NOW!!!!!!" brigade get their claws out when they don't see what they demand being included, anything that does happen will be instantly ridiculed very loudly and repeatedly.

[Mathias]

I find it quite embarrassing that noone mentions flight dynamics there.
After all that's a flight simulation and there is truely a lot to improve over what we currently have. :kilroy:
Other than that exciting news and I wish them all the best of luck.

[An-225]

Already had my post added, requesting accurate high alpha/low airspeed flight dynamics, damage models and thrust vectoring (not just for VTOL applications, but 2D and 3D).

So I would not say that no one has mentioned flight dynamics. But the majority seem fixated on eye candy (improved lighting is all the simulator needs, to the point where one object can cast shadows on another).

[Cerberus]

Sounds very interesting. Personally I want more combat sims lol, but this sure wouldn't hurt to have around either.

[IanP]

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.

[Tweek]

The big problem with any undertaking like this is shown very clearly by the posts that appear on the thread already:

"Must have people on beaches and in cities!"
"Must have 100% accurate landclass and airports everywhere in the world!"
"Must have combat!"
"Must have the ability to walk around inside the terminal!"
"Must use Google Earth!"

As someone said on there... How many top of the range CPUs and GPUs in five years' time do you want to need to have to run this behemoth? :173go1:

They're a very competent company commercial wise, so will rule the totally unviable options out instantly. I'm just concerned that when the "WANT IT ALL!!!!!! WANT IT NOW!!!!!!" brigade get their claws out when they don't see what they demand being included, anything that does happen will be instantly ridiculed very loudly and repeatedly.

Have to agree with you there. If they included all of the stuff that people are suggesting, then it wouldn't be released until about 2020 and it'd probably take up about 500Gb on your hard drive (although that probably won't be very much in 2020!). Regional accents for ATC, realistic photo scenery for the whole world - it all takes a lot of time and effort over something that could easily be created by third party developers.

What's needed is improvements to the basic aspects of the sim - things that are impossible to implement or add to the likes of FS9/FSX. Things like improved flight dynamics (it's still beyond me how you can include an Extra 300 in the default sim, without being able to fly it as intended), cloud shadows, perhaps an improved special effects system (the current method is fairly limited when it comes to things like display smoke, tyre smoke, fire, etc). These are the basic things that should be concentrated on, not making sure that downtown San Diego is modelled and textured to the last detail, or modelling the B727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, A318, A319, etc etc etc, as default aircraft. Things like that can be added later.

[Helldiver]

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.

[Antoninus]

I am curious if they will choose any established graphics or dedicated flightsim engine, like Oleg Maddox upcoming SOW engine, as a base for this project or completely start from scratch.
That will be the decisive factor for how quickly we can expect to see anything from this simulator.

[IanP]

From what they are saying, they have determined some of the way they will move forward from their other - non "public" - simulation activities. I would still not expect anything from this for a period of time measured in years.

As FS9 - and in particular FSX - have masses of life in them yet, however, I don't see that as a problem.

[Panther_99FS]

While I definitely wish Aerosoft the best of luck.....

I also think they're going to find themselves with a very daunting task....especially if they intend to represent the entire globe of terrain data AND number of actual airports....

:kilroy:

[Bone]

Building it by consortium may get it done thoroughly and somewhat timely, although it may be more expensive than MS flight sims have been. I hope they are able to take all the good attributes from each flight sim out there and put it into one package.

[limjack]

It pleases me to see someone else thinking about continuing Flight sim!!! It only pushes the bubble forward to enhance our hobby giving one HOPE for a better flight sim experiecne. Keep pushing the boundries and shoot for the sky!!!


Jim:jump::applause:

[JIMJAM]

All we need is a sandbox. A good solid platform to build on. Picture FSX without all the autogen,ATC and eyecandy with a modern graphics engine. The world as is.
Open code both the payware developter and freeware can evolve and develop it.
There is no way everyone can be satisfied and if Aerosoft attempts to even find a middle ground its going to be difficult.
Lets hope they do not try to out do FSX or be the next FSX.
I will still buy 2 copies just to show my support.

[RyanJames170]

neat idea but i hate to say it but dont be surprised if they drop it for simulator reasons as M$ did.

it would be nice if they bought up the abilty to make an or continue the work started on FSXI and just finish it.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[aeromed202]

Though I'm sure I am belittling the work MS put into all FS's this might be a one-time opportunity to create a collaborative, a sort of communal effort between those with MS experience and the legion of non-paid talent out there. I look at FS anything as the basic framework with the countless addons as the icing. I would love to see a product meant for all-not just those with the means for getting the latest, most expensive hardware to achieve the full potential. I'm done now, thank you.

And to have it I am willing to wait and help.

[b52bob]

Very encouraging!

Aerosoft makes some great stuff and if it's up to their present quality, it should be great.

However, I agree with most here. If they put everything everyone wants it will be years and a massive size. I'm glad they are asking for input from the community and maybe they will cull out the things most important to us.

I like the modular proposal, just a "flat" sim and then you could decide on a third party mesh and ground inhancements.

One thing is for sure, they have MY whole hearted support.

Bob

[Helldiver]

Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.
Also, I think that he should foremost think of Marketing. The wrong word can scuttle the whole thing.
Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.
I won't give up my Windows XP until they claw it loose from my dead hands. I suspect that there are many others like me.

[Lionheart]

The big problem with any undertaking like this is shown very clearly by the posts that appear on the thread already:

"Must have people on beaches and in cities!"
"Must have 100% accurate landclass and airports everywhere in the world!"
"Must have combat!"
"Must have the ability to walk around inside the terminal!"
"Must use Google Earth!"

As someone said on there... How many top of the range CPUs and GPUs in five years' time do you want to need to have to run this behemoth? :173go1:

They're a very competent company commercial wise, so will rule the totally unviable options out instantly. I'm just concerned that when the "WANT IT ALL!!!!!! WANT IT NOW!!!!!!" brigade get their claws out when they don't see what they demand being included, anything that does happen will be instantly ridiculed very loudly and repeatedly.

Well put Ian.


Bill

[Naismith]

Aerosoft are a class act amongst FS add-on developers and I am sure if this ever matures into a real sim that they do a great job. I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.
Though it also might just bankrupt them.

[hobofat]

Aerosoft are a class act amongst FS add-on developers and I am sure if this ever matures into a real sim that they do a great job. I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.
Though it also might just bankrupt them.

I imagine though they better understand the FS enthusiast community. They don't actually have to create the whole world, there's hordes of us who will gladly jump in and do it for free as long as they have a reasonably user friendly developer kit that allows one to utilize geographic data that's freely available online. By relying on the user community to create content in that way, it would drive the cost of producing the sim down quite a bit I think.

[SkippyBing]

Also, I think that he should foremost think of Marketing. The wrong word can scuttle the whole thing.
Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.

I think this highlights a major problem when writing any new game, if you want to use all the latest techniques and tricks you have to use the latest OS to gain access to them. If you limit yourself to XP then you won't be able to do as much as if you use the latest OS, by the time this comes out we'll be using DX11 and 64 bit OS will probably be more prevalent to access more RAM. But by using the latest OS you limit your market to those nearer the cutting edge. Personally if they insist on XP compatibility, which they may well do, I can't see it progressing much beyond what's possible with FSX, after all that gets out of memeory errors in 32bit OS already so apart from tinkering with the balance of elements I don't think it would advance the genre.


I think they at the moment are FS enthusiasts and not just a bunch of programmers hired to do a job like Aces were.

I think that's unfair on the ACES team, a number of whom were pilots in real life.

IMHO, they should start with as clean a slate as possible, i.e. don't insist on directly adding FSX aircraft as long as there are exporters for the major modelling apps so developers can re-compile there work. Then they should stop listening to the people posting on their forum as they'll never be able to satisfy them all, and develop the sim they want. It's not as if there are any major surprises on that thread, and a lot of the suggestions are from the hard core sim market who aren't big enough to viably market a commercial product at without it costing hundreds of £.

[Tweek]

Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.

Yes, definitely. It's a bit annoying when you've got dark, stormy clouds over your head yet the aircraft is still lit up in all its glory. A tad unrealistic, I think!

[Silver Fox]

This whole thing could be distilled into... vaporware.

Let's seriously consider the development lead time for a fresh, competitive FS engine....

Given a huge development budget, and a huge staff.... it should be ready several years after the economy recovers and MS reopens Aces... and maybe only 1-2 years after FS XI is on store shelves.

April 1st was two months ago, the timing on this is way off.

[jimjones]

A very daunting and dangerous task to give us all we want. And with MS still around they may find a way to scuttle the effort by resurrecting their FS series.

[Prowler1111]

From a personal point of view..and since i´m currently living this torture , it´s no easy task!
Prowler

[CrisGer]

Sounds very interesting, and a logical next step for flight sims.

two points tho, a decent landascape is not beyond hoping for with addons to enhance it. A good world wide mesh is easily available, and good world textures. Photo landscapes are too flat without autogen, which adds the essential element of 3D reality, but hopefully the project could be modular which sounds great.

XP is a must. I will never give up mine, so i do hope that reason will prevail and combine XP with whatever else they may want to do. There are many ways to work with compatability. And if MS is not going to continue with their FS engine, they should make it open source and let us move on with it. Either get back in to the sim world or move out of the way.

[Wing_Z]

Why develop a sim from scratch?
X-Plane just begs to be given the Aerosoft treatment.
If the parties can get a business case together, it seems a no-brainer to me.
The sim world is not big enough to support FS9, FSX, X-plane, and A N Other.

[MudMarine]

Don't worry, it'll fail. I'll be more interested in where they are in about 6 months to a year. If they're still working on it then, it might have a chance. Personally, I don't think it'll fly but I'm wishing them the best of luck.

[Snuffy]

For a minimum requirement, it should do everything FSX does now or there would be no sense in even starting this project.

[N2056]

I find the fact that there is so much discussion about a post that actually right from the start says "We are thinking about doing this" to be somewhat amusing. Don't get me wrong...I wish them success, but consider a few things...

It will be totally new. If Microsoft has anything to do with it (and I am guessing they will) then nothing you currently own will fly on it. IF tools are developed that allow developers to convert existing models to work with it then expect that these will be new products that are not given away, as I fully expect that there will be enough "translation" required to compile an existing model to work in this new sim that you will pay for it. It will be the same thing we went though with FSX when people had to pay for the FSX version of a FS9 model they already had (although there were a few developers that did not do that it was a definite minority)

My two cents at this point. Personally, I think that FSX is just starting to gain momentum in terms of aftermarket development.

[MudMarine]

They're going to make FSX aircraft compatable, they said there is going to be a tool so developers can convert to FSX. Which only makes sense because they develope FSX aircraft and still want to sell products.

[N2056]

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.

[MudMarine]

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.

What doesn't come at a price? Does MS own the individual rights to aircraft people designed themselfs? I don't think so. I'm sceptical also.

[Shaun Fletcher]

Hello Helldiver,

Please write to me at shaunaerosoft@aol.com with a Username and your e-mail address and I will create you an account for the Aerosoft Forums.

Kind regards,

Shaun Fletcher.
Aerosoft.

[Bjoern]

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.



Only thing I would wish for, is when you go under a cloud, you should be in shadow as well as seeing the clouds shadows on the ground. Like really flying.

Certainly nice to have in a flightsim, although IL-2 already did it (at least cloud shadows on the ground) back in 2004.



Like Mathijs references to DX10. That's a no-no. DX10 means either using Vista or Windows 7.
I won't give up my Windows XP until they claw it loose from my dead hands. I suspect that there are many others like me.


I hear you, but I would really prefer a DX10-only solution, since limiting your graphics engine to one system only greatly reduces the risk for any complications and glitches compared to a two-way approach.

And I've heard that Windows 7 isn't nearly as bad as its predecessor.



IMHO, they should start with as clean a slate as possible, i.e. don't insist on directly adding FSX aircraft as long as there are exporters for the major modelling apps so developers can re-compile there work. Then they should stop listening to the people posting on their forum as they'll never be able to satisfy them all, and develop the sim they want. It's not as if there are any major surprises on that thread, and a lot of the suggestions are from the hard core sim market who aren't big enough to viably market a commercial product at without it costing hundreds of £.

Totally right.

I even dare to say that a remake of FSX with a new graphics engine and continuous support from the developers would totally do the trick.

It might also be a good starting point for further development, since once you've reached FSX's niveau, it can only get better.



This whole thing could be distilled into... vaporware.

Let's seriously consider the development lead time for a fresh, competitive FS engine....

I fear that, too.



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

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.

[Panther_99FS]

Makes you wonder if Microsoft made ESP mature enough to build on before they abandoned it....:kilroy:

[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!!!:pop4:

[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......:kilroy:-----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:stop::stop::stop::stop: 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!!!:stop::)

[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.:applause:----------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.

[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. :icon_lol: 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:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::icon29:

[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... :pop4:

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:icon29:

[harleyman]

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




Me Too !!!!!

[heywooood]

:kilroy: double post

[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/ <--------------

[JT8D-9A]

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/ <--------------
I like the look of the Sim (not cartoonish).
Are there any reviews?

[Computermensch]

MS has not closed its doors on FS?

As far as I remember a statement will come out around now ...

But if you take a look MS i hiring people for next immersive flying experience ... that is next FS version. It will be in part an online service ... that is collabrating with such a service. New developers to upgrade the render engine, artist director, managers ... also MS is into shared source for its product team like CoreXT inhouse project and a similar thing seems to be going on with Games. Next Halo-title may be a good pointer for the architecture.

Also seems next FS will have a new deployment standard technology (windows installer/msi) which means FS system will ideally take full responsibility and manage loading (installing), compiling, building and activating new components. So it should be automated. That will make the natural host environement in FS more complete as a sort of nature for agents (active components) or components (passive). Components in FS are like simobjects (i.e. aircraft) or scenery addons. It also seems base files can not be overwritten, but can probably be virtualized? You should be able play etc, while the new technology updates the platforms with addons dynamically to keep it all actual.

I guess MS will release official statements or pointers when the rest of the developers on the small FS team has been hired. Architecture and technical infrastructure will be more or less shared across game titles as far as I can see. Other games are also simulations, i.e. physics etc.

[IanP]

Rail Simulator was alright. Not perfect, but the best of the three I tried - for what I want, at least, which is to drive a single train, not control an entire network of them. I'll tell you what Railworks (Rail Sim 2, effectively) is like if I manage to get a play in the near future...

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

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

...What Archimedes would have said were he more concerned with toys than levers and fulcrums. Very philosophical of you, N332DW. :applause:

[sblzei]

I fully support the FLIGHT DYNAMICS issue raised by Mathias above. I couldn't care less about people on beaches or inside (???) terminals.
We are talking about flight simulation, after all, not a social game.

My list of top requirements would include:
1) PHYSICS as realistic as possible (with the possibility of being tweaked by customers, in order to create custom variants or derivatives)
2) SCENERY as realistic as possible
3) WEATHER as realistic as possible (incl. Wind, Gusts, Clouds, Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice, etc)
4) PANELS (2D & 3D) and GAUGES as realistic as possible
5) RADIO NAVIGATION at least at the same level of FSX

Additionally, some FSX key features - like scenery and models - will hopefully be able to be imported.

GOOD LUCK, :ernae:

Ezio

[Scratch]

I fully support the FLIGHT DYNAMICS issue raised by Mathias above. I couldn't care less about people on beaches or inside (???) terminals.
We are talking about flight simulation, after all, not a social game.

My list of top requirements would include:
1) PHYSICS as realistic as possible (with the possibility of being tweaked by customers, in order to create custom variants or derivatives)
2) SCENERY as realistic as possible
3) WEATHER as realistic as possible (incl. Wind, Gusts, Clouds, Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice, etc)
4) PANELS (2D & 3D) and GAUGES as realistic as possible
5) RADIO NAVIGATION at least at the same level of FSX

Additionally, some FSX key features - like scenery and models - will hopefully be able to be imported.

GOOD LUCK, :ernae:

Ezio

Perfectly stated. Something like that would be FS nirvana:applause: