"the single biggest problem with the previous versions of Flight Simulator has always been that the code was a complete mess""This new approach is brilliant, as it's coding a new, modular, and extensible block system that leverages the existing legacy ancillary support files."

You seem to be quite knowledgeable and have quite the flight sim resume, so your thoughts on this... (and any others who might have some insight)I had read in various places that the underlying code in FSX has problems and this also hindered 3rd party add-ons, particularly scenery, textures, etc.to a certain extent.(how true is this?)It seems like in developing a simulator that would meet today's needs and standards that it would be very difficult to maintain backward compatibility with FSX. You would almost have to start with a clean slate.Can a state of the art flight simulator with all the bells and whistles be developed that would not require completely new third party add-ons.? Also, is FLIGHT a complete clean break from FSX code or is there some legacy support for FSX?Is the potential there that maybe, just maybe ,down the road some existing add-ons could be brought into FLIGHT (granted, if MSFT allows it)Just wondering.-ed

Honestly, the single biggest problem with the previous versions of Flight Simulator has always been that the code was a complete mess.

...and yet when Aerosoft went looking for a graphic display engine for their proposed Flight sim, they couldn't find any that could do what the FSX engine does!!

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by tf51d

...and yet when Aerosoft went looking for a graphic display engine for their proposed Flight sim, they couldn't find any that could do what the FSX engine does!!

Is the Aerosoft simulator still on the table or have they entirely given up on the idea? I saw some references to it on their website going back to 2009 but nothing recently.-ed

...and yet when Aerosoft went looking for a graphic display engine for their proposed Flight sim, they couldn't find any that could do what the FSX engine does!!

Yeah, but its still unstable and heavy.

Yeah, but its still unstable and heavy.

Probably the nature of the beast. Ther is no way a worlwide sim could be unheavy. The amount of data is massive and in that respect the ESP engine is really a work of art. Stability could certainly be improved though. Just imagine FSX with true multicore support.

Probably the nature of the beast. Ther is no way a worlwide sim could be unheavy. The amount of data is massive and in that respect the ESP engine is really a work of art. Stability could certainly be improved though. Just imagine FSX with true multicore support.

My point exactly. It would be easy to get good performance from FLIGHT, which essentially stripped about 70 to eighty% (Why is the numeric number eighty a smiley on this forum? ) of existing functionality, (Which they may or may not sell back to you for a price) with a default level aircraft. Guess what on my 3GHz E6850 system, if I take away AI, at max scenery and autogen settings, I still get 60FPS flying around HILO in the default Cessna, in FSX and it looks almost as good!! From a business perspective it's a great business model! Strip down an existing platform, spruce up the visuals a little bit then sell it back to unsuspecting gamers piecemeal!!!

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by tf51d

 

From simply looking into the internal structure of Flight, it's obvious to me that MSGS is using a "modular approach" to coding the program and ancillary support files.

How did you look into the internal structure of Flight?

Ok, honestly I didn't feel like reading through 11 pages of this stuff, so excuse me if I cover some old ground here.There are two sides to this, but I really just am not feeling it. I have to acknowledge, that I am just getting back into simming after a long break, so please take that into consideration when reading. I'm not leaning towards Flight, but I can see both sides of the fence here. Obviously, FS was a niche' market and needed to be expanded. The problem is not the theory but the execution. They took away too many things that made FS special to the loyal base, and I don't see how this is going to fly (pun intended). You take away commercial flight, you lose an enormous segment of the base. You take away 3rd party, you lose another enormous chunk of the base. I like historical aircraft. I don't see MS releasing a Laird Super Solution or a Keith Rider Special any time soon. I rely on 3rd party for that. You take away military jets you lose another enormous chunk of the base. People who like 100% accuracy in the planes (is it true the Mustang won't even have a cockpit?) another chunk gone.Francois is correct. Without these things, kids who are used to blowing stuff up every five seconds aren't going to take to Flight. What is there to attract them but the lure of realistic flying? The things that made flying realistic look to be gone from Flight.As for MS piecemealing the thing, what is third party except DLC? I can deal with that, but it certainly needs to be a MUCH bigger variety. Whoever spoke of that sense of entitlement early on, you're damn right I am entitled. That's how business works. You put out a good product that people will flock too while NOT alienating your base. I don't see that happening here. I don't 'owe' MS a thing.

How did you look into the internal structure of Flight?

Unpacked the .pak files so I could parse the folder trees. Visual Studio and debug mode.

You are wrong. The game engine itself is only the program that interprets this data. For simple things editors are sufficient, but flight simulators are more complex.In fact the planes can have their own programs, that more or less rewrites the whole simulator. How would you adfminister such programs with a simple tool?Conmpared to the data that flight simulators use normal game engines are pretty small and simple.In fact that's the basic problem that flight simulators have: If you would try to use Photo sceneries for the whole planet you won't find a Hard drive that could cope with this amount of data.With such problems you pretty fast reach a point where the user has to know exactly what he is doing..The time efficient simulation of an airplane looks totally different compared to a plane.

We keep going in circles... Now you're talking aircraft. I was commenting on worldwide TERRAIN/SCENERY coverage which was part of your original post. See the great road creation tool in Outerra as an example of a game integrated tool for road eiting.

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by simmerhead

We keep going in circles... Now you're talking aircraft. I was commenting on worldwide TERRAIN/SCENERY coverage which was part of your original post. See the great road creation tool in Outerra as an example of a game integrated tool for road eiting.

Thanks, I already expected that yoz were targeting in this direction. The big problem is the amount of time that a flight simulator has to spend for each feature. If you want to program a decent flight performance and a versatile, realistic cockpit. Add to this the huge amount of visible objects and you have a HUGE performance issue. Outerra isn't new and if I remember this was one of the engines that some people requested of the enginge of an aerosoft flight simulator.They rejected it due to performance issues. Add to such a terrain engine the weather engine, plane engine and such things as ATC and so on and you have a system that is too slow, uses to much memory and so on.There is a reason why Aerosoft reallocated so many resources to X-Plane 10.

deleted the post myself because arguing about it is pointless - we'll all see in due time

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by AlbertM

 

Thanks, I already expected that yoz were targeting in this direction. The big problem is the amount of time that a flight simulator has to spend for each feature. If you want to program a decent flight performance and a versatile, realistic cockpit. Add to this the huge amount of visible objects and you have a HUGE performance issue. Outerra isn't new and if I remember this was one of the engines that some people requested of the enginge of an aerosoft flight simulator.They rejected it due to performance issues. Add to such a terrain engine the weather engine, plane engine and such things as ATC and so on and you have a system that is too slow, uses to much memory and so on.There is a reason why Aerosoft reallocated so many resources to X-Plane 10.

Yep. Outerra isn't the answer, but there is a lot of great tech there that goes beyond both X-Plane and ESP engines in certain areas.

Do we know anything about aerofly's engine? By all accounts, it's smooth. Must hasn't been tested with high levels of autogen.

Lack of autogen is probably why aeroflyFS is so smooth. Also it is based on sat images, so it hard to imagine how the engine is suited for worldwide coverage.

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by simmerhead