Alaska - Forests too sparse?

[LHookins 3,103]

"placebo" settings

 

These same companies probably add 20% to the frame rate counter before display. :)

 

Hook

[Bobsk8 12,750]

I think an interesting concept would be for add ons or options in a sim like Flight to include the probable effect on the average PC, as far as performance degradation. They could maybe use 3 PCs, the bare minimum, the average, and the high end gaming PC, and then let folks decide for themselves whether or not they would want to purchase that feature. I can remember spending alot of money for a piece of software, and found that it impacted the performance of my sim so much , that I just didn't use it.. Money down the drain.

[MommaB 0]

Then you're getting into deciding what's "bare essentials" and what's "select." There are already a number of things in Flight that I don't consider essential. People have different priorities. Allowing people to decide for themselves what is essential and what is not is a good thing, rather than somebody else dictating it to them.

I absolutely get where you're coming from, and I'm sure if this thing was left up to the dev team the thing would be crammed full with all kinds of features already!

 

Hook mentioned feature creep and that's a real problem for sims and other games striving for high fidelity. There's sooo many examples of absolutely great ideas and ambitious projects turned into an unfriendly and unplayable mess because features are just piled on. And in the end only a select "hardcore" group of users can stand to play it. Again, that's not what flight is about, it is about a streamlined experience for the largest possible group of people while putting in the least amount of resources.

 

The direction Flight is taking seems to be dictated more by the marketing team, but in the end that might not be such a bad thing. I do feel MS could improve communications, if only to align expectations better with their intentions for Flight.

 

 

Do you have a background in software development?

Not at all, just avid gamer I guess :P

[RoboRay 126]

Hook mentioned feature creep and that's a real problem for sims and other games striving for high fidelity.

 

Oh, absolutely. Feature creep, or more accurately for my job, "scope-of-effort-creep" is an issue I deal with on an ongoing basis. I usually just provide a cost-analysis of the new request as a contract-modification proposal, and the (government) customer usually decides they don't need that after all. :o

 

I do understand that the Flight team is small and seems to be working on a miniscule budget, compared to how many current games are developed. They have to pick and choose their focus to obtain the best returns for what little effort they have available to expend. I appreciate that they do respond to what the community is asking for, as they are able, even if it runs counter to their previously-stated priorities (such as TrackIR). Casual gamers don't have head-tracking hardware like that. Only more serious simmers buy things like TrackIR.

 

The direction Flight is taking seems to be dictated more by the marketing team, but in the end that might not be such a bad thing. I do feel MS could improve communications, if only to align expectations better with their intentions for Flight.

 

If the marketing people are right and they can "grow" the flight-sim community, then that is a wonderful thing. And I think they really are doing that, although not nearly as well as they had hoped.

 

But by implementing some of the things that the existing flight-sim community is asking for, things that make Flight even more immersive than it already is, even if not substantially more complex to use, Flight becomes more appealing to that group. I know there's more than just a few people that had more or less dismissed Flight and then returned when TrackIR support was added. As Flight's ongoing development seems to be intended to be funded by ongoing DLC sales, the bigger they can grow their overall user-base the better.

 

The hard part is for MS to determine which items will produce the most bang for their buck. I don't presume to have those answers, but I do know with certainty that Leaderboards and other absurdities like cockpitless planes are not near the top of the list. Even the most casual gamers seem perplexed by the introduction of these concepts.

[LHookins 3,103]

Leaderboards and other absurdities

 

You'll change your mind when you see your name on a leaderboard. :D

 

Think "gamers", not "simmers." They're going for the gamer market. A lot of gamers will be converted to simmers as they realize the depth of flight simulation. That's probably the reason we have any simulation aspects in the game at all.

 

Hook

[RoboRay 126]

You'll change your mind when you see your name on a leaderboard. :D

 

I got over that when the arcade I used to play in as a kid unplugged their Galaga machine and all my sweat and perseverance to hold the entire high-scores list was lost.

:t0115:

 

Think "gamers", not "simmers." They're going for the gamer market. A lot of gamers will be converted to simmers as they realize the depth of flight simulation. That's probably the reason we have any simulation aspects in the game at all.

 

The problem with going for gamers, is that flying is boring.

 

No, really, bear with me... Unless you love flying for the passion most of us probably have toward it, it's just driving a truck. Yeah, there are some exceptions, races and aerobatics and precision-flying contests... but even those are really more work and competition than they are entertaining games. Now, there are some other things, like crop-dusting or fire-bombing that probably would result in some fun gaming, but Flight isn't doing them. I do not know why... I would have put in crop-dusting in place of the gold-rush events in a heart-beat. Similar mechanics, and far more plausible as "real" flying.

 

I think Flight has the most potential in helping people who may have that passion for flight without even knowing it, discover it.

 

But after doing so, they're going to become simmers, not flying gamers.

[LHookins 3,103]

I think Flight has the most potential in helping people who may have that passion for flight without even knowing it, discover it.

 

But after doing so, they're going to become simmers, not flying gamers.

 

I agree, 100%. I thought that was implied in what I wrote before, even.

 

I remember doing crop dusting in an earlier version of FS. I remember it being boring. I also remember setting out for LAX from Chicago, with NOTHING in between but a featureless green plane, and it wasn't boring. I'd like to try fire bombing.

 

Hook

[RoboRay 126]

I agree, 100%. I thought that was implied in what I wrote before, even.

 

It was. I was just agreeing and expanding on it. ^_^

 

I remember doing crop dusting in an earlier version of FS. I remember it being boring. I also remember setting out for LAX from Chicago, with NOTHING in between but a featureless green plane, and it wasn't boring. I'd like to try fire bombing.

 

Hey, if they can make collecting gold rings fun, I'm sure they can do something fun with cropdusting. I grew up next to a big cotton-field and would stand by the fence watching the old biplane (don't even know what it was, now) they used on it. There were tall trees all around the field, and the guy would roll the thing 90 degrees to fit through the gaps in the trees and yank it right back level again the instant he passed them. He was passing maybe 20' right over my head at times. That big radial-engine roar is something I'll never forget.

 

But finding flying straight and level over a featureless plain far more interesting than trying to get 100% coverage of the field without wasting any spray simply means you're more of a simmer rather than a gamer.

 

:p0503:

[MommaB 0]

Very good point on the TIR support, shows they haven't forgot about the true simmers! Though I agree decisions like these do add some confusion about what Flight is really trying to be. I myself lack the attention span it takes to be a true simmer but I absolutely love the mechanics of flying and the modeling of the airplanes as well as the exploration aspect involved. And I know there's many more out there waiting to be hooked, but adding more tree options sure won't do that cause any good :P

[LHookins 3,103]

I myself lack the attention span it takes to be a true simmer

 

You'd be surprised.

 

Now, if you're flying at high altitude to take advantage of winds and to get more performance, and always flying on autopilot synced to the GPS... that's not flying, that's traveling. Flying is what you do in a Piper Cub, low and slow and enjoying the scenery. Both are simming, although there are some who say only the first one is true simming. It's no wonder they use time compression on those flights.

 

I like to do long flights navigating from VOR to VOR, pretty much ignoring the GPS, often using a flight plan written on paper instead. Never getting much above 3000 feet AGL. Manually sequencing waypoints. Dealing with weather changes along the way. Constantly tweaking the engine to maximize range, because I probably don't have that much fuel on board. Watching the scenery along the way. Plenty of time to think, too. Start off before dawn and watch the sunrise.

 

Read Richard Bach's book, "Stranger to the Ground" and you'll see exactly what that's like. You do the same things. You think about the same things. And you enjoy the flight. It's seldom boring. It's not really an attention span thing.

 

To be honest, I'm usually too busy to notice how dense the trees are. And unless I'm flying at 100 feet AGL up a busy highway in a helicopter, I don't notice traffic on roads. I seldom see any other aircraft. And ATC gets to be a nuisance.

 

For flying in its purest form, try a sailplane. In FSX, you can find some excellent gliders (the DiscusX comes to mind). Register CumulusX for some additional benefits. Fly in real world weather. Most of the time you'll never get above 5000 feet. Trust me, you don't want to deal with ATC in such a case, and you'll never notice all those things people are demanding. You don't use a flight plan, you declare a destination and hope you make it all the way there. Outlandings are common. Autopilot is out of the question. And most important for me, your flying skills really matter. This one will really hold your attention. :)

 

Hook

[MommaB 0]

Hah, that's excellent! By all means a true simming experience in my book. Flight definitely delivers in a hassle free and good looking package. An experience like that is so much better than completing the odd challenge for sure. And a couple of trees more here and there isn't going to help. Sadly though, there's not a whole lot in Flight that encourages it either. Having to resort to external programs, pen and paper planning and a whole lot of imagination is not what a typical gamer does. And that's where the limited attention span (and a whole lot of other games competing for attention) comes in.

[quadraspleen 7]

Going back OT (not like me at all) I don't know whether the forests are too sparse, as I've never been to Alaska. I have, however, seen a forest. It had lots more trees in it than a lot of the tree'ed up places I've flown in FLIGHT. In Tongass Fjords X, there do seem to be more trees at lower altitudes..Also, despite what Mr. FLIGHT graphics engine man says, the tree variation isn't what I was expecting, and he alludes to..but then again, I've not been to AK, so i'm not sure what I was expecting - Polar Bears..where are the polar bears? And whales? Can we have a mission to rescue a dumb snowmobiler from polar bears, like in FWA (or was it Alsaka's toughest pilots?), please?

 

The thing that has the most effect on my machine (when at stock non messed with cfg file and NVI settings) is the shadows - on the trees..all those trees casting raytraced or source-mapped shadows brings even my, arguably, "top-end" and certainly current, machine to it's shapely white knees - that's why the sliders are there; to cater for as large an audience as possible

[LHookins 3,103]

I guess I'm super lucky that my machine will handle the shadows with no problems. The shadows are truly incredible. Of course, skimming the treetops will lower the frame rate, but after years of FSX I don't mind, and get a couple hundred feet altitude and frame rate goes back to normal.

 

I've been looking hard at the tree density the last few flights. If you're looking over the cowl the tree density looks great. If you're looking down from the side of the plane, or from external view, the trees look somewhat less dense.

 

It reminds me of a joke, probably from the Red Skelton TV show many years ago:

 

"Officer, Officer, that man isn't dressed and you can see him through the window!"

"Ma'am, you can't see anything... the bottom of the window is in the way."

"You can if you stand on this box!"

 

My advice: lose the box.

 

Hook

[Guest]

I guess I'm super lucky that my machine will handle the shadows with no problems. The shadows are truly incredible.

 

I'm lucky too and I agree!

[quadraspleen 7]

Maybe I'm flying too low all the time :Big Grin: I get 60 unless I'm low over a large forest, then I go down to 20-30, but I have VSync on