What does the choice of Infinite Scuba say about CGF's view of the future of aircraft or train simulation?

What does the choice of Infinite Scuba say about CGF's view of the future of aircraft or train simulation?

 

Nothing. I think they'd be into a flight sim if they could raise the money and talent, but it takes a team. FSX is the result of almost 20 years of development. A small company making a flight sim today would end up much like X-Plane - as a niche within a niche within a niche...

I think a future Flight Sim will come in a 3D Global Platform that can simulate anything, Cars, Planes, Trains. I also think it would be third party developers that make it happen. Someone just needs to come up with an open-ended base core to make it work.

 

Then Third Party can develop scenery, planes, cars, trains or whatever....skies the limit.

It's going to need money upfront to develop it with the assurance of money downstream to pay that back and then make a profit. In my view that money just isn't there.

One of the things about FSX was a lot of time and money was spent on stuff we don't use anyways,

 

In FSX we replace default Scenery, Terrain Mesh, Atmospheric Effects, Aircraft Models, AI Traffic and countless other features with third party developers.

 

If someone can just get a base core together without all the bells and whistles, then you could develop it for less then FSX costed.

 

It would have to be DirectX11 and have the geometry in place for the globe, Then third party can build it from there.

 

Pipe dream of course but maybe some day, I wonder what it would cost to just put an open ended base core together.

One of the things about FSX was a lot of time and money was spent on stuff we don't use anyways,

 

In FSX we replace default Scenery, Terrain Mesh, Atmospheric Effects, Aircraft Models, AI Traffic and countless other features with third party developers.

 

If someone can just get a base core together without all the bells and whistles, then you could develop it for less then FSX costed.

 

It would have to be DirectX11 and have the geometry in place for the globe, Then third party can build it from there.

 

Pipe dream of course but maybe some day, I wonder what it would cost to just put an open ended base core together.

 

It doesn't just take money, but the right talent as well. I agree that an all sim engine is the future, but it isn't quite that easy.

Pipe dream of course but maybe some day, I wonder what it would cost to just put an open ended base core together.

 

It's already been done. It's called Flight Gear.

 

 

While there may be some expertise within the developer community, it's not (IMO) something of such a depth to initiate and expand a "new" flight simulation program.

 

Besides, even with any financial incentive, the meshing of the egos would never occur...

It's already been done. It's called Flight Gear.

 

Well aware of Flight Gear but also well aware of its limitations. I would prefer a better engine designed for DX11. A future platform that is not just Flight Sim, but also cars, trains or whatever you want to simulate.

 

Besides, even with any financial incentive, the meshing of the egos would never occur...

 

True

One of the things about FSX was a lot of time and money was spent on stuff we don't use anyways,

 

In FSX we replace default Scenery, Terrain Mesh, Atmospheric Effects, Aircraft Models, AI Traffic and countless other features with third party developers.

 

If someone can just get a base core together without all the bells and whistles, then you could develop it for less then FSX costed.

 

It would have to be DirectX11 and have the geometry in place for the globe, Then third party can build it from there.

 

Pipe dream of course but maybe some day, I wonder what it would cost to just put an open ended base core together.

 

For what percentage of the people that bought FSX is that true though? From a financial point of view there's no difference between someone who gets FSX from grandma as a present, flies once or twice and then leaves it on the shelf, or someone who buys FSX and then spends thousands on third pary add-ons. In both cases the developer of the base package get $50-60 minus the retailer and distributor's cut. (50% is not unusual for that I think, if on Steam Valve takes 30%).

Many people here would be willing to buy a mere base package and then have to buy add-ons, but to get a sufficient market I think you will have to offer at least some default content. Personally I like flying all over the world, so I'd want at least world-wide semi-decent scenery quality. Obviously I don't expect $30 add-on quality for a default airport, but if I fly in to KFJK I want more than just a runway texture. I fly to too many different airports to make buying them all as add-ons an unrealistic proposal.

 

DCS World is an interesting experiment in the base package + DLC (both 1st and 3rd party) model, though aimed at combat at the moment.

The major undertaking isn't creating the new simulator itself. The monumental task would be creating the EULA.

 

:LMAO:

 

- Sent from my rooted, Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE smartphone via Tapatalk because haters gonna hate.

 

 

And the gentleman has quite a point. ^_^

 

If you print EULAs and fold them, they actually fly.

If you print EULAs and fold them, they actually fly.

 

Quote of the day!

Whats the story with Outerra - isnt that supposed to be a base package being created to allow for add-ons?

I mean it looks amazing.. Whats stopping this from being what we are after in terms of a nuts and bolts base core.

Whats the story with Outerra - isnt that supposed to be a base package being created to allow for add-ons?

I mean it looks amazing.. Whats stopping this from being what we are after in terms of a nuts and bolts base core.

 

Millions of dollars... Outerra looks fantastic, but it needs a dedicated developer and publisher with a LARGE staff to amount to anything.

Millions of dollars... Outerra looks fantastic, but it needs a dedicated developer and publisher with a LARGE staff to amount to anything.

 

I think there are always exceptions. By your formulation, for instance, Xplane is nothing short of a miracle.......... ^_^

 

On another point, I think the ROF engine is very neglected, and that they are slowly building a little empire while the world is otherwise occupied. I never fully agreed with Aerosofts (technical) reasoning for rejecting them as a base for a possible Aerosoft sim effort. I always wondered if it might have been more of a control issue.