For pure training purposes, the graphics can get away with being somewhat more utilitarian. And until recently, that's really all that was available, and customers weren't going to pay a lot extra for better graphics.

 

But consider what happens when a company can offer training solutions with much higher resolution graphics without all the extra cost. Keep in mind that government training centers may be required by law to go with the lowest bidder that satisfies their requirements. If solution A is using very rudimentary graphics and solution B is offering Orbx quality graphics, if the prices are similar enough and other requirements are met, the customer is going with solution B.

 

That would mean you are happy with a simulator that has one runway, adjustable lenght and heading, one NDB, one VOR, ILS and one GPS approach. You need a good weather injector and that's it. No 20.000 airports, no scenery, no outside view of plane, no textures. You need a procedure trainer, not a flighsim.

 

If we're talking about pure training purposes, I think we're agreeing here. "You need a procedure trainer". But your specs are only going to work for generalized landing in an airliner.

 

Imagine a different scenario. Go do the "circle to land" approach at Dutch Harbor PADU runway 30 and see if your simple setup will work there. Do it with no GPS, no ILS, and no autopilot. The VOR and NDB aren't very helpful in that landing. Start with clear weather and mild winds, and progress to a 1200 foot ceiling and a 20 knot crosswind with 1/4 mile visibility. Do it with whatever high resolution scenery you wish. Now imagine the absolute graphical minimums needed to practice that approach. You'll need a reasonably accurate mesh so you can recognize the land masses involved, but other than that filled polygons in 16 colors will teach you just as much as the best scenery you can get. However, one is much prettier than the other.

 

Even training software has improved a lot. We no longer *have* to use low resolution. Being able to provide higher resolution graphics for a price similar to low resolution training solutions is going to give a considerable competitive advantage. And for a developer like Orbx, they can sell the same scenery to the flight sim market and recover development costs and make a good profit. It just takes a reasonably large flight sim market.

 

Hook

And the answer is, some would. Recall the very detailed UK scenery for FSX (Shawbury Fields?) that was originally developed for the military - for low-level helicopter training I think - and then brought out for us casual simmers.

 

Scott

 

Yes for the Defence Helicopter Flying School, RAF Shawbury:

 

http://www.earthsimulations.com/shawbury_fields.html

 

In combination with the 'Squirrel in a Box' simulator - Love that name!!!

 

http://www.rcsimulations.co.uk/shop/page/14?sessid=kQBCjxAehTnTJ3qIRLjpO2XQPYFtuwSO4bUgA5Wki1VgpkS0ts1RwGci15ta6DlX&shop_param=

This latest wave in the topic brought back vivid memories of the year 1987 for me. At the time I owned an Amiga computer which had 4096 colors, built in sound and 640 screen resolution. My friend who had a pc tried to convince me that his pc with 16 colors, no sound, and 1/2 the screen resolution was better-because after all those in business who were "serious" didn't need any of those frills.

 

It was to me the silliest argument I'd ever heard, and history has proven so. The argument that greater reality in any phase of simulation is not necessary to truly sim is in the same ilk of arguments, and yes I use sims primarily for procedure training.

because after all those in business who were "serious" didn't need any of those frills.

 

They weren't exactly doing the same things with their computers as you were.

 

I was pretty amazed to see an IBM AT still in use in a doctor's office some time after Pentiums became available.

 

Hook

The Amiga! I loved my A500+. I spent hours playing F-16 combat pilot and F-19 steath fighter. Oh and Falcon. Happy memories of a misspent youth that got me the job I have today. Lol

It was to me the silliest argument I'd ever heard

 

Yes, it's as silly an argument today, just as it was back then.

 

Glen

And the answer is, some would. Recall the very detailed UK scenery for FSX (Shawbury Fields?) that was originally developed for the military - for low-level helicopter training I think - and then brought out for us casual simmers.

 

There are special case scenarios, of course, but I think most professional outfits would gladly settle for a lower-priced "good enough for the purpose" solution than spend extra on eye-candy. In the case of a multi-user professional license, the cost savings can be substantial.

 

This latest wave in the topic brought back vivid memories of the year 1987 for me. At the time I owned an Amiga computer which had 4096 colors, built in sound and 640 screen resolution. My friend who had a pc tried to convince me that his pc with 16 colors, no sound, and 1/2 the screen resolution was better-because after all those in business who were "serious" didn't need any of those frills.

 

It was to me the silliest argument I'd ever heard, and history has proven so. The argument that greater reality in any phase of simulation is not necessary to truly sim is in the same ilk of arguments, and yes I use sims primarily for procedure training.

 

You are seriously misreading things. We're not discussing which is "better".

Not discussing which is better-in fact I thought I was rather clear that the ibm person felt the "eye candy" was uneccesary for a " serious" computer-same as dismissing features the orbx guys have come up with as not being necessary for a " procedural trainer". The implication is that waving people on the Tarmac are not needed in a " procedural" trainer-yet on a great deal of my rw flights there were people on the other side of the fence waving as I taxied out. Flight simming is about immersion and recreating as many aspects of the rw experience and every little bit helps. Right now xplane nails the immersion factor with road traffic/ roads which I happened to also notice rw on every flight-and yes it adds to the experience when you break out of a low overcast and see cars moving on the road that is 1/4 mile from the runway. If you are going to dismiss some of the great effects done by orbx as not necessary for a procedural trainer you better dismiss some of the great effects xplane does too, like the police cars chasing speeders. Apples to Apples....And to be honest I am still waiting for Xplane to be a great procedural trainer-in it's present state it is not useful for me in that way-here is hoping for the future and the sooner the better.

There are special case scenarios, of course, but I think most professional outfits would gladly settle for a lower-priced "good enough for the purpose" solution than spend extra on eye-candy.

 

And that's why I think it's a mistake to generalize ("most professional outfits"?) and to use dismissive terms like "eye-candy" for things that may or may not be extraneous depending on the scenario or individual need. In the specific example I cited, the detail was anything but candy, it was a major feature.

 

But to be honest, this thread's gone on so long and taken so many turns, I'm beginning to lose track of who's trying to argue for what.

 

Scott

I thought I was rather clear that the ibm person felt the "eye candy" was uneccesary for a " serious" computer-same as dismissing features the orbx guys have come up with as not being necessary for a " procedural trainer".

 

Here's the thing, businesses weren't ignoring the Commodore Amiga because there was no value in things like 4096 colors and high resolution graphics but because IBMs were "good enough" for what those businesses needed and at a lower cost (especially if they opted for the much cheaper IBM clones).

 

Much the same principle applies here. If P3D remains a strictly commercial product, are there really going to be a profitable number of commercial clients wanting to buy OrbX scenery? I'm not so sure. That's all I'm saying.

Well, for my part, I'm just wondering if P3D's future incarnation is going to be something viable on the entertainment sim market, which would explain JV's devotion to its future. A thought occurred that P3D 2.0 could be such a radical modification of the FSX/ESP codebase that it is its own entity and is free of the contractual obligation with MS to not release as a retail entertainment product.

Here's the thing, businesses weren't ignoring the Commodore Amiga because there was no value in things like 4096 colors and high resolution graphics but because IBMs were "good enough" for what those businesses needed and at a lower cost (especially if they opted for the much cheaper IBM clones).

 

 

You are saying that an IBM PC was cheaper than an amiga 500 and that a clone was much cheaper than an amiga 500? If the logic of your argument is based around that then I think you may be incorrect.

You are saying that an IBM PC was cheaper than an amiga 500 and that a clone was much cheaper than an amiga 500? If the logic of your argument is based around that then I think you may be incorrect.

 

The Amiga 500 was intended for the home market.

Interestingly Mountain, the person I had the discussion was not in business but a home user-he simply maintained " eye candy" had no place nor was useful in computing-he even thought a color monitor ridiculous. Same applies to flight simming. Fs 98 worked great as a procedural sim for traing purposes for me but when Pro Pilot came out with panel instruments that resembled rw world ones, and clouds that didn't look like ice cubes I found Pro Pilot even more useful. Going for greater reality in all aspects no matter how small is never a negative ,unless one is committed to never moving forward.

Here's the thing, businesses weren't ignoring the Commodore Amiga because there was no value in things like 4096 colors and high resolution graphics but because IBMs were "good enough" for what those businesses needed and at a lower cost (especially if they opted for the much cheaper IBM clones).

 

No, businesses dismissed the Commodore Amiga because it wasn't the IBM Amiga! In those days, if it didn't have the acronym IBM on it, they didn't want anything to do with it, it didn't matter if it was better or not. It took years for many businesses, to start using clones, let alone anything with a different OS.