FG 2.10, most certainly a New Era of FG...

[jcomm 5,979]

I've kept an eye on this great Project since it's first steps.

 

I confess that I am not a contributor within the already huge network of code makers for this free, open, simulation platform, but I admire their dedication

talent and results.

 

The about to be released v2.10, of which I was able to test RC2, is IMHO a Marker Stone in the history of Fligh Gear.

 

Advances in scenery and weather rendering, AI, JSBSim are turning this free / open simulator into a serious competitor to what remains from the Golden Era of flight simulation.

 

The few worth alternatives are X-Plane10, Aerofly FS, DCS World and probably P3d 2.0... I am almost 80% on DCS World, which I still find to be the most perfect flight simulation

platform available, but following the XP10 progress, which is rather positive now with the stable 64 bit version about to be made final (10.20), and the very promissing AeroFly FS.

 

Flight Gear, OTOH, offers full World coverage, very acceptable flight dynamics, and in some cases (add-on b744 i.e.) very detailled systems simulation, has some professional

comercial applications already in teh market, and with the introduction of it new controllers configuration UI, it is now piece-of-cake to set and go...

 

FG 2.10 will certainly take a good share of my simming time in the next 6 months, while the nexte version get's ready to be released, bringing most certainly even more good news :-)

[jcomm 5,979]

Having said that, it's fair to say that FlightGear's art design is not up to par with its commercial counterparts.

 

True, but at least I have moving cloud systems, proper daylight, proper Moon phases/etc... ;-)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

You do realize they've got a Wiki with almost all necessary information, don't you?

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Main_Page

 

 

 

 

 

FIMF - FlightGear isn't Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

 

 

 

 

Shaders.

(Which are also the reason for ###### poor graphical performance on old or onboard video chips.)

 

Demonstrations of the shader capabilities in FG:

(Terrain does not affect object lighting in FSX)

 

http://users.jyu.fi/...ics/ultra11.jpg (Puddles on the landscape after a rainshower)

http://users.jyu.fi/...ics/ultra12.jpg (Swamps)

 

And this:

http://wiki.flightge...ight_scattering

 

 

FSX is all textures, FG is all shaders and hence more accurate, but more demanding.

 

 

 

 

 

*Chuckle*

 

IMHO that CUB video doesn't wow me--sky looks more natural in FS9/FSX if you've ever tried my free add-on, Soft Horizons. FS9/FSX include an environment bitmap that wasn't well documented, but when reverse engineered by folks like myself completely changed the look of the sky in the sim. Default FSX/FS9 does look worse than FlightGear does now--the sky lacked a natural look. But that was changed years ago (my add-on has been out since almost the beginning of FS9's existence and came out about a year after FSX's release.

 

MGH has a pretty clear history of posts regarding FlightGear. I think he posts comments knowing clearly what the FlightGear experience will be to him. I don't post often regarding FlightGear but I do feel that many of the posts I see show clear prejudice and misinformation regarding FS9/FSX/Xplane. Be fair to those sims--they have succeeded commercially for a reason. The latest version of FlightGear is a pleasant surprise. It definitely deserves more of my time investigating, especially if I find a good GA add-on aircraft with a better VC than the default FlightGear aircraft. I liked the way the Cessna felt in the air although it was less stable than my own real world experience in a 172. If anyone could point me to such an aircraft, I would be much obliged.

 

John

[jcomm 5,979]

The p51d! Choose the JSBSim variant.

 

The Skymaster C337 is also very interesting.

 

If you go here and straighten your search using the Status filters, you can pick the "most perfect" add-ons, but there are more around there, like those from this site.

[mgh 89]

Maybe with all the sliders to the left?

 

No. With everything set to “Minimal” I get 93 fps on my laptop with Intel graphics (see below) With everything set to “Ultra High” I get 15 fps.

 

 

 

The comparable figures for my desktop with an Nvidia GT520 card are 205 fps and 20 fps.

 

You do realize they've got a Wiki with almost all necessary information, don't you?

 

Can you point me to the page that covers "force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems"

 

MGH has a pretty clear history of posts regarding FlightGear.

 

True. I’ve downloaded most versions in response the enthusiastic posts about how improved it is. Each time I’ve been disappointed because is still has a way to go before it’s comparable with FSX. Being free and open-source doesn't alter that.

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

I tried FG, but it seems like a step backwards from FSX in terms of the flight dynamics and overall graphics quality (the default 172 panel reminds me of the panels in Sublogic Flight Assignment ATP--circa 1990). The point made about the takeoff roll above is spot on. I know nothing about what goes on "under the hood" in terms of coding, but I can unequivocally say, as a real world commercial pilot, that the flight dynamics are missing the mark at this point.

 

Anyway, DCS and FSX it is, I'm afraid. Well, until PSX comes out.

[Mountain Man 142]

No. With everything set to “Minimal” I get 93 fps on my laptop with Intel graphics (see below) With everything set to “Ultra High” I get 15 fps.

 

And how does FlightGear run with everything set to minimum?

[Bjoern 1,158]

Having said that, it's fair to say that FlightGear's art design is not up to par with its commercial counterparts.

 

It's getting there though. The next big step would be tackling terrain rendering.

 

 

 

True, but at least I have moving cloud systems, proper daylight, proper Moon phases/etc... ;-)

 

Real-time capable settings, better feeling of flying, air combat...

 

 

IMHO that CUB video doesn't wow me--sky looks more natural in FS9/FSX if you've ever tried my free add-on, Soft Horizons. FS9/FSX include an environment bitmap that wasn't well documented, but when reverse engineered by folks like myself completely changed the look of the sky in the sim. Default FSX/FS9 does look worse than FlightGear does now--the sky lacked a natural look. But that was changed years ago (my add-on has been out since almost the beginning of FS9's existence and came out about a year after FSX's release.

 

I was talking about the terrain shadows on the plane, not the sky.

 

And yes, I am using your soft horizons in FS9 and FSX, Mr. Cillis.

 

Be fair to those sims--they have succeeded commercially for a reason.

 

They have succeeded *because* they were made for a commercial market.

 

 

 

Can you point me to the page that covers "force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems"

 

 

Oh, I though they had it in there. My bad.

 

 

Then again, it is kind of self-explanatory, isn't it...?

 

 

 

True. I’ve downloaded most versions in response the enthusiastic posts about how improved it is. Each time I’ve been disappointed because is still has a way to go before it’s comparable with FSX. Being free and open-source doesn't alter that.

 

"My sixteen year old son can write now."

- "Eh?"

"He's mentally disabled."

- "Hahahahahahahaha, he's sixteen and learned to write only now!"

 

This is what a comment like that would sound like outside of flightsimming.

 

It is true that spare-time projects take longer than multimillion dollar commercial ones and every new version is a step forward is a testimony to dedication.

 

And unlike commercial products, there is no risk of the dev team getting axed and the community endlessly whining about it.

[jcomm 5,979]

The point made about the takeoff roll above is spot on

 

It strongly depends on the model, just like with any simulator. I am also a fan of DCS World (converted fully) and I was very well impressed with the performance of a p51d JSBsim FDM available for FG. You should give it a try, specially if you like the DCS p51d.

 

Of course, with good add-ons, professional, commercial, FG can't ( yet ) compete with FSX, or X-Plane, but that's not really the point.

 

I use it and I am enjoying it because my PC allows me to max the settings and still get a very acceptable performance. OTOH there are features I find in FG that decept me, for instance, in X-Plane10, and apparently will not get fixed for that version of the sim. Also, JSBSim is a more powerfull flight dynamics workbench than the one available for fs9 or fsx, so, provided one has good aero data, engine data, knows how to model systems, etc, a very sophisticated / complex aircraft can be offered for FG.

 

When it comes to rotary wings then FG beats hands down FSX, and approaches (or probably even goes ahead of) X-Plane!

 

Being free, what else can I ask for?

 

I am not trashing FSX or X-Plane because of FG , I'm just enjoying what FG offers!

[mgh 89]

Then again, it is kind of self-explanatory, isn't it...?

 

Not really. there’s no indication whether the latrest version of FlightGear is 32 or 64-bit. "Force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems" is checked which with most installers means it the default/preferred/recommended option. Also, if it’s left checked FlightGear fails to install, even on a 64-bit system.

 

"My sixteen year old son can write now."

- "Eh?"

"He's mentally disabled."

- "Hahahahahahahaha, he's sixteen and learned to write only now!"

The FlightGear developers are disadvantaged and we should make allowances if FlightGear isn’t up to standard because its developers are disavantaged?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I was talking about the terrain shadows on the plane, not the sky.

 

And yes, I am using your soft horizons in FS9 and FSX, Mr. Cillis.

 

I ran the video again with an eye on the plane, and the shadowing on the plane does look good. I like flying from spot view a lot in FSX. I'll have to try that with FlightGear tonight.

 

Glad someone still uses Soft Horizons. I don't get much feedback anymore on it--a lot of payware add-ons overshadow it these days. All told Soft Horizons took about eight hours' work between both sims and I like the way it turned out in FSX a bit more than FS9. FS2002 did a great job by default on atmospheric haze so I was disappointed with FS9 and FSX when I first saw them. Fortunately a FS9 developer gave me some documentation on the bitmap that controls the haze effects in FS9/FSX which helped in my efforts. I even made (for myself only) "Mars Horizons" which made the sky reddish and added a reddish hue to the ground and ground shadows. It's amazing what one small bitmap can do in the hands of the bored.

 

FlightGear's greatest potential, I think, is that it performs pretty well out of the box, with every option maxed. One does have to take the time to dig through the configuration options since by default they don't show the sim at their best. Water especially, can be vastly improved by moving its slider to the right and I did not see any hint of a performance penalty.

 

I'm going to check out some of the other add-on aircraft that I've been alerted to, but its a pity there are not many GA options.

 

John

[jcomm 5,979]

Time to go to bed, but I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow morning ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[geneb 0]

I find it interesting that some folks are eager to point out FlightGear's deficiencies without offering any help to fix them...

 

You could help supply better cloud textures for instance.

 

mgh: Right-clicking and hitting "Open With" is something any experienced Windows user will automatically do if they suspect the file is a text file that doesn't happen to follow a 30 year old naming convention.

 

For those interested, you can find the FlightGear Continuous Integration server here:

http://flightgear.simpits.org:8080 - for the truly bleeding edge among you.

 

g.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I find it interesting that some folks are eager to point out FlightGear's deficiencies without offering any help to fix them...

 

You could help supply better cloud textures for instance.

 

mgh: Right-clicking and hitting "Open With" is something any experienced Windows user will automatically do if they suspect the file is a text file that doesn't happen to follow a 30 year old naming convention.

 

For those interested, you can find the FlightGear Continuous Integration server here:

http://flightgear.simpits.org:8080 - for the truly bleeding edge among you.

 

g.

 

I think the cloud textures in FlightGear are finely done. How to make them a bit more transparent or "wispy" looking I couldn't possibly understand without knowledge of the coding, which is done with a language I don't use (All my programs I've distributed are VB--just about anyone can create VB programs with no formal training, like I have).

 

Your spot on about use of "open with". However mgh is an experienced user--he's a developer. I found his feedback earnest and out of concern for others who might not know what to do. In my case, I don't even use "open with". If I suspect something is a text file meant to be read, I affix a .txt extension to it so I can review it at will with a simple open.

 

If I find an area where I can contribute in Flight Gear, I probably will. Since my profession is software testing, I think sifting through the programs for bugs, documenting them, and reporting them back to the developers is what I can do best. I'll certainly try to do that with the most current release.

 

John

[CyberMike 18]

The FlightGear developers are disadvantaged and we should make allowances if FlightGear isn’t up to standard because its developers are disavantaged?

 

mgh for the last time LEAVE. I've reported your spam and hope to never see you again in this section.

 

I build FG in 64 bit with:

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu

 

but that's a no go for you as you don't have the needed hardware.

[mgh 89]

I find it interesting that some folks are eager to point out FlightGear's deficiencies without offering any help to fix them...

 

You could help supply better cloud textures for instance.

 

But I‘m not interested in developing clouds and seem to spend too much time correcting deficiencies in my own work!

 

mgh: Right-clicking and hitting "Open With" is something any experienced Windows user will automatically do if they suspect the file is a text file that doesn't happen to follow a 30 year old naming convention.

 

That’s just what i did.. The reason the "30 year old naming convention" has lasted so long is because it’s very convenient – one click instead of several.