This is what our flight sims could look like

[Clem Wu]

Thanks heaps for sharing these videos and information guys, quite interesting.

[LHookins]

Although these effects are nice, we don't need them when flying 10,000 ft above the ground.

 

What's this "we" business, Tony?

 

http://en.wikipedia....Majestic_plural

 

Some of us don't get much above a few thousand feet AGL. Might as well use photoreal scenery if you're never going to see it anyway.

 

I saw something tonight that made me wonder. A2A is already replacing a lot of the FSX physics and flight model in their aircraft. They've already got the models and the gauge code. Imagine someone like A2A grabbing one of these super-hot rendering engines and adding their aircraft to produce a new flight sim.

 

Hook

[tonywob]

What's this "we" business, Tony?

 

Let me rephrase it then ;-)

 

"I" don't see the point in having flowing grass, swaying trees and butter flies when you are flying along at 110knts at 2000 feet. Such a thing would just kill frames and wouldn't be visible anyway. I admit though that Orbx's airports have a nice atmosphere to them, but a flight simulator is for flying, not walking round an airport :-)

[Guest]

Terrible popup at 1:10. Awful. I rather have FSX.

 

_{(Of course I am only saying this because I would pay thousand dollars to get a flightsim with this detail... but I am too afraid it won't happen in my lifetime... :rolleyes: )}

[mgh]

From the Unigine site:

 

No doubt it has (or will have) those features in some form or another. But someone still has to write the code to make use of those features. It won't a have a full 6-dgree-of-freedom equations capable of modelling such different aircraft has the C172 and the B747, for example. It won't include code for modelling ILS, VOR, NDB plus many other essential elements. Also, it won't specify the input data format for any of these elements.

 

Some one will have to determine all these and then develop and test the code to implement them. Will existing 3PDs get together and agree a common input format/interface and, more importantly, will they guaranteee funding for development? If not who will, especially if it's to be open to all with an SDK for anyone to use.

 

Of course, anything's possible provided some developer is convinced that it will get an acceptable return on its investment. Aerosoft thought about it but has abandoned the idea. 3PDs already have a choice of developing for FSX, Prepar3d, and X-Plane. They might need a lot of convincing to develop for another, untried, simulator.

 

On a wider point, I haven't found any modelling of realistic buildings. I'd like too see how it deals with cities and airports.

[HansRoaming]

Of course there is work to do but a lot is there already, I was also stating that one would talk to third parties to gather their input for defining APIs etc not so much about co funding etc.

 

For flight models pick from a number, Flightgear use a number for example and at least one of these is used by one FSX third party according to a post I saw on here recently.

 

If you want AIRAC data there are numerous sources, I use Navigraph to update my third party FMS systems that bypass.

 

FSX has no future, there will never be another release, P3D in terms of market penetration is uncertain too as am not sure LM have worked out what market they want to be in. X-Plane doesn't seem to have the stability in terms of a development platform and a pluggable architecture as of yet.

 

If a flight sim came out that used the Unigine engine or an equivalent, was plugable and extensible. It also had an app store and subscription type model where the emphasis was on long term ownership of a developing product rather than versions with a two year life span then that is something I'd buy into in a heartbeat.

 

On a wider point, I haven't found any modelling of realistic buildings. I'd like too see how it deals with cities and airports.

 

Here's a press release for it being used by a defence contractor for visualisation work.

[mgh]

If a flight sim came out that used the Unigine engine or an equivalent, was plugable and extensible. It also had an app store and subscription type model where the emphasis was on long term ownership of a developing product rather than versions with a two year life span then that is something I'd buy into in a heartbeat.

 

Regardless of its cost?

 

 

Here's a press release for it being used by a defence contractor for visualisation work.

 

So? That shows neither cities nor airports.

[HansRoaming]

Well cost is a factor of course but look at Steam for how decreasing the unit cost can massively increase profit, selling to the long tail can be profitable and there are emerging markets in places like India and China that would put pressure on lowering unit cost or rather for me subscription.

 

 

So? That shows neither cities nor airports.

 

You're right although I linked it because the implication is that if a defence contractor was using it for visualisation work then buildings and terrain like airports would be satisfactory.

[tttocs]

I admit though that Orbx's airports have a nice atmosphere to them, but a flight simulator is for flying, not walking round an airport :-)

 

This "flight simulator is for flying" thing comes up all the time. I've long since figured out that what I want is an aviation simulator. I want to simulate all phases of the process, from hangar at one end to ramp at the other. As such, good airport operations are important to me, just as they are IRL. There are abviously others who feel the same, or there wouldn't be so many quality airports for sale and under development.

 

Don't know why such things would have to eat frame rates when in the air away from that environment and again, the impressive thing about this demo is that it didn't eat frames at high detail - and didn't care much for the CPU either, which leaves a lot of room for doing other things. Our current sims leave a lot of GPU capabilities sitting unused.

 

Sure, to each his own, but don't be so quick to try to marginalize what can be important to some of us.

 

Scott

[mgh]

Well cost is a factor of course but look at Steam for how decreasing the unit cost can massively increase profit, selling to the long tail can be profitable and there are emerging markets in places like India and China that would put pressure on lowering unit cost or rather for me subscription.

 

Most FS add-on developers are small - even "cottage" sized. I've seen it posted that X-Plane has only three coders. Companies like that have bills to pay next month - "long tail" earnings next year don't help pay those.

 

As I said before, anything is possible in principle. In reality practicality will determine what's actually done - not wishful thinking. I don't believe that there is a viable market now for a new flight simulator with the features required by enthusiasts.

 

Outerra was the holy grail for a long time until now. Theres's been no sign of that being included that in a new simulator.

 

You're right although I linked it because the implication is that if a defence contractor was using it for visualisation work then buildings and terrain like airports would be satisfactory.

 

A major defence contractor (Lockheed Martin) is using P3D so its visualisation must be satisfactory.

[HansRoaming]

There is no delay in earnings with having a pricing structure that is aimed at shifting volume with small unit profit, where I work our killer service would be one that we would only make a £1 profit per person per year but that could sell to a billion people!

 

You're right it looks like X-Plane has the market to itself for general aviation needs, P3D is very high cost and from what I gather, especially after reading IRIS's licensing decisions it is not aimed at the consumer market. FSX of course has no future, there will never be an FSXI, if there would be then it would be a different conversation.

[tttocs]

Given that current GPU'S are multipurpose computationally, it seems clear that while they can provide high-end graphics, they can also be diverted to even more detailed calculation of things like wind and weather modeling. In other words, alternative ways of using extra resources, and historically the sim community tends to opt for calculation and "realism" over "eye candy"

 

I don't see or agree with this strawman characterisization of flight simmers. I see realism argued both ways. Just look at what happens when Carenado releases a new plane and the howls of "eye candy" vs "wonderful plane" go up. The point for now is that current sims are way underutilizing the GPU, and there's a ton of unlocked potential to do so much more. It doesn't have to be made more toy-like, it can progress on all fronts by taking better advantage of currently available and underutilized resources.

 

If we are happy being not for the masses, then by all means we should continue on the current path, but then Its hard to see from whence the resources to fund the ultimate simulator often mused about comes from.

 

I see no evidence that a flight sim (or even a flight-based game that makes no special effort to be a simulator) will ever again be "for the masses" and such a product, if it could exist, certainly wouldn't be an "ultimate simulator". That seems a losing proposition on both ends. The "masses" already have games that appeal to them, and I actually see a nice backlash possible in many markets (not just games) growing weary of having to put up with mass-appeal pablum.

 

Scott

[HansRoaming]

As I posted in this thread on Unigine, having those visual cues whilst in a low hover in a helicopter would be killer.

[simmerhead]

Let me rephrase it then ;-)

 

"I" don't see the point in having flowing grass, swaying trees and butter flies when you are flying along at 110knts at 2000 feet. Such a thing would just kill frames and wouldn't be visible anyway. I admit though that Orbx's airports have a nice atmosphere to them, but a flight simulator is for flying, not walking round an airport :-)

 

With a little imagination you will see how capabilities like these can be good for a future simulator. First of all you could simulate all kinds of vehicles from motorcycles to trains and aircraft. Secondly the geniality of the engine lies in its LOD management, meaning that it doesn't kill frames since it will only load detail within a certain range. Last and not least, when you can land and jump out of the aircraft you can make missions with endless possibilities, hence appealing to a larger audience.

 

People flight sim for many different reasons. For me it is as much about exploring as it is about density altitude calculations. Currently I'm flying the Mississippi from North to South in the Maule, reading about all the places I fly over on the iPad.

[mgh]

There is no delay in earnings with having a pricing structure that is aimed at shifting volume with small unit profit, where I work our killer service would be one that we would only make a £1 profit per person per year but that could sell to a billion people!

 

Development money has to be spent long before the first sale is made. A developer has to fund that at the time. "Long tail" earnings achieved years in the future won't do that - especially for a small company.