This is what our flight sims could look like

[tttocs]

Essentially I worry that even if resources were freed by advancing technology, said resources would have a good chance of getting sucked into the service of our apparently insatiable need for technical fidelity; leaving behind a mathematically beautiful rendition of flight that still lacks the graphic prowess (and other polish) capable of inspiring interest and revenue from the wider markets that could spur true growth to pay for more developement.

 

And now we're basically starting to go in circles. See previous comments, but I don't share that concern at all. We already have good technical sims, especially when add-ons are brought into the equation (leaving aside a few odd warts that could stand some polish and refinement) but our primary sims (FSX/P3D) have fallen behind the times in some primary areas having to do with their being able to take good advantage of modern hardware (memory, processor enhancements and graphics in particular). It's not the ability to support decent flight physics or systems that hold us back today, it's the graphics goodies we're trying to shoehorn in and band-aid on that are causing most of the stress. You've referenced this "technical fidelity" and it's potential to suck resources several times, but you've yet to define it in any but the vaguest way - mostly it seems to be anything not in service of better appearance and more mass appeal - but I think the whole idea is a red-herring.

 

I'd freely admit to being a hard-core simmer - I'm interested in simulating real-world aviation in all of it's technical glory, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in good graphics. I've argued in other threads about over use of the derogatory phrase "eye-candy" as I think simulation and realistic visual environments are complementary, not exclusionary.

 

The "mass appeal" part, on the other hand is probably going to be a completely different issue. I don't think flight simulation left a mass audience behind (if it ever had a mass audience by modern gaming standards), I think the mass audience left simulation behind. Any modern flying game that garners and holds "the masses" is unlikey to be a simulation as I think of the term. Most gamers don't want real, they want over-the-top. Call it hyper-real, realer-than-real or whatever fits, but most popular titles fit the bill here. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it doesn't have much to do with simulation.

 

Scott

[HiFlyer]

And now we're basically starting to go in circles. See previous comments, but I don't share that concern at all. We already have good technical sims, especially when add-ons are brought into the equation (leaving aside a few odd warts that could stand some polish and refinement) but our primary sims (FSX/P3D) have fallen behind the times in some primary areas having to do with their being able to take good advantage of modern hardware (memory, processor enhancements and graphics in particular). It's not the ability to support decent flight physics or systems that hold us back today, it's the graphics goodies we're trying to shoehorn in and band-aid on that are causing most of the stress.

 

I disagree because before those hypothetical new resources that might save the day are even here, there are already longstanding discussions of cycle sapping modules for weather and storm and wind modeling (or some other sophisticated airport operations) that requires resources. One could drag in Xplanes decision to use excess cores to simulate Ai planes with the full physics fidelity of a user piloted plane as an example of where excess resources tend to be allocated in this genre.

 

I have already seen speculation on how more powerful application of blade element theory (read more resource intensive) could up the realism of the sim, and altogether I think there's historical evidence of the creativity available within the community to demand ever greater portions of any likely short term resource gains.

 

I'd freely admit to being a hard-core simmer - I'm interested in simulating real-world aviation in all of it's technical glory, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in good graphics. I've argued in other threads about over use of the derogatory phrase "eye-candy" as I think simulation and realistic visual environments are complementary, not exclusionary.

 

Yet serious flight simulation remains at a graphical peak not all that far removed in type and style from FS2004. Part of that is a lack of resources of course, but I believe another is a matter of focus. Rarely have I ever seen graphical prowess (outside of frame-rates) touted as a true necessity in core sim functionality other than as a tasty extra to be added only after all the really important aspects are covered. My take is that in any contest between technical concerns and graphics, graphics loses. Repeatedly. To the point now, that to a modern gamer, current flight sims appear pretty much like the original sub-logic simulator would appear to us. Not only is it the path not taken, it seems to have become the path not even desired if even one precious real world parameter has to suffer for it.

 

The "mass appeal" part, on the other hand is probably going to be a completely different issue. I don't think flight simulation left a mass audience behind (if it ever had a mass audience by modern gaming standards), I think the mass audience left simulation behind. Any modern flying game that garners and holds "the masses" is unlikey to be a simulation as I think of the term. Most gamers don't want real, they want over-the-top. Call it hyper-real, realer-than-real or whatever fits, but most popular titles fit the bill here. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it doesn't have much to do with simulation.

 

As far as the mass audience leaving flight simulation behind, do you see gamers saying "Go back to your sims" with anything like the regularity that you see simmers making deprecating remarks about gamers? And honestly, it pushes gamers (and their money) away. When I first arrived on the scene years ago, forums were rife with contempt for the "mindless console kiddies" (and other pejoratives) that brought to mind drooling masses just short of dragging their knuckles when they walked, and who probably communicated in grunts. The attitude was so open and up-front that I nearly turned and left right then and there, but I had a strong interest in flight and lurked for years instead.

 

Faced with that, and a technical focus that offers little play or usability compromise "If its a game you want, go back to your consoles!" its not surprising the hobby has shrunk. We kind of chase people away with a stick. (And besides that, get off my lawn!!!"

 

There. You have the view from the other side of the chasm.

 

As far as realism, I think we sometimes take things a tad too seriously. I remember Mathijs over at Aerosoft in a thread where he was describing how when they created models that followed real world specifications exactly, they were surprised to find users unhappy. There were over exaggerations (like wing flex) that people (even the so-called hard core) wanted to see even if they did'nt comport with reality, and Aerosoft, being a business, learned to accommodate those expectations........

 

There are also articles and opinions like this and others that make me think that "realism" is as much in the eye of the beholder as the question of what makes a "real" sim.

[Simmo W]

+1000^20 Devon!

[OmniAtlas]

This looks impressive. Will give it a download and go tonight.

[Simmo W]

Ha, now I'll go into an infinite loop...just posted a walk through at our site! Sorry for the screams of ecstasy.

[simmerhead]

Yep Dillon, you're talking the talk! What this niche need is less niche features. Lets make the next flighsim something that attracts a somewhat larger audience than wannabe ATP pilots.

[HansRoaming]

But you can have realistic aircraft that are accessible such as the Piper Cub, awesome fun and yet can be as realistic as can be with the A2A incarnation.

 

On Facebook I make my 'Nerd Flying' album public and people comment on the look of, something that looks amazing has massive appeal too.

[simmerhead]

But you can have realistic aircraft that are accessible such as the Piper Cub, awesome fun and yet can be as realistic as can be with the A2A incarnation.

 

That is true.

[mgh]

In this dicussion, the elephant in the room (or in this case the elephant not in the room) is that there is no sign of anyone being prepared to fund the development of a flight simulator to meet the wishes of enthusiasts. By all means dream on, but don't hold your breathe.

[HansRoaming]

In this dicussion, the elephant in the room (or in this case the elephant not in the room) is that there is no sign of anyone being prepared to fund the development of a flight simulator to meet the wishes of enthusiasts. By all means dream on, but don't hold your breathe.

 

If this was on Kickstarter I'd put down money, that's one person.

[tttocs]

In this dicussion, the elephant in the room (or in this case the elephant not in the room) is that there is no sign of anyone being prepared to fund the development of a flight simulator to meet the wishes of enthusiasts. By all means dream on, but don't hold your breathe.

 

Well, if you ignore XP (which seems to get knocked mostly for being TOO enthusiast oriented - unless you're one of those enthusiasts). Or P3D (yes, I know LM, commercial and all that). Or, heck, even DCS.

 

Scott

[tttocs]

Yet serious flight simulation remains at a graphical peak not all that far removed in type and style from FS2004. Part of that is a lack of resources of course, but I believe another is a matter of focus. Rarely have I ever seen graphical prowess (outside of frame-rates) touted as a true necessity in core sim functionality other than as a tasty extra to be added only after all the really important aspects are covered. My take is that in any contest between technical concerns and graphics, graphics loses. Repeatedly. To the point now, that to a modern gamer, current flight sims appear pretty much like the original sub-logic simulator would appear to us. Not only is it the path not taken, it seems to have become the path not even desired if even one precious real world parameter has to suffer for it.

 

And again - we're dancing in circles and at this stage it would be best to agree to disagree. When I read loaded phrases like "precious real world paramaters" I know we have no common ground for doing much more than continuing in these circles. I read your "simmers don't want graphics" comments and simply shake my head, as the forums are FULL of hard-core simmers complaining about graphics limitations, expensive graphics cards that are underutilized, and tired of being constantly told to "turn the sliders down" if they want reasonable performance. Despite loads of add-ons, it's INEFFICIENT GRAPHICS that eat my CPU cycles - and THAT to get graphics that I agree are simply outdated. These gripes are echoed again and again in the forums.

 

As far as the mass audience leaving flight simulation behind, do you see gamers saying "Go back to your sims" with anything like the regularity that you see simmers making deprecating remarks about gamers? And honestly, it pushes gamers (and their money) away.

 

If you're seriously suggesting that forum attitudes on a sim-focused site are driving market forces in gaming, well... no, not buying it. Not even a little. Sorry, some people are jerks, and others are just tactless pretty much everywhere, but more than that most focused forums are by nature insular and, well, focused. That's nothing new and absolutely not a market driver in the wide world. C'mon, newbies with an alternative view on a game get sliced and diced on gaming forums all the time too. And the market still goes where it goes.

 

There are also articles and opinions like this and others that make me think that "realism" is as much in the eye of the beholder as the question of what makes a "real" sim.

 

It's indeed one of the oldest arguments in simming. Not sure what your point is here relative to this discussion though, other than as a strawman justifying throwing reality out the door.

 

At the end of the day, I expect the sim you want and the sim I want have more similarities than they do differences. I absolutely want a modern graphics engine, and I absolutely believe that most other simmers do as well - this is the crux of why I've responded to your arguments and disagree with your premise. On the mass market end, I don't care one bit if there are game elements added in to attract a wider audience, so long as those elements can be ignored by those, like me, who aren't interested in them. But I don't believe it'll make a bit of difference in sales unless and until you make the sim something that's fundamentally not an aviation simulator anymore. And at that point, I'm simply not interested. Not because I'm right or better or because I'm some aging crank who wants you off my lawn - I'm just not interested.

 

I'm done. Any last words are yours. :-)

 

Scott

[vc10man]

Yeah, but what's like on frames? B)

Got an average of 46 when I ran it with my newly-acquired US-bought Gigabyte GTX 560Ti, if that is of any help.

[mgh]

Well, if you ignore XP (which seems to get knocked mostly for being TOO enthusiast oriented - unless you're one of those enthusiasts). Or P3D (yes, I know LM, commercial and all that). Or, heck, even DCS.

 

Scott

 

My error - I should have written new flight simulator

[Pe11e]

I wasn't impressed by the Valley demo. Daylight coloring is not right, and also trees are very blurry in the "distance", but that is logical because everything is about LOD in this demo. I tried to simulate a flight from low altitude, nothing looked as good as ORBX. I'm not really interested in ultra detal scenery when visually doesn't look right. I was impressed with weather effects only, how trees and grass reacts to wind, pretty neat.