Ed,

 

Not even close! Look what has been stated and asked by Kelvin. I suggest you carefully re-read everything that was specifically asked, and observe what was not even hinted at.

 

He seems to be the only one who has not referred to it, or commented, or answered the speculation about Outerra. I don't know what he is driving at, but he has not mentioned it at all.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411219-pollquestionaire-for-new-flightcombined-simulator-kick-starter/?p=2695266

Yet what he did was load a demo of a scenery engine (Outerra, that's all it actually is designed to be at this point) and compare it to FSX which is a flight simulation program and proclaim it's doesn't work for him.  Well, it doesn't work for anyone... it's not a flight simulator.

 

If we're going to discuss this... the least we can do is be fair about our comparisons and draw conclusions that actually make some common sense.

 

What a flight simulator, based on the Outerra scenery engine, can or can't do isn't something any of us can speculate on at this time.

 

As for who brought up Outerra... it was someone from Outerra, and the statement hasn't been refuted.

Sounds like your suggesting a game versus a true Flight Simulator someone can train with. You should try Flight as that's something perfectly suited to a port over to Androind running W8 Metro. There's a nice title called F-Sim Shuttle that you would like too.

 

For the rest of us a phone app is out of the question for a Flight Sim as one needs to sit down just like in a plane, use rudder peddles as that's what a plane has, TrackIR to simulate head movement in the cockpit, a large viewable screen (27" being the smallest I would recommend), last but not least a Yoke. It would be hard to do all this looking at a little phone screen with no option to use devices that actually help train. I know some feel FS9/FSX is just a game but it can be used for a training tool. Even as a game a phone is ridiculous.  Sometimes I wish these devices stay on their side of the tracks. Smart Phones are not going to solve all the worlds problems as some and Microsoft think. Sometimes I need a larger screen, a keyboard, and a mouse to get things done efficiently. Smart phone are great gadgets and offer allot but I wouldn't want to throw everything away and just use them solely especially in the sim arena...

You are selling Android far too short as an OS. It supports add-on keyboards, large monitors (via HDMI out) and at least a few game controllers on phones and tablets. The real problem is that the  phone and tablet CPUs may not be fast enough to presently support an equivalent simulator to even FSX. But they will. As to Track IR (which I have), I don't know what to tell you there, except, it is also a USB device and could probably be made to work with an Android OS, if there was enough incentive for NaturalPoint to develop a driver.

 

And there are Android desktop systems in the works and Acer already has one out on the market:

 

http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.WD0AA.A02

Surely the whole premise of this thread is that Outerra could be suitable to provide the scenery in a new flight simulator.

 

I presented a comparison of scenery - no aircraft or even buildings - between Outerra and FSX which clearly shows that that Outerra has a long way to go before it matches what's currently available in FSX.  Even if the necessary work is done, will it be significantly better than FSX or even   X-Plane and P3D as developed at the time an Outerra-based simulation is released?

 

There is far more to a practicable flight simulator than modelling waving grass. Outerra has not shown how it would model a major airport or urban landscape which, I'd suggest, are for more important than waving grass.

Surely the whole premise of this thread is that Outerra could be suitable to provide the scenery in a new flight simulator.

 

I presented a comparison of scenery - no aircraft or even buildings - between Outerra and FSX which clearly shows that that Outerra has a long way to go before it matches what's currently available in FSX.  Even if the necessary work is done, will it be significantly better than FSX or even   X-Plane and P3D as developed at the time an Outerra-based simulation is released?

 

There is far more to a practicable flight simulator than modelling waving grass. Outerra has not shown how it would model a major airport or urban landscape which, I'd suggest, are for more important than waving grass.

As I stated, Outerra isn't trying to sell a flight simulator.  They're trying to market a scenery engine.  What a developer does with said engine, is up to the developer.

 

A product called Speedtree does just trees, nothing else... just trees.  It's up to a developer to utilize it in their game's environment... which FSX does.

 

You can not point at Outerra and claim it isn't "ready" when it's goal isn't to be a complete environment but rather a "canvas" for a developer to create their world upon.  Ultimately it's up to the developer that uses Outerra to make it "ready".

You are selling Android far too short as an OS. It supports add-on keyboards, large monitors (via HDMI out) and at least a few game controllers on phones and tablets. The real problem is that the  phone and tablet CPUs may not be fast enough to presently support an equivalent simulator to even FSX. But they will. As to Track IR (which I have), I don't know what to tell you there, except, it is also a USB device and could probably be made to work with an Android OS, if there was enough incentive for NaturalPoint to develop a driver.

 

And there are Android desktop systems in the works and Acer already has one out on the market:

 

http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.WD0AA.A02

 

 

You clearly are trying to squeeze too much out of a phone.  Android on a desktop is interesting as we all need to get away from Microsoft so that may be something to look at...  Either way we need a new platform as FS9/FSX won't run on an Android system. 

It's also important to include FPS in the comparison.

 

Because the GPU utilization 99% means that the GPU doesn't wait for CPU to feed data for rendering. A 55% GPU utilization is actually very poor - it says that almost half of the time the GPU doesn't have anything to do, because the CPU can't feed it the data fast enough. Or that the rendering architecture can't utilize it fully. That's assuming the frame rate isn't locked.

 

Ditto the CPU, considering multiple cores - a lower utilization can mean other cores are bored.

 

 

You guys should get accounts setup on Flightsim, Flight1, and Aerosoft forums.  Promote your efforts so we can see conclusively what works with your engine and what doesn't.  I've started a thread about Outerra on Flightsim.com's Outer Marker forum.  Feel free to join the discussion as Aerosoft has stated some disappointing results about your engine.  You guys need to clear that up if there is any clearing up to do.

For my purposes, we need a ground terrain model as photoreal/accurate as what is available from GoogleEarth including all their 3D models but with highly detailed airport models - completely backward compatible with commercially available FSX models. All FSX aircraft models must be fully functional and frame rate performance with three independent 3D views and four more 2D screens must be a minimum of 60 fps with no hesitation/stutters. Forests, water, sky models must be highly sophisticated. ATC and AI aircraft should be standard as is multiplayer.

So you want Microsoft FS XI is what you're saying.

 

Fully backwards compatibility would be an absurd hinderance considering the fact that every major product made for FSX is designed around and has numerous features built into it that are based on overcoming the enormous limitations of the game engine. To make a new simulator backwards compatible without needing to do any major work on the modules would in effect require the new Sim to have all the same flaws as FSX in most cases.

 

When PMDG talked about considering making a jump to include X Plane compatibility they couched it very clearly with the fact that they have no idea how to actually port anything over to that engine. They need to look at the way things are made for it before trying to do this since they have as near to zero experience with the engine. Considering the fact that X Plane is superior to FSX in many respects its hardly reasonable nor logical to expect a new sim created for technology 8 years+ newer than FSX to bear any compatibility links to this now well aged and troubled platform.

 

Look at P3D. Largely backwards compatible to FSX with many improvements (I guess), but still very limited, because its the same game basically, but even then there can be issues with compatibility. Thats the same engine with issues. New engines cannot expect to be, and you also have to consider the fact that if you want full compatibility that might infringe on some IP rights belonging to Lockheed or whomever else owns the rights to anything linked to FSX.

 

The best thing you could say about a new sim is that its completely incompatible with most FSX products, because it would tell you that its fresh, new, and not held back.

 

Look at the history of Microsoft Windows. For ages the progress of that platform was severely limited by the need to maintain legacy support for software which tied the OS to fundamental weaknesses in the kernal dating back to the days of DOS in the 80s. They were falling behind trying to maintain this short term compatibility and it was damaging the long term prospects. Eventually they canned all promises of backwards compatibility and for the first time in forever I could actually say "Wow, I kind of like Windows".

 

Progress means letting go. Its a good thing, its just sad that it means your paid stuff will not work. However, with progress comes new opportunity, and any add on developer with a grain of ambition would quickly take the foundations of their work and produce newly compatible products, likely for at least modest upgrade fees. Its kine of like the change over to BluRay. Everyone had to buy Apocalypse Now, Casablanca, and The Godfather again. Old products with new market value. You pay 10-20% to refresh your copies, or maybe luck out with a free patch or two, and you get a sim that can stand up for a decade or more.

 

Thats all theoretical. None of it has a basis in reality, other than its references to pragmatic things that face any prospective shifts forward. I stand by my reasoning, but if you have a retort, I fully expect it to be irrationally based on the reluctance, or stubborn refusal, to let go of your expensive FSX library.

 

 

You clearly are trying to squeeze too much out of a phone. Android on a desktop is interesting as we all need to get away from Microsoft so that may be something to look at... Either way we need a new platform as FS9/FSX won't run on an Android system.

Linux is already here, and much has been discussed as to its potential future for gaming. Steam and good ole' Gabe Newell have been hot on the topic. Open Source is always nice, its just weird to me that people are so obsessed with Smart Phones now that its like we're blind to things that aren't focused entirely on being on a Pad or a Smart phone now.

 

Gaming publishers act like PC gaming is deader than dinosaurs, while statistics clearly show that the PC gaming market is fully 1/3 of the market, with the other two thirds pretty much equally shared by Xbox and PS. Weird, equal in size to any console, considered dead.

 

I think people have no perception of the way the world functions. Trends seem to blind people.

You guys should get accounts setup on Flightsim, Flight1, and Aerosoft forums.  Promote your efforts so we can see conclusively what works with your engine and what doesn't.  I've started a thread about Outerra on Flightsim.com's Outer Marker forum.  Feel free to join the discussion as Aerosoft has stated some disappointing results about your engine.  You guys need to clear that up if there is any clearing up to do.

 

I have accounts on most of these and I've been involved in a couple of discussions there, though no crusading. I'm not inclined to fight lots of small battles with grumpy men, my time is better invested into the development than into refuting every claim made there, especially at this early stage of basically a market analysis.

 

I see that mgh posted his comparison over at flightsim too, he clearly doesn't (or didn't) understand what the utilization numbers mean and actually fights with the interpretation opposite from the reality! Wow. Now I believe that he really just wants to say that it's too early to judge, but he manages to sound pretty negative trying to convey just that. I might go jumping through all the flight sim forums and aggitating, but ...

 

Outerra has still a long way to go, and flight simulators are but one area where it might find its use. Coincidently, flight simulators are one of the most demanding areas and one of the most niche areas at the same time. Making a new simulator that will gain the critical mass and survive in the long term is no easy feat. That's why connecting multiple simulation areas into one world and into a common platform for 3rd party developers would be beneficial for the flight simming, and it's maybe the only way to get it actually done, and with Outerra it's actually possible. But it's a very complex thing nonetheless, and it will definitely require cooperation with other developers and lots of other things in addition to the community support.

 

We are heading towards that goal in any case, and with limited resources some areas get the priority while others wait. Of course, the ones that make economically more sense, which are less risky and have supportive communities are likely to get a headstart. This thread is really just a poll to find if there's a way to kickstart it earlier from the community at some point in the future.

The only way we're going to get a new flight simulator that can beat FSX in every way, as well as be open to 3rd party development (which I think is a must) is to get someone like Google to help fund it.  The money you could raise with kickstarter is simply not in the ballpark.

 

As far as backward compatibility...this is also a pipe dream.  I think it's more realistic to get Microsoft to continue development of FSX, or for LM to improve upon it through Prep3rd.  Prep3rd with 64 bit support will be the most likely scenario and I see a huge potential if and when that comes out.

 

I think 3rd party devs have come to realize that they can take the processing away from FSX (such as fsdreamteam with the use of COATL) or majestic which has removed the flight model from running within FSX (you're basically slewing with the Dash 8 Q400.....oh..and it does it beautifully). 

 

I say we form a lobby to get Google to buy X-Plane.  Microsoft would certainly improve upon FSX if that were to happen.

Ed,

 

Look what has been stated and asked by Kelvin. I suggest you carefully re-read everything that was specifically asked, and observe what was not even hinted at (by him).

 

He seems to be the only one who has not referred to it, or commented, or answered the speculation about Outerra. I don't know what he is driving at, but he has not mentioned it at all.

 

On the other hand Oxiin says it is about Outerra because of a conversation Kelvin had with him, so who knows. Intersting!

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411219-pollquestionaire-for-new-flightcombined-simulator-kick-starter/?p=2695266

Ok, just to clarify, I am not a developer of Outerra or official member of their team, just a massive fan that has provided some textures and other data to help with Outerra's movement forward. Oxiin is a lead developer of Outerra so I don't want to have people confused about what he said and I said. I should have brought Outerra to the table when proposing my questions from the beginning as it seems there is some split thinking between what I have said about Outerra and what Oxiin (Brano) has said about it.

 

To reiterate, I started this thread from a loose discussion with Brano and by no means am I making promises or alluding to anything other than asking people for their comments so Brano can review them to gauge the interest.

 

I am extremely surprised (in a good way) the attention this thread has received and my intentions did not include injury or insult as I, too, am a fellow simmer and flyer that has great interest in the work Brano and team are doing.

 

I'm doing this because it means less time for Brano to detract from the project, this way he can just see the result of the question he put forward.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Kelvin ^_^

As I stated, Outerra isn't trying to sell a flight simulator.  They're trying to market a scenery engine.  What a developer does with said engine, is up to the developer.

 

A product called Speedtree does just trees, nothing else... just trees.  It's up to a developer to utilize it in their game's environment... which FSX does.

 

You can not point at Outerra and claim it isn't "ready" when it's goal isn't to be a complete environment but rather a "canvas" for a developer to create their world upon.  Ultimately it's up to the developer that uses Outerra to make it "ready".

 

As a scenery/graphics engine, Outerra looks promising. I'm always happy when a 3D application causes my GPU fans to speed up while the CPU fan remains whisper quiet. This means that the graphics engine is using the graphics card, which is how it should be.

 

People are always worried about performance when new graphics engines come up for discussion - "You're going to need an 8 GHz CPU to get 30 FPS!".  The thing is, modern graphics engines use the GPU for rendering, minimizing the work the CPU has to do and freeing it for flight modelling, ATC, AI etc. That way you can get much better graphics than FSX, while still running a full simulator and maintaining 60 FPS.

 

"mgh" has a point though, in that the engine has not been tested with dense urban scenery, detailed airports etc. You can place a few 3D objects, but no one has built an entire city or an OrbX-style airport in it. It remains to be seen whether this shifts the balance more towards the CPU.

Demand is there supply the goods

...Outerra has a long way to go before...

 

 

 

Outerra has still a long way to go...

 

Why did take so long to get here?

Why did take so long to get here?

Think of Outerra as something for your children's children.

@ Brano,

 

What Mike and Gerry are asking (in their own way) including me is.... what do you think it will it take to have Outerra ready for 3PD to be interested in making sceneries of any kind or any kind of simulators (trains, boats, planes, submarines ++) using your engine, time and money wise?

Ok, just to clarify, I am not a developer of Outerra or official member of their team, just a massive fan that has provided some textures and other data to help with Outerra's movement forward. Oxiin is a lead developer of Outerra so I don't want to have people confused about what he said and I said. I should have brought Outerra to the table when proposing my questions from the beginning as it seems there is some split thinking between what I have said about Outerra and what Oxiin (Brano) has said about it.

 

To reiterate, I started this thread from a loose discussion with Brano and by no means am I making promises or alluding to anything other than asking people for their comments so Brano can review them to gauge the interest.

 

I am extremely surprised (in a good way) the attention this thread has received and my intentions did not include injury or insult as I, too, am a fellow simmer and flyer that has great interest in the work Brano and team are doing.

 

I'm doing this because it means less time for Brano to detract from the project, this way he can just see the result of the question he put forward.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Kelvin ^_^

 

 

I guess this was a good call on my part as I inserted the name 'Outerra' into this discussion.  I had no idea this was the project in question.  As the project is in development people need to understand the engine is open to be moved in whatever direction has the most interest.  We as a community should jump on this.  There is something to be said with getting Google involved as that would wake Steve Ballmer up.  Google would turn Outerra into a powerhouse simulator with things we couldn't have imagined before.  If Google doesn't take it I would push for someone else like Apple.  With the long history of Flight Simulator and the interest in a graphic engine for Level-D simulators and the Aviation world in general Outerra could be huge.  Take the project to NASA as well, partner up with X-Plane.  Get this project in as many faces as possible and someone will take it on.   Google would be the prize because you know how outstanding it could become and they would work with this community as they've done in the Android world.  Google's all about Open Source and innovation.  Kelvin and Brano (Outerra) please push this as hard as you can.  I'd join the team as well if a slots open to help spread the word.  Outerra gives our hobby a future we can control.