Time to develop for a new sim me thinks?

[TooWings 17]

The flight model (in Arma) is relatively good, better than in GTA at least.

 

Arma is quite good, yes. But I think we have to keep in mind that it's a PC based game/sim, and that GTA-5 is currently only console based --so you're not comparing like for like here.

 

Once the PC version is available it will have better flight physics, plus the huge GTA modding community will have a field day. 

Flight physics is, after all, just a matter of tweaking in the PC version.

 

GTA is well suited to both pleasure flying and combat...

 

(Online dogfight)

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

I reckon the GTA series is the strongest contender for the flightsim I've been looking for all these years. It may take a few more years of releases and modding until proper cockpits and instruments are available, but I don't think its far off now.  

 

My ideal flightsim would have GTA's realworld environment -only larger, plus Aerofly-FS's aircraft and instruments, only better.

 

I would not be surprised if Rockstar has plans to completely cover the globe with an enormous MMORPG. With all of the attention and love they put in to GTAV and its multiplayer component, combined with the ability to habitually out-do themselves with every game, It may not be unrealistic to consider.

 

I gave the PS3 version about 80 hours of my life, but held back on getting deep in to multiplayer. I WANT PC VERSION NOW. With the wealth of mods that will soon follow, it will be the most immersive gaming environment ever created, in my opinion.

 

Soooo, how do I port my FSX addons over to GTAV?  :lol:  :huh:  :Thinking:

[Noel 4,581]

Once the PC version is available it will have better flight physics, plus the huge GTA modding community will have a field day. 

Flight physics is, after all, just a matter of tweaking in the PC version.

 

GTA is well suited to both pleasure flying and combat...

 

Looks like a hokey game to me rather than a solid flight simulator.  I used to enjoy Warbirds quite some time ago for online aerial combat but tired of it fairly quickly.  Crash dynamics are at a -10 on my scale of what matters as well.   I thought the Lear jet video spot plane view looked pretty goofy too, the biggest plane video as well.   Be great to take that 3D engine though and turn it into something w/ a different mission, i.e. a professional grade flight simulator w/ emphasis on mimicking general and commercial aviation. 

[Humpty 752]

honestly guys,we are better of with FS9 / FSX / P3d / XPX and FG.  can't say much about Aerofly don't have any details about it. But how many sims can one manage. No sim will give you perfect dynamics , there are limitations in a computer sim .  I would rather stick to one like XPX and enjoy it. 

[TooWings 17]

Be great to take that 3D engine though and turn it into something w/a different mission, i.e. a professional grade flight simulator w/ emphasis on mimicking general and commercial aviation.

 

Exactly my point! .And of course we'd also want to use GTA's openworld scenery, plus its road and rail traffic and Ai etc.

 

Sure GTA's 3D-engine has an arcade game built into it, that's its mass appeal and the reason why the damage modelling is overblown and the flight-physics are toned down.  But we should look beyond that, to the stunning interactive real-world environment, to see the future direction of virtual flight software.  It may take 2 years or ten years, but one day leading flighttsims etc will hopefully feature such detailed scenery and environments. 

 

Regarding the LearJet spot view. That video was captured using 8-year-old PS3/Xbox hardware running the console version of GTA5.  When did we ever see a console flight sim/game look any good? ..except for in GTA5.

 

And don't get be started about FSx's spot-view! ;-)  It was the main reason I ditched MSFS years ago. 

 

Dont forget that FSX and X-Plane are basically 'games' too (with challenges, trophies, and add-on cars and bikes to drive).

In fact FSX states on the box: "Microsoft Games. Suitable for age 3 and above'.

 

Sure GTA-5 isnt a dedicated flightsim, but we can only imagine what it would be like to fly a modded version of the PC version of GTA v5 and v6 etc if the watered-down console version looks this good and this fun....

 

.

 

GTA at ground level - tram/subway video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8D0iA2jvVI

.

[Noel 4,581]

Exactly my point! .And of course we'd also want to use GTA's scenery, road and rail traffic and Ai traffic etc.

 

It would be a huge project to render planet earth in that sort of detail and the 'mass appeal' that is in some sense RS's raison de'tre wouldn't be there at least on the scale that their GTA line represents.  I have argued in the past that if the quality was truly there the user base for a truly world class aviation simulator would be much greater than it currently is, but I'm not sure it would be enough to develop as I say that sort of detail w/ real world accuracy.  Since they've already come a long way though perhaps it's more doable than I imagine currently.  Have you contact them in this regard?

[TooWings 17]

 

 

It would be a huge project to render planet earth in that sort of detail and the 'mass appeal' that is in some sense RS's raison de'tre wouldn't be there at least on the scale that their GTA line represents

 

I agree with you there. Personally though I'd rather have the interactive and realistic scenery of a GTA-style world on a smaller regional scale than fly FSX and X-Plane on a global scale. .

 

Someone, perhaps on another forum, suggested that Rockstar should create a global virtual world then rent it out to flightsim companies etc to populate. But looking at the 'tram/subway' video (above) give's us some idea of just how multi-level GTA-5  already is, and it would therefore be hard to imagine such detail on a global scale.

 

I haven't contacted Rockstar with any suggestions, and I don't actually own GTA-5 at the moment -I've only dabbled with it on and off.  But I'm aware that various flightsimmers continue to provide Rockstar with feedback on the development front via Rockstar's forums etc.

[LAdamson 240]

Dont forget that FSX and X-Plane are basically 'games' too (with challenges, trophies, and add-on cars and bikes to drive).

 

In fact FSX states on the box: "Microsoft Games. Suitable for age 3 and above'.

 

A few weeks ago, a friend asked why I even bother with desktop flight sims (was mentioning the "torque thing" again). He is a pilot and builds racing planes that fly at Reno. We've both been into the full scale flying, for the last 25 years. My reply was "to make them more real". I suppose that's why I beta tested numerous products, including MSFS. I'm also very interested in realistic topography, since mountain flying has had much to do with my real flight. I like accuracy, and this is what seperates the better desktop flightsim products from just a game. It takes many years of experience to develope proper flight dynamics. Not just some tweaks to an arcade base.

 

 

[TooWings 17]

I like accuracy, and this is what seperates the better desktop flightsim products from just a game.

 

But as HiFlyer said earlier in this thread:-

 

"Flight simming has spent a long lonely while in the graphics badlands, and in the interim everyone else has moved ahead and is creating whole intricate worlds. For me, its all a part of the same thing; planes are nothing without a world to fly them in, and if possible, that world should have as much detail and reality as the planes themselves (within technical reason).  Going that extra mile creates the dividing line between a technical exercise, and an experience". (end quotes)

 

Having used MSFS and X-Plane for over ten years, I'm fed up with their amateur-looking scenery and empty world feel -no matter how 'accurate' and topographical.  And I'm tired of the boxes that pass for buildings and cars, and the lack of crash damage modelling etc. 

 

GTA-5 isn't an 'arcade base'. Its a cutting-edge 3D engine that accurately simulates the Los Angeles area teaming with activity. (see 'Real-Life Locations' video above).

 

Granted the flying is currently arcade in places at the moment, but as Ive said before, this will no doubt evolve in future PC versions.

Meanwhile FSX is obsolete; P3D is being sold by the world's biggest arms manufacturer, and X-Plane still has a long way to go on the scenery front etc. 

GTA's interactive realworld environment at least shows us what can be done on the ground, and more.  

 

.

[Humpty 752]

 

Having used MSFS and X-Plane for over ten years, I'm fed up with their amateur-looking scenery and empty world feel, no matter how 'accurate' and topographical. And I'm tired of the boxes that pass for buildings and cars, and the lack of crash damage modelling etc. 

 

GTA-5 isn't an 'arcade base'. Its a cutting-edge 3D engine that accurately simulates the Los Angeles area (see the 'Real-Life Locations' video above).

 

Granted the flying is arcade in places at the moment, but as Ive said before, this will evolve in future PC versions.  Meanwhile FSX is obsolete. P3D has been taken over by the world's biggest arms manufacturer, and X-Plane still has a long way to go. 

 

Sounds nice about real life scenarios, you have PNW by what's the name of the  company?  for FSX,  The videos on youtube look great.

 

Scenery area XPX was always behind, but now with the X version your global mapping is being done slow and steady , of course the houses look like the Lego blocks but these can improve overtime. You should check out Tonywobbs work , he has posted stuff about using a different technique for scenery, looks nice but still WIP.   Maybe Google Warehouse can give the cities a more brighter look.

[LAdamson 240]

I'll never argue against scenery. I've never been one of those, who think that a flying sim should just be about proceedures and seeing the runway appear after a few hours of dial watching. IMO, scenery is extremely important. It's why I took up real flight in the first place, and dropped the notion of flying IFR. The scenery around this area is spectacular. Problem is, I do believe that a simulated world filled with scenery as in some of these videos, would be a long ways off. Individual cities would have to represent the actual cities. That would give me a reason to visit them.

[TooWings 17]

 

 

Scenery area XPX was always behind, but now with the X version your global mapping is being done slow and steady , of course the houses look like the Lego blocks but these can improve overtime. You should check out Tonywobbs work , he has posted stuff about using a different technique for scenery, looks nice but still WIP.

 

Thanks. I'll have a look.

[xplanery 250]

Granted the flying is currently arcade in places at the moment, but as Ive said before, this will no doubt evolve in future PC versions.

 

I'm very much waiting for someone to make 737 simulation with working APU, windshield wipers, engine start procedures and FMC for GTA V PC version. Also I demand development tools which allow me to create my own house and photorealistic coverage of this whole place where I'm living in, something that is entirely possible in FSX. 

 

I think I'll have to wait quite long for that.  

[TooWings 17]

I'll never argue against scenery. I've never been one of those, who think that a flying sim should just be about proceedures and seeing the runway appear after a few hours of dial watching. IMO, scenery is extremely important.

 

Very true. But you know, I see the virtual 'Los Angeles' area depicted in GTA as more than just scenery, its an interactive world full of cars and people and wildlife. So whereas I used to be happy flying at 30,000 feet in FS9 then landing and switching to another flight scenario, now I'm more attracted to flying around in GTA-5 in say a Cessna, then perhaps landing on a dirt runway in the outback somwhere, then jump in a car and drive for a while to another runway, then maybe take-off in a copter for the beach then jet-ski around. 

Its a different mind-set from traditional flight-simming, I know, but interactive world's like GTA-5 make it possible and fun.   

 

But if I was still into flying heavies on long-haul flights then FSX etc would obviously still appeal, particularly since at 30,000 I wouldn't see much on the ground anyway ;-)

 

Regarding your point about GTA-5 covering a small area and not the world. As I mentioned before, I'd personally rather have regional scenery thats highly detailed and interactive than global scenery/world that is much less so.  And if I ever wanted to fly around a photo of my country or home town, I could always use GoogleEarth flight-sim  ;-)

 

Anyway, enjoy whatever you fly.

 

T.

 

--

Jetskiing to Copter

.(Low quality capture from monitor)

 

 

 

 

 

.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

I'll never argue against scenery. I've never been one of those, who think that a flying sim should just be about proceedures and seeing the runway appear after a few hours of dial watching. IMO, scenery is extremely important. It's why I took up real flight in the first place, and dropped the notion of flying IFR. The scenery around this area is spectacular. Problem is, I do believe that a simulated world filled with scenery as in some of these videos, would be a long ways off. Individual cities would have to represent the actual cities. That would give me a reason to visit them.

 

That's one of the largest and most glaring weakness of my current sim. As a general rule, every place looks like everyplace else, and the lack of seasons removes even that source of variety. There are ways around that by researching and finding addons for this and that, but choices are limited, and when I think of somebody less inculcated with the way things are done in this hobby encountering the situation, I see all but the most deeply motivated veering off.

 

Niche.

 

My current sim is a microcosm of the things that have held the hobby in relative stasis. Its been in development for years and years by a tiny team moving at a slow, methodical pace for a small, very specialized market. There are many parallels with Train Simulator, which was also being developed by a tiny team for a niche audience.

 

The difference was that they were purchased by people with a broader focus, and less than four years later have more than 50 employees in multiple locations and are expanding into other markets.

 

In their own words:

Dovetail Games is a trading name of RailSimulator.com, which began in 2009. The Company was set up to develop simulation products for train enthusiasts and started by acquiring the rights to an existing product called Rail Simulator. It also acquired a small team of 6 developers who had previously been responsible for creating and updating the software. Rail Simulator was originally developed by the well-known video game developer Kuju Entertainment Limited in partnership with the major video game publisher Electronic Arts

 

The Company immediately began improving the product to make it easier to use by a wider range of consumers.  From its formation, the Company recognised that the video game market was increasingly moving to an on-line distribution and delivery model, and so released its first product, RailWorks, on the Steam digital platform in June 2009.  

 

We are growing fast, and currently employ more than 50 passionate & creative individuals across three UK sites, Chatham (HQ), Godalming and Stirling.

 

Our mission: Craft and deliver simulation hobbies that attract, empower, delight and retain customers across all viable markets.

 

Our vision: To become the No.1 Simulation Entertainment company in the world

 

Darned if I know what the vision or mission of my current sim provider is. Except maybe to keep plugging along another year. Much like the hobby itself.