Time to develop for a new sim me thinks?

[HiFlyer 9,436]

I was into XPlane-v7  years ago and enjoyed it. The XP series always has some nice novel touches. I haven't tried V10 yet, mainly because I was put off by a friend's experience of taking nearly 7 hours to install via the 8 DVDs - a mamoth 80GB install, and then XP10 wanted to update on top of that.

 

Looks good from the air though..

 

Outerras entire world can be downloaded, and comes to about 12.5 gigabytes. http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=2396.0 Its like a head-shrunk version of Apilotx's files for X-plane.  :lol:

 

 

The new biomes add an additional 2.5 gigabytes.

 

It really is a completely new way of doing things. One day, we might look back at 80 gigs of mostly terrain data with complete disbelief.

 

Again, not saying that Outerra is "The One"

 

I am saying that it points to a possibly very powerful way forward.

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Photoscenery!

 

So far, the way to get the most realistic depiction of the earth has been with Ortho-photos.They can look very cool, especially at higher resolutions, but they take up enormous amounts of disk space and have other drawbacks; like the occasional cloud in the texture, cars frozen forever on the roads, shadows that don't match the in-sim lighting, no seasons............

 

Its yet another impasse of the current technology

 

Time for leapfrog 1: When Austin Meyer created Archer-II IFR a zillion years ago, there was obviously no way for him to create dozens of different planes to experiment with, so he leapfrogged, and allowed his program to read blueprints and figure out how planes would fly using those. Its an interesting approach, but who knows if its really all that much better than good look up tables....

 

Leapfrog 2: When presented with the inability to duplicate Microsofts feat of creating an entire detailed world, Laminar found a way to plug in existing data and (with tweaking) have the world almost create itself, a great "out of the box" approach! I can't imagine that any new sim desiring full world coverage wont take a close look at this solution. Its here to stay.

 

A remaining problem: Terrain data. The traditional way is very resource and manpower heavy for all sorts of reasons. The best representation of the earth so far is through Ortho-Photos, but they're huge (among other problems) and God only knows how much space for (gulp) whole world coverage would be. Probably only a government could do it.

 

But as I mentioned above, there is another technique, typified by things like Viewterra, Outerra and Infinity engine.

 

Leapfrog 3?: A programmable (emphasis on that!) world fractally refined, instantly malleable/deformable, comparably almost unbelievably lightweight in resources.......

 

In the search for the means to to come up with a new sim, I think these three techniques might eventually allow the development of something groundbreaking using only a fraction of the resources that might once have been needed. Its just gathering the know-how and the money. On the hopeful side, the Star citizen kickstarter recently was approaching 40 million dollars........

 

Could we do as well?  :ph34r:

 

Ortho-Photo? Or Outerra!

 

Infinity Engine (Possibly fated as vaporware. developers are financially strapped dreamers  :( )

[Murmur 3,978]

Leapfrog 3?: A programmable (emphasis on that!) world fractally refined, instantly malleable/deformable, comparably almost unbelievably lightweight in resources.......

 

In the search for the means to to come up with a new sim, I think these three techniques might eventually allow the development of something groundbreaking using only a fraction of the resources that might once have been needed. Its just gathering the know-how and the money. On the hopeful side, the Star citizen kickstarter recently was approaching 40 million dollars........

 

Could we do as well?  :ph34r:

 

The procedural approach is great for improving dramatically the detail of the virtual world at a low level, as we see in products like Outerra, although I don't think it can be a substitute for the large amount of "high-level" data (land class or photoscenery, OSM data, etc.) needed for the realistic representation of the different parts of the Earth.

 

However, I think at the moment the only company with enough resources (technical and economic) to develop a next-gen flight simulator, is neither Microsoft nor Lockheed Martin, but Google. "Mapping the world" is one of their main area of focus, and they have worldwide, 4-seasons coverage of hi-res orthophotos, an expanding coverage of 3d photorealistic buildings and enormous financial resources.

 

I think an hypothetical "Google Flight Sim" would be quite different from current flight simulator. It'd be certainly web-based (requiring an internet connection) and of course making exclusive use of ortho-photos for the scenery. Probably, it would be free to play in its base configuration, with premium content (add-on aircrafts, etc.) available as payware or with subscription, a bit like MS Flight.

 

However, probably it would only happen if there's some Google hi-exec who is an avid aviation or flight-sim enthusiast. :smile:

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Hmmmmmm.........

 

Outerra can read osm data and already has a google plugin...........

 

EDIT: Nope, it seems its still just a WIP. And right now Google may be mostly synchronized views....... My Bad.

 

Working on an importer API that will allow writing plugins for import of vector data. We'll try it first on the OSM roads, but then it will be possible to write a custom plugin for any format you want.

 

 

 

[goates 583]

 

I think an hypothetical "Google Flight Sim" would be quite different from current flight simulator. It'd be certainly web-based (requiring an internet connection) and of course making exclusive use of ortho-photos for the scenery. Probably, it would be free to play in its base configuration, with premium content (add-on aircrafts, etc.) available as payware or with subscription, a bit like MS Flight.

However, probably it would only happen if there's some Google hi-exec who is an avid aviation or flight-sim enthusiast.

 

And this Google sim will track your flights and bombard you with ads from real airlines while you fly (you appear to be flying into Dublin, Ryanair has a great deal for you!), and likely hotels and car rental companies too. All while they try to get you, and any other sim pilots you fly with online, to sign up for Google+.

 

Google's business is made up of selling search and ad data. Other than maybe wanting to show off the 3D abilities of Chrome OS or the Chrome browser, a flight sim doesn't fit with their business. And they are pretty ruthless with dumping products that aren't financially viable in their spring cleanings. Not sure that a flight sim would survive any better with them.

[Noel 4,581]

 

 

Again, not saying that Outerra is "The One"
 
I am saying that it points to a possibly very powerful way forward.

 

Good Lord w/ LM's budget why didn't they just start w/ the Outerra engine and go from there?  Seems like such an elegant solution but I can't imagine how performance would be.  Is performance purported to be as amazing as the detail is?  Those two factors are usually opposed. 

[HiFlyer 9,436]

Good Lord w/ LM's budget why didn't they just start w/ the Outerra engine and go from there?  Seems like such an elegant solution but I can't imagine how performance would be.  Is performance purported to be as amazing as the detail is?  Those two factors are usually opposed. 

 

Performance is astounding. I can get from looking at a pebble and waving 3D grass to low earth orbit in ten seconds at max speed. Completely smoothly. I'm not trying to make it an "Outerra is the bestest" thread though. Just showing why I think an engine like this is probably going to be the way forward eventually. Its a game changer.

 

There are practical problems though in that Outerra is far from "Finished"

 

Clouds have just made their appearance, for instance, and there are no rivers yet, though the developers have outlined exactly how they intend to do it, and it seems groundbreaking (again) in theory. I think that like X-Plane itself, a lot of people who could push things forward are still watching from the sidelines warily and telling each other "You first!"

 

Going with something new is always a risk.

 

You could always try the free demo......... http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=637.0

 

Meanwhile, a quick trip over mexico (My graphics are smoother than this)

 

Akkkkkk!!! I forget to mention another, similar engine. Proland is a program in the same family of Outerra and others. Its distributed under a GNU license, and the guy who wrote it apparently is only interested in writing scholarly papers about tree lighting!  :smile: (Nice looking engine, though)

 

There is a convergence going on here. These types of engines are popping up more and more, and they are not going to be ignored forever.........

 

http://proland.inrialpes.fr/

[Noel 4,581]

 

 

You could always try the free demo........

 

OMG no never would do that!  I'm afraid that would spoil the fun I'm having w/ P3D V2!  

 

It's just a matter of time before something using this type of technology makes it into a full blown flight simulator.  I'm really puzzled why it hasn't happened yet really.  And w/ LM's annual operating budget it would have been chump change to do it really if they started w/ something like Outerra.  The whole beauty of a robust FS is that it is something that can be built on for many many years w/o becoming irrelevant.  Just look at how very clunky FSX and to a lesser extent P3D is (i.e. in its clunkiness) and see how many years of use and the spawning of content developers has/is occurring w/ those dinosaurs.

[mgh 89]

And w/ LM's annual operating budget it would have been chump change to do it really if they started w/ something like Outerra

But is that what Lockheed Martin's commercial training customers needs?

[Noel 4,581]

But is that what Lockheed Martin's commercial training customers needs?

Gerry who knows where they could take the product.  With their total budget in the many billions annually taking something like Outerra and turning it into a complete solution what's the downside?   They could have two arms, a civilian and a commercial arm and dominate the entire arena for a very long time.  At the very least supporting a civilian aviation arm only helps their PR.  I only mention LM because of their big budget.  Hopefully someone else will take this on.  We need to get Larry Page interested ;o)

[HiFlyer 9,436]

OMG no never would do that!  I'm afraid that would spoil the fun I'm having w/ P3D V2!

 

LOL. I can understand that.  :smile:

 

It's just a matter of time before something using this type of technology makes it into a full blown flight simulator.

Agreed.

 

Gerry who knows where they could take the product.  With their total budget in the many billions annually taking something like Outerra and turning it into a complete solution what's the downside?

 

I will admit to being selfish. What I really want to to is get my hands on a flight simulator powerful enough to let scenery designers and regular people dig in and do things like this:

 

This programmer and the Outerra team seem to have a friendly rivalry. (The Outerra guys playfully call him their Nemesis)   B)

 

Note: These videos were from 4 years ago on an Nvidia  470 card!!! (A card with only just over a Gigabyte of memory)

 

I cant imagine what a modern Titan would do......... :blink:

 

 

[TooWings 17]

With their total budget in the many billions annually taking something like Outerra and turning it into a complete solution what's the downside?

 

Flight-simmers are fairly level-headed I reckon, and many shun even combat flight simulators as a step too far. So to have the flightsim community and the Outerra community get into bed with Lockheed Martin - the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and a company that makes missiles for the highly controvertial drone programme, which has caused many civilian deaths - is one big 'downside' as far as I'm concerned. Personally I'd rather fly paper planes than buy a flightsim from L.Martin.

 

Let's aim for the virtual sky by all means, but let's also keep our feet on the ground ethically.

 

'Lockheed's Nova/drone sponsorship violates underwriting rules'

 

Extract: '

 

'...some estimates are that 30 percent of those killed (by drones) are civilians, and it talks about one attack that killed 23 civilians'.

 

http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/pbs-drone-coverage-brought-to-you-by-drone-makers/

[Noel 4,581]

 

 

So to have the flightsim community and the Outerra community get into bed with Lockheed Martin - the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and a company that makes missiles for the highly controvertial drone programme, which has caused many civilian deaths - is one big 'downside' as far as I'm concerned. Personally I'd rather fly paper planes than buy a flightsim from L.Martin.

 

Yes that is something I think about too--I'd rather P3D V2 was being developed by a different type of company for certain, but obviously haven't boycotted them on moral grounds.  I cited them as a company pretty large budget-wise AND as you make the case as well, benefits from branching out into civilian aviation as a PR stunt alone, so I ask what do they have to lose?

[TooWings 17]

Yes that is something I think about too--I'd rather P3D V2 was being developed by a different type of company for certain...

 

Good. I'm glad to see you're aware of this issue. I wasnt sure if the ethical/moral angle of Lockheed Martin's P3D had been raised before within the flightsim community. 

 

.

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/37256/width668/xknf4692-1386603693.jpg

[mgh 89]

No one noticed that Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defence contractor?

 

Also no one not noticed that the second largest defence contractors are Northrup Grumman, and Boeing?