Kind of discredits a certain poster and his "all their DLC is junk" posts. 

 

The eye candy is usually spot on.. It's the actual `realism' and `simulation' that is where most tire of DTG.  The physics, and locomotive modelling shift wildly from garbage to great.  No matter how pretty it looks if the trains interior looks like crap and drives like a hotwheels car.. What's the point?

According to what? As believable and logical as that is, I've got yet seen a single bit of proof that the deal included access to the code for Flight.

There is Microsoft Train Simulator 2 that was abandoned when Aces was given the chop. I don't think the code was thrown in the bin.

Was it morphed into "MS Flight" ?

There is Microsoft Train Simulator 2 that was abandoned when Aces was given the chop. I don't think the code was thrown in the bin.

Was it morphed into "MS Flight" ?

 

According to Toms post in the MS Flight forum.. Yes. MS Flight was a fork of MSTS 2

Kind of discredits a certain poster and his "all their DLC is junk" posts. 

Not at all. Go and drive it first Jim. I am a RW engineer, and I can tell you they are not realistic whatsoever. Click n Go, that is all. Which is a real shame.

According to Toms post in the MS Flight forum.. Yes. MS Flight was a fork of MSTS 2

Cheers, the thread is so big now, I missed it.

Not at all. Go and drive it first Jim. I am a RW engineer, and I can tell you they are not realistic whatsoever. Click n Go, that is all. Which is a real shame.

Cheers, the thread is so big now, I missed it.

 

Cheers. And thanks for supporting my opinion (which is almost fact but trying to stay "partial") on the problem with DTG and TS 2014 (and every version before it) .  It's all about hiding the lack of actual simulation and realism with eye candy. 

 

 

And thanks for supporting my opinion

Only because it is true  

my wild guess is: after they put up FSX on steam for a more or less reasonable price, probably with steamplay integrated multiplayer and maybe some sort of new beginner tutorials, they will start to release a stream of endless DLC aircraft that will have the same system depth as the default FSX aircraft, probably with better visuals.

 

the long term FSX hobbyist dedicated to realism and being fond of products from A2A, realair, orbX and all the others will be let down by this, "noobies" (sim beginners who enjoy the casual simming) might flock and buy buy buy.

 

couple of years later they will release a new flight sim, based on MS flight code with just some upgrades and fixes, and then will flood the market with add-on aircraft AND scenery with the default level of detail and system depth of the old ms flight DLC...

 

the dedicated hobbyists already have their favorite third party producers (wether it be a2a, realair, carenado, iris, orbx, aerosoft and all the others) that deliver products that go WAY WAY beyond what FSX on default gave us, if dovetail games can keep those third party add-on companies supporting "their version" of FSX/flight... maybe even upgrade internal systems and stuff with their input... WHO KNOWS!

 

just a wild guess and my two cents.

Besides FSX, I also spend a lot of time playing Railworks.

Recently Dovetail announced that they are planning to update Railworks with the Unreal Engine 4.

 

http://www.engine-driver.com/article/show/4644/dovetail-games-begins-work-on-next-generation-train-simulator

 

What if they have similar plans for FSX - that would be good right?

 

uh no. 

 

TS 2014 is "route-based" and not "world-based" like the FSX engine.

 

That means TS 2014 could be "re-engined" to the UE-style engine relatively easily.

 

A full-fledged world simulator like FSX, not so much. . FPS engines just are not a realistic option for a world simulator.

 

The fact that Aerosoft investigated and discarded multiple FPS engines should serve as a proof-point, but I see people still get impressed by rendering technology and don’t think about either the world rendering requirement or the simulation aspect behind an FS-style engine that performs full-world simulation.

 

So let’s get concrete for a second:

 

Rendering limits, range:

 

UE3:

UE3 and the UDK had a 10kx10x10k limit to terrain, and I quote:

 

Unreal Engine 3 supports a maximum world size of 512k x 512k (524288 x 524288) Unreal Units. This is equivalent to approximately 10 kilometers squared of area using the default engine unit conversion of 1 UU = 2 cm (10km x 10km).

 

For those who don’t want to read documentation, UU=Unreal Unit. As we move to considering UE4 engine limitations, the use of UUs to describe size limitations will persist.

 

Clearly, UE3 just won’t work for full world rendering without a source code license and a lot of custom streaming code. Hire a good dev.

 

Rendering limits,  range:

UE4:

World Browser does have some “streaming” capability, so it goes beyond the 10kmx10km extent limit of UE3.

 

However, without implementing your tiling system, the default size is still small

 

Forum posts state world size is on the order of half the total magnitude available, eg 5kx5k.

 

Another thing to consider is the default UE tiling system is an infinite plane, so there is no curvature.

 

So you still need source code access ( cheaper now so more possible ) and a dev to write some world streaming code that conforms to loading DEM at multiple resolutions, stitches this transparently at DEM boundaries and across a world geodetic sphere definition with curvature. Hmmm, I think I know an engine that already does that.

 

Oh, wait. This ignores the fact that outside of low-resolution DEM data, the high-res data is a national asset and you need an interlocking set of data agreements to get "seamless" world coverage.

 

Oh, and wait. "Seamless" from a business development perspective means getting all the data. At the best resolution at a price point that maps to studio profitability.

 

Rendering-style "seamless" is different. The wizards in the Geo-team write tools that sweep the raw data, condition it where there are errors ( and if you think the published errors of spikes and holes are hysterical you should see what the data looks like before we condition it ) and export it at a data-density that respects commercially viable storage/download media/rates for most of us. Then the terrain programmer-wizard needs an oct-tree based engine that understands DEM resolution per tile, tile boundaries, level of detail, terrain texture generation, etc to stitch that all together visually in a way that from any altitude above 500 foot, the terrain looks good.

 

Yeah, 500 ft of altitude.

 

Thinking about that relative to UE4,  the heightmap format has a severe limitation for our purposes, eg :

 

Heightmap Format

These values are divided by 128 internally, and then multiplied by the Landscape's Z scale (default 256). This means that by default, a value of 32769 (i.e. +1) is 2 units (cm) above the Actor location, and the maximum range of heights is -655.36m to +655.34m.

 

655 meters = ~400 feet. That is the height of the largest terrain feature.

 

Dead Sea to Everest spans -1300 feet below MSL to 29,029 feet above MSL.

 

That’s 30,329 feet of range, so you need the full 16 bits devoted to the range unmapped. And thats ignoring if you actually want to do accurate seafloors. Marianas Trench is how deep?

 

That is not FS altitude, which will take you to 1,000,000 ft above the planet or approx 200 miles.

 

Here is another one to consider:

 

            World Coordinates and Terrain Movement:

 

UE4 offers “player-centered” movement where the world moves and the player stays at 0,0,0

 

That doesn't square with WGS84, GPS, etc.

 

So from this, all should see that simple use of an “engine” like UE, Crytek, etc isn’t enough.

 

Ignoring the issue of rendering range and if an engine could actually deliver a consistent 200milex200milex200mile rendering box, and seamlessly stream it at all altitudes – would it do it using the WGS84 coordinate system so that GPS navigation and other desirable features just work?

 

Not today Zurg.

 

And we haven’t gotten to a feature set like:

·         Gauge system designed to deliver gauge data at something approximating real world frequencies ( read 1s or sub second accuracy )

·         Cockpit rendering, either 2D or 3D.

·         accurate 10,000 star starfield that enables shooting a sextant out of any plane and doing hand navigation, phases of the moon, tides, time of day, terrain shadows.

·         real world weather stations,

·         world airport database including ICAO, bush fields, etc

·         auto-gen airport provisioning and rendering for 24,000 airports located geographically precise on a WGS84 Earth globe.

·         ATC, taxi, tower experience, airport experience, etc

·         AI traffic for auto, 3 types of boats  ( military, commercial, small craft ), and 3 types of air traffic ( military, commercial, private ) synced to real world data.

·        "work" systems like catapults, arresting gear, and hoists.

·         Wing, engine, and flight dynamics simulation for fixed wing ( prop, turboprob, jet) and rotary wing aircraft ( helicopters )

·         5 season autogeneration of terrain textures using a continental landclass system

·        water rendering, including ocean, river, lake using a water class system

·        auto-generation of city-scapes, forests, and other terrain features using real-world density data

·         Expandability for aircraft, terrain, textures, photo-scenery, etc as well as programmatic add-ons  via the SimConnect interface.

·         And more I cannot remember since its been since October 2008.

·         Etc.

 

As cool as UE4 is, and it’s pretty damned cool, it isn’t going to cut it for FS11.

 

Very informative, Phil. Thanks.

 

.....

.....·         Etc.

 

Phil, I really do wish we could see more of you putting things back into perspective more often. You and Fr BIll would make a brilliant moderation team!

Thank you for your informative post Phil. I think this will make people realise that the FSX engine is very unique and does some things way better compared to newer engines used today.

+1(million) for that post Phil. As ANZ says we need your perspective rather more often!

 

If my FS planes looked as good as their trains do and performed well,

 

I would be crapping my pants for about a week straight.

 

If you want to boil "crap vs. good" down to just visuals there's always War Thunder.

Never tried War Thunder but the latest Tomb Raider looks good for DX. Not only that, but also in high FPS, even relaxing for your eyes.

FSX looks rather crap, flickering, broken AA etc. they should have gone with Outerra or alike.

 

And hey DoveTail don't think that I'd buy another new PC only for FS11.- You will be lucky if I boot once in a while Windows.

It is so good to see the occasional post by Phil Taylor which shares his uniquely comprehensive insights ...in his rather captivating personal style !

 

Many thanks again, Phil ! :im Not Worthy:

 

 

FYI: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/dovetail-fsx-flight-steam-valve-distribution.430714/#post-677081

 

GaryGB