Above all, I keep asking myself why I am forced to use Combat flightsims to get realistic flight and overall physics modelling ?

Because, for majority, simple flight is just boring, so developers has to add action component to a game to attract people.

Because, for majority, simple flight is just boring, so developers has to add action component to a game to attract people.

 

 

I agree, and that's why I had such a great time playing MS FLIGHT.... while it lasted...

 

But I also played a lot with the missions that came with FSX Golden, specially the air races, the SAR mission, etc...

 

A civil flight simulator with such a component would be great to have, and I'm sure that if it also included the possibility to fly the heavies, rotary wing, all at the level of quality / accuracy that DCS provides, most users just like me, who really don't like air combat, would easily migrate to such a platform :-)

I really hope that DCS will grow into something bigger than just combat sim. 3rd party devs is already working on some military trainers. Hopefully, that's gonna open the door for civilian stuff.

Personally, I like modern air combat. I play it since Flanker 2.0 sim (1999), and BVR air tactics, especially in cooperation and versus human opponent can be very challenging. It's not just an another shooter game as combat utilizes normal flight just like in civil flight sim, and combat in 3 dimensions. It's like playing chess and driving formula 1 race in the same time.

 

But, I understand, some people do not like that.

I say let's leave true flight simulation untainted by mayhem and online training in death and destruction. Be it a good flightsim or not. This world is writing its own obituary.  

 

While i am inclined to agree with you it's a bit sombre for a Flight Sim forum.  

 

I have been blowing up pixels on screens since "Combat" on the Atari 2600, i have never wanted to hurt / kill anybody.  Even in DCS i just load up the MiG 21 (outstanding aircraft BTW) and fly through the valleys; to be honest i would imagine that the engine is quite capable of simulating the logistical aspects of humanitarian missions.

Sombre? You make a good point. There are exceptions for sure. Personal matter, conscience and all that. Nothing personal. I just despair at the diet our kids grow up with on their computers where they are learning war in all its guises.

 

All the best to you

Interesting and brave post. I know what you are saying. Thanks a lot.

Sombre? You make a good point. There are exceptions for sure. Personal matter, conscience and all that. Nothing personal. I just despair at the diet our kids grow up with on their computers where they are learning war in all its guises.

 

All the best to you

Interesting and brave post. I know what you are saying. Thanks a lot.

When I fly these sims I don't do it for killing, I do it to test my skills against others and see who the better pilot is. I try to fly with honor even though its just a sim. I never shoot another player in the chute,If a plane is damaged and is trying to land somewhere on the battlefield I'll let him go. Studies have shown violent games don't make people violent. People like ###### and Stalin never played video games and look what they did. Sadly war is to man as tree is to forest, humans have been fighting each other for over 400,000 years and that's not going to change. Personally, I think games should be more violent and show the true horrors of war because most people who've fought in a war are very against there being another one. So maybe if these kids see what its really like, then when they grow up to be leaders they won't be so hasty to start one. I'm trying to get a pilot slot in the military and I hope I'll never see war but, chances are unless human nature suddenly changes I will.

[CUT]

 

Great post sir.

Because, for majority, simple flight is just boring, so developers has to add action component to a game to attract people.

 

Which is why things like Outerra are so exciting! It holds out the possibility of a decent civilian simulator, a decent combat simulator, a train simulator, a sailing simulator, a driving simulator..... heck maybe even a fishing simulator and more.

 

All seamlessly integrated on the same platform.......

 

Boredom might head straight out the window, as people concentrate on what attracts them, then try other things as more options become available.....

 

It might not meet all the demands of the hardcore of any particular genre, but then has anything ever done that?

Devon,

 

I really have to give Outerra a fair try one of theses days :-)

 

Your videos / shots look simply astounding! My only problem being the fact that I only like flight simulators, and the flight dynamics modeling has to be top... 

 

I know Outerra can use an external FDM, and is by default driven by JSBSim.

I know Outerra can use an external FDM, and is by default driven by JSBSim.

 

Which means that just like most sims, fidelity is going to be variable (very early stages right now) and is going to be driven by the skills of the creators, working hand in hand with the developers. In the meantime, Outerra holds the Opportunity of getting in on the ground floor and actually influencing the direction of the program from the beginning.

 

For the first really new technology to hit Flight-sims in nearly a decade, sitting on the sidelines seems a poor option. 

 

You know Flight-sims, real planes, math (enough to make me dizzy, not that that's very hard) and you've beta tested. Make a difference!

Whatever the next great flight sim is, it needs to be comprehensively filled with all of the little extras that we've spent so much on to make something like FSX viable to this day.  Vanilla FSX is nothing!  Not until you add 3rd party Weather, 3rd party Mesh, 3rd party Landclass, 3rd party Camera (Ezdok), 3rd party physics (think A2A cockpit vibration), 3rd party clouds....and really expensive 3rd party airplanes.  Only then do you have something that really makes you feel like you are sitting in the cockpit of an airplane.

 

It's such a tired platform, and while P3D is a continuing development of the engine, it still follows the same paradigm of relying on 3rd party content to deliver what I consider even the most basic parts of the experience.

 

Meanwhile, something like Rise of Flight, for example, which costs like $40, creates this the kind of immersive environment straight away.  Graphics that blow FSX away, SLI support, the sounds, the head shake, the whole works.  And you can get another airplane for $5, with the click of a button, and it's ready to go, no fuss.  The performance on a modern machine is astounding, even with all of the graphics nearly maxxed out.

 

Like JComm, I'm seeing the kinds of things that I want to see in flight simulation in the combat simulators, the graphics, the performance, the fidelity, the environment, all integrated nicely into one package.  Like others have said, if somebody would build upon the platform of something like DCS or ROF and expand it into a comprehensive civilian simulator...

Whatever the next great flight sim is, it needs to be comprehensively filled with all of the little extras that we've spent so much on to make something like FSX viable to this day.

 

No it really doesn't.  I would like a basic sim engine that can be improved with the minimum of effort by talented developers like HiFi, Opus, ORBX, PMDG etc...  Your request really means one of two things, the flight sim would cost more than the GDP of Ireland, or we wouldn't see it before the heat death of the universe.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, something like Rise of Flight, for example, which costs like $40

Hmm...for the basic version.  Of you want all the DLC on Steam you are looking at £160, or around $290.  You are of course correct, the graphics "blow FSX away"...but they are also over a VERY small area, smaller than DCS simulates.  You could cross the map of Rise of Flight in a 737 in about 10 minutes.  The other engine improvements are because the simulator is 4 years younger than FSX, under (somewhat constant) development.

Aerofly FS v2 may be a light at the end of the tunnel... 

Wotan, consider the addons one needs to buy to bring FSX(or P3d) up to speed.

 

FSX Weather?  Total crap.  Better buy a $50 addon. 

Want good Camera effects that allow you to move around the cockpit?  Better get Ezdok.  What does that cost?

Want good scenery texture?  Better get several modules of GEX , and REX, or FEX, or FTX Global.  Costs are adding up

Good terrain mesh?  Cost.  Maybe a 100 bucks

Good Landclass.  Getting Pricey.

Addon airports?

Want good ATC?

Want AI traffic?

Want SLI support?  Forget it.

You're looking at $60 to $100 for a single PMDG plane, and at least $30 for every other type of aircraft.

Something other than 2006 nav database and magnetic declination?

 

My point is, that for what they do, sims like ROF, or DCS, already include a bunch of these must-have environmental things that are necessary to keep FSX alive.  In other words, you don't need to have a sim that costs an arm and a leg, relatively speaking, to have good simulation out of the box, with study sim type systems detail (DCS), excellent flight physics, great graphics, great sound, pretty much great everything.  I've spent more on FTX, and GEX, and UTX, than I imagine I will end up spending on DCS and ROF combined over the life of those sims.  What's more, even after all of those environmental upgrades to FSX, if I were to try to push FSX to the kind of visual quality that is standard in those combat sims, I would probably get about 10 fps!

 

Your point about the size of the world in DCS or ROF is well taken, but I'm talking about the basic simulation engine itself.  You end up spending 50 bucks for some addon to take FSX way beyond what it was originally intended, whereas the more modern simulations have much of this capability already built in from scratch.   I'm just saying that in the future because we are talking about a hypothetical "next great flight sim", it would be my "requirement" that these kinds of things are standard. 

Cmon, DCS doesn't have nothing of above. Weather engine is very basic while real wx data cannot be imported. Scenery is limited. ATC is ridiculous. Airports are ridiculous, AI traffic is nonexistent. Navdata - nonexistent. Cammera settigs - very basic. SLI support? yeah right! In fact FSX outshines DCS in every of these aspects.