The whole point of my original post was to compare GTA-5 with existing flightsims.

I like to compare apples with apples not apples with watermelons.

The creators of GTA may have developed some incredible technology however until their product is comparable to a flightsim

we can't judge how suitable this technology is to a flightsim. I am not convinced at all that creators of GTA only if they wanted

could apply the same software architecture to flight sim world and leapfrog Microsoft, X-Plane and Prepar3D.

The creators of GTA may have developed some incredible technology however until their product is comparable to a flightsim we can't judge how suitable this technology is to a flightsim.

 

Sorry Michal but you seem to have misunderstood my reason for posting on this thread.  As I said earlier, I acknowledge that GTA-5 is currently tweaked more toward arcade-style flying in the console version at least, and that FSX and X-Plane are more advanced in the virtual cockpit and 'entire world's airports' department.  But for me the way forward has to be a flight-sim with an ultra-realistic GTA-like open-world environment rather than what I've previously been used to in the aging FSX etc. 

... I'm not asking you to compare anything with anything. I simply posted some GTA videos as food for thought as to what might be employed in future flight-sims.

 

PS: to Dom.  Try this out when you get GTA on PC.   This guy is incredible...

 

Queen Of The Skies: GTA5 Stunt Montage

.

.

I like to compare apples with apples not apples with watermelons.

The creators of GTA may have developed some incredible technology however until their product is comparable to a flightsim

we can't judge how suitable this technology is to a flightsim. I am not convinced at all that creators of GTA only if they wanted

could apply the same software architecture to flight sim world and leapfrog Microsoft, X-Plane and Prepar3D.

 

I'm not sure why not. With the size of their team, the talent and programming skills it represents, and the money involved, they could probably do anything they put their minds to.

 

I would never underestimate the accumulated prowess of the Gta team. I suspect that if they were insane enough to dedicate GTA sized resources to a flight sim, they would stomp anything we currently have right into the dirt.

 

 

I'm not sure why not. With the size of their team, the talent and programming skills it represents,

Because they don't have monopoly for talent.

Plus the proof is in the pudding.

Because they don't have monopoly for talent.

Plus the proof is in the pudding.

 

I don't think anyone said they did. But they do have demonstrated talent, and modern programming techniques that take advantage of current hardware to back it up. They also have a proven track record of working on many successful projects other than GTA. GTA itself earned a billion dollars in its first three days, and that sort of cash is more than enough to recruit the worlds best and brightest. It's also something to consider that the GTA team consisted of over a thousand of the worlds best and brightest, with a working budget more suited to designing a commercial simulator.

 

What's the top number of the team working on X-plane? How about P3D? With what operating budget?

 

It defies reality that such resources would have significant problems matching and exceeding anything we currently enjoy if they put their minds to it. Now would they? Not unless they were insane! 

 

There will be no pudding. But only because they have absolutely no interest.

I would never underestimate the accumulated prowess of the Gta team. I suspect that if they were insane enough to dedicate GTA sized resources to a flight sim, they would stomp anything we currently have right into the dirt.

 

Not sure what needs stomping..

 

By the time you have FSX + Orbx scenery + RealAir or A2A airplanes (PMDG for airline types) and a modern computer,

you have one hell of a flight simulation.  Add weather, multiplayer or whatever and it amounts to FSXI, as far as I am concerned.

 

Add Flight1 GTN avionics... what exactly is the GTA team going to stomp here?

 

:wub:

Actually Rockstar do have a monopoly for talent.  Perhaps you are not familiar how massively complex GTA is, with its in-depth storyline, missions and related characters with dedicated voice actors, plus it's free-roam open world - or how big Rockstar actually are...

 

...GTA-5 cost $265 million to develop and market .

 

Quote....

 

“GTA 5’s” budget rivals Hollywood blockbuster budgets, such as “Avatar’s”.

 

"Grand Theft Auto 5 is an incredibly complex game for any studio to handle, let alone produce."

The estimated cost for developing such a game of a grandiose scale is in the hundreds of millions with hundreds if not thousands of employees building such a product in collective tandem. Along with a collective hundreds of thousands of man hours, lines of code, QA testing, many years, and sleepless nights. It's no easy task to build a game that is filled with a wealth & breadth of depth and scale.....

(and of course there's the planes;-)

 

International Business Times on GTA-V

http://www.ibtimes.com/gta-5-costs-265-million-develop-market-making-it-most-expensive-video-game-ever-produced-report

How GTA-5 is made..probably (as its a confidential secret)

https://www.quora.com/How-are-large-open-world-games-like-GTA-V-made

.

 

GTA probably make good flight sim based on quality than quantity. I do not think Xplane will ever surpass fsx and it's time for new approach. FSX sells 10 times more on steam than Xplane. I like Xplane but I feel it's development left for dead. Rockstar in time will make vitural world to mimic enough space to have 300 ga fields and 10 class b airports. It's time for new approach the old ways are not working it will take dovetail 5 years or more to build new flight sim.

 

 

(and of course there's the planes;-)

So far they are such insignificant part they hardly count.

All this talent and millions going to cheesy arcade production - I am not impressed with the outcome considering $$$$ spent.

Not sure what needs stomping..

 

By the time you have FSX + Orbx scenery + RealAir or A2A airplanes (PMDG for airline types) and a modern computer,

you have one hell of a flight simulation.  Add weather, multiplayer or whatever and it amounts to FSXI, as far as I am concerned.

 

Add Flight1 GTN avionics... what exactly is the GTA team going to stomp here?

 

:wub:

 

Well, they would start with 64 bit code, and that code would take full advantage of the available hardware. That means turning over more tasks to the gpu and a modern graphics engine that doesn't bog down on the airports that we think of as "heavy" but are not anything of the sort for modern hardware. It would also mean software that "just works" as the crashes, glitches and etc that we are forced to accept would not be in any way acceptable to a project of GTA's stature.

 

There would be no "upcoming" features like seasons for instance, since the incompleteness that we also accept would not be tolerated by a modern audience. Interfaces would be smooth and slick, sound would be top notch out of the box.......

 

The programming would be as tight as could reasonably be done....... Its something to remember that all that you see happening in GTA including complex Ai behaviors of multiple vehicle types as well as people is occurring in 512mb of memory, which is even more amazing when you remember the gigs our simulators use while still encountering OOM's. And that includes P3D.

 

We are very far behind. The years since the release of FSX are centuries in hardware and software development/advancement time. Arguably as much as the difference between The original Sublogic simulator and FSX/P3D

All this talent and millions going to cheesy arcade production - I am not impressed with the outcome

 

..are we talking about FSX now?

;-)

Seriously though. First you say Rockstar don't have a monopoly on talent;  and now you say they have "all this talent".  You also claim that GTA is a 'cheesy' arcade production, yet it's the most successful video game ever and is widely praised within the media and the gaming industry for.its realism, cutting edge graphics, and physics and damage modelling..

 

. Clearly you were unaware exactly what GTA is, or how many MSFS and X-Plane flight-simmers actually use it for casual flights etc.  Like I've said several times already, GTA is a multi-level virtual world, meaning you can roam or fly around freely, or alternatively take part in the storyline and missions...and all this on a basic console with no add-ons .Meanwhile the.PC version comes out this month, which many prop-heads  are looking forward to.   

 

But this has nothing to do with the virtual skies that you fly in. You are safe in that world ;-). There is no conflict.  My only reason for posting on this thread was to contribute to the debate on how flight-sims might be improved. Several members mentioned engines such as Outerra, and I mentioned GTa-5 as an example because of its 'living world' environment and other cutting-edge innovations.

 

Sleep well.

 

 

GTA 5

Click to immerse

.

.

 

 

 

Well, they would start with 64 bit code, and that code would take full advantage of the available hardware. That means turning over more tasks to the gpu and a modern graphics engine that doesn't bog down on the airports that we think of as "heavy" but are not anything of the sort for modern hardware. It would also mean software that "just works" as the crashes, glitches and etc that we are forced to accept would not be in any way acceptable to a project of GTA's stature.

 

There would be no "upcoming" features like seasons for instance, since the incompleteness that we also accept would not be tolerated by a modern audience. Interfaces would be smooth and slick, sound would be top notch out of the box.......

 

The programming would be as tight as could reasonably be done....... Its something to remember that all that you see happening in GTA including complex Ai behaviors of multiple vehicle types as well as people is occurring in 512mb of memory, which is even more amazing when you remember the gigs our simulators use while still encountering OOM's. And that includes P3D.

 

We are very far behind. The years since the release of FSX are centuries in hardware and software development/advancement time. Arguably as much as the difference between The original Sublogic simulator and FSX/P3D

 

I hear you, but "64 bit code", "as tight as etc" to me sound like solutions, looking for a problem to solve.

 

Some of us, and I count myself in this group, never see an OOM, or glitches worth mentioning, but do have some amazingly realistic airplanes to fly, over some amazingly realistic scenery.. and get to experience the sensation of flight, GA or airliner, your choice..

 

I still have not seen the "promised land" that might be possible.. that would give me a more realistic sense of "being there"..  Looking at the GTA trailer, all I see is a "cartoonish fantasy world"..  Sorry..

Looking at the GTA trailer, all I see is a "cartoonish fantasy world".. Sorry..

.

Don't be sorry ;-)  The reason I posted the GTA trailer video was simply in response to Michal to show that Rockstar were an ultra-successful developer and therefore more than capable of producing a full-scale flight-sim if they wanted to....

 

..On the other hand, the pics I posted above are more to the point ...they are snapshots taken on Rockstars gaming PCs of virtual flights over the Las Angeles area.  

 

.

.

and therefore more than capable producing a full-scale flight-sim if they wanted to.

You have absolutely nothing to prove that they can deliver any better flight simulation than everybody else.

The discussion is purely academic and of little value, on the other hand if they ever get into flight sim business please let us know ASAP.