I meant that we're never going to get MS FSXI.

 

 

Yeah no worries but we will be getting something else to either love or hate 

Yall should visit the outerra thread.

Problem with going to 64-bit is it would take 4 years for third party development to catch up so in the beginning it would be mostly default and a trickle of new stuff coming out over time. Short term pain and long term gain

 

Who Told you it would take 4 years with all do respect....they have it already..Do's anyone really think that a company like Lockheed Martin who employs the best of the best software engineers have not already come up with this upgrade. Believe it or not

they do listen to us....the weather radar is a great example heck even Pmdg is stating when the X64 is introduced they will adapt...Some really cool stuff is heading are way.

I get the impression that if someone released a commercial simulator like FSX showing their products collapsing or being damaged on hard landing I could even see them having a big issue with that.

 

Since the same company's landing gear surely fails every so often leading to emergency landing situations probably aired in the media > I highly doubt they'd risk makng a fool of themselves over a flying game which is rated "Age 3 and above".. http://tinyurl.com/kq7p5kv

 

But anyway, in my previous few comments I wasn't talking about including realistic gear damage etc in the core of next gen flight-sims or a revamped FSX, but rather to have these features as addons made by third parties.

 

The developers for Grand Theft Auto have to show generic looking cars and aircraft for these reasons because if they modeled accurate looking Fords or GMC's or Boeing's in that game you bet they would end up in court.

 

Actually there are many accurate looking cars in GTA-5, but granted they dont have badges. For example, a Honda CRX lookalike is featured - tested to extremes in the following video.

In addition, GTA-4 includes hundreds of modded branded cars such as fords and BMWs etc etc, as will GTA-5 on PC once the modders get started.

 

GTA - Honda CRX 

http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=8bUgYUnVjb8&p=n#/0;226

 

But anyway, I dont own GTA and I dont much like consoles. My aim in mentioning GTA and BeamNG etc was to illustrate the graphic and damage engine etc as food for thought for features in next gen sims.

 

But what is funny about this debate is.....a simple wish for crash damage on your part would suffice so I don't understand why you are so passionate about the issue that most likely won't happen for numerous reasons.

Some people just say 'FIx ATC' and move on....etc

 

I'm not passionate about the issue.. I enjoy debating the issue. Big difference.  I dont even fly FSX these days and so have little to gain from this debate other than putting forward a few ideas.

 

...Also, it wasnt just a 'simple wish' for crash damage on my part but rather a wish to first of all move away from the static 'crash' scene we've endured for 15 years or so .

 

...and secondly I'd like to see next gen FSX have not only crash-damage relating to failed landing gear but also to see realistic crash physics plus..realistic tyre bursts, bird strikes, , aquaplaning and skidding off runways, emergency landings on highways etc, and realistic emergency chute deployment with Ai passengers.

 

.That's all!  ;-) 

 

Oh and I share your wish for the ability to walk-around aircraft and fill fuel tanks etc >>.

.

Crop duster walk-around

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkL4BWJ0mYM

 

Beach belly land incident...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDp5jwbEjT4#t=2m15s

 

.

 

 

...and secondly I'd like to see next gen FSX have not only crash-damage relating to failed landing gear but also to see realistic crash physics plus..realistic tyre bursts, bird strikes, , aquaplaning and skidding off runways, emergency landings on highways etc, and realistic emergency chute deployment with Ai passengers.

 

 

IMO, not worth the hassle, unless the simmer actually has to go through the medical issues, sense of feel, and financial consequences of the event. Otherwise it's not realistic enough!  In real life, we don't say............WOW, that was cool! Let's see what this does.....

 

I've never believed in this type of programming.  A waste of resources.

In real life, we don't say............WOW, that was cool! Let's see what this

does.....

 

How sad ;-)

Seriously though, real life aircraft  do suffer bird-strikes to windshields -sometimes with fatal consequences. But obviously you're happy to exclude this important training/realism addon in a revamped FSX in order to conserve resources.  

But a properly programmed flight-sim could easily accommodate a realistic bird-strike feature and more, so it shouldn't be a case of improved ATC vs bird-strike and hydroplaning features etc. 

 

..and why insist on comparing FSX with real world aviation when its a game rated "Age three and over' which caters for all tastes from 3 years-old to 93..and which includes challenges and arcade-like role playing featuring search and rescue missions and racing against online players?

Like I said, FSX is a flying game which caters for all ages..and some of us would like to see more realism in the areas Ive mentioned previously. 

 

.

But obviously you're happy to exclude this important training

No, it isn't training, it is entertainment, it isn't even realism unless you compute exactly how often in this area at this time of day/season I should suffer bird strike, what kind of bird, how it penetrates cockpit, how it splatters blood, how I get injured, how I can remain in control, etc. No commercial grade simulator that costs millions and is used for training pilots does this sort of thing. By the way I agree with your earlier posts - people walking on the ramp, palm trees swayed by winds, etc, it is every much a cartoonish effect. Some may like it, even expect it, I consider it totally superfluous. I appreciate however ripples/waves on waters - they add to pilot's ability to judge distances as all human-made structures, road traffic do.

 

 

FSX in order to conserve resources.  

Larry probably meant "human resources" rather then computer resources. Use the human resources when it counts most - provide half-decent ATC, weather, etc. By the way - weather is still in its infancy.

 

 

How sad ;-)

 

Wow,

Some advice here TooWings, once you have actually built an aircraft with your own hands, flown it for hundreds of hours then pranged it on landing with all the costs that go along with that, then and only then might you be able to discuss damage modeling with Larry.

Who Told you it would take 4 years with all do respect....they have it already..Do's anyone really think that a company like Lockheed Martin who employs the best of the best software engineers have not already come up with this upgrade. Believe it or not

they do listen to us....the weather radar is a great example heck even Pmdg is stating when the X64 is introduced they will adapt...Some really cool stuff is heading are way.

 

FSX took 4 years to really come of age and here we are 8 years later and still stuff is trickling out for it.

 

P3D is not 64-bit entirely so I don't know where you are coming from. Go on the P3D page and you see banners from ORBX, Fly Tampa, Majestic, Captain Sim, HiFi, A2A and non of that stuff is 64-bit as those are FSX addon's with new installers for P3D.

 

When we do have a 64-Bit environment all of those addons have to be programmed in 64-bit which takes time.

 

Yes LM has some of the best engineers working for them but they are not working on P3D.....Consider P3D a cute little side operation at LM and most LM employees probably are not even aware it exists. The sale of one F-35 aircraft alone is more profitable then the entire P3D department so this is where the best of their best is working. 

 

P3D is a great foot in the door at LM for someone who wants a future with them, but the best of the best is working on other things at LM. 

Smooth Stutter Free Flight in every scenario - that's it for me!

 

 

P3D is not 64-bit entirely so I don't know where you are coming from. Go on the P3D page and you see banners from ORBX, Fly Tampa, Majestic, Captain Sim, HiFi, A2A and non of that stuff is 64-bit as those are FSX addon's with new installers for P3D.

I couldn't agree more with all your comments, I know P3d is only a x32 code

but what I really meant to say is... I think they have x64 done if not almost complete..

and all it would be is an upgrade...

Here's my wish list for Dovetail Games future release of a "MS Flight Simulator" platform:

• Implement all the lighting and shadowing stuff that P3D has, and unlike P3D make it all work properly.
• Fix AI traffic, all types, such that it does not tank FPS.
• Top rate driver support from nvidia (amd?), assuring less stutters and excellent AA and SLI support.
• Further eliminate stutters with better task threading and scheduling, optimizing multicore and GPU usage.
• Fix ATC, or at least work with 3PD to fix it with their apps.
• Make sure it's easy for most (all?) existing FSX addons to work with it.
• Release it with a 32 bit and a 64 bit version in the same purchase, so the migration path to 64 bit add ons begins in earnest while we enjoy the 32 bit version and experiment with the future as it unfolds.  Get your 64 bit version to the market first and watch enthusiasm (and sales) for P3D plummet.

Matthew K. is spot on about LM.  I would even guess that P3D is used as a weigh-station for their software developers when they are between (real) job assignments.  P3D is such amazingly small-fry for LM.

Re: How sad ;-)

---

 

Wow,
Some advice here TooWings, once you have actually built an aircraft with your own hands, flown it for hundreds of hours then pranged it on landing with all the costs that go along with that, then and only then might you be able to discuss damage modeling with Larry.

 

Some advice Glynn. When a smiley (wink) is added after a comment it denotes a joke. i.e. a tongue-in- cheek remark made in a light-hearted way for the purpose of humour.

 

I read your comment saying that I first needed to build an aircraft with my own hands, fly it for hundreds of hours, then prang it, before becoming worthy enough to comment on damage modelling with Larry.  Oddly you included no smiley 'wink' in your comment, so I take it you must be serious. 

If so, please note that A) I have indeed been discussing the subject of damage modelling with Larry and others on this forum over the course of several months without having built, flown and pranged a plane .And B: There is no actual damage modelling in FSX, so I don't see how your comments square with the reality of the situation. 

 

.

 

 

IMO, not worth the hassle, unless the simmer actually has to go through the medical issues, sense of feel, and financial consequences of the event. Otherwise it's not realistic enough!  In real life, we don't say............WOW, that was cool! Let's see what this does.....

 

I've never believed in this type of programming.  A waste of resources.

 

 

 

I don't think it's necessary to model the precise real-world effects, as long as the possibility of something happening gets the simmer thinking more like a real pilot. "I'd better be careful on that icy runway." is a hell of a lot more realistic that "Ice, shmice, I'll just land the same way I always do." People generally take the sim seriously enough, I think to want to make nice landings, so there's your consequence, which doesn't need to match the real world exactly in order to inject some additional realism.

 

Just because a flight sim is based on physics doesn't mean there isn't room for a little "design for effect".

"I'd better be careful on that icy runway."

And Larry would probably agree that icy runway (sloped runway, grass runways, gravel runways) would be super nice to have. That's far cry however from 'damage modelling'.