...Just by tweaking the parameters of the physics engine, it would be possible to create an extremely realistic simulation environment..

GTA5 is still one heck of a ride in its present format though. Its quite a unique and interactive flight experience I'd say..

 

Nowadays I personally prefer flying and driving etc in GTA's small but ultra-dense interactive map rather than MSFS's world-wide non-interactive scenery that I spent nearly a decade flying in (and I almost came to believe that if ever I did crash a plane in real life -that plane would either pass straight through buildings, bridges and trees etc unharmed, or else a 'crash' screen would appear and everything would just freeze ;-)

 

GTA-5- barn-storming fun......

https://youtu.be/gaxnvh8KzKQ?t=29

 

GTA-5 city flyover

https://youtu.be/-qg3sctHNqA?t=167

 

GTA-5 eject and touchdown

https://youtu.be/NSQo6l08wP8?t=28

 

FSX city flight

https://youtu.be/M_Z6uc1HWQY?t=161

Even if you can expose the right information, get the right developers to make the flight model etc, you've still got the problem that the engine is only proven capable of handling an area of under 100 km^2, and with view distances of under 15km (a fact that is camouflaged by the general compression of everything on the map, size wise).  

 

...

 

Now none of this is a criticism of GTA, and many of the issues are just as applicable to, say, ARMA III, it's good at what it does, and I'm sure it's a real hoot for realism-be-damned barnstorming, but the design decisions made to create a wonderful interactive world from ground level are exactly the decisions that will bite it in the bum if they try scale it to do anything that simulates enough of a world for a realistic flight simulator, even if taking the Aerofly model of small map, high fidelity.

 

 

Ditto for me - I'm absolutely not criticizing the game itself or those who enjoy it, as it obviously has much to offer.  Trust me, I understand its appeal.  It's just not a simulation - nor is it intended to be.  Most people playing GTA would be disappointed if planes and cars were tuned to act realistically as that's not what they're there for, just as players would be disappointed if a space game adhered strictly to real-world physics.  As I previously noted, the VTO plane featured in one of the vids is wildly unrealistic, quite obviously by design - but heck, I'm sure it's a blast to "fly".

 

But from a simming point of view?  Simulation is about realistic flight modeling, not hyper-realism.  And for a flying sim, a less space-limited, less compressed world as well along with a host of other things.  My only point in posting was that while GTA V is obviously a great title and a lot of fun, it's not a sim as it currently exists, nor is it a good platform for a future sim even if its physics are capable of being used in a real-world fashion.

 

Scott

But from a simming point of view?  Simulation is about realistic flight modeling, not hyper-realism. 

 

 My only point in posting was that while GTA V is obviously a great title and a lot of fun, it's not a sim as it currently exists, nor is it a good platform for a future sim even if its physics are capable of being used in a real-world fashion.

 

Scott

 

 

Fair comment.  But I'd just like to add that FSX has its fair share of critics who point out it's lack of 'realistic flight modelling' in a number of areas. So I'd caution against thinking that the current 'flightsims' on the market are actually perfect and proper flight simulators (although X-plane is probably closer than most as its a certified teaching tool).  Instead I'd say FSX and x-plane are part-way between flight simulators and games since they both include challenges and fun scenarios designed for entertainment as well as simulation (which I've enjoyed over the years) plus addon cars and fun planes (ufos etc).

 

I'd also say that GTA could in fact be classed as a simulator - a 'virtual world/city simulator' as it includes ai humans and animals, as well as a working traffic system, metro, bus, trucks and trains etc, plus aircraft, boats and subs etc. 

...Indeed you could simply walk round GTA for the experience, not simply for fun ........

 

GTA 'real-world' simulator (L.A)...

https://youtu.be/ibS9dsbq96E

 

GTA- tram simulator (L.A)

https://youtu.be/Mdob_Iib7O8?t=2676

 

FSX flight over LA

https://youtu.be/cHTjTcuOqVY?t=203

(although X-plane is probably closer than most as its a certified teaching tool). 

 

 

Well technically the certification is for the platform (inc. hardware), not just the software.  There have certainly been P3D/ESP certified solutions and plain old vanilla X-Plane (as you might buy on Steam) is no more certified than P3D, FSX or indeed my dirty socks.

 

Instead I'd say FSX and x-plane were part-way between flight-sims and games, since they include challenges and fun scenarios designed for entertainment as well as simulation. 

 

Simulation and game are not mutually exclusive, nor is one intrinsically better than the other, but unlike GTA, both of them implement real world rules (aka. physics), at least to their respective level of quality, and structure any "entertainment" around that, rather than the other way round.

 

 

I'd also add that GTA could in fact be classed as a simulator - a 'virtual world/city simulator', since it includes ai humans and animals etc, as well as traffic systems, metro, aircraft, boats and subs etc etc.

 

 

Oh absolutely, it's one of the most credible first person open world walking/town simulators in existence, and if physics/process fidelity* isn't top of your shopping list, it's a wonderful game (and one which I intend to get when it's on an actual sale).  But, barring some crossover at the "watch this ma....*BOOM*"  barnstorming end, it's not the same market as FSX/XP, nor is the engine any better suited to that market than, say, Outerra or any of the candidate engines on the NGFSS thread...

 

*By process fidelity I mean things happen the way they would in reality, whether it be ATC

If I ever decide to buy GTA V in a Steam sale, I will probably go exploring on foot.....and maybe hop on the metro for a nice ride.

 

Simulation and game are not mutually exclusive, nor is one intrinsically better than the other, but unlike GTA, both of them implement real world rules (aka. physics), at least to their respective level of quality, and structure any "entertainment" around that, rather than the other way round.

 

 

So are you saying GTA doesn't implement real-world rules?  I mean GTA is based on real world L.A, and the planes and copters - arcade style handling or not - do in fact incorporate real-world damage modelling such as gear damage and bird-strike damage etc., .not to mention real-world crash detection with all objects in the environment, including trees, bridges and other planes etc - these are all real world features that FSX etc sadly don't incorporate.

 

Dont get me wrong, I've enjoyed many years flying MSFS etc., but I'd hardly call the experience 'real world'.

 

F.P said: 'Barring some crossover at the "watch this ma....*BOOM*"  barnstorming end, it's not the same market as FSX/XP'.

 

But you seem to be implying that to enjoy 'barn-storming' flights in GTA you have to be a kid who wants to destroy things, when in fact many FSX and X-plane users of varying ages fly GTA-5 simply for the enjoyment of casual flying in a breathtakingly detailed  interactive environment..where to clip a wing, or to hit a bird, does actually mean damage to the plane or worse....  

 

...Lets call it the spirit of flight.....

 

https://youtu.be/nkL4BWJ0mYM?t=133

So are you saying GTA doesn't implement real-world rules?  I mean GTA is based on real world L.A, and the planes and copters - arcade style handling or not - do in fact incorporate real-world damage modelling such as gear damage and bird-strike damage etc., .not to mention real-world crash detection with all objects in the environment, including trees, bridges and other planes etc - these are all real world features that FSX etc sadly don't incorporate.

 

 

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.  Whilst I've not caught up to GTA V yet, everything to date in the series has compromised physical rules for fun.  The most obvious of those is the car handling. Notice how the cars are so easy to handbrake turn to the 90 degrees most inner city corners are angled at?  How they are generally either planted or airborne?  How even the most horrendous stall is completely recoverable (given height) and structural limitations aren't a factor?  Deliberate design choice.  Again, not that this is a bad thing, but it's definite design for effect in the pursuit of a fun game, rather than in pursuit of it's real world characteristics.  Assetto Corsa this most definitely isn't. 

 

Yes, FSX has it's limitations like any simulator, whether for performance or complexity reasons (and considering the amount of times where tree collision detection is relevant, I'm not sure it's a significant limitation), but what sets it and others apart from GTA is that they are designed towards physical rules, rather than taking real world rules and tweaking them to provide a fun experience.

 

 

F.P said: 'Barring some crossover at the "watch this ma....*BOOM*"  barnstorming end, it's not the same market as FSX/XP'.

 

But you seem to be implying that to enjoy 'barn-storming' flights in GTA you have to be a kid who wants to destroy things, when in fact many FSX and X-plane users of varying ages fly GTA-5 simply for the enjoyment of casual flying in a breathtakingly detailed  interactive environment.  

 

...Lets call it the spirit of flight.

 

 

No, that implication is strictly in your head.  It's a question of what market GTA is *capable* of serving, not what markets any given consumer may be in, hell, I've played every GTA bar 5 and I've been flight simming since FS5 so I'm definitely in both camps.  I've just spent the last hour shooting crosswind approaches into EGJJ in P3D, using the Q400 and FSIPanel, I'm about to switch to LOWI and give the 08 CTL a go.  Can GTA support that?  No, it's not designed to.  Both P3D and GTA can probably support me whacking a biplane around the sky, GTA would suit better if I want to take it less seriously and just fly around testing my nerves under bridges, "spirit of flight" if you will, P3D will do it better if I want to do it realistically, like an actual biplane pilot would do (i.e. most definitely not like your video  ) if only for the scale of the world and the presence of things like Navaids.  If I want to drive into Los Angeles, P3D isn't going to work, GTA is my bag.... 

 

None of this is a judgement on GTA V or anyone that uses it, just so we are clear.  There's nothing wrong with "spirit of flight" flying, my concern is simply with the assumption that the GTA engine is something you can measure a serious minded/po faced_{(delete as applicable)} flight sim engine against.  Economics relating to the small size of the target market aside, there are real technical limitations that will present themselves as soon as you try scale, things that GTA gets away with glossing over with careful world design and limited view distance, but will become a proper pain in the butt if you try to scale it to a world properly sized for realistic aircraft operation.  It will be a choice of loose that lovely world detail, live with extremely short view distances (by aviation standards) or wait 5-10 years for PCs to catch up with the power demands....   For comparison, the longest edge of the GTA map is about the length of the finals I've just been shooting, and covers an area about 1% the size of the AeroflyFS map.  And that's something no amount of videos of people enjoying themselves in aircraft in GTA is going to magic away.

I'd also say that GTA could in fact be classed as a simulator - a 'virtual world/city simulator' as it includes ai humans and animals, as well as a working traffic system, metro, bus, trucks and trains etc, plus aircraft, boats and subs etc. 

...Indeed you could simply walk round GTA for the experience, not simply for fun ........

 

 

 

Sure.  Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was specifically addressing flight simulation, and to a limited extent driving as well when compared to some of the better car-racing sims available.

 

S.

Both P3D and GTA can probably support me whacking a biplane around the sky,  GTA would suit better if I want to take it less seriously and just fly around testing my nerves under bridges, "spirit of flight" if you will,   P3D will do it better if I want to do it realistically, like an actual biplane pilot would do (i.e. most definitely not like your video..)

 

But that's exactly my point! With no crash damage modelling how can you barn-storm 'realistically' in FSX or P3D? ..and what would be the point?   I mean..the thing about barn-storming flights isnt so much about how accurate the stall speeds are but rather its the thrill of the flight experience and the 'risk' involved, its a chance for us to forget about being flight-geeks for a while and simply enjoy the wind in our hair (or lack of it) ;-) 

 

I've never actually experienced convincing feelings of speed and seat-of-the-pants thrills in FSX in all the times I've used it.    To me FSX and P3D are quite safe sterile-like environments where you'll either fly straight through any bridges and buildings in your way, or else the dreaded static 'crash' screen will appear as your plane freezes at the moment of the crash. 

 

But anyway. I never implied that GTA-5 is a 'proper' flightsim. All I said was that flying around in GTA-5 gives me buzz that I never got in 10 years with MSFS.

 

...I also acknowledged that FSX etc have their strong points, but that GTA-5 gives us a glimpse of how future flightsims might look.-with stunning interactive cities beneath our wings..and with planes on a par with P3D etc but better ....and of course with realistic crash damage modelling, gear damage and bird strikes etc. ;-)

 

Anyway, enjoy what you fly...

 

FSX/XP  barn-storming

https://youtu.be/RpwaS7_gH9Y

 

GTA-5 barn-storming bi-plane

https://youtu.be/_E_Hg06aDnc

But that's exactly my point! With no crash damage modelling how can you barn-storm 'realistically' in FSX or P3D? ..and what would be the point?   I mean..the thing about barn-storming flights isnt so much about how accurate the stall speeds are but rather its the thrill of the flight experience and the 'risk' involved, its a chance for us to forget about being flight-geeks for a while and simply enjoy the wind in our hair (or lack of it) ;-) 

 

I've never actually experienced convincing feelings of speed and seat-of-the-pants thrills in FSX in all the times I've used it.    To me FSX and P3D are quite safe sterile-like environments where you'll either fly straight through any bridges and buildings in your way, or else the dreaded static 'crash' screen will appear as your plane freezes at the moment of the crash. 

 

The aim of barnstorming is to not hit things, you do realise that? 

 

Having spent about 15 years flying gliders, including substantial amounts of time in very close proximity to mountains and ridges, I understand the thrill of knowing you are a matter of feet away from becoming a cloud of fibreglass splinters, and there are numerous forms of aviation that can be done very well in FSX that are pretty much freeform risk taking:

 

 

 

Perhaps not as immediately visceral as GTA V, but requiring very high levels of skill to pull off, food for thought if nothing else  B)

 

 

But anyway. I never implied that GTA-5 is a 'proper' flightsim. All I said was that flying around in GTA-5 gives me buzz that I never got in 10 years with MSFS.

 

 

Not you specifically, but I just tire of the regular "why can't FSX look like GTA V", to which the answer is simply money and scale....

 

Anyway, great time to be a flight simmer, whatever your particular perversion.. 

Money is the thing, you're right. Flight sim are just not big money makers, it's a small world, high risk, low capital. It's a shame that MS sold ESP. But, hopefully Lockheed and keep it going. I guess we'll see what V3 has. It won't be to the graphics of GTAV or any other those games, but now they've had time to clear some of the easier bugs to fix and they've had the code for a while, I'm hoping for some graphic improvements.

 

I don't necessarily have an issue with FSX graphics though especially given it's age. Sun could be better, and the ground textures are bad, the freeware stuff I have just isn't cutting it for me, but acceptable considering they have the whole world. And nothing I can't fix with a bit of money. But I guess to answer that question, we shall have to see what Dovetail Flight Sim will be like. That is more modern, they are actively developing it for the gaming market (you could argue the fact that simmers buy P3D is a great, but not necessarily intended thing for Lockheed). But, as with anything like fishing, driving, or running around a city the scale is very closed and small. Flight simming is not. So while you don't need the extreme detail of buildings in a city, you do need to cover an extremely wide area.

 

If Rockstar took all of those who worked in GTA5, removed anyone that worked on story line, characters et al, replaced them with more artists and developers, I would still dread to think how long it would take them to build a flight sim to that sort of detail. I always thought that Elite and Star Citizen are huge as well, but doesn't need to replicate anything real so they can have procedures to generate fake worlds and galaxies. Touch them up afterwards by hand yes, but all computer driven

It's a shame that MS sold ESP.

 

I understand that Microsoft entered into an intellectual property licence for ESP with Lockheed Martin, and that there are other  licencees.

Oh really? So not just Lockheed are using ESP then? We may see someone else produce an entertainment flight sim then? Thought having not heard anything yet, seams unlikely

Oh really? So not just Lockheed are using ESP then? We may see someone else produce an entertainment flight sim then? Thought having not heard anything yet, seams unlikely

 

My understanding is that other licencees use ESP for their own internal puposes i doubt anyone will build an entertainment flight sim - even if Microsoft allowed.

True. What makes me laugh is MS are probably making more money out of that, as well as minus the staff cost, on licensing ESP then they did with FSX.

 

I've always thought that with P3D they have a really great deal in that they make money from commercial, but they not only make money from consumers, but also use them as a large beta testing platform. You throw it out to consumers first, who are probably running a far wider pool of system specs then a commercial outfit, and analyse that, and then release the more ironed version to commercial. It's sort of like a early branch, and stable branch.

 

I'm not saying they do that, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. Both groups on the most part are happy