DTG: What would you like to see in a new Flight Simulator?

[lorenzog89 96]

Back when we, Dovetail Games, announced that we would be bringing FSX to Steam we also confirmed that we would be working on a brand new flight simulator. We are currently busy with the early stages of development for this new simulator under the codename Dovetail Games Flight Simulator (DFS).*

 

If you have been joining us on Twitch[www.twitch.tv] for the last few weeks you will also know that we promised to create a space where you can share with us your ideas for what you would like to see in this new sim. That space is right here in this thread, so if you have an idea we would love to hear it. 

 

Whether your idea is, big or small, we invite you to share them with us, however we cannot guarantee that anything discussed in this thread will make it into the final simulator. 

 

*Please note that this is just a development codename and is subject to change before final release.

 

So then our fellow avgeeks, what would you really like to see in a brand new sim? 

 

 

 

http://steamcommunity.com//app/314160/discussions/1/620712364044485276/#p5

[scotchegg 4,161]

Realistic flight models, realistic environmental visuals, realistic weather engine, support for peripheral hardware, interactive communication with the community. Good luck:)

[jcomm 5,890]

For me something which I believe would be extremely simple:

 

1) What MS FLIGHT potentially was, when it's development started, and not when it actually made it's debut, and very wrong entry into the flightsim World / Community...

 

MS FLIGHT had, from the start, the potential to become the reference Civil flightsim, just as MSFS 9 and MSFS X still are. It had advances in many areas, from scenery rendering to flight dynamics, overall physics modeling, systems modeling... 

 

2) For me the wrong approach to 3pds is an example not to follow in DFS.

 

3) DFS should offer, from the start, traffic and weather, at least as detailed as basic FSX has it, with hooks for expansion.

 

4) Weather modeling could get a bit of an update from what vanilla FSX offers, but again, making expansion possible through additional products... including simple weather themes for adventures, with specific weather scenarios, to full weather injectors like we have for FSX...

 

I would perfectly accept a sim covering the whole World, but with only detailed areas for a few places, and additional detail coming in the form of DLCs. After all, thx to some talented devs, we can now fly MS FLIGHT Worldwide!

 

I also would like to know that DFS would already be a 64 bit flight simulation platform, DX11-ready, but this is certainly not mandatory - the best sim I ever used in terms of graphics, smoothness, and even flight dynamics and overall physics modeling being 32 bit and DX9.0c !!! ---> IL2 Battle of Stalingrad...

 

And please please! A simulation platform with a BRIGHT FUTURE will always need to open it's doors to 3pds, in a way that gives that industry at least the same profit that fs9, and fsx still give them every year. Make sure you don't shut the door or straighten the channel to 3pd development of DLCs !!!

 

Above all - I wish you the Best Success for DFS!  We need new ENERGY from a fresh Civil Flightsim !

[propsfan 52]

Here's what I put down;

Multicore, make use of them all.
64 bit obviously.
Volumetric clouds.
Good simulation of air currents including close to the ground around hills etc. and microbursts/thermals/turbulence.
Simulation of hypoxia and g-effects.
Whole world out of the box, no $20 a region type nonsense.
Ability for users to run their own multiplayer servers on their own machines.
Road and rail traffic with headlights.
Good SDK.
Autogen adjustable all the way to the horizon.

[scotchegg 4,161]

Just to reiterate something from JComm and Propsfan; a good SDK and an accommodating attitude to 3rd party devs is essential.

[jlund 380]

Orbx global

Active Sky Next

Rex soft clouds

Woai / ### AI trafiic

PMDG/Aerosoft style advanced aircrafts.

 

These addon's combined into a new flightsim, and I would be a happy flyer.

[mgh 89]

Just to reiterate something from JComm and Propsfan; a good SDK and an accommodating attitude to 3rd party devs is essential.

 

Perhaps DTG could licence the SDK to 3rd party developers?

[propsfan 52]

Perhaps DTG could licence the SDK to 3rd party developments?

 

That would, I think, have the effect of excluding new entrants to developing though wouldn't it? People who early on develop freeware on their own whilst honing their skill sets to progress into the big leagues in time. If you had to license the SDK those sorts of people just wouldn't ever start down that road.

[casv 14]

Backward compability for addons working in fsx and fs9.

[barrel_owl 304]

Backward compability for addons working in fsx and fs9.

 

We can't have the cake and eat it, I am afraid.

[SkipperMac 1]

All of the above (pie in the sky wish list?) ... but add to that a proper, professional, real-world-realistic ATC for VFR and IFR flight. 

[codechris 9]

I think giving what FSX/P3D is already but with modern code would be great. From what I can see, most major grips of current platforms is to do with it being old code. We have great developers for many aspects of the sim, it's just everyone is limited by, and has problems from, the fact it's very old now. Here is a short list, but to be honest I'd be happy with system code changes rather then "better planes, better scenery". Yes, default scenary should be better, however do I really want high detailed scenery for places I will probably never fly? Not really. Plus the sim would be far too expensive, far too big, and you'd never finish it!

 

* Default weather could be better, but if you're that bothered we have add-ons so not sure how important it is

* Default planes could be better, but then the PMDG's are very expensive so, for the price of FSX, they are probabley about as good as you could get by default.  A2A's 172 is also a bit of money, so again, hard to see a plane that detailed being a default along with all the other planes and still being a cost effective sim

* Better flight models, this is probably the area of most concern

* Online is easy and if it could be incorporated in anyway that would help, but again, VPilot is so easy maybe not worth the effort

* Better default scenery. Given the size of the earth I think we will always pay £X for high detailed scenery but by default would be good

* Easy add-on manager for the whole sim. So freeware (add-ons without installer) is a doddle to install for everyone. Not a huge thing but would be nice

* Better ATC. I will go out on a whim and say this isn't that easy though since even add-on ATC still has oddities and problems. But certainly better would be good

* Improved, easier, better(?) multi monitor and multi computer support. Including shared cockpit. making it far easier for developers to add on shared cockpit

* As stated, code that can take advantage of modern systems and modern DX

 

I'm sure add-on developers will have far better things to say, in terms of how the new sim can be better for them, and maybe that's where a lot of the focus should be? Lets face it, we're still using this, quite frankly very old cold, and pushing it to it's limits because of these developers.

 

All of that is fairly obvious I feel. However, the one thing that must be done above anything else AND I MEAN ANYTHING ELSE; We must still continue to have the ability to install add-ons from ANY source. There MUST NOT be a restriction imposed that forces all add-ons, of any description, to go through Dove Tail.

 

In other words, this needs to have the current, existing, working methodology for all 3rd party software. It can be improved, of course, but it must not be locked down and garden walled. I won't speak for the community, but I've seen many people worried that this is what Dove Tail will do.

 

I'll make the assumption that you are going to re-use the FSX code and build on that, in which case, not that I'm a games developer, but first and for most all effort should be in improving system performance and the grips of developers. If that takes you 2 years that might be all you could really do, and I'd buy that for certain, just for that alone!

 

I did have a thought though, with the W8 joystick issue for which there are some workable work-arounds. Is it not possible to implement a simple check every X seconds of some kind which basically keeps the port out of power saving mode? Kind of like keep-alive messages

[AWACS 12]

I'm happy with FSX:SE, though in a new flight sim the most important thing would be that the entire engine be overhauled so that it is better optimized.  I just purchased GTA5 for PC, it has cutting edge graphics and my 3- 4 year old computer runs it like a champ on high graphics.  A 9 year old flight simulator should run better, but it doesn't, so please above all else, give us something that will run smooth.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

• Realistic air movement and weather.  In flight, an airplane is lifted, dropped, tipped in various ways all the time.  We don't see that much in the sims.  Wind management in FSX is very, very poor.  In clouds there should be all sorts of air movement.  In bad weather, it should be downright dangerous.
• High quality graphics.  GTA V is a great example.
• Eliminate OOMs through better memory management.
• Better 'view' management.  Some of us use ENB but that should be built in. Ability to get out of the plane and walk around.
• Better lighting effects.  Right now, developers have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get lighting and, even with that, it looks odd.
• Real time road traffic and flight traffic.  Nothing too crazy but, the data is available where traffic is messed up on the roads.  Wouldn't it be cool to see that in the sim?  Also, cars that move in semi-realistic ways.  Real time air traffic doesn't have to be perfect, just a kind of estimation.
• Birds.  Hawks, vultures, flocks of small birds.  Also, trains.
• Water that makes sense in lakes, ponds, rivers.  Many times I see water in ponds and rivers behaving like ocean water.

Realistic ATC would be nice. 

[mgh 89]

That would, I think, have the effect of excluding new entrants to developing though wouldn't it? People who early on develop freeware on their own whilst honing their skill sets to progress into the big leagues in time. If you had to license the SDK those sorts of people just wouldn't ever start down that road.

 

And much extra revenue for DTG will  those developers earn? Remember, DTG isn't a charity  - it's a hard-headed businees.