Rather unsurprisingly Wobbie and Gerry have managed to derail yet another interesting thread.

 

Well done you two,

 

An interesting thead based on 329 posts of pure speculation?

 

DTG will gives us what it wants.

On or off the subject, Microsoft did go to the trouble & expense of supplying real world data-bases (Jeppeson) for it's "flight simulation".  Most pure gamers wouldn't know or care.

 

I know the first thing the kids did when I showed them FSX was to ask me to fly over the neighborhood. It was a very disappointing experience, really. The major roads were somewhat accurate, but due to the very nature of the FSX jigsaw-puzzle landscape, the streets had little relevance to reality, and building placement was almost completely imaginary. Waterways were somewhat better, and some major landmarks like the statehouse were (kind of) in the right general area, but the overall FSX experience, except insofar as airports and major geography, had only a passing resemblance to "reality"

 

In choosing to portray the whole world, they gave up the opportunity to add detail except to a handful of areas, and that handful served simply as a reminder of how inaccurate the rest of it was.

 

I have a lot of sims games (or whatever) on my hard drive. Rise of Flight, Aerofly, Microsoft Flight, FSX, FSX-SE, P3D, FS9, War Thunder, Wings of Prey, HAWX, DCS, Outerra, Lockon and more, and I see them all as pieces of a tapestry of flight simulation, all with strengths and weakness, and variations of approach to the subject of Flight.

 

I've seen a lot of ways to depict the world, of which Microsofts is only one, and databases or not, I think it's more the tender loving care the developers/designers (Like ORBX) can lavish on an area that bring it to life and add true immersion, far more than any impersonal global databases. My point would be that since we already have generalized sims with world coverage (that the third parties then spend years trying to get to anything close to reality) perhaps it wouldn't be horrible to approach it from the other end and see what happens.

 

Historically, its actually the more common approach.

 

Its only a suggestion, in a thread that asked for suggestions, and DTG can do with it what they want.

 

Not really derailing anything, just looking back to see where we have come from. A reality check maybe?

 

Some of us really need to loosen up here, We giving suggestions to a gaming company after all.

 

I thought of it as a needed breath of fresh air. The thread needs more participants.

 

DTG will gives us what it wants.

 

Which is what I was acknowledging when I said what I said about leaving the size of the world up to DTG. There is a point beyond which whatever we say here, DTG will do exactly what they deem prudent from their own research and from their own internal knowledge of the resources they are willing to devote to the task of a new sim. World size has almost got to be one of those things set in stone a while ago. Any discussion of that here is almost certainly just a philosophical debate on our part, and getting excited and over-serious over it is silly.

 

The best we can probably do is discuss what we are hoping to see and why, and then wait to see what actually happens.

329 posts of pure speculation on a discussion board, who would have thought it ?

 

What would you suggest Gerry ?

 

Should we just pin "DTG will gives us what it wants" to the top of the forum and then all go home or should we continue to make this the busiest flight sim forum on the Internet.

 

Interested in your thoughts on social interaction Gerry.

 

 

Which is what I was acknowledging when I said what I said about leaving the size of the world up to DTG. There is a point beyond which whatever we say here, DTG will do exactly what they deem prudent from their own research and from their own internal knowledge of the resources they are willing to devote to the task of a new sim.

 

 

 

Interested in your thoughts on social interaction Gerry.

 

And when DTG delivers we can have more "social interaction" while everyone  complains that they haven't what they wanted!

 

 

And when DTG delivers we can have more "social interaction" while everyone  complains that they haven't what they wanted!

 

I'm not a big complainer. When all the hair-pulling, chest beating, enui and etc was going on about FLIGHT....... I actually thought it was........ strange.

 

It really isn't life and death. (or if it is, apparently I was raised incorrectly)

 

 

DTG will gives us what it wants.

 

Absolutely.

 

I think they are asking our opinion out of politeness. After all, if they really want to know what to put in the sim, all they have to do is send me a personal message.

 

Dick

 

 

Not really derailing anything, just looking back to see where we have come from. A reality check maybe?

Some of us really need to loosen up here, We giving suggestions to a gaming company after all.

 

What he said  :rolleyes:

64-bit

Multi-platform

Accurate flying characteristics

Accurate physics

Fast loading time

Simple updating

Photoscenery option - Bing, Google or other tiles negotiated for.

Some included aircraft of high quality

Open development for third parties that meet the sim's standards

To name a few

 

That's quite a task to undertake a new flight simulator. I hope you get a number of quality programmers to pull it off. - Best of Luck!

Multi-platform

 

When you say that, do you mean Windows, Linux and Apple, Or more like Pc's and consoles? Or is it all of the above?

 

When Flight was out, I noticed an apparent upper boundary of download size (approx 4 gigs) and always wondered if they were thinking of consoles in the back of their minds.

 

DTG said they were not thinking about "the mobile environment" but one wonders about their new program and consoles............

I know the first thing the kids did when I showed them FSX was to ask me to fly over the neighborhood. It was a very disappointing experience, really. The major roads were somewhat accurate, but due to the very nature of the FSX jigsaw-puzzle landscape, the streets had little relevance to reality, and building placement was almost completely imaginary. Waterways were somewhat better, and some major landmarks like the statehouse were (kind of) in the right general area, but the overall FSX experience, except insofar as airports and major geography, had only a passing resemblance to "reality"

 

In choosing to portray the whole world, they gave up the opportunity to add detail except to a handful of areas, and that handful served simply as a reminder of how inaccurate the rest of it was.

 

I have a lot of sims games (or whatever) on my hard drive. Rise of Flight, Aerofly, Microsoft Flight, FSX, FSX-SE, P3D, FS9, War Thunder, Wings of Prey, HAWX, DCS, Outerra, Lockon and more, and I see them all as pieces of a tapestry of flight simulation, all with strengths and weakness, and variations of approach to the subject of Flight.

 

He was talking about the navaid database, not graphic presentation.

 

 

When you say that, do you mean Windows, Linux and Apple, Or more like Pc's and consoles? Or is it all of the above?

Hi HiFlyer, I was thinking of Windows, Apple and Linux. However, If they can use consoles more power to them. That being said, I have no experience with consoles and don't know the ramifications of their use.

On or off the subject, Microsoft did go to the trouble & expense of supplying real world data-bases (Jeppeson) for it's "flight simulation".  Most pure gamers wouldn't know or care.  As far as I'm concerned, at the end of the day, MSFS products were right at the top of the heap, for overall "desktop" simulation.  Of course there are (were) other products that fine tune simulation for specific requirements. 

 

Over the years, I'd often see that Brand X would be called a simulation while Brand MS would be labeled as a game. That comes from marketing & hype. I flew the real thing, and always knew better. 

 

Exactly. I use it all the time to simulate approaches training for my IFR rating. When it comes to the totality of flight and the procedures surrounding it, nothing simulates it better and more completely. 

 

If people want to make a big deal about the semantics, whatever. The name of the freaking program is Flight Simulator and it certainly simulates stuff for me. I also enjoyed the gaming aspects of it years ago when they were fresh. 

He was talking about the navaid database, not graphic presentation.

 

My mistake then. All these years (from when I first got FSX) I thought that data also included roads and landmarks. This does remind me of something though. Microsoft Flight was pretty good at teaching how to handle a plane, and I remember a mission that essentially required you to conquer navaids to locate and land on a runway in the fog, and did it in such a way that it was actually fun. Kids loved it. In the end, I think it's not that gamers don't care about such things, but that the presentation of the information is all too often on a level that maximizes complexity and leads to loss of interest. On the other hand, if you make it simple enough for casuals to understand, somebody starts yelling "GAME!" (its a shame that the video poster found it necessary to post a message to deter such people)

 

As far as I'm concerned, thats a loss for everyone.

 

 

And now somebody more experienced, using the "game" as a sim. It really is up to what the user decides.

 

 

Hi HiFlyer, I was thinking of Windows, Apple and Linux. However, If they can use consoles more power to them. That being said, I have no experience with consoles and don't know the ramifications of their use.

 

Probably not much for us here, besides that the more people using the program, the more money coming in, and hopefully that means more resources available for further development.

 

(Plus its much more likely I could get my nephews to try it)

 

 

FS is like flying, It is pretty pretty when the laws are followed but it can get pretty ugly fast when they are not.

Stay the course.

 

Cheers,

Great sounds. No more boring and repetitive low quality sound effects. Even FLIGHT sent teams out to record authentic engine sounds, live.

 

No more flat ribbon roads. If DTG starts off with them, they will be stuck with them for years, and things like Cities: Skylines and even X-plane X will leave them in the dust as technological also-rans. It will also be much harder to realistically fill the world without being able to effectively use all of those tasty databases that didn't really exist when FSX was created.

 

Did I mention real night lighting? (I may have) no more lights painted on the ground.

 

Keeps FLIGHTS living, moving trees!

 

Liven up the building textures. The world is not gray! Its a lively, colorful place. If at all possible, KILL the crazy FSX patchwork quilt of mismatched ground textures. Come to think of it, Just redo the FSX textures completely and revisit the whole implementation. Junk it all and start from scratch. Those textures just scream 2006.

 

Volumetric clouds

 

More realistic water that reacts to wind. Lets see some churning, violent seas in bad weather! (speak to Sundog, or something)

 

More realistic rain, fog and snow. I know FLIGHT did this well, so if not directly using flight in the new sim, at least take some notes!

 

Damage models for all planes. (though it doesn't have to be excessive, like massive fireballs) bent fuselage's and broken wings are fine. Look at Flight Unlimited, Aerofly, or Rise of Flight.

 

Let the users get in there and place buildings, roads, runways and stuff easily.

 

Keep VR firmly in mind

 

DX11 and tessellation.

 

Atmospheric scattering, hdr, ambient occlusion....... all that fun stuff.