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.

 

But it's not a big deal though, its simply people making their point of view as to whether FSX etc is a sim or a game. But I have noticed that quite a number of those who defend it as a 'simulator' do so quite aggressively using phrases like ..' The name of the freaking program is Flight Simulator".   

 

It is after all only pixels moving about on a screen. Nothing to take too seriously

;-)

 

....As real as it gets?

 

 

 

 

It is after all only pixels moving about on a screen.

 

And controllers - just like a game.

That got me thinking (for a change)...

How about an X-Box version? Seriously, that is actually another huge untapped market.

 

 

Having a sim with maybe only a few very highly detailed sceneries is not a bad idea after all. It gives the addon guys a market, & also, imagine the scenery size on our machines if we get the kind of detail for the whole world that people here are asking for. There are areas that some of us would never fly to.

Maybe the initial download coud have the basics & we are offered a choice (free, as part of the deal) of 1x highly detailed scenery? I'm sure that there are lots that only fly within their local area?

 

 

How about an X-Box version?

 

My understanding is that Microsoft has developed the tools to create Windows and X-box applications from the same source code.

 

 

How about an X-Box version? Seriously, that is actually another huge untapped market

 

Hence my question about consoles. The fact that FLIGHT kept its regions to such a compact size always had me wondering if they were thinking of the limited console storage space at the time.

 

I don't really want to raise any hackles, but I'm still going internally with the assumption that FLIGHT offered/offers DTG the most obvious route forward, considering their own past strategies.

HiFlyer.... +1 I agree..

Landclasses in Flight use a 16-bit system. So there are 65536 possible texture assignments, and of course 26 regions, and 5 seasons. And each addon can have it's own lclookup, and fallback dependencies for texture assignments. And each addon can have it's own seasons and regions defined. That pretty much gives 100% ground texturing ability, dependant on file storage capacity.

 

Dovetail could implement a tiling at 250 meters, rather than the 1000 meters FS has uses since FS2000.  I tried to get MS to do this for FSX, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. It would really allow for more detailed landclassing... but perhaps at that level, you'd need to consider photoreal.

 

Dick

But it's not a big deal though, its simply people making their point of view as to whether FSX etc is a sim or a game. But I have noticed that quite a number of those who defend it as a 'simulator' do so quite aggressively using phrases like ..' The name of the freaking program is Flight Simulator".

 

I'd say that all modern flight simulators are pixels on a screen.......................aren't they?   If the image and feedback from controls, is enough to persuade your mind ( at least for a few moments, here & there) , that it's close to real, then it's doing it's job as a simulator.

 

P.S.................yes, you're correct. The pixel image of a collapsing nose wheel is nothing to take too seriously. It's only a simulation of the event.  I've done it for real, and know the actual consequences.

Edited July 3, 201510 yr by n4gix
Removed quoted image and text, fixed quote box,

I'd say that all modern flight simulators are pixels on a screen.......................aren't they? If the image and feedback from controls, is enough to persuade your mind ( at least for a few moments, here & there) , that it's close to real, then it's doing it's job as a simulator.

 

In which case all of life, including you and me, is a simulation because our minds, as you correctly said, are 'persuaded that what we see and experience is 'real', yet modern science is discovering that 'reality' (matter, time, space, colour etc) is in fact an illusion created within the brain, or more accurately, within consciousness. 

Welcome to the Matrix! ;-)

https://youtu.be/CQdFT8t4YgQ

 

 

.yes, you're correct. The pixel image of a collapsing nose wheel is nothing to take too seriously. It's only a simulation of the event. I've done it for real, and know the actual consequences.

 

The reason why I posted that clip wasn't to show the nose wheel collapsing but rather the nose itself burying  6 foot into the 'virtual' tarmac.  (Not as real as it gets;-)

 

Landclasses in Flight use a 16-bit system. So there are 65536 possible texture assignments, and of course 26 regions, and 5 seasons. And each addon can have it's own lclookup, and fallback dependencies for texture assignments. And each addon can have it's own seasons and regions defined. That pretty much gives 100% ground texturing ability, dependant on file storage capacity.

 

Dovetail could implement a tiling at 250 meters, rather than the 1000 meters FS has uses since FS2000.  I tried to get MS to do this for FSX, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. It would really allow for more detailed landclassing... but perhaps at that level, you'd need to consider photoreal.

 

Dick

+1

 

So many options unexplored yet...

 

Cheers,

 - A totally new engine written from the ground up. No backwards compatibility, a clean break and a fresh start with no legacy code or technological limitations.

 

 - 64bit

 

 - Written to properly support multi-threading from the outset.

 

 - Better atmospheric effects (see Real Terra Haze for XP10).

 

 - Better lighting to reflect time of day and weather conditions.

 

 - Proper, dark night time.

 

 - Better support for instrument and panel lighting configurations.

 

 - Better modelling of turboprop engines.

 

 - More convincing precipitation, including rain drops/streaks on the windshield like FU3 had all those years ago.

 

 - More convincing ground handling including friction dependant on runway conditions.

 

 - More convincing water handling for floatplanes.

 

 - Runways that follow the terrain contours.

 

 - Easily updateable nav aids database.

 

 - More realistic and flexible ATC that is good for both VFR and IFR, and supports both FAA and ICAO phraseology. If we're going to get carried away let's also have the accents of controllers and AI aircraft reflect the part of the world.

 

 - Better support for aircraft damage or mishaps.... hard landings, burst tyres, etc.

 

 - Visible airframe icing in the relevant conditions, and which realistically effects aircraft performance and handling.

 

 - Make weather conditions actually matter.

 

 - Support for vectored thrust (and finally Harriers that don't rely on trickery to make them fly like the real thing!)

 

 - Better modelling of helicopter flight dynamics with stuff like ground effect, translational lift, retreating blade stall, vortex ring, etc.

 

 - Better tools within the sim for managing large numbers of scenery entries or addon aircraft.

- Better support for aircraft damage or mishaps.... hard landings, burst tyres, etc.

 

This was a subject on another forum, where in reply,, I wondered how much "damage" simmers could take before becoming uncomfortable. Two videos were presented, one pretty violent, and the other featuring soft-body physics a bit less cataclysmically....... (kinda cartoony)

 

The second video is from a "sandbox" sim, called BeamNG, that allows you to fly, drive and whatever else your heart desires.

 

 

But it's not a big deal though, its simply people making their point of view as to whether FSX etc is a sim or a game. But I have noticed that quite a number of those who defend it as a 'simulator' do so quite aggressively using phrases like ..' The name of the freaking program is Flight Simulator".   

 

And I've noticed other people seem to get some weird high from running around and "correcting" people if they call it a simulator, as if you are making some extremely astute point. And yes, the name of the freaking program is Flight simulator and it can indeed be used as a very good simulation of flight and procedures (especially IFR procedures). That's a valid thing to point out.

 

It is after all only pixels moving about on a screen. Nothing to take too seriously

;-)

 

....As real as it gets?

 

 

Which is the same result you'd get in a RedBird Simulator running P3D or a Level-D simulator. 

 

The point missed you. I'm saying it's semantics to assert it either way. Simulators and games are not always mutually exclusive entities. Many very good simulators can be played as games while still simulating stuff quite well assuming the mechanics and capabilities allow it.

 

But if it's that important to rush in and "set the record straight" by making sure people know "it's just a game," go ahead (even though it's the same code, FD, and nav databases used in ESP/P3D for full motion simulators).

That got me thinking (for a change)...

How about an X-Box version? Seriously, that is actually another huge untapped market.

 

 

Having a sim with maybe only a few very highly detailed sceneries is not a bad idea after all. It gives the addon guys a market, & also, imagine the scenery size on our machines if we get the kind of detail for the whole world that people here are asking for. There are areas that some of us would never fly to.

Maybe the initial download coud have the basics & we are offered a choice (free, as part of the deal) of 1x highly detailed scenery? I'm sure that there are lots that only fly within their local area?

 

There have been flight games on consoles. They are even more niche there then they are on PC. 

 

All you'll end up with is robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

There have been flight games on consoles. They are even more niche there then they are on PC. 

 

But like the tiny percentage of gamers that out of curiosity purchased FSX-SE, and swelled the numbers (even if they don't stay long) even a small percentage of console users purchasing a program can add up to significant sales.

 

Besides that, I don't see how anyone can sniff at the success of things like the Ace Combat series (just for one example) that have sold millions of copies worldwide. War thunder, (also drawing significant money from consoles) has a development team of over a hundred people at this time, so somebody is out there making money.....