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

[codechris 9]

HiFlyer I agree with you so much in this. It really was as close as we got. It was the baisc sim, that we could add to as much as we wanted. Whether it was Tube or GA, It was possible. We pushed that (as a community) far beyond we we could do (OOMS) but the thing is, we could. In terms of what we want? To push that further. The X-Planers of the world might bang on about something or another, Austin might go on about blade theory but we realistically, as a whole community, we largely got what we wanted. I think most people major gripes are wanting to fly, without OOM. ###### it solve that and jobs a good'n, as they say 'up north'

[dtmicro 1]

The problem with all the flight sims out now is the improper structuring of code, and the lack of automation interfaces and auto-script generators. This therefore limits what you can do because it increases the time it takes to build and design stuff. A lot of the Aerial imagery process is a waste of time and should have been fully implemented, also Microsoft should have included at least some low-level shaders (well they have a few in the SDK, but I am talking about in the UI itself). Microsoft hired a bunch of math geniuses that were good coders at math, but few of them were all that great at how to structure their code and the overall app. The FSX SDK is very disorganized when you think about all the different pieces it takes to make something simple.

 

It would have been obvious from day one to me that MS should have created a standard installer with inherited configs, instead of having all these different add-ons share things (that's just a recipe for disaster).

[Wobbie 938]

HiFlyer & Chris nailed it with their comments.

We must not also forget that Microsoft gave us products, that was developed by Aces Ganing Studio & sold in supermarkets & gaming stores. As we all know, that legacy is now distributed by probably the largest gaming distributer around. What we actually have is a game that simulates a simulator. Call it what you will, throw your toys at me for calling it that. I believe that the immersion factor within the product is awesome, from the very early FS's that Microsoft gave us, to what they gave us 10 years ago. Thanks to the add-on developers, the realism has improved somewhat.

 

So, what do we want from DTG, realism or immersion. Immersion to let new people into the hobby, without scaring them off by having too much realism that the new guys may think as being too complicated & too much hassle to get involved?

Do we want a highly detailed & super real product for a percieved niche market within our ranks? There are rumours that DTG's product will/could be based on one of Microsoft's flight technology products... NOTE the small 'f'. It does actually make business sense for DTG to do something like Flight!, with downloadable products marketed by themselves.

 

I'm also sure that DTG realises that there is a huge untapped market of gamers out there that can be tempted into the hobby. Maybe that market is even bigger than the existing one they have?

 

So, it will be very interesting to see what comes out of the 'entertainment' market!

 

(by the way, to explain where I'm coming from with my thoughts .... I've been involved with the Microsoft products since FS95 (If I remember the product mane correctly, ahh.. the good old floppy & stiffy days!), & I've been involved in a virtual aviation group that mentors 60 kids a year as part of a 2 year project. I've also built up 3x simulators as well, an Avro Shacketon, an AeroMacchi MB326 & a Tomahawk. We are using, wait for it, FS9 in the sims as well as in the 25 PC's that are used in our academy. Yup, the immersion factor works!)

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Yup, the immersion factor works!

 

Well, really, FS9 just works. You install it, add what you want and fly.

 

FSX has become a sort of Frankenprogram, with so much stuff from so many different vendors stirred in there at this point (in even an average install) that it's probably amazing it even runs.

 

Frankly, the nearly inevitable reinstall when something goes wrong is often an enormous, time-devouring hassle, and pretty much nobody but the most committed will put up with it. I'm hoping that DTG (and steam) use a process as similar as possible to Microsoft flight, and unattended installs of the sim and all its addons becomes the norm.

 

I also hope they cater to new users with detailed tutorials something like their Train Driving Academy in Rail simulator 2015, and also allow easy content creation similar to that program.

[Wobbie 938]

 

 

FSX has become a sort of Frankenprogram, with so much stuff from so many different vendors stirred in there at this point (in even an average install) that it's probably amazing it even runs.

 

Mine ended up like a Steam train slowly coming to a stop at a station, then running out of Steam.

(Pardon the unintended puns)

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Flight bases it's scenery almost exactly on the FSX BGL structure, with the idea of scenery and texture folders. It has a greater use of shaders and uses a virtual folder system. It has 'dependencies' as part of it's display chain, which can control which sets of textures are used. You can make lclookups for your addon, giving total control over how it is textured. Good system. much more flexible than FSX.

 

Dick

[glenecho3 9]

The idea of building a sandbox engine to sim within is a great idea and one that much of the industry is already going towards. Sometimes I find it upsetting how afraid of change my fellow flight simmers are. I would absolutely ADORE to fly coast to coast, then jump in a truck...AND go fishing. I don't think that's silly at all.

 

Actually...it may be a goldmine waiting to happen.

 

I also think that people are underestimating the possible financial feasibility of flight simulation and simulation in general. Might want to take a look at Steam once in a while (which is hard when you've already decided to bury your head in the sand and label Steam as "evil" without even knowing what it is). There are simulations all over the place...some poor and some great. Somebody out there is buying this stuff. Many of MS's Flight Sim released did GREAT monetarily. I still hold the minority belief that Microsoft gave up on Flight Simulation because almost nobody could actually use FSX when it came out. Computers then could barely run it and it is quite telling that years later a lot of computers today can still barely run it (in many situations...). I can only imagine how many people returned (or attempted to return) FSX when it came out. Or...how many issues MS support took on when it was released. 

 

And that leads me to my last point....whatever you do, Dovetail, either dump the FSX graphics engine entirely or fix it to be efficient. While we all think it looks oh so beautiful, it's because we haven't known anything different or better for a VERY long time. I don't buy it...I think the graphics world that an efficient flightsim could take on nowadays should not only meet FSX expectations and blow it away. It really makes me nervous to see so many other posters that want to see that awful FSX engine be continued. I think Dovetail should run SCREAMING away from it...unless it can be very quickly and easily optimized.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

The next flight-sim needs to bring in new users and without new users it fails regardless what the hardcore users want.

[AndyPaul 11]

The most important things that will faciltate a happy community, happy 3rd party developers and ultimately a happy Dovetail Games, are:

1. Initial worldwide coverage of base scenery (mesh, landclass, vector data)
2. Initial worldwide coverage of airports (runways, taxiways, some buildings)
3. 64Bit, GPU heavy
 

4. SDK (Tools and Documentation)
5. Access to all functions and parameters (see KSP)
6. Non-restrictive license for addon developers

 

7. Navdata (as DLC --> $$$)

8. Missions and Tutorials to get new users into FlightSim and into wanting more ($$$)

 

9. (Dreaming) Ditch the FSX/Flight engine and use Outerra

[Wobbie 938]

The next flight-sim needs to bring in new users and without new users it fails regardless what the hardcore users want.

+1 & that sums it all up!! Yup, WE all want the bells & whistles, but the hobby wants & needs new users. No matter what we (current users) want/demand, it will never be enough.

 

Do we really need ..

1. Initial worldwide coverage of base scenery (mesh, landclass, vector data)

2. Initial worldwide coverage of airports (runways, taxiways, some buildings)

 

lol, I'm sure that's not being serious. We need the basics to whet the appetite to encourage new users, with 'normal' PC's to enter our hobby.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

DTG is a brave company.

[Wobbie 938]

Very brave to monetize & update a 8 year old game, slightly tweak it, get Steam to distribute it & provide an outlet for unique add-ons, as a test & a tease to see how much interest there could be in a new Sim?

 

Nah, not brave, good business sense for their shareholders. (I stand corrected, but are they not subsidised by the gov?)

[Flying Penguin 44]

Do we really need ..

1. Initial worldwide coverage of base scenery (mesh, landclass, vector data)

2. Initial worldwide coverage of airports (runways, taxiways, some buildings)

 

There's two schools of thought,

 

First, give a small but perfectly formed universe (like Aerofly), problem being that not everyone wants to fly around Hawaii/Switzerland/A.N.Othersville, you loose people because the world is too unfamiliar (one of the strengths of later FS incarnations was always that you could do things at your local airport, wherever that was).  

 

Second, you provide a basic worldwide map, problem being that it will never be as detailed, so you loose people because "That Ugly..."

 

What actually happens is going to depend on the approach to DLC that DTG wany to take.  Closed platform, option 1 gives the best revenue potential in theory (assuming people lost to "don't want to fly there" doesn't outweight the revenue from people buying scenery).  Open platform, the worldwide coverage model is better structurally, rather than making a potentially confusing web of dependencies (e.g. if you want a specific airport, you don't have to start working out which continent packs you need, oh and you need to buy every airport that you might ever want to fly to, even if just once).

 

DTG are in the business of catching whales (no, not the Japanese "scientific research" kind),  I suspect they will go for option two, but will be ready to provide everything themselves and advertise heavily in-game (similar to what they do with Train Sim, which is technically open, but they push their own content very aggressively in game).

Nah, not brave, good business sense for their shareholders. (I stand corrected, but are they not subsidised by the gov?)

 

No, they got a visit from "call me Dave", but they aren't subsidised.  It was just a photo op afaik....

[HiFlyer 9,343]

I know where I suspect this is going. It will be interesting to see what actually happens.

 

Our vision: To become the No.1 Simulation Entertainment company in the world

 

 

Our mission: Craft and deliver simulation hobbies that attract, empower, delight and retain customers across all viable markets

 

 

Make fabulous stuff: We are passionate about crafting high quality simulations that excite and engage both experienced and new players.

 

[AndyPaul 11]

 

 

Do we really need ..

1. Initial worldwide coverage of base scenery (mesh, landclass, vector data)
2. Initial worldwide coverage of airports (runways, taxiways, some buildings)

lol, I'm sure that's not being serious. We need the basics to whet the appetite to encourage new users, with 'normal' PC's to enter our hobby.

 

It is very serious. The thing that failed to attract users to MS Flight was the limited scenery that was there in the first place, next to the fact that there would have been no way for 3rd party developers to develop new stuff. Not one of the simmers who is into heavy metal will buy it if he or she will have to buy additional dlc's on day 1 just to get flying (assuming there will be heavy metal aircraft on day 1). The thing that let FSX stand out (and FS9, FS2002) was that the whole world was available. Americans could fly from american airports, Germans from German airports, Chinese from Chinese airport...