HiFlyer

 

The first video is beautiful but it would be an overkill (for now due CPU/GPU/64 issues at the moment) for an event that we try to avoid at all times.

 

The second one, I couldn't take the gaming look/behavior. No physics whatsoever and too over simplistic.

 

I remembered PS 1.3 the simple approach to crashes and too the point. The screen went  from black to high red/orange and back to black immediately follow by an explosion sound trough out. Again, simple and to the point. And of course still "Why you little %%^^%$ PC pilot you..." full of regrets.

 

There are many convincing ways to tackle crashes without complicated graphic software requirements, since again, it is an event we are in full avoidance mode. 

 

Cheers,

 

 

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.

 

You are talking about less then a million copies, total, sold of Ace Combat: 6 since 2009. And that was a game with a long lineage of name recognition and little competition.

The goal for DTG will be years worth of DLC sales and expansion. Steam and PC users, along with their hardware, are a much better marketplace for that. If they were wanting to go to consoles, their train simulator would be much easier to do so with and they'd of done it by now.

 

Even War Thunder has basically been a dud on PS4 compared to the PC despite it's F2P setup. Almost all their users are on PC. Console gamers simply don't play these kinds of games in mass numbers, no matter how simplified they are. If the console market was truly a more fruitful plain, then War Thunder would do better on PS4 vs. PC. War Thunder on Steam averages about 15,000 users at any given time. Their PS4 numbers don't come close to that.

here are many convincing ways to tackle crashes without complicated graphic software requirements, since again, it is an event we are in full avoidance mode

 

Not that complicated at all. In fact in modern programs, the gpu takes the burden of most of that at very modest cost. Things like Havok and Physx handle particles and collisions as part of their base functions. As for avoiding it at all costs, many modern players feel that fading screens and crash noises are a Gyp, and a patronizing one at that, as if protecting them from an obvious reality. It's like those ancient monster films where the monster closes in and the screen goes dark. Modern audiences would boo! 

 

Games are filled with damage models and realistic explosions now. Barring them from "sims" is kind of an anachronism, especially when early sims had no such issues. This seems to me to be a Microsoft thing that has kind of inordinately affected the culture. Even sims as old as Flight Unlimited were more honest.

 

You are talking about less then a million copies, total, sold of Ace Combat: 6 since 2009

 

You were saying? http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ace-combat-soars-past-10-million-sold/1100-6338730/

 

I also don't know where on earth you are getting your numbers for War Thunder. Especially as the game is a free download, and all sales are from DLC

Many very good simulators can be played as games while still simulating stuff quite well assuming the mechanics and capabilities allow it.

 

Exactly...and that was my point when I said that  all of life, including you and me, is a simulation (or game) because our brains are 'persuaded that what we see and experience is 'real'. Yet  quantum physics is discovering that what we call 'reality' is just a 'freaking' illusion created within consciousness.  

 

...So even life itself can be viewed as either a game or simulation, or both. Pixels on our conscious mental screens, or pixels on our flight-sim/game monitors - its all the same since the building blocks of matter (particles) that make up your computer, mouse and flight-stick etc also make up your body and brain and universe. But these particles have in reality no substance to them, so therefore neither do the objects and things that they are built from..such as your computer, your brain and your universe etc.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it.html#.VZf8HvAwBQd

 

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

-Werner Heisenberg

Exactly...and that was my point when I said that  all of life, including you and me, is a simulation (or game) because our brains are 'persuaded that what we see and experience is 'real'. Yet  quantum physics is discovering that what we call 'reality' is just a 'freaking' illusion created within consciousness.  

 

...So life itself can be viewed as either a game or simulation, or both. Pixels on our conscious mental screens, or pixels on our monitor screens - its all the same since the basic building blocks of matter (electrons) that make up your computer, mouse and flight-stick etc also make up your body and brain and universe, but these electrons have in reality no substance to them, so therefore neither do the things they are built from...i.e. your computer, your brain and universe etc.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it.html#.VZf8HvAwBQd

 

lol...You are case in point to what I was talking about with worrying too much about the semantics.

 

On this planet, in normal conversation, games that simulate flight in a semi-realistic manner are traditionally called simulators. It's going to be ok. I promise. 

On this planet, in normal conversation, games that simulate flight in a semi-realistic manner are traditionally called simulators. It's going to be ok. I promise. 

 

Which would not explain why Microsoft Flight was vehemently called a game, usually disdainfully, in capital letters with multiple exclamation marks, while something like Aerofly, which was in actuality much less functional as far as avionics and other things, was left in peace and unchallenged as a simulator.

 

I, like I am sure many others, was always struck by the sheer vehemence of these "This is a SIM, not a GAME!!!!!" type reactions, and some are moved to challenge them, though as I noted earlier in the thread, I generally try to avoid this weird (to me) Parkay vs Butter argument, since I've never once seen it go anywhere good.

 

Not once.

 

For me personally, for most practical purposes when discussing FSX for instance, the word game and simulation are as interchangeable as "Oxygen" and "Air'

 

Somebody yelling that 'It's AIR dammit, not Oxygen!!!" gets a raised eyebrow and a shrug from me before I move on.

 

Life is too short.

lol...You are case in point to what I was talking about with worrying too much about the semantics.

 

You mentioned 'worrying', not me.

 

 

On this planet, in normal conversation, games that simulate flight in a semi-realistic manner are traditionally called simulators. It's going to be ok. I promise.

 

Ah yes, of course, 'normal' conversation.  ;-)   Its okay though, I'll understand if you don't wish to enter a science-based discussion that does not fit with your current world-view. 

In that case I'll keep it simple and say yes,  on this planet, (and who knows, perhaps on other planets as well;-),  games that simulate flight in a semi-realistic manner may well be traditionally called simulators, but my point again is that these 'simulators' (and related hardware and operators) have in reality no physical existence (only virtual) and exist only within our awareness.  But perhaps you have scientific evidence to the contrary?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.VZgEOvAwBQc

Been away from the thread for a while....we're still banging on about "sim" "game"? Funnily, after the first post, I don't think Dovetail ever responded to this. They did on Steam, lots of times. I wonder if that says anything....

For me personally, for most practical purposes when discussing FSX for instance, the word game and simulation are as interchangeable as "Oxygen" and "Air'

 

I'm going to disagree with that statement.  I'll surely agree that FSX was targeted at an audience looking for "games", and it didn't do it any good in terms of reputation with people with any knowledge of aviation.  Some of the flight models in FSX and its predecessors were semi-realistic; some weren't.  If real-life helicopters handled anything like those in FSX, all real helo pilots would be dead.   But I never apprerciated the existence of the goofy "missions" and the rest of the silly features that made it more "game" than flight simulator.  I never used any of that garbage, and if there had been any creditable alternative, I wouldn't have bought FSX.

 

So my vote here would be for a simulation that actually simulates flying, and all the various aspects of flying - realistic weather, physics, flight planning, navigation, etc, and without any of the ideas that make it a "game".  Pilots can devise their own missions without help from software developers.

I'm going to disagree with that statement.  I'll surely agree that FSX was targeted at an audience looking for "games", and it didn't do it any good in terms of reputation with people with any knowledge of aviation.  Some of the flight models in FSX and its predecessors were semi-realistic; some weren't.  If real-life helicopters handled anything like those in FSX, all real helo pilots would be dead.   But I never apprerciated the existence of the goofy "missions" and the rest of the silly features that made it more "game" than flight simulator.  I never used any of that garbage, and if there had been any creditable alternative, I wouldn't have bought FSX.

 

So my vote here would be for a simulation that actually simulates flying, and all the various aspects of flying - realistic weather, physics, flight planning, navigation, etc, and without any of the ideas that make it a "game".  Pilots can devise their own missions without help from software developers.

Just so you're aware, Microsoft actually made it a point to use a bunch of us..............real life pilots, for the beta test process. I was along for three versions. 3rd party vendors, many who were/are real life pilots were included too. MSFS also went to the trouble of purchasing the use of real life Jeppeson airport & navigation databases (as I've previously mentioned).  The default airplanes, just as those included with other sims such as X-Plane, will never  be on the scale of an airplane, in which the 3rd party designer has spent months or years working on a single plane. 

 

I never found an alternative (desk top flight sim), that included as much as MSFS, right out of the box. 

I've always thought that the success of FSX, such as it was, was that in concept and implementation, it rose above any game/sim debate, and unashamedly offered something for everyone. It was what the user wanted it to be. Hopefully DTG has taken note.

 

I suspect Microsoft would have been perfectly happy with us calling it spaghetti and meatballs as long as our money was in their pockets.

 

As far as the game/simulation argument goes: who really cares?

 

If Dovetail Games can disguise a simulator as a game with mission elements, goals and "social interaction", so much the better, if it helps them sell more copies of an application that has more serious elements. The FS series did this very thing.

 

And Flight most probably would also have done this, but the incremental approach of selling a few functional bits at a time, combined with a corporate shift in games development killed it. Most of the functionality of FSX is in Flight, but had been disabled because it was not needed for the DLC available.

 

The plan of Flight was to release more content and abilities for the game as time went on. Over a few years, we'd probably would have had a full-fledged sim. The parts were there or could be added. And MS would have made big$ releasing the game in this manner. We all would have hated this approach, but most of us would have paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Flight died. And I hope the technology of the game survives in DTG's flight games. Hopefully they'll give us a whole world sim hidden beneath the spectacular crashes. :rolleyes:

 

Dick

The plan of Flight was to release more content and abilities for the game as time went on. Over a few years, we'd probably would have had a full-fledged sim.

 

I always thought that was obvious, but nobody had patience. Including Microsoft. I said at the time that with all the negativity, we might eventually find we were shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

For me the only real good thing about FLIGHTS death was the faint hope that it might give somebody better suited a chance at the tech. The most obvious choice was DTG, since FLIGHT itself seemed like an attempt to copy the Train Simulator business model.

Just so you're aware, Microsoft actually made it a point to use a bunch of us..............real life pilots, for the beta test process. I was along for three versions. 3rd party vendors, many who were/are real life pilots were included too. .. I never found an alternative (desk top flight sim), that included as much as MSFS, right out of the box. 

 

I stand by my comments.  I've been a real life pilot since 1970, and I'm instrument rated, so that's my frame of reference. 

 

I never found a better desk top sim than MSFS either, and, as I said before, if I had, I would have bought it - very quickly.  Like many others, I did buy competing products, and none ever measured up.

 

I've owned every version of MSFS since the wireframe monochrome days, despite all its teething pains and "gamey" features.  But I've migrated to P3D, and have a Brunner force feedback yoke inbound next week.

Hopefully they'll give us a whole world sim hidden beneath the spectacular crashes. :rolleyes:

 

I wouldn't put much thought into it. DTG's history on trainsim shows the same aversion to realistic crashes and preference for collisions that go "BONK" as FSX does. You might as well be playing with trains made out of wooden blocks.

 

No Gomez Adam's there!