Let's hope it's not as limiting, or it will go the way of MS Flight!!

 

 

Don't think anyone ever said it was.

 

There are some in this very thread that believe Flight technology = Flight program.

There are some in this very thread that believe Flight technology = Flight program.

 

Interesting! Any examples of anyone saying such a thing? Even one would do.

Interesting! Any examples of anyone saying such a thing? Even one would do.

Feel free to browse the 34 pages in this thread.

Dovetail bought not just the engine, but most of the tools as well, I would guess. Excepting, perhaps the modeling tools for objects. That was licensed to Microsoft as the granny 3d system from Rad Game Tools, although Dovetail could license from them as well. Probably all the familiar terrain tools would be used as those were developed by Microsoft ( resample, shp2vec, bglcomp).

 

If Dovetail could add in the missing FSX elements to the existing flight code (to which they have code access), and use DirectX11 (or DX12) to allow the GPU to shoulder some of the burden off the CPU, you'd have a pretty good sim. 64-bit compilation might help with some memory issues. FSX:SE re-compilation shows they have the coding skills.

 

Microsoft has done the hard work with the coding already. Licensing issues for the data and models might be a problem.

 

Dick

If Dovetail could add in the missing FSX elements to the existing flight code (to which they have code access), and use DirectX11 (or DX12) to allow the GPU to shoulder some of the burden off the CPU, you'd have a pretty good sim.

 

You beat me to it! 

 

If they really are using the flight engine, then you know theres already ample proof of how much FSX and Flight share. 

 

If a single person could drive the amazing things we've already seen done (and you've helped with) then it's hard to believe that DTG couldn't do so as well.

 

In a way, that might be a disappointment for me, as I really want little if any backwards compatibility.

Just to go back to the realistic/immersion debate..

 

We have built 2x sims at our VA. An Avro Shackleton & an AeroMacchi MB326 (known here in South Africa as an Impala). Both of these sims are twin seaters.

 

We have gone the immersion route.Both sims are flown without mouse or keyboard. Both are using screens for guages & a 2nd screen for scenery. We have noticed that when real (& virtual) pilots fly these & come in to land, they actually 'bump' themselves in the seats, anticipating the touchdown. Thats the immersion factor. Realism is something else, as the sims cannot realistically replcate the flight. (no movement, guages on screen, etc).

 

Also, with the Shackleton, we got some real Shack pilots to fly, & they were so immersed that they were actually tapping the LCD panel guages.

To me, realism and immersion means how much can a program help me to suspend my disbelief and bring me as close as possible to the feeling of actually being in the air. For some people, that immersion comes from the instruments and procedures, and for others, it's much more of a visual experience.

 

One of the problems I think is that Flight simulation has been steadily pushing the technological depiction of flight right on up to PMDG levels, while the visual depiction remains grounded firmly in the techniques/compromises of the FSX era. To a modern user, accustomed to GTA type visuals in world depiction, an encounter with FSX/X-plane is one with programs whose complexity and learning curve can be daunting at the very same time that the archaic visuals defy suspension-of disbelief/immersion. (and border on laughable without many expensive add ons)

 

Things like GTA, that actually make a newcomer feel like they are in the air over an actual city, while offering much more to actually see and do seem much more rewarding, something people drawn by complexity often seem to find incomprehensible.

 

Can DTG bridge the gap even slightly? Do they have the money or the time?

Things like GTA, that actually make a newcomer feel like they are in the air over an actual city, while offering much more to actually see and do seem much more rewarding, something people drawn by complexity often seem to find incomprehensible.

 

Yes totally agree.

 

Highway flight (warning: graphic)

https://youtu.be/5Q30umLxcZA?t=50

 

City flight

https://youtu.be/fj1h0hgk2M0?t=370

That second video is just amazing, but I don't think a pure flight simulator would ever have the budget to do anything even close to that, and especially not on the planetary scale that some expect. The only way I can see to create a relatively detailed world sized sim on a relatively limited budget is to go procedural, and thats why I keep such a close eye on Outerra.

 

It might represent one of those rarely seen "paradigm shifts" in how such things are done.

 

A quote from the developers of No Man's Sky:

 

Due to its immense scale, very little in No Man’s Sky is authored in the traditional sense. It would take countless lifetimes for the biggest development team in the world to create just one of the small planet-sized planets found in No Man’s Sky using traditional methods. The only way a game of this scale and scope could ever exist is by creating a system which can build the universe for itself. It has allowed Hello Games to create an entire universe without ever employing more than 13 people during its production.

 

 

I don't think this is the way DTG is going. Not while using "Microsoft Flight Technology" but.....

 

One can dream..........

The only way I can see to create a relatively detailed world sized sim on a relatively limited budget is to go procedural, and thats why I keep such a close eye on Outerra.

It might represent one of those rarely seen "paradigm shifts" in how such things are done.

 

Interesting. Thanks.

I've only seen a few demos of No Man's Sky and they looked pretty good, amazing even.  Is it out yet?

 

As well as the scenic detail in GTA I also like it's potential for in-flight humour and fun.  This clip, for example, I think is hilarious.....

 

https://youtu.be/gz8sEX4vCgA?t=92

 

..and some more down-town flying.....

https://youtu.be/gz8sEX4vCgA

 

 

Interesting. Thanks.
I've only seen a few demos of No Man's Sky and they looked pretty good, amazing even.  Is it out yet?

 

Close. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/13/no-mans-sky-from-humble-beginnings

 

I guess the answer for DTG is that while some obviously essentially want more of the same, there are also some who wish for innovation and originality (and a bit of a break from a past that seems on the verge of being locked down into total stasis)

 

If it doesn't bring something new to the table, then whats the point?

Some might find this interesting;

 

 

As well as the scenic detail in GTA I also like it's potential for in-flight humour and fun.  This clip, for example, I think is hilarious.....

 

https://youtu.be/gz8sEX4vCgA?t=92

 

..and some more down-town flying.....

https://youtu.be/gz8sEX4vCgA

 

The graphics are great and it would do wonders for FS but let's keep the humor side of it right where it is, in GTA. Not needed nor required in FS.

 

The places in both graphics are a solid pieces meaning you just can't add airpots and objects just as easily like you do in FS now. One massive graphic. With 24 tousand plus airports and counting in FS, that approach wouldn't work.

 

Cheers,

 

PS: Why couldn't that guy in GTA lower the gear down?

Honestly...I just want where P3D is at now without the OOM's...