Are we afraid of something concrete?

 

No, it's all talk about nothing, just like all the other: "what would you want in a new flight-sim" posts we have seen. Show me a beta version of a program, then ask me what to include.

Yes. I think what was mentioned earlier stands - there are existing community efforts such as FlightGear - they should focus on those.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

This is a flightsim forum. This is related to flightsims. Why is the discussion of a nextgen flightsim inappropriate on a forum that covers everything from Aerofly to Flight to Outerra to a diving sim? 

 

I do find it funny how it's "Well said!" if anyone writes anything super positive, but anything realistic is automatically wrong no matter what.

 

Well, if you define "Super positive" as "Let's talk about it" then there is indeed a difference of opinion. Also....  "Wrong no matter what?" At this point I would have to say I'm just confused. Where was that said, exactly?

 

I will repeat my own words. "I'm not sure that the Nextgen Symposium is the correct way to go about things, or if it's at all workable. But why such pushback on even just discussing possibilities?" 

 

That goes under super positive and unrealistic?

 

For myself, I think 10 years is more reasonable than never, and I think "Lets talk about it" is better than chopping off discussion. I will drill down even more. Is it unlikely? Maybe. Would it succeed? Who knows? Is it worth exploring possibilities? I think yes. 

 

No, it's all talk about nothing, just like all the other: "what would you want in a new flight-sim" posts we have seen. Show me a beta version of a program, then ask me what to include.

 

That would be Outerra, which I mentioned before. At this moment they are working on clickable cockpits and more accurate FDMs, not to mention higher resolution geometry as well as the first demo of an autopilot, and 64bit. Yet we remain on the "is it a sim yet" fence.  :unsure:

 

Honestly, if we simply sit on the sidelines forever, waiting for a white knight to arrive, then I believe we also give up the legitimate right to ask for things with any authority later, when we eschewed having a voice earlier in the process. 

I don't think we need a new sim, we have one that is actively developed and always improving. X-plane out of the box is better then FSX. FSX without addons is garbage; the scenery sucks, so we buy ORBX, FSDreamteam, FlyTampa etc..The airplanes suck, that's why we all buy PMDG, A2A etc.. The weather sucks, so we use Active sky or whatever..Every single aspect of the sim is essentially covered up by some addon including the flight dynamics. It's not even FSX anymore. FSX has the support from the addon developers and that's why we continue to use it. If X-plane had the same support it would far better. The scenery that is being made for X-plane looks better, even the free stuff. The good news is that some devlopers have started to build for X-plane; PMDG, Carenado and Aerosoft are some of them. So how do you get more developers on board? You have to make the first move. Once the X-plane numbers come up, the developers will have a reason to build stuff for it, and LR will have more resources for improving the sim and supporting the developers.

Success is brought upon by solving the problems that stand in your way and pushing forward, not by ignoring the problems and pushing forward anyway.

 

The thing is, "super positive" is not being defined as "let's talk about it" by most people here. The problems that stand in the way of this project being successful are being overlooked, and anyone questioning these problems are considering pessimistic and negative, not realistic (there's a difference here, just saying...). There seems to be no room here to give any sort of reasoning. Business does not operate around the idea of trying things without any sort of market/profit research. No one is trying to push away from the discussion. We're trying to highlight the potential problems.

Yes. I think what was mentioned earlier stands - there are existing community efforts such as FlightGear - they should focus on those.

Who knows, that may well wind up being the consensus reached by the thus far purely hypothetical discussions/investigations that have yet to take place at the FS SIM-Posium...

 

...or, Outerra might wind up the choice instead. What might happen to either of them if a ground swell of support from the community were to materialize?

 

 

That would be Outerra, which I mentioned before. At this moment they are working on clickable cockpits and more accurate FDMs, not to mention higher resolution geometry as well as the first demo of an autopilot, and 64bit. Yet we remain on the "is it a sim yet" fence

 

When a representative from Outerra posts then we will have someone to make our suggestions to. Until then nothing need to be suggested.

 

The problems that stand in the way of this project being successful are being overlooked

 

Are they? I was under the impression that this SIMposium website was set up to address exactly that.

Success is brought upon by solving the problems that stand in your way and pushing forward, not by ignoring the problems and pushing forward anyway.

 

The thing is, "super positive" is not being defined as "let's talk about it" by most people here. The problems that stand in the way of this project being successful are being overlooked, and anyone questioning these problems are considering pessimistic and negative, not realistic (there's a difference here, just saying...). There seems to be no room here to give any sort of reasoning. Business does not operate around the idea of trying things without any sort of market/profit research. No one is trying to push away from the discussion. We're trying to highlight the potential problems.

 

For me, the difference is not pointing out problems. Its pointing out problems then stopping there, instead of then going on to work on finding solutions, if possible. The only way to do that is through discussion, and a symposium is by definition  a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject. No discussion is possible if the opening line is "This can't work."

 

For instance: its said that this community is too small to support such an effort. My reply is why are we relying on this community alone? My faith in Outerra (for instance) is informed by the knowledge that the program is more than a Flightsim. It could be an mmo, a third person shooter, a trainsim, a racing game.........

 

The engine is extremely versatile,and its just that versatility that gives it a high possibility of success. I dont think that Outerra could succeed only as a flightsim, but as a multi-engine of the type pioneered by Unigine, Unreal, Unity and others (with a wide range of people that might support a kickstarter) it has a good possibility of a bright future we can be a part of.

 

It is our great good fortune that the developers are open to the possibility of a flightsim, when there are so many other options. Part of that is driven by the unrealistic enthusiasm of those Like Acetone, Bomber, Uriah, and of course Levi (among others) who got off the pot and simply set to work on what they wanted. Much of the functionality that wows people at this point is the work of enthusiasts that saw the potential, said damn the torpedos, and simply..... began.

 

Pointing out problems? Yes. But the next step is "What are the solutions."

 

And if there are no solutions?

 

Then at least we know.

When a representative from Outerra posts then we will have someone to make our suggestions to. Until then nothing need to be suggested.

 

Cameni (Outerra developer) is a member of Avsim, and has in fact posted multiple times......

Just thought I'd chime in...

 

First let me apologies for the NGFS SIM-Posium running into server issues... we're working on moving to a new host even as I type. 

 

We now have a System Admin on board and this should smooth things out even better, plus we've heard our current members and we're going to install a new forum for a more familiar setting.

 

Now... to address some of the comments made in this thread.

 

Actually everyone who has posted are making some great points. But... let's clarify something right off the bat. 

 

The NGFS SIM-Posium is about gathering information and finding solutions.

• One person's concerns may be the cost of operations... OK... how do we address that issue?
• One person's concerns may be the number of flight simulator community members that would actually get involved... OK... how do we address that issue?
• One person's concerns may be that we can't raise enough capital through CrowFunding... OK... how do we address that issue?
• One person's concerns may be that this is just talk... another feeble attempt... OK... how do we address that issue?

 

I think you're getting the point...

 

The reality isn't that it can't be done... but rather how do we do it? Anything less is a little pessimistic... just sayin    :rolleyes: .

 

In order for Outerra to be a viable candidate the Outerra camp would have to first offer their engine. Open source license... is one thing, license for commercial use is quite another.

 

The fact that all that work with Outerra, importing aircraft from FSX & X-Plane among other things... just goes to show that it can be done

 

There is another engine called Proland that is just begging to be utilized. Check it out Here.

 

OK... just got an email from our current host... The NGFS SIM-Posium is back on line... hope to see all of you over there.

 

- Stephen B.

Just another update...

 

Invitations have been posted on the most notable 3D Engines forums for those who would be interested in getting involved in the ground floor of a next generation flight simulation to join our SIM-Posium. So far... we now have 4 new members directly from these forums. In fact, that's how we got our new System Admin. 

 

As of today's date we have 93 subscribers... not a bad start for the first 10 days and 4 total server crashes and numerous slow downs! And we still have a total of 193 days to go (minimum)... it's all about exponential momentum... so spread the word.

 

- Stephen B.

Actually, Proland is a spiritual progenitor to Outerra. Many of the concepts and techniques of procedural generation explored and expanded upon by Eric Bruneton and other academics in their printed materials were taken up by the Outerra team. Its one of the ways I know just how far Outerra can go: I've already seen the basic concepts explored and demonstrated in principle within Proland.

 

There are several Proland videos I posted in the Outerra forum.

 

Early on, I asked the developers about it, and they laughed and said Mr Bruneton was their nemesis, but that was just a joke. In fact The Outerra team has set themselves the task of taking many of the concepts demonstrated by Proland and refining them from Interesting research examples to quick and practical code. In that way, they are pioneers as well, and in many ways have moved far beyond their inspiration.

 

Warning: Long ago I downloaded, assembled and toyed with Proland. It. Is. A. Beast to get working, at least for me. Good luck.

Proland is there if we ever need it... Yea I agree installing it is a beast... but... I'm not a programmer.

 

I'm waiting for Outerra to implement the new 30 meter SRTM. Right now, a flight into Yosemite National Park and looking at Half Dome... doesn't do it for me... But, I agree with some of the others, it would be fantastic if we could get the Outerra Gang over on the NGFS SIM-Posium. It could be just the platform that they need to acquire the information that they're looking for... as long as they are in agreement that what we're looking for is a community driven next generation flight simulator.

 

Outside of Outerra, and Proland... I think UNIGINE Sim would be a very good candidate for a 3D platform. I've already got a couple members volunteering to do evals. Head on over to http://sim.unigine.com/en//

and click on the sub menu items to see some of it's features.

 

Stephen B.

There was also another semi-procedural engine I tried from several years ago called Viewterra. It was very promising, and an mmo was actually made from it, but the whole venture ended in lawsuits and icky types of legal nastiness. A shame, as in many ways they were far (really far) ahead of their time, and had many features even Outerra has yet to even dream of implementing, yet.

 

You might add them to your list, as they are still out there in some form within the professional market.

 

No, it's all talk about nothing, just like all the other: "what would you want in a new flight-sim" posts we have seen. Show me a beta version of a program, then ask me what to include.

 

I wanted to address this post directly...

 

The NGFS SIM-Posium is far more than "just talk about nothing"... it's a community driven effort to take all of the ideas scattered among all the various forums and formulate a concrete synopsis of what the flight simulator community would actually want to see in a next generation flight simulator. 

 

Once that synopsis is created (or more so while that synopsis is being created) the NGFS SIM-Posium is also addressing the who will build it questions, how will we build it questions, what will we build it with questions, and how to fund such a project questions.

 

Think about it for a moment... a vast community "Brainstorming" the idea of creating a community driven flight simulator that is based upon the needs, the wants, the desires, of the community itself.

 

If there has ever been a time for a discussion regarding a solution to the lack of momentum, lack of creativity that utilizes modern technologies, functionality, feature sets, etc. etc. and the discussion of what, how, and when a next generation flight simulator could, should, or even ought to be built... that time is now.

 

If every one of the members of this flight simulator community looked closely at the past 9 years of flight simulator development we could only come to one logical conclusion....

 

If not Us... then Who?

 

Stephen Borick

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

"You might add them to your list, as they are still out there in some form within the professional market."

 

I'll take a look...

 

- Stephen B.