However... it doesn't provide the fidelity that I would expect from any next generation flight simulator. One only needs to visit Yosemite National Park or the Grand Canyon in Anteworld to see what I'm referring to.

 

A noted problem having to do with the data resolution, and the issue was recently discussed on the site. Hence the preview of the higher resolution dataset in recent days. Like all of the solutions being looked at, there are things that will need to be addressed.

 

In fact if you look at the site, Outerra has so many projects happening at the same time that it's hard to keep track of some of it. FDM's, Scenery, datasets. Clickable cockpits, New vehicles, Aerokinetics, New road and placement tool updates (including for trains) forestry remapping..... it goes on and on, and Outerra is a moving target..

 

In hashing out the best options, I suspect there is going to have to be a lot of give and take as pluses and minuses are assessed and totalled.

In hashing out the best options, I suspect there is going to have to be a lot of give and take as pluses and minuses are assessed and totalled.

 

Absolutely agree...

 

UNITY 3D probably won't make the cut because of it limitations... but, the level of fidelity as shown in this video, is phenomenal...

 

https://youtu.be/dGK41ly5UOk

 

Now take a look at the following video and see the before and afters of what a small group of individuals were able to accomplish...just because they put their minds to it.

 

(I think a total of 4 people combined their individual project to produce the afters)

 

https://youtu.be/MtJTyf_6iRg

I also have questioned if Unity is up to this Stephen, but it does have easy multiplatform, which is a bonus

Does Unity have a round earth?

Does Unity have a round earth?

 

That's one of its limitations...

 

But... what I think is notable is the amount of detail that just 4 guys were able to achieve through the modules that they developed. 

Stephen B.

That's one of its limitations...

 

But... what I think is notable is the amount of detail that just 4 guys were able to achieve through the modules that they developed. 

Stephen B.

 

I thought so. Just wanted to make sure.

I wanted to show folks the power of modern technologies regarding to time and efficiency... this is just one example.   - Stephen B. 

 

TerrainComposer

 

TerrainComposer is an Unity Extension Tool that enables developers to compose AAA quality Unity Terrain. It is also a Scene/Level Composer. It uses the standard Unity Terrain, and with a few clicks you can create astonishing results. It has a friendly GUI interface, is very easy to learn and its unlimited multi-threading output possibilities makes it a very powerful tool. Creating terrain that normally takes days or weeks to make, with this tool it only takes a few minutes! Saving you tons of work and time. Speed, quality and realism is the strength of this tool. And it’s curve, layer and filter based! The possibilities are endless. The layers and filters can be used for example to blend splat textures on height, random, degree, normals or an image etc. A small change in a curve or filter gives a totally different terrain. LINK

 

 

 

When I was showing cities: skylines in another thread, what I was attempting to convey is that I think its time for "static" worlds to end. Any new flightsim should have an environment that's as malleable as clay, allowing even the uninitiated to go in and place buildings, airports, streets, forests.........

 

When I go into a sim and see a lake or a road is missing, or that my house is a gas station hanging in the air of the side of a cliff. I want to be able to go in and fix it. Now!

 

And not have to learn arcane tools with stinky interfaces designed only for the most dedicated enthusiasts. I want trees to automatically stay off of roads and runways and avoid houses. I want roads that don't go sideways up mountains, I want buildings that don't hang in midair and I want to do all of this with a modern graphics with good framerates.

 

I'm actually not all that concerned about the actual planes, because making sim planes is a mature technology, there are so many tools and aids and skilled hobbyists and legacy models running around that..... if there is a sim, planes, of whatever quality, will come.

 

Proland: 2010 technology. On an Nvidia 470 and 1 gig of ram! Dont like the scenery? Then change it! Mold it like clay.

So... 

The question is... how do we help people to understand that a next generation flight simulator is really as close as we want it to be?

 

Stephen B.

So...

The question is... how do we help people to understand that a next generation flight simulator is really as close as we want it to be?

 

Stephen B.

Personally, I think its as close as we want it to be. This reminds me so much of a project I was involved in (and ultimately led) where we took a bunch of unrelated emerging technology and knitted it into something completely new that had not been done before. It was not easy and the sceptics said it could not be done. How wrong were they?

 

Personally, I think your biggest asset is momentum. This needs to be nurtured and used to full advantage.

 

Bri.

So... 

The question is... how do we help people to understand that a next generation flight simulator is really as close as we want it to be?

 

Hi Stephen. I don't think you do need to 'help people to understand that a next generation flight simulator is really as close as we want it to be?' Thats like saying the moon is as close as we want it to be.

 

You mentioned earlier about the small group of people who created the Unity/RTP demo.  I doubt if those guys spent months debating the subject and asking "how do we help people to understand ....?" They just did it, on a small scale admittedly. 

 

In my opinion what I'm reading on this thread is what's been debated over and over for years on this very forum, i.e. people are swapping valid ideas and fantasies and posting links to various demos of 3D engines without actually producing anything concrete. Granted that everything concrete first starts as an idea, but when do we break away from the wishful talking?

 

Posted in good faith,

 

Best wishes,

 

PH

For me, looking at it from the outside. I would say just the effort of constructing, paying for and opening the nexgen site is a step above and beyond the simple random discussions had here for however long. Contacting people like Unigine and getting access to the demo when it apparently never even occurred to the rest of us, also scores points. Rallying interested people to the website, and defending the entire concept here is yet another step.

 

Considering its only been a few weeks since the official opening of the site, which is still in the process of seeing who might be interested in stepping forward to do what, I think things are probably not going too horribly. After all, we're talking the first baby steps of a process that by any realistic expectation should take years.

 

I remember that for many months while Aerosoft looked at engines and mulled whether they would proceed, they had the "what would you like to see" thread running. I think this whole endeavour is still in the "spread the word and gather people stage"

 

Even after thinking about this sort of thing for years, I'm at a loss as to how else Stephen B. might proceed in this instance. I think everyone who thinks this has even the slimmest of chances would be more than interested in any concrete suggestions as to how all of this could be approached more efficiently.

For me, looking at it from the outside. I would say just the effort of constructing, paying for and opening the nexgen site is a step above and beyond the simple random discussions had here for however long.

 

Fair point, Devon, and kudos to Stephen for getting his site up and running.  But as far as I can see the site has very few commentators, and they simply bounce ideas and theories around - pretty much as we've done here on this forum for years (which I've enjoyed, but eventually it all fizzles out for a while in frustration at the lack of anything concrete being achieved despite people like ourselves posting links to inspiring videos and tech demos etc).. 

 

On the plus side, there is much more interest in Stephen's project here on this AVSIM thread (over 8,000 views!!) than elsewhere in the FS community or the Sim-Posium website, so there's hope yet I guess..But I still have my doubts.....

 

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/next-generation-flight-simulator-sim-posium-is-now-open.434012/

 

Quote of the week

 

'It's very easy to be overly optimistic, but the truth still remains that the amount of funding required to make a truly "next gen" flight sim and within a reasonable time frame is far out of this community's reach. There's just not enough of us'.

-HughesMDflyer4

Fair point, Devon, and kudos to Stephen for getting his site up and running.  But as far as I can see it has very few members still and they simply bounce ideas and theories around - pretty much as we've done here on this forum for years (which I've enjoyed, but eventually it all fizzles out for a while in frustration at the lack of anything concrete being achieved despite people like ourselves posting links to inspiring videos and tech demos etc).. 

 

There seems to be more interest in Stephen's project here on this AVSIM thread than elsewhere in the FS community (even than on the Sim-Posium website), so there's hope yet I guess....

 

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/next-generation-flight-simulator-sim-posium-is-now-open.434012/

 

The initiative does need someone to make concrete decisions and be seen to be making them in the absence of the type of debate and contribution that was sought on the site. In the absence of a project coordinator, someone has to coordinate as best they can until someone more qualified comes along or is eventually hired. That really needs to be Stephen imo as who else is there let's face it. Simply waiting for others to step forward from the community hasn't and doesn't appear like it is going to work as I see it as things stand.

The focus needs to shift from the site to the project if there is to be one. As you say, people want to see concrete achievements. It seems to me that the decision on which engine to use makes itself so that should be an easy one. The design of a crowdfunding campaign then needs to be the focus as it's the only way this will ever get off the ground. This is all just my opinion though.

This reminds me of a group of fraightened people, discussing how they are going to kill the great killer shark in Long Island Sound. And there's one quiet person in the back listening. After everyone is done shouting, he speaks up: "I'll do it".

As I said before, the sim community already has very capable individuals with the expertise, the code, and the ability to put it all together.

I mentioned Simon Herdasky( behind AS2 and Aerosoft AS3, which was dropped with no explanation) and Aerowinx, just to mention a few. These guys have spent decades putting together their sims our of their own pockets. If people feel so confident that they could  collect 1,000,000, I am sure that one of these folks would step up and say, "I'll do it".  There's no need to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is there. The expertise and technologies are there. It's only time and money and the right individual who'll say , I'll do it. 

 

To this end, if Stephen's site can turn into a crowd sourcing site that can attract the right individual, voila we get a new sim. From this point on, we have to trust "the leader" that the money will be well spent.

Keep it up Stephen.

tony