The New Faster, Leaner Next Generation Flight Simulator SIM-Posium is Now Available for Your Input

[liketofly1 11]

 

 

On a lighter note. Perhaps this company is wealthy and willing enough to help fund and produce the next-gen flightsim. >>
(The textures might appear a bit blocky close up, but from a distance can look amazing ;-)
 
Demo 1
https://youtu.be/UROyy6ZPnUg?t=131
 
Demo 2 - Crash damage modelling demo
https://youtu.be/YRXoY2yWnmU

 

:wink: I love the crash modelling....

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Just something I bumped into while studying all of this. I just thought it was an interesting, in the same way I once thought Silver-lining was interesting. Here is the demo: https://github.com/GameTechDev/CloudsGPUPro6/archive/master.zip

 

I like keeping an eye on what's happening in graphics, "out there" 

 

You never can tell when something might be good to know.

 

https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2014/08/31/cloud-rendering-sample-updated

 

[TooWings 17]

:wink: I love the crash modelling....

 

Yeah, me too. All that work to build them and 5 seconds to destroy em.

 

..and a.virtual aircraft....

https://youtu.be/IEp1Cnrkc1s?t=17

[liketofly1 11]

@HiFlyer

 

Those clouds look phenominal.... would be nice in the NGFS...... :wub:

 

@ PropheadX

 

Nice video - excellent flight model - however the other graphics seem to be the same of the old stuff....

[arsenal82 120]

Two reasons...

One... it promotes activity on the NGFS SIM-Posium

Two... UNIGINE Sim asked us to provide access only on our site and to our members.

 

So... there you go....

 

 

Stephen Borick

 

==========================

 

good luck !

[srborick 0]

Without a doubt it's all about the numbers.

 

Any successful attempt to create a community driven next generation flight simulator is totally dependent upon the number of people inside the flight simulator community and outside the community who are willing to get involved in the discussion, the planning, the opportunities, as well as the development of a next generation flight simulator.

 

Otherwise... we just settle for what we have and for what is coming in the future.

 

The biggest challenge that I've seen since the initial announcement of the NGFS SIM-Posium is not the opposition (as I've seen more positive comments over the last few days) but it's getting those 10,000 and growing hits this thread has received to move from curiosity to action. 

 

Imagine if we got those 10,000 hits over at the SIM-Posium and each hit added bits and pieces of ideas from which to formulate a solid plan for production.

 

Activity on the site is paramount and without it, visitors of all kinds of skills and talents are just passing us by.

 

Yes, the SIM-Posium membership is growing, but we're lacking activity... now imagine, some of you smart folks adding your vision, your talents to the mix. 

 

Earlier one of the responses to this thread stated "how many ideas do you actually need to get started?" To answer that question is pretty simple... if I wanted to go out there and just build a flight simulator based upon what I wanted, I could do that, no other ideas would be required. Now my idea of a flight simulator may just appeal to a few people who see things as I do, but it probably wouldn't appeal to enough people to sustain that product for too very long.

 

By gathering ideas, inputs as to the features that the majority of people want to see in a next generation flight simulator, increases momentum and with momentum you have a spreading of the sentiments of the SIM-Posium, which is, that we really are all about a community driven flight simulator. It also instills confidence as to what we're trying to achieve and with confidence you have commitment. With enough commitment you have the means to develop. 

 

As I said... it's all about the numbers... and it very well could be that we don't have the numbers interested in a community driven flight simulator to even get past curiosity and actually take action. 178 days and counting is sufficient time to find out. 

 

Stephen B.

[magicmike 10]

I never got an activation link after signing up for the symposium.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Just an aside. Something I saw at another site. This is a "hardcore" space simulation game still in Alpha. Unfortunately, it was a little too hardcore, and failed to reach its goals in kickstarter despite looking very promising. For me, the lessons are at least twofold. One is that any nextgen sim has to appeal to the widest possible audience, because as we all know, we are very unlikely to have the numbers to do it alone.

 

So.

 

No sims that start you in the cockpit of a 747 staring in shocked horror at a zillion buttons without a darned good and friendly tutorial system! Even (oh, no!!) Missions! Lets have some fun!!!

 

Second, this is a great example of a multi talented individual who didn't ask permission or let the common wisdom about things being unlikely or hard stop him. Nor did he even wait for a team. He simply went ahead and did it. There are actually a lot of individuals (or very tiny teams) out there doing great things. Just because MS might need 75 people to decide to tie its own shoes does not mean everyone else is similarly constrained. 

 

I wish him luck!!

 

[dtmicro 1]

I've been in software dev for a very long time, here are my thoughts...

 

Anything is possible given the right amount of motivation, luck, timing, and resources. The biggest problem to this idea is I think it puts the cart before the horse. If you really want to get people interested in the idea, then you need a smaller goal as a start. I would find something you can do within the flight software community to get a user base (whether that be reviews, blogs, add-ons, or preferably a combination of all), rather than going straight for the gusto of HEY Let's get a user-base going to throw around ideas of creating the next gen flight sim. Since you seem like a managerial type personality, maybe head over to a recruitment forum and review existing projects, and try to get people to work together on a smaller goal. Then after having finished this smaller project, use what you learned to build onto it and continue your symposium. Not saying

to shut down your symposium, just saying try something else in addition if you can.

 

The #1 most important recipe for success for this type of project (if it were to get off the ground), is to design the software in such a way that extensibility is very simple for anyone to code on it. Then various versions of things come into existence, and the one that is most successful becomes the standard and gets integrated into the core "official product". Then you can establish an add-on community with a centralized portal that can manage the flood of add-ons and group them by quality. The problem we have in FSX with all the add-ons, is some are just atrocious and just spam for the most part. It should have been managed better.

 

That said, I'm not against this at all, nor am I for it. I'm neutral at the moment, but I think the approach is coming at a too steep of an angle. You had to start somewhere though, so I suppose doing something is better than nothing, but you may need to refine your approach.

 

As far as an engine for rendering a Flight Sim World goes

The hardest parts about a next gen flight sim (well there are several difficult parts), but I'd say overall the most complicated programming is the physics landing and turbulence model and weather engine, though some of that is assisted by various game engines to varying degrees, it's going to have to be HEAVILY modded by an expert in flight physics.

 

The above is the most complex, but not necessarily the most time consuming part, the most time consuming part will be the graphics, the rendering, and dealing with 3D coordinate systems (always fun!)...

 

I don't see how using Outerra would save all that much time, as I'm guessing it is too limited (it looks exceptional, true, but...)... You could just render the world using something like Terragen and Vue D'Esprit probably almost as easily by just having different add-on designers. There are really only about 20 different types of scenery that exist on the earth (excluding a few freak places here and there). Not certain these two products have a successful enough or automated enough way to compress the poly counts and MIP MAPs, but they've been out for so long I'm guessing they do.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

I don't see how using Outerra would save all that much time, as I'm guessing it is too limited (it looks exceptional, true, but...)

 

Limited in what ways exactly: as it's hard to provide additional information without something more specific.

[dtmicro 1]

Too much encapsulation is likely, not a refined enough API for development. Anytime you try to use something pre-built engine-wise in software that hasn't been used in a lot of projects (and thereby NO REFINED API), you will always run into limitations. The problem is these limitations are sometimes not found until you are 50% or more into a project, and they can be absolute deal breakers.

 

I'd think it'd be easier to use any of the other more established game engines, because they don't overly encapsulate anything, as most of the things that are encapsulated are by necessity rather than by lack of a refined API.

 

That is just a guess, I don't know and I really couldn't know, the problem in software is the same as in statistics, it's NOT KNOWING what you DONT KNOW. That is what always kills a project, and unfortunately in too many cases that issue arises. If you at least know what you don't know, then you can be cautious of it, but that's easier said than done.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

That is just a guess, I don't know and I really couldn't know, the problem in software is the same as in statistics, it's NOT KNOWING what you DONT KNOW. That is what always kills a project, and unfortunately in too many cases that issue arises. If you at least know what you don't know, then you can be cautious of it, but that's easier said than done.

 

There's no real answer to that since there are no specific facts to be refuted. 

 

Having actually followed them closely, I'm aware of the developers repeatedly stated intention to work hand in hand with any team wishing to make a sim. I know that they have worked on multiple projects to adapt their software for different uses, probably the largest being TitanIM. I know that their Flight dynamics engine is JSBSIM, in use successfully for years by Flightgear, I know they are working (testing) Osm integration similar to X-plane, and clickable cockpit functionality....... I know others are working on FDMs, avionics and other simulation related basics. I know that they are working on expanding their content creation functionality...

 

They also have an enthusiastic, and growing community of their own.

 

Those are just some of the things known, but those accomplishments can't really provide an answer to concerns that there might be some unknown issue, since that could actually apply to all of these engines being discussed. None of them are specifically designed to be a flightsim, and as you noted, there would have to be heavy modifications made to all of them, perhaps less so with Outerra because right at this moment Outerra is in the midst of making those modifications themselves, with flight simulation as a specific goal. (amongst others)

 

I like Unigine as well, but wouldn't count Outerra out without a specific objection, that either can or cannot be addressed.

 

Probably best to look at the Outerra information at the NexGen site, or visit the Outerra site itself. Or (hey!) maybe even the Outerra forum, here! 

[dtmicro 1]

Just Cause 3 should be interesting on how they did the dynamics of the engine, it looks cutting edge on flying.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-28-heres-our-first-look-at-just-cause-3-in-action

[ryanbatc 12,855]

The website seems down (from the OP's first post)...

 

Did something bad happen?

[HiFlyer 9,359]

The website seems down (from the OP's first post)...

 

Did something bad happen?

Working perfectly fine for me.