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

[srborick 0]

 

 

'The community'? Or were these gripes that a few individuals voiced about some detail they do not find in the sim or disagree with? (Bugs or technological shortcomings aside for a moment)
 
Don't mix up common misconceptions on the internet with what people actually, really  want.

 

OK... you're joking... right? 

 

Let's get away from the community for just a second... and ask ourselves... you and me... are we really satisfied with what has been happening over the past 8 and a half years in the world of flight simulation? Sure there has been some improvements brought about by addons, the inclusion of some well meaning features such as shadows and the such, but if we maintain the status quo where do you really see flight simulation in another 8 years?

 

My opinion is that if someone doesn't step in, whether it's a BIG Producer or it's us as a community... we're heading down the path that will lead us to know where in progressing the hobby that we all enjoy.

 

On the NGFS SIM-Posium is an article entitled "Then vs Now", I've compiled information so that those who are willing to step out just a tenny tiny bit, could readily see the advancement that has taken place over the past 9 years and the advancement that is coming in the near future. I invite you to take a look at that article and perhaps delve into the subject a little deeper to get a more complete picture of what the flight simulation community will more than likely miss out on.

 

Seriously... we all know that we're a niche market, that no BIG Producer is going to put the time and effort into a project that will only provide a profit of a few million dollars. 

 

It's a matter of choice, either we try our hardest to maintain status quo and watch our hobby disappear... or we join together to stop the hemorrhage and work together.

 

It's that simple.

 

Stephen B.

[mgh 89]

 

 

How should I know? There is not even a specification for it, is there? Or decision on the technology? I don't do function point analysis on things that have not been described yet.

 

Then how do you know that my estimate is wrong?

[srborick 0]

Outsourcing (hiring 'teams' from other countries) doesn't work quite as brilliantly as you might think.  I speak from professional experience.  It typically ends up costing more than budgeted because there is typically a great deal of rework required for completion and usability.

 

Wouldn't that depend on how well you did your research... again, you can't lump everyone who understands development and programming from other countries into a heap of folks who don't know what the heck they are doing. That is just simply not the case.

 

Stephen B.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

you can't lump everyone who understand development and programming from other countries into a heap of folks who don't know what the heck they are doing. That is just simply not the case.

 

Stephen B.

 

I was kind of cringing from what seemed like an awfully broad and uncompromising brush, but wasn't really sure what to say. It strikes a kind of sour note.

[DarkstarF16 72]

So at the risk if kicking my own dead horse, this is why I've believed that simply a flight simulator will just not cut it in today's market. People crave variety, different things to see and do and try. All planes all the time at this point, is a proven low-draw concept, and trying the same thing repeatedly and hoping for a different result is not logical.

 

(Kicks horse, sees a twitch.... shrugs)

 

Its why I keep suggesting something that's more than just a flight sim. Something that can expand into other genres and draw a wider audience.

From a funding perspective and from the "wow I must have that software" perspective I completely agree with you.

 

We need to think about how can we use "what's out there" to our advantage, to get whet we want. What can be created that's a multi platform simulation, let's call it an earth simulation, that will interest not only the flight sim community but many others too.

 

I simply feel that although some really good points have been made, the whole community is insular. We need to think BIG we need to think what else can be offered that will interest not just us, but a much wider audience.

 

The simple question is, what is a simulator trying to simulate? Take away the airplane and what are you left with? The software needs to simulate the planet in such a real way that everyone will want it.

 

This planet simulation will have real people driving cars, trains, taking their virtual pets for a walk. The virtual farmer ploughing his field. All this, in real time with real people doing their own virtual thing. Meanwhile, we will be flying our virtual aircraft under virtually controlled airspace into virtually managed airports.

 

Perhaps Ive gone a little way over the top! Just trying to make a point.

[srborick 0]

 

 

From a funding perspective and from the "wow I must have that software" perspective I completely agree with you.

We need to think about how can we use "what's out there" to our advantage, to get whet we want. What can be created that's a multi platform simulation, let's call it an earth simulation, that will interest not only the flight sim community but many others too.

I simply feel that although some really good points have been made, the whole community is insular. We need to think BIG we need to think what else can be offered that will interest not just us, but a much wider audience.

The simple question is, what is a simulator trying to simulate? Take away the airplane and what are you left with? The software needs to simulate the planet in such a real way that everyone will want it.

This planet simulation will have real people driving cars, trains, taking their virtual pets for a walk. The virtual farmer ploughing his field. All this, in real time with real people doing their own virtual thing. Meanwhile, we will be flying our virtual aircraft under virtually controlled airspace into virtually managed airports.

Perhaps Ive gone a little way over the top! Just trying to make a point.

 

Holy Cow! Finally! The vision is beginning to unfold.

 

I referred to it as creating a "Virgin Earth" allowing anything and everything conceivable to utilize the planet that is created.

 

Stephen B.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

 

 

I referred to it as creating a "Virgin Earth" allowing anything and everything conceivable to utilize the planet that is created.
 

 

Honestly, every engine you can easily think of out there is heading that way, and that's not a coincidence. They know that variety sells..

[DarkstarF16 72]

Holy Cow! Finally! The vision is beginning to unfold.

 

I referred to it as creating a "Virgin Earth" allowing anything and everything conceivable to utilize the planet that is created.

 

Stephen B.

Haha, we'll we be both (and some others too) know that is the way forward and how to fund this project successfully. Imagine the whole world playing in a virtual world! How cool is that? We could all talk to each other too in a common language. And yes, that can be done. I'm playing a virtual game right now where the majority of the wolds languages are translated in real time.

[mgh 89]

 

 

My estimate is based on a couple of things:

What's the value is your estmate?

 

 

 

Outsourcing (hiring 'teams' from other countries) doesn't work quite as brilliantly as you might think.

I've worked with multi-country projects in europe  and they all have problems. Inevitably, partners to to avoid their own costs by arguing that the other partner's responsibilty.

[srborick 0]

What's the value is your estmate?

 

 

 

I've worked with multi-country projects in europe  and they all have problems. Inevitably, partners to to avoid their own costs by arguing that the other partner's responsibilty.

 

Gerry, your experience is not the whole of the matter.

 

I worked for Electronic Data Center for several years and we outsourced all over the world. It is because of that capability that EDS is the company it is today.

 

If you want to go beyond computers and programmers/developers and the such, consider Boeing, LM, Virgin, and many, many others. 

 

So let's just chalk your experience up as a bad one... it certainly doesn't mean that every case is a bad one.

 

Stephen B.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

It's a matter of choice, either we try our hardest to maintain status quo and watch our hobby disappear... or we join together to stop the hemorrhage and work together.

 

Its my understanding that the "big names" in flight simulation got together to discuss just this subject. Part of the big push behind promoting X-plane 10 was that it was to be the next platform for the advancement of Flight simulation.

 

Laminar never deviated much from its own singular course to support that, it seems, and from as far as I can see, the effort has fallen a bit flat. Total status quo. Now P3D is the great hope because..... what the heck else is there? But much as we gather around the campfire, P3D is FSX technology, and that tech is old.

 

I keep thinking of that scene in Life of Brian, where Hy Brazil is sinking, and the natives reaction.

 

(I hope not, though) 

 

[DarkstarF16 72]

Ive worked with China and India. The only thing that's different is they have a different culture to ours.

[srborick 0]

 

 

I keep thinking of that scene in Life of Brian, where Hy Brazil is sinking, and the natives reaction.

 

That's Great! What a great chuckle among all this deep thinking....

 

And yet... there seems to be a message there me thinks.

 

Stephen B.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

That's Great! What a great chuckle among all this deep thinking....

 

And yet... there seems to be a message there me thinks.

 

Stephen B.

 

I thought we needed a chuckle. Sometimes a discussion that has no real reason to be, can get too..... fraught.

[dtmicro 1]

No, everyone is going to be costly (except the PM). This isn't the kind of project you can get a half-dozen VB monkeys to work on. This is multi-threaded C++ code, DirectX 12 code, and then multi-threaded DirectX code. For the scenery data, you need people who've done extensive GIS work and can source and convert the necessary data.

 

Very very little C++ Coding is required these days, that is for coding a game engine or a huge blockbuster title with 50+ million. Interfacing with a pre-existing game engine usually does not require C++. Most of the engines expose a scripting language, in the case of Unity they have a couple options, one being a proprietary Javascript like API, and some others. There would likely be a few modules that would need to be moved over to C++ for optimizations on some floating point and some custom Poly stuff the game engine wasn't handling (only cause flight sim needs some special coding), but overall you could actually 100% write the game in C # as a wrapper over a game engine, which is absolutely the way I would recommend doing it. Then you later convert bits and pieces from C# to C++ where mass optimization is needed only if you hit a road block on performance in some area. Even when they build their own engine, most of the core game was still usually created by scripting the engine with whatever scripting language the engine exposes, not inside the engine itself in C++.

 

The days of needing to use C++ for every game is over, unless you want to code your own engine or are trying to port to multiple systems. One reason C# is not used in more games is because it's nearly impossible to port it to a PS 4 or Xbox, Apple, whatever without rewriting it. Whereas with C++ they have a lot of helper libraries and SDK's to aid in the process (though it's still hard).

 

Even blockbuster games that do not use their own engine are rarely done purely in C++ (some of it is). Sure, when they build their own engine or when they change the underlying game engine code, or if they just want it as optimized as possible because of the user base they are targeting. Some games are done in Objective C (Apple), regular C (instead of C++), Java (Android), even Python scripting. Not to say that a lot of times you do not need to add tid-bits of C++ code still for optimizing, you do, but most of the time the CORE work to wrap a game engine is going to be in the scripting of the engine, not the coding of the game.

 

The game would be coded in C #, not C++. The DirectX12 capabilities in any modern game engine are going to handle all of the actual graphics work so that the actual coding is simply going to be interfacing with the engine and then writing extensible add-ons to handle the math.

 

My experience:

2 family members in the gaming industry, software dev for more years than I'd like to admit, etc.. etc... (bla bla bla)

Also, if the budget were only 2.5 mil, you're going to produce nothing more than a skeleton game unless someone is just exceptional at managing open source programmers that are contributing for free. The game would need a very experienced high-dollar architect to manage the quality control if using open source coders to interface with, whomever were to take this role would need to understand how to lock the design and be great at version control documentation as to keep everything in order.

 

The budget for a basic flight sim that would be NEXT GEN, needs to be around 5 - 10 million, and that is if the game were 95% developed in C# with only a few C++ interfaces for optimizations added, and then you can leave the rest of the coding to the add-on developers.