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

[tonywob 4,769]

ORBX are very likely to heavily defend FSX/P3D as it's their core market. IMO, the other sims are ahead graphically (X-Plane, AeroflyFS, DCS, Flight etc..) but both have catching up to do in terms of features such as ATC/AI, etc..

 

I know it's already been discussed earlier, but we already have an opensource flight simulator for years now (FlightGear), and although it's still being actively developed, it's still some way from even FS9. If a new engine is created then I'm sure there is already a large chunk of code that can be ported, including the flight dynamics, scenery loaders, OSM support, etc, but it would be nice for this project to get some more support instead of starting a new one.

 

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the physics engine used by FlightGear is also being used for the planes inside Outerra.

[dtmicro 1]

We're not sure where this is going yet, those kind of decisions are premature. If it were to get funding, then it might not even start as an open source project. Most of the code would not be worth it to port it over, there are going to be unique challenges in this engine. It will be a while before we even start thinking about "which physics engine or which flight plugin".

 

Even before it gets to a crowd funding point, we would have to do a bunch of stuff ahead of time.

 

I do not see the OSM data as being the big hurdle, we can always import the data on an approximated coordinate system temporarily until Unigine finishes their GIS coordinate capabilities (which are in their roadmap doc as Q3 this year I think).

The big hurdle with this is going to be the graphics work and procedural generation at next-level graphics with multiple world textures (deserts, beaches, etc...), as well as performance optimizations. That said, it's already been proven by Unigine themselves that they have the capability of procedurally rendering (their method is probably partly texture based) a large area for believable sim graphics, that in at least some ways looks better than even SOME 30cm PR scenery, especially close to ground level.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the physics engine used by FlightGear is also being used for the planes inside Outerra.

 

Tony

 

 

Yes, Outerra is using the JSBSIM open source flight dynamics model, and that is shared with Flightgear. An advantage is a huge amount of people intimately familiar with it, and probably a bajillion planes and other things that can be ported over to Outerra with little modification. Its also open source, which means no problems adding features by those with the necessary skills. A further strength is that it's already available for Linux and Mac as well as Windows, which is a plus for portability of the sim later. I believe one of Outerras licensees requires that they port to those other operating systems.

 

Outerra also currently uses the Bullet collision detection and physics library (rigid body and soft body simulation) which is also open source. Its been used in both games and movies and has plugins for everything from Maya, to Softimage, Houdini, Blender, Lightwave, Collada...... etc.

 

In other words, Outerra is being set up to be not only very versatile (you can use whatever libraries you want) but extremely portable. When I question the developers, its very very clear they have this planned out in very great detail (64bit, Osm, VR, etc) having in mind not only a background for planes (or whatever) but a living, breathing world. Provided they keep growing as they have and get funding, I expect a formidable platform.

 

My main worry, actually, Is that some huge mega conglomerate will notice them, and attempt to swallow them whole. If that ever happens, I hope modders and enthusiasts can get planes to be so deeply imbedded in the concept that continuing along that path (among others) is a no-brainer.

 

As an aside.

 

"Yah. What Orbx would have to say was pretty predictable and I just smiled. After all, what else could they say!?  :blink:

[dtmicro 1]

Well I imagine those modules can be integrated into Unigine with some good coding, and Unigine also has ways of importing the needed things.

 

Outerra is a real accomplishment, but it's in alpha, and it shows. The clouds are basically volumetric blobs, the ground lighting has issues with reflections and too dark under trees. The transitions between high altitude and low altitude are not seamless. The variety of textures is still too early and some textures do not really fit in its overall scheme. Outerra doesn't have an established API with developer samples. It takes 3 seconds or so sometimes for the fractal algorithms to update the textures. The developers themselves may have an accidental conflict of interest with anyone wanting to build a flight sim, since they said they may go to pitch it to kickstarter when ready. It lacks some standardized interfaces and only supports OpenGL with no Direct3D/DirectX support. From what I saw, it has a very basic scripting engine and not a fully developed one conducive of the other engines. Not a single major title has been built yet with Outerra (it's just too much in its early stages). At least with Unigine, there are some semi-major game titles already built, and it's benchmarking applications are nationally known in the rendering world, even though no AAA game titles AFIK.

 

That is just a few problems.

 

That said, Unigine is not perfect either, nothing is, but Unigine has a semi-polished system that just needs to be optimized.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

The developers themselves may have an accidental conflict of interest with anyone wanting to build a flight sim, since they said they may go to pitch it to kickstarter when ready.

 

I wouldn't print the Outerra feature list because its already easily available at the site. I agree they are very early, and they say so themselves that it's a work in progress. All the points you make are valid, and as you said there is no perfect solution. In fact if Unigine is chosen, I have no problem with it at all: heck you are apparently going to be the major driver, and who is I?"

 

I would just say that Outerra remains a major possibility. For the cloud thing, I wouldn't worry, they are just trying to make the most efficient clouds possible and are still experimenting, because they have the very ambitious dream of worldwide cloud coverage seamlessly from orbit, which means they are working on something extremely clever, and again trying some very innovative techniques. The unigine clouds in the demo are not even real (try reaching them) so its not a huge issue. as you said, nothing has all the answers. I believe many of the things you raised do have replies, but I don't believe this is the place for them.

 

The kickstarter they are mentioning is not really a conflict of interest I believe, because they are speaking of a multisim. The kickstarter for a flightsim first was always part of their discussion of working hand in hand with this community, the only company I know of offering a direct partnership to modify their tech specifically to meet our needs. If it's Unigine, then its unigine for this project, but Outerra is always..... there, and they have thought it out in some detail, how to work with us.  :smile:

 

With regards to flight simulator development, we have been contacted by various flight sim companies ever since the first video with the Cessna test flight. The problem with flight sim scene is that it is arguably the most demanding game/sim area, with a disproportionately sized user base for that. Investors do not exactly rush to fund development of new simulator platforms, more so after Microsoft pulled out. Development requires expertise in many areas. Many simmers want nothing less than a replica of the real world, or something as close as possible to it. That not only requires a very robust base capable of handling a large amount of data, but also creating tons of content for it. Compare that with typical games that focus primarily on some concrete game play and are usually cheaper to make but able to gain a much wider (though more temporary) user base.

 

Currently we have ongoing discussions with several companies and developers operating in the flight sim business, with the larger ones actually interested in (possibly) making a new simulator. Don't get your hopes high though - this is business, the numbers are tough and addon/hw makers do not have large software systems development experience that's a necessity here. That all contributes to a high risk, and after the initial determination and enthusiasm it mostly breaks down on the money and the breadth of development scope.

 

As we wrote in 2013 Retrospective, 2014 Look Ahead blog post, another option to fund relatively niche products (or products considered niche by conventional investors) is to crowd-fund the simulator development by launching a Kickstarter campaign to develop an open simulator platform based on the Outerra engine. Making the simulator would involve assembling a dedicated development team working on the simulator functionality and closely working together with our core engine team and also with other addon developers to create a rich ecosystem for it.

 

The question is whether the community will be able and willing to support a project like that. I was quite surprised how much positive feedback we were getting through the huge "Interesting future for Outerra"thread, and we are grateful to HiFlyer for his constant promotional effort there. But how would it would work on Kickstarter - that's still very hard to tell.

To elevate the chances of success, there are several things that we believe need to be done first:

• A prototype demonstrating all the potential and important basic capabilities.

   

  Generally, for successful campaign we will need a prototype showcasing the potential and addressing the main concerns. The prototype is also needed for other developers that would want to prepare and develop early for the simulator. That means enhanced scenery tools, stuff like basic weather support, plugin support for simulation cores, 3D cockpits and instrument rendering, support for other simulator types (mainly the rails for the prototype) and more.

  Note that even though these will be fully developed as a part of the simulator work, initial versions have to be created for the prototype to convince a significant part of the target audience.

   

• Getting support or endorsement from addon and HW makers early in the process, best ahead of the campaign launch.

   

  The prototype already needs to be created with this in mind, as the addon makers are essential for the success of the platform, and also the crowd-funding goals could be hardly achievable without some declaration of support from the developers.

   

• Making the simulator platform universal, suitable not only for flight but also other simulator types - vehicles and rails, sea and deep waters as well as the space, to make it appealing to a wider user base. With Outerra it's realistically achievable on a global scale.

   

  There's more to it - our goal is actually to make it possible to plug in multiple simulator cores, even for the same type. For example, ground vehicles can be simulated in a simple way as it is currently done in the tech demo, where they are using a simplified physics core with raycast wheels. There could be a more advanced simulation plugin possibly developed by a racing specialist, where tires and transmission are simulated in complex way. Aircraft are currently using JSBSim core, but the simulator is meant to be designed in a way that developers can plug their own core, and have other developers using it instead of the default one for their models.

   

  This has also some downsides, as some hardcore flight simmers will fear that a universal simulator will compromise on the flight sim aspect, so this needs to be addressed in the campaign.

There's a lot more things that have to be addressed for such a project, but these are probably the most important ones early on. The prototype will probably take most of the time, depending how far we'll have to go with it. We would welcome your opinions in this regard - where to draw the line between what the prototype must have and what's best left for the project itself, balancing the time needed for the former with a reduced workforce vs. the enticing potential of the campaign when less of it is shown in the prototype.

 

Of course, if crowd-funding becomes the chosen way to create an OT-based simulator platform, it will be essentially driven by you, and we would like to hear your opinions on every aspect of it. This newly created forum looks like an ideal start point for the discussion.

 

Thanks everybody in advance for participation!

[dtmicro 1]

I wouldn't print the Outerra feature list because its already easily available at the site. I agree they are very early, and they say so themselves that it's a work in progress. All the points you make are valid, and as you said there is no perfect solution. In fact if Unigine is chosen, I have no problem with it at all: heck you are apparently going to be the major driver, and who is I?"

 

I'm not claiming to be the major driver of this project, I'm just the first guy that stepped up that happens to be able to code with some spare time to contribute, and some resources. If anything, I may be as valuable or more valuable on the business side or as a project consultant than as a programmer.

 

I know I probably sounded a bit arrogant MUCH earlier in the thread (several posts ago), but I was just responding to the flack this project was getting in general as if we are some "kids with a dream". I'm a middle aged man with a mission.

 

I am not so worried about the market conditions for a Next-Gen Flight Sim, because I believe there is a solution to that. I haven't myself yet thought of the solution, but I think we or someone will find away to broaden the audience, and therefore the potential budget and revenue stream.

 

I didn't post the full Unigine list of features, only the bottom part (which is really what sold me), because I think most people probably skipped over that page since it's very long. Unigine has some interesting features for sure.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Here is what I believe to be true

-----------------------------------------------------

 

My thinking is that there are only two feasible choices at the moment in a realistic budget, either UE4 or Unigine, but the issues I see with UE4 is a potentially longer development path because it appears Unigine is already on the path to making things easier for flight sims, some of the GIS stuff is in their roadmap.

 

Unigine also has a MUCH smaller user base, so it means we will be able to influence their dev team more than the other bigger engines. UE4 does provide the source code for direct modifications, but Unigine provides enough such as the full code for the shaders and the WYSIWYG editor, and that's what I care most about is having that source code. That means we could possibly distribute a modified version of their editor directly to the Add-on Developers (if their licensing would allow), and the SweetFX shader like system is pretty much already built.

 

CryEngine3 seems too tedious for a mid-level budget sim, and look how long Star Citizen has been under development and how many changes they have had to extend to the engine. It's also been touted by nearly every UE4 convert that CE3 was always a bit harder to do things in.

 

Now is Unigine harder than UE4, I believe if you are making a shooter, maybe. If you are making a flight sim, I think Unigine is the simplest because of the direction it is heading...

[srborick 0]

Another thing to keep in mind when selecting which engine to use is the overall direction that the developers themselves are taking and it's clear, at least to me, that UNIGINE Sim v2 is being developed as a simulator platform. This is good news in so many ways if we are making a conscience decision to go beyond flight simulation in the future.

 

What is equally important... since the goal is sustainability and continuous progression is the fact that UNIGINE is asking for our input. Now to me... that's a clincher. Any 3D engine developer who ask what we need and we have even the slightest influence in the direction and features that are included into v2 as well as future builds... I'd say that's definitely a bird in the hand.

 

Stephen B.

[dtmicro 1]

Stephen:

 

You sent me a PM reply in your forum, but I never received it (just a repeat of what I sent came back to me), looks like an issue with the PM system or something...

[srborick 0]

I'll look into it.

 

Stephen B.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

For anyone that may be interested in the development of a next generation flight simulator the NGFS SIM-Posium activity level is on the rise. More and more folks are joining daily and adding to the conversation. 

 

Your welcomed to drop by and see what the buzz is all about.

 

Stephen B.

nexgenflightsim

[srborick 0]

Refresh 5/13/2015

[tonywob 4,769]

That said, it's already been proven by Unigine themselves that they have the capability of procedurally rendering (their method is probably partly texture based) a large area for believable sim graphics, that in at least some ways looks better than even SOME 30cm PR scenery, especially close to ground level.

 

Some people will not be happy with just plausible looking scenery generated by algorithms, many prefer real roads and buildings from real data that they can recognise, and realistic textures. I've been working on regional autogenerated scenery for X-Plane (i.e. Buildings not based on OSM building footprints), and my initial impression is that the idea isn't very popular (At least in the X-Plane world) and people prefer the uglier extruded 2D building on real photoscenery approach. Remembering of course that it's a flight simulator, which doesn't necessarily need to look good at ground level (excluding the airport). I'm been trying to find a way to have the best of both worlds, i.e. Pretty autogen with nice matching ground textures, but my platform of choice is too limiting and lack of developer support, tools and documentation has proved to be very frustrating. Additionally, good quality "free" GIS data is very hard to find, and is a huge limiting factor in having realistic buildings/roads across the entire globe. OSM simply isn't good enough on its own

 

Another point is that having GTA 5 style scenery is unrealistic, i.e. having people walking around, virtual farmers ploughing fields is simply overkill for a flight simulator (Although it would be nice). Many simmers spend most of their time at 37,000ft looking at an FMC and not out the window, spending a large amount of resources and time trying to get the edge of a road to look perfect, or rendering 3D grass to match the wind is not something that I personally believe is needed, but if the engine can support it out of the box without killing performance, then it's always a bonus. Listening to the same feedback and complaints from users in the X-Plane forum, scenery is nice but so is realistic ATC, physics and weather simulation, so let's not forget that as well.

 

 

Any possible future flight sim should put more weight on making it easier for developers to work with and not lock them out. As proved by FSX, the addons make the platform and not the other way round. There is little point in having a super powerful sandbox engine, that is closed, lacks documentation or scares developers away because it's too unstable and changeable. I've been looking for an SDK for Outerra for some time so I can play with creating plausible scenery (i.e. Roads and regional buildings), but nothing is available, and it's a somewhat closed platform with different goals than being just a flight simulator.

 

I'd be very happy to switch platforms work on something more powerful and open, and I applaud Stephen's effort for creating a platform for like minded developers to discuss ideas, and who knows?, maybe something will come out of it. 

[srborick 0]

 

 

Any possible future flight sim should put more weight on making it easier for developers to work with and not lock them out.

 

The SIM-Posium is moving right along and many of the ideas you've mentioned in your comments are being discussed. 

 

There are a ton of possibilities available as we are learning daily as we continue our evaluation of UNIGINE Sim 3D engine and the ability to go beyond plausible is certainly there. 

 

As in FSX and P3D the end user will have the ability to turn on or off those items he deems most important to their style of flying and the capabilities of their particular system. 

 

One thing I can say with certainly... with UNIGINE Sim we have the capabilities to go beyond anything yet seen in any current flight simulator. The possibilities are truly amazing.

 

Stephen B.

[dtmicro 1]

Some people will not be happy with just plausible looking scenery generated by algorithms, many prefer real roads and buildings from real data that they can recognise, and realistic textures.

 

The auto-generation techniques we will be using are sophisticated based on real vegetation data, OSM roads, and even city-level auto-rendering of real skyscrapers. That said, people will be able to add more detail to areas if they choose.

 

We have made great progress for only being at this for one week, but I do not have a lot of help, so having to do most of it myself so far. However, soon I'm going to start training others to help, even for the non-programmers there is stuff they can do.

 

The naysayers would be surprised

 

 

www.nexgenflightsim.com

[Jim Young 2,356]

I am closing this topic.  Discussions can now continue at the nexgenflightsim.com website.

 

Best regards,