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

[dtmicro 1]

The GIS work is the easy part, as most of this work is easily done by many people that have experience in writing FSX add-ons. The time consuming part is the extensibility API for add-on developers, the physics, animation, and graphics. The mesh is also fairly easy (time consuming to find the optimized method, but still relatively easy), the game engines these days provide you with about a gazillion different ways of loading mesh already, a bit of GeoTools / FS Tools / Warps and some coordinate math and you can load whatever directly into a game engine. The harder and more time-consuiming part would be rendering over the mesh using the third-party tools.

 

A flight sim is just a "box" (plane) moving over a mesh that has rendered textures on it, that is all it is. The game engine does all that for you, you sure are not going to write that (what a waste of time that would be).

 

I personally would recommend the first attempt be done with a Terragen like application by loading the mesh directly into Terragen and rendering over it. Then trying to load that into a game engine, try a few different game engines and see which ones work best for flying over a rendered texture base on top of a mesh. The problem with this method is going to be POLY Counts of the objects and the size of the textures, so you'd have to experiment with many different Terragen like Apps (outerra whatever) until you find one that is easiest to maintain the highest quality looking textures over the mesh and objects with the lowest poly counts. That is where the REAL problem is.

 

The trick is all in the way you MIP MAP the objects and gaussian blur the textures and background, one reason FSX is so slow at loading photo-real or rendered graphics is because the MIP MAPs are too large at a distance. That's why mountains and objects in games like GTA 5 look better closer up and worse farther away, whereas FSX is the opposite (generally speaking).

 

Also, the lighting work is a major pain to simulate real time of day, as well as the volumetric cloud renders. Also, things like ATC are very simple once the core game is already done. ATC is only hard to extend in FSX because of the way FSX was coded.

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

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.

 

No, I'm not joking. If you are asking me personally, if I am content with my sim setup - yes I am. I put a lot of work and money into it, to make it so. And this was only possible because it didn't change every few months btw. I wouldn't know what to improve at this stage, except the known technological limitiations (which probably will be overcome some day - and they don't limit me actually). I don't see my sims as stand alone products, to be replaced at a whim, but as platforms to run other stuff on. The addons alone took almost as much effort to be developed as some of the games sold as separate titles (or other flightsims). So if you don't mind - remind me of the shortcomings the current sims have at doing what they are supposed to do - and that obviously everyone agreed upon (didn't get that memo I suppose).

 

Sorry to sidetrack here, but you are using some of the words I like best these days: "improvement, progress, "but it is old"". This is consumerist talk, one of my favourite dead horses. If nothing else happens, the hobby will just be the same as it is now. A niche for enthusiasts. Tiny at that, but due to its unique structure as a basically unchanging software platform, still profitable for two handful of developers and enjoyable for thousands of freeware contributors. The software that is in existence, by and large does the job. And there actually are development streams already at work, I can not see the standstill you seem to percieve. If you will, even FSX is developed further through its addons. Every new sim development will have to stand toe to toe with a full fledged sim environment with more bells and whistles that even a 20 mil budget will get you, so success for a bare bones systems seems doubtful. At least that is the expectation I glean from the posts here.

 

Do things that actually work, that tick more boxes than most people (using only the base product) know, really need a replacement, a betterment? Lately I have been reading about a "spork" I am supposed to use in my garden. Supposedly a combination of spade and fork. Sorry, come again?

 

About the asking thing: if you read this thread again (or any of the others who tried the same thing as you do), one has to ask, does the world really need a new product, if even the people, who are the most avid at using it, do not want one? If this thread were titled "I bought the ESP license from Microsoft and am about to refactor it into 64 bit, who will help me?" the reaction might be different...

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

Then how do you know that my estimate is wrong?

Didn't say that, did I? Just "be careful". But I know that things are not like that anymore. If you want to rebuild FSX with the same technology as-is, you are correct of course, but that is not the goal as I understand it and not the way to do it. More like integrating what is already there, to cut corners in budget and time. Will the result be superior? I doubt it, but that is not the point. If you asked me to do this project, this would be my initial estimate based on my own spec in my head, as nothing else exists. This would be valid until you hit me with a detailed specification that goes beyond that.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

About the asking thing: if you read this thread again (or any of the others who tried the same thing as you do), one has to ask, does the world really need a new product, if even the people, who are the most avid at using it, do not want one? If this thread were titled "I bought the ESP license from Microsoft and am about to refactor it into 64 bit, who will help me?" the reaction might be different...

 

Perhaps things become a little clearer, now.

 

No problem at all. If you are satisfied with the way things are, thats fine, but judging from the overwhelming response when Aerosoft announced a sim, the enormous initial interest when FLIGHT was announced, The great Interest when X-Plane 10 was shown, and the current interest in DTG's possible offering, with the recommendation threads both here and on steam overwhelmingly projecting the message "No backwards compatibility, please start over!" plus the powerful interest shown in Outerra, one would not exactly be stretching it to surmise that a great many people are looking for something new.

 

If you are not one of them, fair enough, and I respect that, but some of us would like to move on, and dismissing those feelings (apparently) as invalid because you personally seem not to share them...... I'm not even certain how to respond to that.

 

Why not just continue to happily use your sim and let others try to move on?

 

The worst that can happen is that the effort fails, and for some people thats not the crime. The crime is in not even trying.

[srborick 0]

 

 

Sorry to sidetrack here, but you are using some of the words I like best these days: "improvement, progress, "but it is old"". This is consumerist talk, one of my favourite dead horses. If nothing else happens, the hobby will just be the same as it is now. A niche for enthusiasts

 

I'm happy that you're happy, but I've got to ask the same question... Why not just continue to happily use your sim and let others try to move things forward? What's the harm in that?

 

I really think nuitakti, that it's time to agree to disagree and move on. I think I've done my best along with many others to state our case and you've certainly have made it clear that you think we're beating a dead horse.... great.... now can we just allow the other to do their own thing?

 

Cheers, and enjoy your flying experience... 

 

Stephen B.

[geedub 15]

Oh Stephen B you have my sympathy.

 

The road you have chosen is a rocky one. I wish you all speed. How quickly your initative flushed out the naysayers who have haunted these forums for a long time now. We do need a new fltsim - I have P3d  and some great hardware but one day few months ago suddently stopped flying in a terminal attack of inspritational dissatisfaction with all the compromises, unreality of it all, and all the time-wasting.

 

I think most heroic endeavours are met with negativity from those who are not equipped to see past the end of their noses. The answer as you know is to expect, respect, and press on. 

 

 

Gareth

[dtmicro 1]

nuitkati, on 06 Jun 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:
Every new sim development will have to stand toe to toe with a full fledged sim environment with more bells and whistles that even a 20 mil budget will get you, so success for a bare bones systems seems doubtful. At least that is the expectation I glean from the posts here.

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

 

As an FSX developer, and someone that has experience doing estimates, I can say that you are potentially correct, but the problem with your estimate is that it assumes the bells and whistles need to be coded by the same company that creates the SIM. Then yah, it would cost exponentially a ridiculous amount of money and time, that is like saying FSX should have been released with all ORBX add-ons for no extra charge.

 

The whole point of the discussion was to use a Terra-Engine to circumvent the biggest part of the budget, the scenery design, and then expose that engine to add-on developers (or make a special deal with a company like Terragen to give add-on devs a greatly reduced licensing price). I still put the estimate at around 5 to 10 million though, because of what I stated earlier with the complexity of the extensible add-on model and physics, and graphics take time regardless if you are auto-rendering or not. Also, I do agree that somewhat randomized terra-engine like rendering is the future of SOME forms of gaming, but of course in this case we don't even need randomized, the renders can be based off the GIS data.

 

The goal with a new sim should be to simply build out 1 smaller area of the US (maybe one state) as an example, kind of like MS Flight did, and then to allow the add-on developers to finish everything (the opposite of what MS Flight did). Even with generated scenery, you still are going to need some custom add-ons (airport buildings, sound effects, seasons, color variations, texture variations, etc...).

 

So all the sim really needs to do is have better flight model physics, better base scenery, and a better framework for other developers to create add-ons. If it can accomplish those 3 things, then I do think it would be a success even with a limited area completed.

 

For instance, as a hard example, let's say it needs an ATC interface (which I believe Flight did not even have), and we want to license that to a former FSX add-on developer, hence a convert that moved over to the new cutting-edge sim. All you actually need to expose is an object that contains all the needed data... Then an add-on developer can create the sounds, and the pop-up messages. Really an ATC should be done in the base game anyhow, but at least make the ATC easily extendable. I could picture an add-on developer adding voice recognition as an example.

 

Same concept, and I say 5-10 million is VERY possible if you can find a Terrain generator over the Earth's mesh.
 

Let's say you had 25 developers being paid on average $80k each (maybe some slightly less, some more), that's 2 million per year, so it will take about 3-5 years. That's where I get the estimate from.

 

The one advantage is, if you started developing it today, you can develop it for only the absolute fastest CPU setup (6 core overclocked 5820k), and by the time you release it, the mid-range CPU's should be as fast as the CPU you designed it for.

 

The truth is that many game engines (with literally no coding at all) could have mesh and texture map loaded, then you could SLEW around a mesh with much higher res textures than FSX with very little performance issues, that is if done correctly.

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

I'm happy that you're happy, but I've got to ask the same question... Why not just continue to happily use your sim and let others try to move things forward? What's the harm in that?

 

I really think nuitakti, that it's time to agree to disagree and move on. I think I've done my best along with many others to state our case and you've certainly have made it clear that you think we're beating a dead horse.... great.... now can we just allow the other to do their own thing?

 

Cheers, and enjoy your flying experience... 

 

Stephen B.

 

Hi Stephen, sorry if you misunderstood this. I actually tried to help you, by inciting me and others to tell everyone how things work in software development. If I am happy or not does not have to do anything with my professional opinion. But I admit I tend to be too sarcastic. For that I apologize.

 

If you are open for suggestions, then please read my posts and those of the other/real devs again, this time ignoring any negativity you might read into them.

 

My personal recommendation: write up a list of requirements, as you see them. Researched from all the threads and polls that are out there on this subject. Then put them up for discussion, but constructively, in a moderated brainstorming - the way these things need to be done. If you are unsure about this, get a copy of the PMBok guide. Review the list numerous times (with the then slowly forming team) until you are satisfied you have all what is required and then see what can actually be done. It seems to me, the modules that a flightsim needs to have are pretty obvious, so why not draw up a coarse architecture too?

I (=me, personally) think the right way to go would be the compatibilty way, simply beacuse it saves effort. If you don't have to worry about the basic or even advanced content, you are leaps ahead. So I would task a part of the team solely with figuring out if and what of all the data out there can be used or adopted, right from the start. There is no need for this to be any tech in particular. If the XP mesh can be easily integrated, take it. If FSX planes are the easiest to integrate, use that. Have a 3D environment that can display 200 miles of terrain in photoreal quality, 7cm per pixel? By all means, take it (if it fits the additional requirements, as outlined in the other  responses by developers here - do not just ignore their advice just because you don't like it at first.)

 

You can do everything from scratch, no doubt. But then it really gets massive and expensive.

 

And I am pretty sure, that if you want this to succeed, it will require some kind of a "leader", someone who will organize people. They won't do this themselves. Might as well be you.

Perhaps things become a little clearer, now.

 

No problem at all. If you are satisfied with the way things are, thats fine, but judging from the overwhelming response when Aerosoft announced a sim, the enormous initial interest when FLIGHT was announced, The great Interest when X-Plane 10 was shown, and the current interest in DTG's possible offering, with the recommendation threads both here and on steam overwhelmingly projecting the message "No backwards compatibility, please start over!" plus the powerful interest shown in Outerra, one would not exactly be stretching it to surmise that a great many people are looking for something new.

 

If you are not one of them, fair enough, and I respect that, but some of us would like to move on, and dismissing those feelings (apparently) as invalid because you personally seem not to share them...... I'm not even certain how to respond to that.

 

Why not just continue to happily use your sim and let others try to move on?

 

The worst that can happen is that the effort fails, and for some people thats not the crime. The crime is in not even trying.

 

Wow, so I don't qualify for innovation because I'm happy? Now I understand why todays companies go to great lengths to make sure the employees are anything but...

 

Sorry, but I like to think that I am old enough to be capable to differentiate between my personal feelings and professional assessment. If I remember correctly I am actually one of very few here who thinks this project is actually doable. You may be shooting the wrong dead horse here.

[dtmicro 1]

The first thing that has to be realized is that the current state of technology is FAR FAR advanced past MS FSX and even MS Flight. FSX was finished development in 2006 (or thereabouts). That means it was using technology available mostly from 2002-2004, that's 12 years old folks. MS flight was using tech available in 2008-2010 or something like that. Software is almost always 2 years behind on tech from its release date, since they don't keep redeveloping the engine every time something else comes out.

 

The problem with the current SIM is repetition and so-so quality PhotoReal textures, as good as Orbx is, it gets pretty repetitive REALLY fast. I tried Southern Ireland and thought, well yah this is some really nice work, but why did you spray the same 20 tiles across the entire area (except for the mountains which are different).

 

A lot of these add-on developers were making mediocre products and they went out of business, and they were first to claim that "Flight Simulation or FSX is dead". What happened was ORBX, Carenado, and a few others came along and took a BIG piece of PIE, and then everyone was left with a smaller piece. Orbx is probably doing fairly well.

 

That's the problem right now, even Southern Alaska (which I think is Orbx best region) is VERY VERY repetitive. It's the same textures across most of the state. You wouldn't have that problem as much with a terrain generator, take a look at some pics over at http://planetside.co.uk/ to get an idea of the variety you can achieve just by varying a few parameters. The real question is can any of the game engines handle any of these terrain generators output, and the answer is yes WITH modifications it can. We are at that point now, but just barely we are there, but it can be done. The whole point is to dump the boring FSX physics model which feels more like you are flying in a car and make it feel like a real plane.

 

Microsoft would say the market isn't there, they may be right, after all they tried to sell MS Flight, but realistically and IMO, they tried to release a new SIM too quickly after FSX (they should have waited 5 more years), and they were still using outdated tech, then they didn't even bother completing it, and tried to control add-on market.

 

Big corporations are often too impatient, any Flight Sim product needs a long-term view of like 5-10 years to make money, not in 1-2 years like Microsoft was trying to do...

[HiFlyer 9,361]

 

 

Hi Stephen, sorry if you misunderstood this. I actually tried to help you, by inciting me and others to tell everyone how things work in software development. If I am happy or not does not have to do anything with my professional opinion. But I admit I tend to be too sarcastic. For that I apologize.
 
If you are open for suggestions, then please read my posts and those of the other/real devs again, this time ignoring any negativity you might read into them.

 

I'm glad you clarified that, and I apologize for misunderstanding. Unfortunately, others are reading this thread, and receiving a strong message of negativity and conservatism as well.  :(

 

Who knows? Perhaps none of this is possible. But I hope that if we do indeed end up getting shot in the foot, that at least it's not a self inflicted wound.

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

A lot of these add-on developers were making mediocre products and they went out of business, and they were first to claim that "Flight Simulation or FSX is dead". What happened was ORBX, Carenado, and a few others came along and took a BIG piece of PIE, and then everyone was left with a smaller piece. Orbx is probably doing fairly well.

 

 

Dunno. I don't think they were making "mediocre" products deliberatly, they were making the products that were possible with the knowledge of the base platform at the time. The longer the platform remained unchanged, the better the products got (at least some of them). I think this is in a way comparable to game consoles, the more time passed, the better the devs figured out how to squeeze the last out of them.

[dtmicro 1]

Nah, they all worked too independently and the market was too flooded. Orbx quality could have been done right from the release of FSX, it's just the right people were not formed into a team until Orbx themselves created that team.

 

For such a small market, it is ridiculous how many add-ons there are. You could spend your entire life just going through all of them. FSX was like an entry point for new or wanna-be game programmers so they could get their feet wet. A lot of FSX designers (Bless their hearts) had very little experience in graphics or coding and were just winging it.

Except for the plane add-ons (which I think there was a lot of talent in), the scenery and most of the airport designers were a bunch of people releasing sub-par stuff trying to sell it because it was FAST and easy to do. Had they spent real-time on their products (like Carenado and Orbx), then they would have done better. Think how slowly Orbx and Carenado have been to add products, it's been years to even get this much stuff out of them, and even a lot of their products fall short of their own quality control.

 

A lot of them were disorganized that didn't have the right skills. Some had great programming skills but were terrible at graphics, some were great at graphics but were bad programmers. IMO, most of them were just bad at graphics...

[Lorby_SI 2,038]

I'm glad you clarified that, and I apologize for misunderstanding. Unfortunately, others are reading this thread, and receiving a strong message of negativity and conservatism as well.  :(

 

Who knows? Perhaps none of this is possible. But I hope that if we do indeed end up getting shot in the foot, that at least it's not a self inflicted wound.

 

Well, that's how it is on the net, is it? People understand what they like.

 

I am happy with my sim(s) yes, that does not mean that everyone has to be. Not everyone has the knowledge or funds or time to build an environment like mine, that he can be happy with. And that all this effort (in numbers: 2 years of work and +5000€) is required to be happy simming at last, actually says enough about the state of affairs, and why moving forward might be a good thing actually. Not really for me, have to work on the ROI thing first. But for everyone else.

[TooWings 17]

Oh Stephen B ...The road you have chosen is a rocky one. I wish you all speed. How quickly your initative flushed out the naysayers who have haunted these forums for a long time now.

 

I think most heroic endeavours are met with negativity from those who are not equipped to see past the end of their noses.

 

Gareth

 

Hi Gareth,

Your comments clearly violate AVSIm's TOC, so  I suggest cutting out the amateur dramatics and refraining from calling fellow AVSIM members derogatory names simply because they've pointed out various pitfalls and potential problems in Stephen's next-gen flightsim endeavour.  Many of the 'naysayers who haunt these forums' as you put it are in reality long term AVSIM members with decades of technical experience in the field they are discussing, so they know what they are talking about.  Stephen himself is a well meaning amateur but has no such experience, and is simply being advised or 'put right' by well intentioned members..

Its all very well launching an 'heroic endeavour' as you put it, but the test is whether or not it can come to fruition in the real world, or whether its simply an enjoyable and entertaining discussion as many here suspect.

[propsfan 52]

I think if some of the more qualified contributors here had access to the UnigineSim evaluation kit which presumably would come with a decent SDK, then a lot of estimates and musings could be refined quickly. I don't think anyone is really suggesting starting a new sim from scratch so really in order to see what the potential truly is there needs to be an evaluation of the engine that's most likely to form the basis for it. A lot of the ifs and buts could be sorted out that way I think.

 

I wonder if that would be possible?