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

[mgh 89]

I think if some of the more qualified contributors here had access to the UnigineSim evaluation kit

 

UNIQUE offer various licensing models for UNIGINE Sim and our licensing fees are customized based on the specific needs of each project.

 

Try out our Evaluation Kit to explore the full power of UNIGINE Sim and see for yourself how it can bring your projects to the next level.

 

The  Evaluation Kit is not available for the personal use.

http://sim.unigine.com/en/licensing/

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

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.

 

Yes, to do it correctly,  we need to make FSX feel as though we are not moving hardly at all. Just suspended in space, while scenery quietly moves underneath. Perhaps a little ripple here or there.  

 

Why did I write this?  Because I wonder if some people really know what a small plane feels like, much of the time. I'm not talking turbulence here. Just calm air. When I was briefly booted from AVSIM, because of my X-Plane torque views, there were a bunch of ridiculous responses that followed, my departure. For instance, "it's like a giant hand, that scoops you from the earth". Or "air is always moving your airplane side to side, and up and down. The pilot is always making corrective inputs".  That's baloney. Even small airplanes will have much less sensation of movement, than a car, or train. The scenery seems to pass much slower, even at 200 mph. Air is so smooth, that the only real sensation is vibration from the engine & prop.  As my wife who often flew with me, would comment.................it's like we're almost standing still.

 

Personally, I don't think the sensation of feel, when it comes to the FSX physics model is bad at all. It's actually more convincing, than not.  Make note, I did actually fly real life aerobatics with a Pitts. I've done loops & rolls in a P-51 Mustang. I've done simulated combat in Marchetti SF260s. I know what rougher rides feel like. I know what hard core aerobatic G-forces feel like. I know that every afternoon, the cross country return flight would be a lot rougher and less enjoyable, than that dead calm early morning flight. 

 

This is why I get irked about some claims, that FSX is just like riding on rails, and any sim that's constantly bobbing the nose and tail around, is somehow more real, and more challenging.

[LAdamson 240]

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.

I agree with you.

 

I don't need someone telling me, that if I'm happy, then fine..................the rest of us will just move on.  I think realistically about these things. I beta tested for Microsoft for three versions. I know that Microsoft as a corporation, threw a lot of money towards the development of MSFS.  In addition to all the graphic artists. etc., there were the Jeppeson data-base rights, and so on, and so on.  I don't see a grass roots effort, as getting very far. Someone with millions & millions of spare cash, is going to have to have a great interest in flight simulation. The product put on the shelf, is going to have to be complete, and surpass everything we have now.  The idea of a base product, that depends on lots of future third party addons, will only be nitch product. It will be the same, as it is for some 3rd party X-Plane developers now. Development will come very slowly, because of the need to supplement income.

 

So yes, I'm rather satisfied now.  If this new mega-million  sim, just happens to come my way, while my fingers can still operate this key board (from old age)...............................and there is already a great source of addons to complete the illusion, then I'll happily switch. 

[dtmicro 1]

Yes, to do it correctly,  we need to make FSX feel as though we are not moving hardly at all. Just suspended in space, while scenery quietly moves underneath. Perhaps a little ripple here or there.  

Flight had better physics than FSX IMO, it actually had a great physics engine. That's not to say it was accurate, I just liked the way it felt.

 

Sounds like you know a lot more about how the different planes feel than I do. I've been in semi-small planes and to me it surely did not feel like the plane was standing still, there was a lot of sensation of movement, much more than a large commercial airliner generally gives (unless you hit turbulence or something).

 

What I meant though was mainly in other situations besides level flight, such as hard turns with moderate cross-winds, or diving too fast or climbing too fast. Flight felt more realistic than FSX.

 

Also the controls are too sensitive in certain planes in FSX, though I suppose it's partly an issue with my control settings (I did try to adjust without luck). I also notice planes tending to veer left too much on the runways (especially some Carenados), things like that.

 

I think with Accusim you get pretty neat realistic effects, though they don't really match the physics either. Even when I do a perfectly smooth landing Accusim seems to make too much of a sound still, but hey those are minor things I suppose.

[flyforever 267]

I think it's time to have a spreadsheet with a list of requirements-- from must have to it would be nice--  so that we can get an idea of what "the community" agrees on.  This spread sheet should provide the "programmer" or the "project" manager an idea of what we're talking about.  I think the spreadsheet should force everyone to prioritize, so that "animated wheels" are last on the list( just an example. I don't want to offend anyone) and something like "steady frame rates at full blast" on cpu xxxx  perhaps first on the list.  There's nothing wrong, then, discussing the definition of full blast until there's consensus.

 

When MS put out fsx, most cpus could not handle it at full blast. This created a lot of confusion and disappointment. It's taken many, many years to finally get a quasi stable fsx.   Fortunately, in terms of cpu power we're in good shape now. We can set some fps goals  based on what many users currently already have.  This,I think, sets more realistic goals. My opinion is that every one should rethink this obsession on anything higher than 18fps, the speed with beyond which the eye cannot distinguish.   By 18fps, I mean steady 18 under the most extreme conditions. 

tony

I agree with you.

 

I don't need someone telling me, that if I'm happy, then fine..................the rest of us will just move on.  I think realistically about these things. I beta tested for Microsoft for three versions. I know that Microsoft as a corporation, threw a lot of money towards the development of MSFS.  In addition to all the graphic artists. etc., there were the Jeppeson data-base rights, and so on, and so on.  I don't see a grass roots effort, as getting very far. Someone with millions & millions of spare cash, is going to have to have a great interest in flight simulation. The product put on the shelf, is going to have to be complete, and surpass everything we have now.  The idea of a base product, that depends on lots of future third party addons, will only be nitch product. It will be the same, as it is for some 3rd party X-Plane developers now. Development will come very slowly, because of the need to supplement income.

 

So yes, I'm rather satisfied now.  If this new mega-million  sim, just happens to come my way, while my fingers can still operate this key board (from old age)...............................and there is already a great source of addons to complete the illusion, then I'll happily switch. 

I , too, flew and owned a plane.  The sensation of flight depends on many factors: altitude, turbulence, terrain,type of plane, etc.etc Most importantly, it's what our ears and body experience during flight, which except for the very expensive simulators, only a real airplane can provide.

Our $50 sims are a marvel, considering the cost of flying a real airplane. 

tony

[LAdamson 240]

In reality, there will be many times, in which you'll have sensation of movement, while flying, or not.  We lived next door to the airport, and kept a plane there. We had an advantage of flying in good weather, because we were not renting. If the day looked great, then why not!  We were not stuck with a scheduled rent time.  One day, we were just going to make a local flight, and headed to Yellowstone Park instead, because the weather was so peaceful. This trip would take a whole day by car, just one way. We were back, around noon.  Mornings on sunny winter, or summer days, would often be very calm. As the sun heats the ground, we could always figure the return trip to be more bumpy. Afternoons will usually become smoother, once again.  Personally, turbulence annoys me. I don't want my sim screen seeming to jump around, just for some illusion. If the weather requires convincing turbulence, then fine............as I'll expect it.

 

Some other thoughts, which I've discussed with other pilots.  I don't feel exactly comfortable, when looking over the edge of a high building, or canyon wall. I do sense height. My wife hates heights. Yet, it didn't bother us at all, to be flying at 17,500', in our little two seat airplane. The amount of lift under the wings is tremendous. It's more like sitting on a solid concrete platform, while the earth just drops away. 

[dtmicro 1]

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?

 

 

There is no method to do an exact estimate for this type of thing (especially in a hurry), but you can get a ballpark estimate by spending about 3 months collecting and reviewing documentation on how the pieces work and then create a basic specification that breaks down each required task into an estimate of hours. Finally adding it all up and coming up with a number, then add 50% to that number, because almost everyone underestimates. Another method is to find a company or someone that has already done something similar to what you are trying to do, and find out how long it took them in man hours.

 

I do not consider MS FSX a very similar task to what would be required for a next-gen Flight Simulator. The reason is because in FSX they were using very old tools, and very difficult technology, and mainly coding it almost purely in low-level C++. Also they had to build an engine themselves, and all the coordinate stuff. Since 2004, this stuff has evolved greatly, the Geo-Tools are 100x simpler to use, and the coordinate stuff is much much easier to translate into measurable units, as the newer game engines actually do that for you!

 

In most of the engines of today, they already expose basic physics you can use for flying, you just have to tweak the physics. It is still very hard and time consuming, but compared to 10 years ago it takes much less time. Combine that with auto-generating the scenery with a Terra-Generator and you can build something much faster than anyone has ever done before.

 

10 million is a good generic estimate IMO, you can definitely produce something in that amount of money, will it be complete, not entirely but it will be close enough. I've seen what others have made with 10 million, so I have a general idea of what can be done in that amount of money.

 

As far as the other guy's comments about it would be like XPlane since it would not be finished, I disagree simply because people go nuts over graphics and eye candy, so if you have the next-level graphics and decent physics already coded in, and an easy way for designers to build add-ons, then yes I do believe everyone would eventually switch and leave their other sims. The reason Flight didn't go anywhere was simply because we could not create add-ons, I mean that was obvious and really ignorant of Microsoft to try to do it that way.

[dtmicro 1]

Here is my point:

 

Keep in mind the budget for Crysis 3 was only 65 million, even though some games like GTA V were 250 million (but more than half that was marketing).

 

You don't have to create nearly the amount of complex models for a Flight Sim as something like Crysis 3, where they had to create super detailed textures and models of almost everything they were doing. They also probably used body-animation suits in those games and produce tons of animations, all of which is unnecessary for a flight sim.

You only need 3 planes to start with, and a terra-generator, very basic animations, the control system, and then the physics. There isn't a whole lot moving around in a Flight Sim, it's mostly just the plane moving. You can also reduce the amount of budget required by buying pre-built vegetation and just converting it, or using whatever the terra-generator has in it.

 

So yah I do think it's about 1/5th the work of the making of Crysis, and therefore that's how I estimate 10 million.

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

You only need 3 planes to start with, and a terra-generator, very basic animations, the control system, and then the physics. There isn't a whole lot moving around in a Flight Sim, it's mostly just the plane moving. You can also reduce the amount of budget required by buying pre-built vegetation and just converting it, or using whatever the terra-generator has in it.

 

Cloud systems

Real weather

Navigation databases

Airport database

Mesh database

Believable buildings at all airports, which are based on actual airport layout databases.

Physics that have took developers years, to perfect.   The plane needs to move correctly. Those of use who fly these things, recognize poor flight dynamics immediately.  The designer needs to at least have actual pilot experience, as PIC.

GPS that actually works like it's real life counterpart. Kind of a sim, within itself.

Engines (including jets) and propellers that operate as in real life.   Up to this point, in flight simulation, it's still not all correct.

 

That's just a partial list. In order for third parties to make up the slack, there will have to be a large user base out there. A simplified flight sim, won't cut it.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

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?

 

 

 

I agree with you. I don't need someone telling me, that if I'm happy, then fine..................the rest of us will just move on.

 

Nuitaki seemed to be attempting to speak for an entire section of the community with that statement, which proclaimed that the most avid users of flightsims (presumably himself included) did not want a new one. What I replied was completely appropriate under that circumstance. If there was a misunderstanding, then I already apologized.

 

 

 

The product put on the shelf, is going to have to be complete, and surpass everything we have now.  The idea of a base product, that depends on lots of future third party addons, will only be nitch product.

 

Only if you are following the FSX model, and only if its only use and application is intended to be for flight simulation alone. It's for that very purpose that third party engines with multi-sim capabilities are in the spotlight because the collective experience over the past few years is that civilian flight Sims alone have no current market, at least not for the actual company creating the sim.

 

The user base is too small/narrow and specialized, and all the civilian sims currently under active development are supported by other sources of income, whether its military contracts, training, or the company has other products that help keep it afloat. Even tiny Aerofly has its RC division and its tablet-sim sales to keep it going. If that's the case, than any new sim will have to have either a similar source of secondary income, or finally be something that appeals to a broader base that can actually support the product.

 

Following the FSX paradigm and spending the funds necessary for an all-in-one, all-planes, sim mega-project with no other visible means of support for further development is indeed suicide. (and if it really was all that feature complete, then what would there be left for third parties to do?)

 

Its acknowledged that relying on the current 3rd parties that have been reluctant to move from the established zone of FSX into even just X-plane is probably unwise. All but the most gung-ho will likely be waiting for large numbers of users to materialize, and with the community divided across multiple sims, sufficient movement to make it worthwhile is likely to an extended wait. The first people to create content for the new sim would likely be enthusiasts, which means the any new sim should probably have an easy and modern internal content creation pipeline; because again, something new has to be tried.

 

Trying to essentially build FS11 from a crowdfunding project seems like a recipe for bloat, feature-creep and disaster. Small, achievable initial goals, reassessment and moving carefully from there seems, safer, and I've always wondered if that's why X-plane has always been so slow and methodical, rather than risking it all on some huge, grand scheme.

 

Even when it's frustrating, I sometimes wonder if that's why they are still here when others are not.

[TooWings 17]

You only need 3 planes to start with, and a terra-generator, very basic animations, the control system, and then the physics. There isn't a whole lot moving around in a Flight Sim, it's mostly just the plane moving.

 

I agree. But just in case you weren't aware, Stephen now proposes to move the goalposts and not make a next-gen-flightsim at all but rather a 'world-simulator' - which will apparently include various different simulators, including later on a flight-sim. At least that's what he wrote yesterday on his forum on the Nex-Gen-Flightsim website, which he says he now wants to rename "The NextGen World Simulator".

 

I still admire Stephen's enthusiasm in the face of mounting obstacles, and you may wish to let him have some feedback to his new proposals (below).  But I personally think that abruptly changing direction so early on in the project doesn't bode well for the future.  I mean, what if the project had been running a year or so and such a change in direction was announced to those working on it?  

 

Finally, creating a world-simulator, with all its various simulators built in, surely expands the size scope and cost of the project.  GTA-5's multi-sim sandbox world is the most expensive in the genre.yet only covers the Los Angeles area and not the entire world that a flight-sim/world-sim would require.

 

--------

 

(From the Sim-Posium website / forum

 

Stephen wrote......

 

"I'm going to make a couple of proposals and I need some feedback.

 

First I'd like to rename the SIM-Posium to "The NextGen World Simulator" to better fit the direction that conversations have been leading here and on AVSIM.

 

Second I'd like to move into a direction that first creates the World we play in and then builds upon that world through all different kinds of simulation......."

 

(cut)

 

-

[dtmicro 1]

Cloud systems

Real weather

Navigation databases

Airport database

Mesh database

Believable buildings at all airports, which are based on actual airport layout databases.

Physics that have took developers years, to perfect.   The plane needs to move correctly. Those of use who fly these things, recognize poor flight dynamics immediately.  The designer needs to at least have actual pilot experience, as PIC.

GPS that actually works like it's real life counterpart. Kind of a sim, within itself.

Engines (including jets) and propellers that operate as in real life.   Up to this point, in flight simulation, it's still not all correct.

 

That's just a partial list. In order for third parties to make up the slack, there will have to be a large user base out there. A simplified flight sim, won't cut it.

 

Mesh database?

That's part of the game engine. There is no low-level mesh work left in today's modern game engines (especially when using a terrain generator and automated GIS data), that is one of the core functions of the game engine is to automatically manage the mesh. The GIS data you use is basically self-documenting, since you can identify the rendered areas by coordinates or regions, since the GIS data already has that functionality.

 

Believable buildings?

Buy them and MIP MAP or pay someone to create a generic set, heck the game engine will MIP MAP them for you most likely and off-render them, depends on the game engine. I'm not sure I'd say you need to have all the buildings accurately rendered for the FIRST version, our current sims don't even come to 100th of that level. Otherwise make a deal with Google or the same people that Google used, and buy them from Google.

 

Navigation Databases?

Those databases exist already, and you can buy them, or you can just use the data in the public domain to create one yourself. I'm not sure how complete the public domain data is. There is so much free LIDAR data, you can probably just grab it from an earth scan.

 

Airport Database?

Same as above, you can just buy one. There are several companies that make flight products that will sell you their database, since you will not be their competitor. Furthermore, this can be created very quickly and automatically from maps that can be purchased anyhow.

 

Designer with Pilot Experience?

You obviously have to bring some designers and consultants with real-world flight experience, we do have 10 million here, that's not peanuts

 

The other stuff you mentioned?

Building a GPS in the game that works like real-life is not all that hard, you are just overlaying the mesh back into a smaller zoomed out window, then adding the airports, it uses the same coordinate and navigation as the game engine. This is probably one of the easiest things to make of all the things you mentioned.

 

The physics?

Well yes, that is one of the hard parts as I mentioned before. Get Accusim or Carenado (or any similar companies) to build something for you, pay them and use them as consultants, give them a partial exclusivity contract that expires in X time.

 

Real Weather and Cloud Systems?

I would contact Rex or one of the other vendors and try to contract it out. I'm not going to bother to try to hire a team to do this, since I am pretty sure it can be contracted by giving any of the weather/cloud vendors an exclusivity contract for 1-year.

[liketofly1 11]

I agree. But just in case you weren't aware, Stephen now proposes to move the goalposts and not make a next-gen-flightsim at all but rather a 'world-simulator' - which will apparently include various different simulators, including later on a flight-sim. At least that's what he wrote yesterday on his forum on the Nex-Gen-Flightsim website, which he says he now wants to rename "The NextGen World Simulator".

 

Well, it not really such a change after all... The "world simulator" should be the basis. Any Flight Simulator basically needs to render the "world" and the idea is to build such a solid base that one could simulate anything in this world. The world itself does not care if you drive a car, train or fly a plane - so I think its a valid point to first get a base simulator where you can simulate anything.

Edited June 6, 2015 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote. Again!

[HiFlyer 9,363]

Well, it not really such a change after all... The "world simulator" should be the basis. Any Flight Simulator basically needs to render the "world" and the idea is to build such a solid base that one could simulate anything in this world. The world itself does not care if you drive a car, train or fly a plane - so I think its a valid point to first get a base simulator where you can simulate anything.

 

I've always argued the same thing. Traditional flight simulators up until now have generally started with planes, airports, and then worked down to the lower priority things, like the world. It means planes and their supporting paraphernalia are rendered in great detail, while the world itself is relatively sketchy, (which the third parties strive to fill out) and there it usually remains for a very long time. Years later, the FSX world is still a work in progress.

 

X-planes lack of seasons etc is (I think) an extreme manifestation of that design philosophy. Considering modern world engines and their significantly different priorities (the whole world is important, and all sorts of activities are supported, amongst which flying is only one) why not take advantage of the features that the engines being looked at already support?

 

The old argument that all available resources were needed to support the simulation side is much less an issue with modern engines, computers, and graphics cards. Many of these new engines run primarily on the gpu, still leaving the cpu for all those other tasty calculations.

[dtmicro 1]

 

Only if you are following the FSX model, and only if its only use and application is intended to be for flight simulation alone. It's for that very purpose that third party engines with multi-sim capabilities are in the spotlight because the collective experience over the past few years is that civilian flight Sims alone have no current market, at least not for the actual company creating the sim.

 

The user base is too small/narrow and specialized, and all the civilian sims currently under active development are supported by other sources of income, whether its military contracts, training, or the company has other products that help keep it afloat. Even tiny Aerofly has its RC division and its tablet-sim sales to keep it going. If that's the case, than any new sim will have to have either a similar source of secondary income, or finally be something that appeals to a broader base that can actually support the product.

 

 

People always say that, they said the same thing about Space Simulators all throughout the late early 2000's, no-one wanted them. Then Star Citizen becomes the highest Crowd funded, bla bla...

 

Common sense tells me there should be at least 50% of the interest of the original FSX left, if you build a better simulator. Now take that common sense number, and remember that it should cost less than half the amount it cost Microsoft to develop FSX, because of all the better data and tools out there today.

 

Flight Simulators have an advantage over traditional games, traditional games have a VERY short sales life, most of the sales happen in the first 6 months, except for the absolute most popular games like WOW or whatever. MS FSX has been selling for almost 10 years.

 

People have to remember Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company, they really didn't want to micro-manage a lot of their game divisions, it wasn't just MS Flight that got canned, but they re-did a bunch of stuff (I forget what, but I remember reading about it). That's how big companies are, unless something is making a 20+ million per year, they lose interest and don't want the headache.

 

The reason no-one wants to move to another SIM is because there is nothing out there that beats our current SIMs by a large enough margin. We know why MS Flight failed, it wasn't a sim, it was a FLY-OVER of Hawaii and Alaska with arcade like plane controls. Then they were charging too much and there wasn't enough content since it HAD NO Add-on database.

 

Also, I do agree that you likely need to add some separate functionality to garner more market potential, but that can be done by adding some side games and war functionality add-on capabilities to the SIM.