Second, the proposal doesn't divert the goal of a next generation flight simulator but expands the possibilities. Creating a world to play in that would sustain all types of simulations provides a bases that address some of the concerns mentioned in the two forums.... one being the ability to attract others as well as allowing a system that would continually increase the fidelity of a flight simulator.

 

On a crowd funding budget, you'll never create a world that others want to use as an all-in-one product in software that attracts more people just because it is an open world. That is an entirely different project and that it is way beyond crowd funding, now we are talking exorbitant amounts of money. Anytime you try to open up a project to be all things or many things, you increase the level of complexity exponentially. Hence, it is easier to build a train simulator separately then to build a flight sim that also includes a train simulator.  This is just an example, I know you were not talking specifically about a train simulator.

 

With all those other "open world" simulations, you are going to have to create super high-res close-up textures that also look geographically correct from a distance. As well as way more rendered models, and the ground models would have to be such high-resolution that it wouldn't be compatible to fly over at high speeds for such a large world. You wouldn't be able to pre-load all those objects in real-time as someone is flying. That is why GTA V is a small map.

 

These two ideas aren't even remotely compatible, and I can see this thing going in so many directions, that if I were in a meeting with you people right now, I'd be speaking very loudly and in your face about the stupidity of this idea from a budgeting standpoint.

 

That is even beyond a GTA V level product. You could possibly add one thing, like a train that goes around the map or some neat things like that, but definitely not as a full simulator (there are already products out there for all that stuff).

 

Now before everyone says, well it could just be this or that, you'll never market a product unless it has a clear identity.

 

The absolute farthest you could divert would be adding the ability to fly rockets to different planets (since we have a terrain generator, this should be possible) and maybe adding combat features. That may interest people, if they can fly to and over an actual mesh of MARS. There could be other ideas in that same general realm of thought, but you can only divert so far off the main purpose with such a small budget and get away with it. Even then the rocket sim idea is going to be a bit of a pain as it will likely increase the budget (depends how good you make it).

 

On the initial 10-20 mil budget, I wouldn't even bother trying to make multiplayer at all at first, I would add the multiplayer later and just leave an API to make it possible.

 

In software you have to stay focused on one thing with a clear goal, trying to create an all-in-one product as a FIRST attempt, that would never work. That is big boy territory and deep water, you need to stay in the shallow pool as a non-existent crowd funded startup.

On a crowd funding budget, you'll never create a world that others want to use as an all-in-one product in software that attracts more people just because it is an open world. That is an entirely different project and that it is way beyond crowd funding, now we are talking exorbitant amounts of money. Anytime you try to open up a project to be all things or many things, you increase the level of complexity exponentially. Hence, it is easier to build a train simulator separately then to build a flight sim that also includes a train simulator.  This is just an example, I know you were not talking specifically about a train simulator.

 

Unless there is already a project heading in exactly that direction already........... (with or without us)

 

http://www.outerra.com/wfeatures.html

 

Unfortunately Acetone has a low spec machine and had to turn his settings down for this video. But even in its alpha state, Outerra shows a lot of promise. It also already incorporates the ability to place roads and buildings, the ability to drive land vehicles, the ability to drive boats, and eventually functionality for things like trains. http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=2720.0

 

They have also reported promising results on recent OSM integration tests.

 

Nope, our PC hardware isn't advanced enough to do all that yet on a global scale, and the coding is way beyond what a small project can do. The problem as I stated above is the amount of custom graphics and varying functionality between different vehicles, and how it would all have to work together, Flight Sims have the unique thing to where the main problem is the graphics and the world and the physics, most other sims have different technical hurdles. The size of the world would be too large, GTA V is a tiny area on a 100+ mil budget, not sure what part of that people cannot understand. Creating a next-gen flight sim isn't creating GTA V. If you tried to make a generated world both a driving game and a flight sim for instance, there wouldn't be enough detail in it or enough good driving physics, you'd have to re-code that too. Every dynamic simmable object you add is going to slow down the game performance as well. The budget wouldn't be there.

 

Just because you can drive around or add a car does not mean all of a sudden people are going to buy a game where you can drive around in a somewhat empty world. You're trying to remake GTA V on a smaller budget as a LARGER world, that's silly.

 

You are not going to build a good flight sim by making a universal world that universally contains multiple types of sims (not on a realistic budget), two different products. I would not rule out Outerra, but if anyone goes to build a flight sim, you still have to keep focus on the sim aspects, even if you build out a nice world first. Otherwise you are trying to create MS Flight version 2.0.

Nope, our PC hardware isn't advanced enough to do all that yet and the coding is way beyond what a small project can do.

 

All I know is that right as we speak, I can open up Outerra and fly a plane, step out, hop into a car, drive to the shore then jump into a boat. Right this minute. (and modders are all over it trying to perfect all of these experiences as the program expands) In fact, all of these experiences are necessary, and a requirement for Outerras Military contracts. With the benefits accruing back to the civilian side.

 

 

All I know is that right as we speak, I can open up Outerra and fly a plane, step out, hop into a car, drive to the shore then jump into a boat. Right this minute. ( and modders are all over it trying to perfect all of these experiences as the program expands)

 

It looks promising, my point though is the same, don't try to create an all-in-one to be a flight sim on a small budget, it's two different products. Who is going to want to drive around endlessly in an open forest?

In GTA V, you have guns, missions, clothes, and all kinds of stuff going on that would have to be coded. The actual driving over a landscape isn't even the most tedious part of the game design.

 

There is barely enough budget on a crowd fund to even finish a flight sim, much less add all that other stuff.

 

OK, but the detail isn't at GTA V levels, and what are you driving is one vehicle.

Edited June 7, 201511 yr by n4gix
Remove quoted videos!

OK, but the detail isn't at GTA V levels, and what are you driving is one vehicle.

 

The reason I pin so many hopes on them is that...... they really don't need us. They have their goals for a multi-sim in mind, and they are going for it. As I said, with or without us.

 

And no. Gta level detail levels in a worldwide sim would be insane. 

 

http://www.outerramods.com/

 

http://outerramodels.com/

I'm downloading it now, but to me the screenshots don't look any better than Orbx quality from the air (maybe worse in some cases). I will test it however. Close up the trees look better, but that isn't very consequential to a flight sim.

Here we are going for another FSX clone that has fewer features, I picture a world that looks more like Terragen than Outerra.
 

There is so much junk that has to be coded for a real flight sim, not sure how some modders are going to build out a full flight sim, guess if they don't care about a paycheck, anything is possible.

Who is going to want to drive around endlessly in an open forest?

In GTA V, you have guns, missions, clothes, and all kinds of stuff going on that would have to be coded

 

Much of that has to be part of their Military contract anyway. TitanIM is going into direct competition with Arma. Powered by Outerra. http://outerra.blogspot.com/2014/12/titanim-outerra-based-military.html

 

Don't anyone get me wrong! Outerra is still in ALPHA! it has its issues, but I also think it's a train that's coincidently heading our way. Most of the basics of what we might want are there, or, working in conjunction with the developers, (who have already stated their willingness to work with the sim community) can be custom designed.

 

It might not turn out in the end to be what we want. But its worth a long, careful, and serious look. The developers are the most open I have ever seen, and if you ask a question, they will not fail to

answer.

 

Right at this moment, they are working on extended controls, clickable cockpits, and several other things.

The reason I pin so many hopes on them is that...... they really don't need us. They have their goals for a multi-sim in mind, and they are going for it. As I said, with or without us.

 

They don't need us?

So Microsoft Flight didn't need us either eh?

 

Of course they need us. My first impressions were that on the ground the grass texture was nice and the trees looked good enough, my secondary impression is this is nowhere near a game engine, and this is in its infancy stages.

 

They are lacking texture variations, Terragen already has all that with a full plant system programmed in. Terragen has "Hollywood level" texturing that has been used in countless flights in movies, and just about every other modern movie you can think of, most add-on models made by modders aren't going to cut it IMO.

 

Remember the flying in Oblivion, yes that was done in Terragen.

 

http://planetside.co.uk/galleries/tg-in-film

 

I could myself render a Terragen world and make a fly-by like that at an even much higher quality just by using Terragen, not sure if I could achieve the same FPS as they did it in, but I definitely could do it.

 

If I were to run this project, my first investigation would be to create a small Terragen texture map over a GIS data mesh, and then attempt to load it into Unity. I wouldn't attempt to use Outerra first.

 

Just because a product can support or load a mesh and have a fly-over does not make it anything special at all. Every game engine can do that. Just because it has some basic flight model you can use, also doesn't make it anything special at all, there are all kinds of flyover and custom add-on flight models you can add to game engines.

They don't need us?

 

No, not really. They have stated before that their military contracts and other special projects are more than enough to keep them busy, and they also have plans for their own kickstarter. They would like very much to work with us, but with or without us, they will still pursue their goals. They are people with a vision.

 

They are lacking texture variations,

 

Yes they are, this is why I mentioned in capital letters that you are looking at an alpha. The world of Outerra is fully programmable, and the textures are easily modified by new instructions. The "Biomes" (custom environment programming is still in stage 1)

 

It's only been about 20 minutes since you said you were about to download the program! You've downloaded, installed, and visited enough various parts of the world to reach a conclusion in just that time?  :blink:

I don't want to make textures, the best textures in the business are made by Terragen and the software is reasonably priced. Why would I want to make my own textures, that is the whole point. Terragen is not a game engine, it is purely a world generator, these guys are trying to be too many things at once.

 

Sorry if the flying in Oblivion wasn't good enough for you

 

Terragen is the gold standard, if the textures and objects can be MIP MAP'd, I'd definitely use Terragen. Now if you just couldn't make the MIP MAP's look good enough from Terragen to get good enough performance, then maybe I can see exploring other options. The big disadvantage to Terragen would be the hard drive size for the entire world, it would be a similar problem to aerial photos (but maybe not quite as bad). Still it should look better than trying to make my own fractal based textures that auto-textured the world.

 

As far as basic flight functionality, mesh, ability to add water masks, that is the easy stuff, most of that stuff is just light coding encapsulating the already given functionality in the game engine.

 

I'm not going to base a new project on a new engine, I'm going to base a new project on a proven engine such as Unity or something else similar. There have already been flight games built with Unity and other similar engines, they already include libraries for it that are likely more refined than something created by a couple devs that have some simulation contracts.

Outerra will be interesting to see where it goes on how it achieves the different looking textures by procedural generation. I'm not saying it is ruled out if I were part of a dev team, what I'm saying is if I had to choose today, I'd have to try Terragen first, because it's more complete on texture variation and world rendering.

 

Here is what I want my SIM to look like:

 

(ALL GENERATED IN TERRAGEN)

 

Because I've seen enough of these types of demos to spot certain key things, and I can tell by the small group the product was made by, and the error I got when switching resolutions and the way it was back-loading the textures, and other things. I've been a coder my whole life (for over 30 years), that's why. It looks like the demo I ran from Terragen about 10 years ago.

 

If somebody told this community that after giving FSX two or three minutes of perusal they had dismissed it, I think most would rightly be a bit shocked and point out that no such cursory investigation could possibly scratch even the surface of the a program's capabilities. Its impossible to judge even Candy Crush fairly in that amount of time!   :unsure:

 

Your question about making your own textures illustrates immediately what might be a misunderstanding of what you were seeing. Outerra is a mathematically generated fractal refined world. The mathematics determines the appearance as it considers things like geography, temperature, moisture and other information it is given to create an appropriate environment, It also is calculating erosion, rock densities and other variables........ The textures and appearance change accordingly based on the information given, meaning you can alter the snow height and see the snowline change in the sim, completely altering its appearance, one of so many things not visible in just a few minutes at most of investigation.

 

Outerra is a completely programmable world. The backloading you saw is a feature that allows people to explore that world without having to download the entire planetary dataset. To avoid that, you can follow a simple link to download the dataset and avoid the loading.

 

Did you register on the forum to purchase the sim and try a plane?

 

And........ sorry, I have no idea on earth what the comment about Oblivion means.

 

Its kind of hard to accept that the verdict given, in the time allotted constituted a truly informed evaluation

I completely understood the textures were procedurally generated by fractals and THAT IS WHY I STATED ABOVE VERY CLEARLY THAT the disadvantage to Terragen is the hard drive size vs. fractal procedural based generation.

 

You are still having to make your own textures with procedural generation by altering parameters in order to tweak them to look correct, all rendering apps are like that. You may not draw the textures yourself (who does that anymore), but you are still creating them in some form or fashion with parameters. My point was that Terragen comes with a well refined UI to create these textures to where this isn't as needed.

 

So yes, you are the one that misunderstood my posts and if you re-read above you will see where I said that...

Yes, it is troubling that you skipped over my post, told me I don't understand, and become so defensive about it.

 

That was not the first time I read about Outerra, I've read about it many times. I'm also aware of other programs like it. I only just tried the demo the first time, as I said it shows promise, but procedural generation of textures has limitations in the variations you can achieve as well as to try to tweak things to look like the real world.

 

It would be difficult relying purely on math adjustments to get textures to look right, unless the engine were highly refined. It would also not be as add-on friendly.

Which is why if I were to start today, I'd be making the textures in Terragen, not until "on-the-fly" procedural generation can impress me as good as Terragen pre-rendered images can.

 

Also, I never said I would rule out Outerra completely, what I said was I would try Terragen first to get better results and image fidelity, obviously I'm going to experiment with various methods. I myself stated someone would need to evaluate the various rendering methods and game engines for about 3 months.

I was just playing devil's advocate telling you what I see wrong with "on-the-fly" procedural generations based on fractals.

I completely understood the textures were procedurally generated by fractals and THAT IS WHY I STATED ABOVE VERY CLEARLY THAT the disadvantage to Terragen is the hard drive size vs. fractal procedural based generation.

 

So yes, you are the one that misunderstood my posts and if you re-read above you will see where I said that...

Yes, it is troubling that you skipped over my post, told me I don't understand, and become so defensive about it.

They are lacking texture variations, Terragen already has all that with a full plant system programmed in.

I don't want to make textures, the best textures in the business are made by Terragen and the software is reasonably priced. Why would I want to make my own textures, that is the whole point.

Your question about making your own textures illustrates immediately what might be a misunderstanding of what you were seeing. Outerra is a mathematically generated fractal refined world. The mathematics determines the appearance as it considers things like geography, temperature, moisture and other information it is given to create an appropriate environment, It also is calculating erosion, rock densities and other variables........ The textures and appearance change accordingly based on the information given, meaning you can alter the snow height and see the snowline change in the sim, completely altering its appearance, one of so many things not visible in just a few minutes at most of investigation.

Your comment about lacking texture variations appeared to miss Outerras fractal mixer, that combines textures according to its instructions to create many variations of apparent texture variety. I saw that as a misunderstanding of Outerras inherent capability for geographic variety even in its alpha state. there is no need for a user to make textures except for planes or buildings, though a developer might.