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

[TooWings 17]

A TBM-700? Yeah right. Pull my other leg, please! The panel looks nothing at all like a TBM-700...

 

Hi N4,

 

But the panel isnt meant to look like a TBM-700's since all aircraft panels in GTA currently have only basic panels.  Modders may add custom panels at some future date, but its no big deal since, as I pointed out, the fun of flying in GTA is on a casual / barn-storming basis in stunning detailed scenery, as many members on this forum have reported over the past months.

 

Most comical however was the Airbus GPWS!

 

Ha ha, yes! But whats really comical is the fact that the airbus in GTA doesn't have a GPWS!!  That guy simply got his girlfriend to do the voice over for a bit of fun!

....."Retard. Retard." 

 

BTW. I actually posted those videos to show GTA's real-world environment and crash damage modelling as these were topics of discussion on this thread in relation to Stephen's plans to 'play', drive and have combat simming in his planned 'world-simulator'  

 

Check it out .....

 

https://youtu.be/PsjS9RAz1_4?t=156

[flyforever 267]

I think Stephen is trying to bring some enthusiasm to potential future projects. He should not be criticized  for his enthusiasm. And there's nothing wrong with some people simply providing ideas--good ideas-- and others picking up the ideas and doing the work.

From what I've seen so far, he's getting all of us out of our shells and expressing our thoughts and opinions-- which is the first step to perhaps something else.

 

If nothing comes out of it, it should not be because his enthusiasm was shot down by a bunch of cynics.

 

So far he has not asked for a single dime, which speak to a higher purpose than many of those who  put up a project through crowd funding and never deliver anything.

 

Let's keep the topic focused on ideas and potential--not on the individual.

 

Many of us may not necessarily be first to jump and provide financial support or some other form of assistance, but it does not mean that under the right circumstances we would not.  We must, therefore, be open to something good--however remote it may now appear.

 

tony

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I couldn't agree more with what Luke has stated in his posts.

[HiFlyer 9,360]

 

 

Many of us may not necessarily be first to jump and provide financial support or some other form of assistance, but it does not mean that under the right circumstances we would not.  We must, therefore, be open to something good--however remote it may now appear.

 

Whenever Outerra does its kickstarter, I intend to be there with as much cool green cash as I can afford. 

[torium 207]

Well said, tony.

[LAdamson 240]

Agree with Luke too. Exactly what I was thinking.  There has to be dollars, or a brilliant mind, with expertise in the required fields,  brought to the table to negotiate. 

[JSkorna 137]

Ideas and enthusiasm can only get you so far. After that you need to answer the tough questions and that hasn't happened.

 

"They are who we thought they were." 

[magicmike 10]

it seems like every time Stephen makes a post, some of the people here jumps all over his post with a magnifying glass trying to undermine his point and what he's trying to do here.

[JSkorna 137]

What exactly is his point and what is he trying to do here? The original announcement was made many pages ago.

 

Furthermore, who is he and what is his expertise? Yes, it is important and each time asked, he beats around the bush and answers with more questions back at the originator of the questions.

 

Luke and some others have nailed it!

[dtmicro 1]

He might just be interested in the coordination and management side, not everyone is going to be a developer. That said, it is usually the people wanting to develop something that are going to be at the top on these type of crowd-funded projects, especially when they are trying to be started so informally.
 

I've worked with managers in different fields that had no idea what they were doing telling me how to do it because it had to fit a marketing mold. I've worked at companies that sold questionable quality ("unfinished") software incredibly well because the marketing team had the best domain name and front-end ads running... On one hand, I was pretty deplored, but on the other, they were actually bringing money in so who was I to say they were wrong (well they were wrong, but money is never wrong in a company I suppose).

I've had to speed code (hence write "bad code") before because the budget was 10% of what it should have been (and that is no exaggeration, when I once worked for a small company that was funded by the owner's own pocket book). Personally I dislike working at companies funded by one person (unless the funding is from someone with so much money they don't care if they lose it), because if things start to go south that person is watching his own invested money go bye bye and you start to feel the downward spiral.
 

I have a hard time believing that not a single game engine could be adapted to building a SIM, only Outerra can be. Outerra probably shows the most promise though. The big problem with using a different engine is managing a world that size, and all the intricate details. However, just because something procedurally generates content does not mean it's the only thing that can do that. There is already a basic Flight Sim add-on for Unity used by several people that are playing around with basic SIM functionality, and I'm sure the same thing exists for other game engines as well. The problem with Unity has always been it looks like the engine is over-encapsulated for huge custom advanced and complex worlds like a SIM would need. That said, a procedural generator can be created for many different engines, you might not be able to reach Outerra's quality though (but I don't know). There are already add-ons and some procedural generators built into some of the engines, I just haven't evaluated all of them.

[mgh 89]

Pehaps he can tell us his expertise actually is in developing a new flight simulator? He hasn't so far .

[dtmicro 1]

Well perhaps, but it's hard to assess anyone's capabilities over a forum or just from their web page, regardless what they were to say (I mean are you asking him for his resume?). Usually I would expect if someone wants to take charge (hence basically be the President or CEO of something if it were to form), then I'd expect some finance, business/MBA, or marketing background - or some combination of the three. As long as they are familiar with Flight Sims or a Simmer themselves, it's probably better they come from that background than as a developer. Though on second thought, for a Flight Sim that background is probably not needed at first, but eventually you'll have to get someone like that involved.

 

That would actually be a big problem if trying to start a crowd funding project, someone has to say ok I'm going to own this thing.

 

I guess if someone were to own it out-right, then I kind of would expect that person to develop the prototype or to pay someone to develop a prototype that is complete enough to actually be a viable crowd funding contestant.

 

Otherwise, especially for a Flight Sim, with just no prototype in today's crowd funding market, don't think it will get funded. I also have concerns as to if a Flight Sim can get funded at all by crowd funding (but I have no idea).

I think the crowd funding market has become, well, VERY CROWDED!

[HiFlyer 9,360]

 

 

I have a hard time believing that not a single game engine could be adapted to building a SIM, only Outerra can be

 

I'm not sure that was ever said. Only that it was a promising candidate.

[srborick 0]

So if you want to be offended, do so. However, from my perspective as someone who has delivered real tangible products and real tangible value, it's amusing to see someone waltz in, convinced that complete ignorance and wishful thinking is all that is necessary to succeed in solving a significant engineering challenge. You seem like a teenage intern who walks into a company and starts telling everyone what to do, then gets offended that people with actual knowledge and experience treat them like a blowhard.

 

Luke

 

Luke...

Like I said your ludicrous and rude.... I'm not a bit offended by anyone that slings a bunch of crap and makes a jack donkey out themselves and then apologies and goes right on doing the same thing. 

 

I never once said that I could create a flight simulator... not once... I offered the community a place to join together and formulate a plan and then let the smart ones and even the self proclaimed smart ones take the opportunity to work together and use their knowledge to do something great.

 

You don't want to do that... that's fine, but to use what intelligence you have to sling muck at someone else just goes a long way to showing me, and at the same time others, what you're really made of.

 

Little wonder the flight simulator community as a whole stays away from anything that might be controversial... I mean... it's like walking up to a complete stranger and saying "I've got an idea... by the way...go ahead and string me up".

 

Enough is enough. 

You guys out their holding the ropes and ready to slap the horse on the behind... just never did get it.  

 

It isn't about me or what I can do... it's always been about what we can do as a community. 

 

I have never claimed anything that you guys are ready to hang me for... and yet you persist in your ignorance because for some unknown reason it makes you feel more like a man.

 

It's people like you who are killing the opportunities available to us who are members of the flight simulator community. Who in their right mind would ask us to help them create a next generation flight simulator even if they came with multiple degrees in business, developing, programming and a bank vault full of money. Why would they... just so you can stick their head on a pike and dance around a fire, screaming your heads off telling everyone else that you're right?

 

Well, I hate to break it to ya... but you're not right... and unfortunately it will be people who like to dangle the rope and dance around the fires who will kill flight simulation for us all.

 

Another 10 years from now FSX, P3D, X-Plane and even DTGs simulation will be long surpassed, unfortunately it won't be by some fantastic new flight simulator.

 

You know what the scariest part about all of this... you guys who are holding the ropes are real proud of yourselves... well you'd better be, because I'm pretty sure no one else is.

 

Stephen Borick

[dtmicro 1]

I'm not sure that was ever said. Only that it was a promising candidate.

 

I do have one idea of how this could work, sort of. If there was some way to make it an open source project with a revenue stream. The issue is companies that do this usually get their revenue by either: 1) Support, 2) Training Resources, 3) Enterprise Editions. The other problem is I cannot think of a way to generate a revenue stream while the project is under development (ouch).

 

None of those revenue streams apply to a Flight Sim Really (well I guess if you could sell it to commercial flight schools, but I doubt that can produce enough revenue to do any good). So the question is how can this be done as an Open Source model but still be profitable, so that way you either 1) Don't need crowd-funding at first, or maybe at all, and 2) Can still get the right people involved.

 

Too bad the timing is off for me, if say this were 2009, I'd have actually had the finances and the will to see this through to a prototype (I could have put in a small but significant sum towards a prototype), but back then the tech wasn't where I would have liked it to be anyhow.

 

It could be that Outerra is the only viable way to approach the problem. The problem is not knowing, I think it would take me (or some other capable person) 1 - 3 months to figure it out, hence to be absolutely sure. That's about 160 - 480 hours of work just to do that.