Mr. Stephen B... you came here with the intent to start discussion, albeit on your own website where you're in total control. However.. said discussion has started here, where all are neutral and not in control. Is that really a problem?

 

I have a unique perspective on this... I know a bit about the internals of the core sim we all know as Microsoft Flight Simulator. I know what it took to build up the world it generates and all of the licensing and etc involved for every piece of information required to model the world.

 

Yes, the tech demo looks pretty... but it's not a proof of concept by any stretch of one's imagination. It is missing so much of what drives the core sim that it's unreasonable to point to it and say it's better. Sure... Port Angeles is better visually, but is it accurate? Does it have all the aviation navigation systems, etc??

 

While most of you could care less about accuracy... there are those who do. Their numbers are great enough to have an impact in the discussion of 'plausible' versus 'accurate'. Most visual approaches don't work well with 'plausible', as example. Especially when the person is intimately familiar with the area they're flying over and everything's just 'wrong'.

 

FSX/Prepar3D currently ships with a reasonably accurate depiction of the world. Is it 100% perfect, nope... but it's more accurate than 'plausable'. The core engine has to be able to handle the same level of accurate world that the current offering provides. There is no legitimate excuse to not do so.

 

If FSX can provide the world, as it is... then any new simulator is going to have to do that as a minimum. Any new simulator will have to provide AI, with a powerful AI engine that's actually intelligent and conforms to real world flight restrictions and procedures. It will have to provide an ATC system that actually mimics the real world's air traffic process. While FSX/Prepar3D don't do either of those perfectly... they do provide the functionality. There will also have to be several default aircraft provided, not just GA... but rather across the board, just like FSX shipped with. That will require expensive licensing. The nav data will require licensing. You will need detailed airport layout information for airports around the world. The list goes on and on... All of that data has to be maintained in a secure environment for licensing needs (companies you license data from don't like it if you give it away for free).

 

This is a truly complex process and the engine has to be up to the task. When I see a proof of concept for the entire globe, with decently accurate depictions of land class, etc... then I'll consider the engine a possibility.

But that's kind of the problem. Nobody should have the final say on what constitutes a "true" or "worthy" sim. Things important to you may mean nothing to others and vice versa. Thinking that there's only one valid approach stifles exploration of other possibilities and is inherently hostile to innovation.

 

More, I would have to disagree on another point. I am very intimately familiar with the areas I have lived in, and FSX looks nothing at all like them. Certainly not greatly more than X-plane10 does. I myself don't like X-planes gray "plausible world, but in terms of matching reality, it has little to be ashamed out of the box compared to the sometimes nearly random jigsaw puzzle of tiles that is FSX out of the box. I'm assuming that's why most of us are not using FSX straight out of the box, and instead spend hundreds or thousands trying to make it look approximately close to reality. Certainly Orbx and many others would not exist and prosper if that were not the case.

 

You say that any sim must provide this or that type of aircraft as if it was inevitable, Yet for just one example, Aerofly came out with its own collection of planes and did fine. Fine enough to expand and only then move to heavies. It's illogical to suggest even indirectly that there can be only one path to success in  these endeavours, following nearly inevitably from the example of FSX.

 

The details and minutia of licensing, data security etc are listed as if nearly insurmountable obstacles, but again, 3rd parties bring these planes to us repeatedly including tiny little Aerofly.

 

Daunting? Yes. Technically challenging? Yes. A learning process? Yes, but did'nt most of the "Professionals" that started maybe even right here as amateurs, go through that process and live to tell about it? Isn't Stephen B. practically begging for people in the community with those skills and that experience to step forward and assist?

 

I told Stephen I would never try what he is doing, and I told him why. But I still wish him the best of luck, and if he continues, I will assist where and when I can.

But who would we purchase it from Stephen, you ?

You still have not answered my earlier question, which other flight sim forums have you approached, because in my daily visits to most of the leading sites I have not noticed anything about this brave new venture, why is that ?

 

No... you wouldn't purchase it from me, I'm not a business man and have no intentions of creating wealth from this project. What we'll need to find is those who do have business experience to create a business model that bends to the desires of the community... thus the reason for calling it a community driven project. One of the criteria of such a venture, at least from my perspective is that all profits go towards the continued development of the simulator, what isn't used to pay the necessary people to run such a business as well as the developers, would be used for R&D. 

 

Where these business people and developers come from can ultimately be determined through the use of CrowdSourcing, allowing for the ability to tap into a worldwide resource. With the ability to telecommute as well as telecommunication, we can reduce the over all cost of doing business substantially. 

 

Such a concept is not new and is in fact being used throughout the world. Planning such an entity is indeed a formidable task, but one that can be done. 

 

It's your ideas coupled to my ideas, coupled to thousands of others ideas that can make such a venture possible.

 

Yes, we did announce the launch of the NGFS SIM-Posium on several other sites. One was IVAO, another was VATSIM. We also made announcements on reddix, SIMHQ, Frooogle SIM and others to include UNIGINE Sim, Unity 3D, Unreal Engine.

 

To answer your question... "why is that?" I don't know the answer. AVSIM has been the most active forum regarding the NGFS SIM-Posium and as a result we've seen a steady growth over the past 3 weeks.

 

As the word continues to spread as to what we're really trying to accomplish and that this truly is a community driven project, my hope is that more and more folks will join in the effort to achieve the ultimate goal of creating a new flight simulator based upon the criteria set by the community, not by a "Big Producer".

 

Every feature request will be considered by the community, every idea will be looked at and ultimately the community will decide what will and will not be included in the initial release of the new simulator.

 

It's really a matter of involvement. The more involvement, the bigger the momentum, the bigger the momentum, the more opportunities for success.

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

If the powers that be feel that this thread should be moved... I'm in agreement. I posted here... because it appeared, upon first glance, that this was the appropriate place to do so.

 

Stephen B.

 

 

Mr. Stephen B... you came here with the intent to start discussion, albeit on your own website where you're in total control. However.. said discussion has started here, where all are neutral and not in control. Is that really a problem?

 

First... I'm not in total control... the open discussions going on at the SIM-Posium are just that... open discussions.

 

Second... I appreciate the discussion going on here at AVSIM... I just wish there was a little less shooting from the hip and a bit more accuracy in some of the statements that have been made. Other than that I'm all for a neutral discussion.

 

Third... The SIM-Posium has been designed to gather information regarding a next generation flight simulator. As I've stated here and on the SIM-Posium... ideas have been blowing around the many different forums like leaves in the wind... the SIM-Posium is an attempt to gather those ideas into one forum for the purpose of determining the desires of the flight simulator community when it comes to the features they would like to see within a new simulator as well as gathering the talents of thousands to accomplish the inevitable tasks that are part of such a venture. 

 

Yes we have FSX, P3D, X-Plane, FlightGear, and what ever DTG brings to the table in 2016... but I can promise you this... it's more of the same. Is the same good enough for some people... absolutely... but, there is a caveat that comes from remaining the same... flight simulation as we now know it will eventually die. Why? Because the rest of the world will have moved on and what we now have won't be good enough.

 

To see flight simulation progress now and in the future is the ultimate goal of creating the SIM-Posium...

 

To question who I am, why I'm doing this, what are my credentials, etc. etc. .... by all means ask... you have the right to answers to those questions.

 

To question how we can go about accomplishing the goals set by the SIM-Posium... those answer come from everyone who is willing to look beyond the difficulties of creating a flight simulator and start realizing that there really are answers.

 

“So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable.” –  Christopher Reeve

 

Stephen B.

 

 

This is not a unique problem, and there are many stories of servers shut down and gamers locked out of their purchases. The issue came up again when Rise of Flight (another russian game) required a live connection, and some of us expressed qualms, based on shutdowns of American servers. Aerosoft promised to stand behind the product, and said that if the company ever folded, they would maintain the servers. All that aside, This is not even remotely a uniquely Russian problem, as the shutdown of games for windows, live attests.

 

Actually due to US sanctions over the recent escapades in Eastern Ukraine, Blizzard (World of Warcraft, etc) have suspended all player accounts from that part of the world, and I believe Paypal have also stopped doing business there as well.

 

So yeah, if anybody is going to flick the switch off it appears to be the US side.

Actually due to US sanctions over the recent escapades in Eastern Ukraine, Blizzard (World of Warcraft, etc) have suspended all player accounts from that part of the world, and I believe Paypal have also stopped doing business there as well.

 

So yeah, if anybody is going to flick the switch off it appears to be the US side.

Which is a valid concern when trying to chose software. What are the risks? It's a serious and important business question.

 

 

Which is a valid concern when trying to chose software. What are the risks? It's a serious and important business question.

 

Agreed, and one that can be answered.

 

Stephen B.

 

 

Why not take part in the NGFS SIM-Posium and help us do that!

 

It's your NGFS SIM-Posium so don't you do it? I estimate it wouold only take about a  few hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve it. It that amount of money available?

It's your NGFS SIM-Posium so don't you do it? I estimate it wouold only take about a  few hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve it. It that amount of money available?

 

OK.... take a deep breath Stephen!

 

It's a SIM-Posium or symposium - you were simply invited to participate.

 

The below information was posted just awhile ago in this thread.

 

sym·po·si·um

simˈpōzēəm/

noun

 

1. a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject.

    

 

 

It's a SIM-Posium or symposium - you were simply invited to participate.

 

And merely add more words without adding anything of substance - after all that's all you are doing?

Wow.

I'm failing to see how Stephen can be clearer on this one. He created a site and asked people if they wanted to join. The idea being to ascertain if it's possible to build a new flight simulator, with a new, modern engine, possibly utilising a crowed source monitory scheme such as Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen have shown can work. Commenting on, as some have here, what the major pitfalls and hurdles that need to be crossed and addressed. If, in the end, it's deemed not possible, or too difficult at this point, then, as he stated, he'll close the site and move on. I'm struggling to find any fault in this.

 

At this point, people only have ideas and words. Everything needs to start with those.

Gerry (mgh), you are provoking and inciting others in this topic.  It seems like every time they provide a response to your question you take that response and use it for another argument.  I have removed you from making any further comments in this topic.  I've warned you before in the past about your argumentative behavior.  Please move on to another topic.

I'll be the first to admit... this is quite difficult, more so than I had anticipated. 

 

I never thought that an idea to bring the flight simulation community together to discuss the possibilities of a next generation flight simulator would come up against so much opposition. I had anticipated questions and have done my best to answer those questions here on AVSIM as well as the NGFS SIM-Posium.

 

For those of you who have caught the concept of the Next Generation Flight Simulator SIM-Posium, I extend my invitation again, to join us.

 

I believe we can accomplish much more together and achieve something that we all want... A community driven next generation flight simulator that will continue to progress for years to come.

 

Stephen B.

Elite: Dangerous was crowd sourced... but it was an already popular product that simply needed funding to bring it into modern technology. The person doing it had written the original product.

 

Star Citizen was crowd sourced... but it was proposed by one of the better known game designers of the 1980's.

 

You can't use them as examples as your attempt has neither of those conditions to offer. It's not an already popular product that needs to be brought into modern tech by the person who created it... nor is it proposed by a major name in game design.

 

I personally would love to see a newer, better, more amazing simulation. I just don't believe your approach is even remotely doable.

 

As one person stated above "no one person should decide"... but, in fact one person must decide otherwise nothing is ever settled. Software by committee doesn't work. Someone has to decide what the sim will and won't be. You will never get consensus on the internet.

 

If you want a community driven flight simulator... choose FlightGear. It is already that and simply requires someone to put the effort into it's current technology to take it to the next level.