Introducing Flight Sim World!

[rhumbaflappy 113]

If flight School is any indication of the vectors used, it will be nearly the same as FSX. The good news may be that FSX vector BGLs may still be compatible with FSW, as they are data files, not dlls or gauges. But there may be a problem getting those BGLs into FSW's Library system. Someone will figure it out  (how to defeat the Steam only installation routine).

[arsenal82 120]

32 minutes ago, rhumbaflappy said:

If flight School is any indication of the vectors used, it will be nearly the same as FSX. The good news may be that FSX vector BGLs may still be compatible with FSW, as they are data files, not dlls or gauges. But there may be a problem getting those BGLs into FSW's Library system. Someone will figure it out  (how to defeat the Steam only installation routine).

i have tested in flightschool installation of vectors bgl is straight forward;

shape2vector - vectors bgl files can be installed straight away as in fsx in addons scenery folder

you will have also configure manually the scenery library file to activate the files - and yes they work. (flightschool)

[mike4 3]

Defeat steam? The problem is that you need to install 10 years old stuff.

[arsenal82 120]

2 minutes ago, mike4 said:

Defeat steam? The problem is that you need to install 10 years old stuff.

well;

i can also add:  i have tested FS2004  bitmaps photorealistic scenery - that also work in flightschool; but it does not support alpha transparency.  

[rhumbaflappy 113]

27 minutes ago, arsenal82 said:

i can also add:  i have tested FS2004  bitmaps photorealistic scenery - that also work in flightschool; but it does not support alpha transparency.  

In that case, nothing changed in Flight School as far as FSX scenery system goes.... excepting the landclass textures done by ORBX. I think they found a way to alter the landclass tables in FSX as well. If this stays true, all that would be needed would be to invent a scenery Librarian program, to take the manual work away. But, you never know, maybe FSW will have a Scenery Library function.

This might not be good news to some, as it means the old vectors are still being used in FSW. On the other hand, FSX vector addons should work, so time or money spent on those corrections is not totally lost. Dovetail has stated FSW will be a work in progress, so if enough noise is made, maybe they'll hire a couple of GIS folks to update the vectors. Or maybe they'll sit back and let 3rd parties do the work. Perhaps the hundreds of freeware airports we've all collected will still be able to be used as well.

It's a shame the MS Flight vector system wasn't used. Exponentially more control over vectors and landclass. Each scenery package could have it's own vector and landclass definitions, or additions.

Dovetail asked the community to give them their needs for the new sim. The consensus was 64-bit, DX11, better eye-candy, no sim crashing. If they deliver that, I see it as a win. I do understand there are no sloped runways, and AI will be the same, and there is an initial lack of commercial aircraft.

[mike4 3]

DX11...dates also from 2009. I'll have a look at the demo. If it flickers like FSX, I'll trash it right away. For VR they should go with Vulkan or at least dx12.

[NZ255 309]

20 minutes ago, mike4 said:

DX11...dates also from 2009. I'll have a look at the demo. If it flickers like FSX, I'll trash it right away. For VR they should go with Vulkan or at least dx12.

I think they avoided dx12 for now because it requires windows 10. Some people don't like it....

[vololiberista 205]

2 hours ago, NZ255 said:

I think they avoided dx12 for now because it requires windows 10. Some people don't like it....

Don't you mean " a lot of?"

[SamYeager 244]

3 hours ago, NZ255 said:

I think they avoided dx12 for now because it requires windows 10. Some people don't like it....

Whether or not people like Win10 I suspect a lot of people already have rather expensive systems running Win7 that have been tailored for whatever their flight sim(s) of choice may be.

I do have a Win10 system but that's because I finally decided to cough up the dosh late last year for a dedicated gaming system and it made sense to go with Win10 at that point rather than fiddle about with an upgrade/rebuild at a later stage.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mike4 said:

DX11...dates also from 2009. I'll have a look at the demo. If it flickers like FSX, I'll trash it right away. For VR they should go with Vulkan or at least dx12.

Dovetail already said VR isn't on their to do list so no need for Vulkan or DX12. At least not for VR. 

[dtrjones 356]

6 hours ago, vololiberista said:

Don't you mean " a lot of?"

LOL I think Windows 10 is pretty good. It boots up quick and it pretty reliable. All the fancy navigation built in for mobile devices I've switched off so it behaves pretty much line Windows 8. I did however have big issues upgrading from Windows 8 to Windows 10 - a nightmare. In the end I wiped my PC and installed Windows 10 from scratch...

[HiFlyer 9,358]

13 hours ago, rhumbaflappy said:

It's a shame the MS Flight vector system wasn't used. Exponentially more control over vectors and landclass. Each scenery package could have it's own vector and landclass definitions, or additions.

Honestly I was hoping for at least something like this. After watching Stonelance and others exploring and commenting on this over at FSDeveloper for so long, it seemed like something from FLIGHT that was really worth saving.

[Minos 26]

On 5/3/2017 at 2:40 PM, domae001 said:

As they are using FSX code, it is safe to assume that the only major changes to the flight model will be the implementation of accu-feel. Rewriting the flight model for instance to include blade-element theory would probably take years to get right. An advanced native flight model will therefore be one of the major advantages of XP for the foreseeable future. Addon devs have proven that you can circumvent the native FSX flight model and let your own one run outside of the sim though. 

Sorry guys but this is factually wrong. I know Austin likes to brag about BEMT but let's be honest here: this is as simple/basic as it gets regarding aerodynamics codes (i.e. BS in Aero can do it) and it is not even that accurate. It literally takes 10min to code a proper BEMT code. Nothing fancy there. I think the hype surrounding BEMT has to stop. Certainly good enough for simulation but probably no better than a properly done lookup database.

[mike4 3]

What is BEMT?

As for CPU FSX only used one or two cores. So by moving stuff to GPU they not really improved stuff, unless they support multicore CPUs like XP. 64bit is a must but they should also gone Vulkan or at least DX12 for VR. So if they're to lazy to support VR, I'll be to lazy to buy stuff.

[Murmur 3,941]

10 hours ago, Minos said:

Sorry guys but this is factually wrong. I know Austin likes to brag about BEMT but let's be honest here: this is as simple/basic as it gets regarding aerodynamics codes (i.e. BS in Aero can do it) and it is not even that accurate. It literally takes 10min to code a proper BEMT code. Nothing fancy there. I think the hype surrounding BEMT has to stop. Certainly good enough for simulation but probably no better than a properly done lookup database.

Table based and BET flight models each have their own advantages and disadvantages. A well made table based FM is certainly better than a mediocre BET FM, and vice-versa. The problem is that both MSFS (now FSW) and X-Plane flight models have their respective limitations, and those are more important than the type of flight model per se.

I did not expect DTG to build a brand new flight model for FSW, nor would it be necessary, although I think that the MSFS flight model could have been improved in many things (same is true for X-Plane FM). For example, JSBSim is already a more versatile FM compared to MSFS.

That being said, it's interesting to note that all of the major flight sims released in the last decade (most of them with a strong focus on flight models) use some form of BET: Silentwings, Condorsoaring, the IL-2 series, AeroflyFS, DCS, etc. Maybe it's also because of their inherent advantages that may be significant for a home flight simulators, e.g.:

.easier modeling of damages and failures, or any other asymmetric configuration;

.easier modeling of rotorcrafts (if props and rotors are modeled with BET) and other unconventional configurations;

.a tridimensional flow field for atmosphere, allowing the modeling of certain phenomena like gliders banking away from a thermal, or upsets due to wake turbulence.

Now, some of these are relatively marginal things, of little interest to most simmers; and in theory all of these could in principle be modeled also using a table based FM, but with a lot more difficulty.

In conclusion, I partly agree with you. I don't think going to a BET flight model is necessary or a priority to improve the feeling of flight, compared to other things (visuals IMO are even more important), but rather improving the already existing FM would be nice. On the other hand, some of the advantages of a BET flight model are real, and all of the flight sims released in the last decade do make use of it.