What about virtual cabins??

[xender 459]

Hi guys!

Now that we have a 64 bits simulator and vas is not an issue anymore, can you maybe consider modelling some part of the virtual cabin in your future aircrafts?? In the DC-6 cargo plane for example in the middle of the flight i wish to be able to walk back there to check if those chickens are ok. Also in the 747F i wish to go to the crew rest area to make a coffee, or go downstairs to see if those ferraris are strapped .

Maybe not the entire cabin, maybe only some part of it. In some 747's maybe the first class cabin, or the crew rest area etc?

 

[downscc 1,327]

Juan, if they did any of that then they would get complaints about the chickens being too close to the foxes.  I'd prefer PMDG stick to making a flight simulator for pilots.

[markdf 84]

Just because we're not limited to 4gb anymore doesn't mean we should fill it up just for the sake of it.

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people buying PMDG's planes are doing so for the detail in the systems and flight model and would rather the development time (and RAM/CPU) be focused on improving the detail and performance there.

I know personally if I wanted to experience a cramped passenger cabin I could get that for £9.99 from Ryanair rather than £100+ for PMDG 

[pracines 823]

Juan,

We were going in that direction until VAS became an issue. I remember working toilets in at least one plane. Like I said plenty of times before FS9 or even FS2002 should have been 64 bit; we'd be so much better off by now. Now that 64 bit has finally arrived, all kinds of innovation to immerse and approach reality will come. 

Don't worry, there will be detailed cabins whether people like them or not. Even being able to manually load luggage/cargo will come someday. The PMGD J41 has passengers, that feature will eventually return. DTG just added them to FSW (external view only). A2A Cub went there with success. 

Now that we have the head room, it IS going to fill up no matter what anybody says. 

[markdf 84]

10 minutes ago, pracines said:

Juan,

We were going in that direction until VAS became an issue. I remember working toilets in at least one plane. Like I said plenty of times before FS9 or even FS2002 should have been 64 bit; we'd be so much better off by now. Now that 64 bit has finally arrived, all kinds of innovation to immerse and approach reality will come. 

Don't worry, there will be detailed cabins whether people like them or not. Even being able to manually load luggage/cargo will come someday. The PMGD J41 has passengers, that feature will eventually return. DTG just added them to FSW (external view only). A2A Cub went there with success. 

Now that we have the head room, it IS going to fill up no matter what anybody says. 

Except we don't yet have that headroom.  Yes we have access to more RAM, but that is not going to magically make CPUs process faster, or graphics cards handle more complex models.  That is all some way off, even the top of the line CPUs and GPUs are only just providing acceptable framerates (and still struggling at large airports with traffic) with the level of detail being pushed in current products - so how do you expect all these things to produce anywhere near decent performance for those of you who don't have the money to buy the top tier equipment?

VAS was not the sole reason those things slipped out of fashion. Even given enough memory the performance just wasn't there when the VC models started to approach modern standards.  Sure, if we stayed at FS9 polygon counts you could have full cabins, but developers made the sensible decision to prioritise the things that matter during a flight, and that isn't likely to change until the majority of customers can maintain a smooth, high framerate with what is being modelled already on mid-range hardware.

Despite what you seem to think, 64 bit is not a magic bullet that means you can just throw as much as you want at the sim with no penalty, it's just one piece of a very large puzzle - we're still a long way away from where you think we are.

[icemarkom 59]

Quite frankly, I am upset PMDG modeled anything more than the inside of the cockpit. It's really impacting the performance, of what could be the awesome simulation. Then again, some folks prefer candy.

[pracines 823]

1 minute ago, markdf said:

Except we don't yet have that headroom.  Yes we have access to more RAM, but that is not going to magically make CPUs process faster, or graphics cards handle more complex models.  That is all some way off, even the top of the line CPUs and GPUs are only just providing acceptable framerates (and still struggling at large airports with traffic) with the level of detail being pushed in current products - so how do you expect all these things to produce anywhere near decent performance for those of you who don't have the money to buy the top tier equipment?

VAS was not the sole reason those things slipped out of fashion. Even given enough memory the performance just wasn't there when the VC models started to approach modern standards.  Sure, if we stayed at FS9 polygon counts you could have full cabins, but developers made the sensible decision to prioritise the things that matter during a flight, and that isn't likely to change until the majority of customers can maintain a smooth, high framerate with what is being modelled already on mid-range hardware.

Despite what you seem to think, 64 bit is not a magic bullet that means you can just throw as much as you want at the sim with no penalty, it's just one piece of a very large puzzle - we're still a long way away from where you think we are.

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

-We don't need speed trees, but we now have them.

-We don't need object flow, but its very much wanted. 

-We don't need GSX, but its immensely popular.

-We Don't need FS2Crew, but it is currently missed sorely by P3Dv4 users.

I can go on and on and on...

Have you seen the popularity of Orbx airport sceneries with people walking around and grass?

How about the AI that actually load the cargo/luggage in GSX and the AI fuel trucks that actually have a working meter.

What about the dolphins and birds FSX has animated, is that so bad to have?

Well there will be an abundance of these things and much more, because we have developers that want to develop marvels far beyond what we have imagined. 

THINK BIG Mark, not small, but if you want perfect smooth no less than 60 or 120 FPS, fly in FS9.  

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

[xender 459]

Yes! That's my point, just like @pracines says. If possible i want the entire plane modelled. Being able to climb the stairs and walk to that airplane, go inside and see the cargo pallets there.. that's magical. So much beauty in there.

[markdf 84]

1 minute ago, pracines said:

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

-We don't need speed trees, but we now have them.

-We don't need object flow, but its very much wanted. 

-We don't need GSX, but its immensely popular.

-We Don't need FS2Crew, but it is currently missed sorely by P3Dv4 users.

I can go on and on and on...

Have you seen the popularity of Orbx airport sceneries with people walking around and grass?

How about the AI that actually load the cargo/luggage in GSX and the AI fuel trucks that actually have a working meter.

What about the dolphins and birds FSX has animated, is that so bad to have?

Well there will be an abundance of these things and much more, because we have developers that want to develop marvels far beyond what we have imagined. 

THINK BIG Mark, not small, but if you want perfect smooth no less than 60 or 120 FPS, fly in FS9.  

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

My point is that there is still a lot to be done to deliver acceptable performance on the things that actually matter, before they start reducing frame rates further.

64 bit clearly does not mean what you think it means, and I can assure you that when it comes to GPU and CPU development that flight simulation is barely a footnote on the budget - NOTHING PMDG do or don't add will have the slightest effect on how far Intel push their chips, or NVIDIA push their graphics card R&D, in fact those roadmaps are set YEARS ahead of time. This has got nothing to do with "sympathy", but everything to do with the fact that this is a business.  If your product runs badly, people won't buy it. If people don't buy it you don't get paid.  So what do you think they're going to focus on first, the core functionality of their product, or eye candy with no functional value to the product? Flight simulation is already a niche market, customer satisfaction matters.

In response to your examples:

ORBX - Do nothing but scenery, making pretty scenery is their only objective. Their only aircraft were not made in house.

FS2Crew again focus on one specific thing and doing that thing well.

GSX - Part of FSDreamTeam, who again focus solely on scenery and graphical touches.

All of those developers focus on the core of their main product and doing a good job of that. You don't see FS2Crew producing airports, or FSDreamTeam making sound packs. They survive and make profit by making their core product their only priority. I do think big, the only difference seems to be that I'm still in touch with the reality of the situation rather than just the hype.

But please, continue lecturing me about the nature of the industry I work in, I could use some more entertainment.

[mtrainer 136]

Some day, probably after I'm long dead, there will be a flight simulator for the home user that will be, first and foremost, an EARTH SIMULATOR with an aircraft moving about in it.  Realistic traffic, people, weather, air traffic control, physics, you name it....it would look so good visually you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the simulation and real film.  The passenger load would always be different and the people in the cabin would have real personalities you could interact with.  Maybe even a "disruption" slider you could adjust so you could have the privilege of occasionally returning to the base airport as some drunktard gets duck taped to his seat....the possibilities are endless.  We'll know we're there when the toilets in the plane swirl in the opposite direction South of the Equator.

The order of things that get modeled as we try to get there....is what we're really talking about.

For now, I'd say keeping frame rates high during landings is one of the most important aspects to me personally.

Mark Trainer

(Started on the Commodore 64 SubLogic II Simulator ~ 2 Frames Per Second)

[OSJJ1985 134]

To be honest.... the "interior" of the exterior model (I am sure you know what I mean), which is present on the 737,747 and 777 (can't say about the DC-6, haven't got that yet, but I would be surprised if not) are just as good, if not better, than most virtual cabins in the FS2002/FS2004 days. One can easily roam within with something like chaseplane. So that's a start I would say, until developers find a less time consuming and more performance friendly way to get a more detailed Virtual Cabin attached to the Virtual Cockpit.

[doylie22 5]

1 hour ago, OSJJ1985 said:

To be honest.... the "interior" of the exterior model (I am sure you know what I mean), which is present on the 737,747 and 777 (can't say about the DC-6, haven't got that yet, but I would be surprised if not) are just as good, if not better, than most virtual cabins in the FS2002/FS2004 days. One can easily roam within with something like chaseplane. So that's a start I would say, until developers find a less time consuming and more performance friendly way to get a more detailed Virtual Cabin attached to the Virtual Cockpit.

I already think that's too much. I hate everytime I switch to an exterior view that is the first thing I see while the rest of the model loads. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

The VAS limit has been essentially removed.

Do not forget, however, that rendering still takes time. So, to render an entire cabin, and all of the seats, and textures, and all of that lovely stuff is nice in theory, but for the vast majority of the time, entirely worthless, while still dragging down performance (yes, even when you're not looking at it).

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

13 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

The VAS limit has been essentially removed.

Do not forget, however, that rendering still takes time. So, to render an entire cabin, and all of the seats, and textures, and all of that lovely stuff is nice in theory, but for the vast majority of the time, entirely worthless, while still dragging down performance (yes, even when you're not looking at it).

Absolutely!

I held my tongue on this and a few other posts of this nature, which we knew would come along with the VAS limit breach.  It's just that a lot of folks aren't all that savvy on what it takes to perform all the calculations necessary for flight sim and to render graphics, so we'll be seeing these posts from now until eternity asking for all sorts of things.  Not their fault though, nor do I mean to imply they are somehow lesser flight simmers because they don't understand. They are just interested in turning on the computer and having it go.

Regarding the smaller aircraft mentioned above... yeah, because they're smaller aircraft (thus not as many polys, textures being laid, etc.

We have people who want to see cabins (although I have actually made an effort I just don't understand that, but each to his own) and those who don't.  I'm firmly in the latter camp as I run all large payware airports with high-end payware aircraft and I'd prefer not to have any of my system resources taken up by things I'm never going to look at. That said, I can also remove those textures if they exist, and it's not difficult for the developer to add a selection to the config file to turn them on or off - but then again what do we want devs working on?  New aircraft, systems and updates or features that a select few want?  Maybe a small addon for a small price to add cabins?  I dunno, According to my wife I'm wrong about everything, so I'm likely wrong about all this!  LOL!!!

Best wishs to everyone!

 

[ShawnG 1,823]

4 hours ago, pracines said:

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

.....

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

we're stuck on 5 ghz because of the laws of physics, not because the hardware is not being pushed hard enough by the software.   operating a processor above 5 ghz generates enormous levels of heat, and it becomes impossible to cool effectively at a certain point, and the only currently available means of technological advancement, which is making the physical components of processors smaller in order to shorten the distances that the signals travel inside the processor only results in very small incremental improvements in speed, not the enormous ones we had before the wall was hit.  There is no magic.  this is science.  When we have working quantum computing, get back to me.

 

second point:  people not being able to afford monster pc's is the developers problem.  if most can't run the software, most won't buy the software, and if most won't buy the software, devs go out of business.  a few power rig guys can't keep the market going by themselves.

 

So, sure, we should push the envelope some.  but we need to do it for items that make a difference to what we are accomplishing.  a cabin would only be useful if there was some sort of multiplayer social feature where folks could be passengers on a flight flown by others (which would be cool, up to a point)  But if you have a choice between this and something that actually affected the pilot's job.. say precipitation effects of the windshield, we should go for those things first.

 

Shawn Gray