what would be the ideal base platform for the next flight sim

[rtodepart 761]

Im sure alot of folks had asked this question before ,  as of today 2018 if one was to pick a engine to start developing a new flight simulator what is available out there that has no limitations and takes advantage of todays machines ?????

[Murmur 3,941]

Do you mean the engine of a current existing flight sim, or a general purpose 3D engine (e.g. Unreal, etc.)?

[rtodepart 761]

yes like unreal  ....

[fs4fun 366]

If one was going to license an engine I'd look at Unigine Sim.

[rtodepart 761]

6 minutes ago, fshobby said:

If one was going to license an engine I'd look at Unigine Sim.

thanks for the reply 

[Murmur 3,941]

I'd vote for Unigine as well. Outerra also looks nice, but it seems too incomplete yet.

[rtodepart 761]

 UNIGINE has been on my mind for some time now , I just sent their team an email to get info on pricing see what that looks like ....

[rtodepart 761]

seems like  UNIGINE as of today its a option as far as what i now know money wise .(license pricing wise)

I now wonder if the following package  would work or appeal to anyone ...

 base package for lets say 70$ that only includes a high detail trainer (C172) per say and training material for a PPL  .

 worldwide airport database similar to what FSX offers 

at first the user would have the option of free flight of the trainer included with the initial purchase .

the only way the user could purchase or use any other plane would be to first complete a similar training like real flight school and pass a test for a fee of lets say 15$ that gives the user an infinite amount of trys (We talk/ask  for realisim all the time ) 

after passing the training you are now allowed to pay for other AC with or without the need to complete any other training .

the reason of this idea is to also appeal to flight schools to purchase the software and generate cashflow to continue farther development ..

 

what do you guys think of this ???? please add to the list of what would you like ... 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by rtodepart

[pracines 823]

I think the flight sim community will entertain any new flight sim that has all the features of all the sims to date along with all the add-ons available for all the sims to date. So rather than generate another exhaustive wish list, just do some historic research and implement all features. Start there, and you have my attention, anything less will likely get shot down just like the rest.

A $70 flight sim with 1 plane will never sell. We already have so many high detailed C172's. A new flight sim will have to have literally 10,000 more features than what you describe.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

I'd vote for Unigine as well. Outerra also looks nice, but it seems too incomplete yet.

Yet?

[rtodepart 761]

1 hour ago, pracines said:

I think the flight sim community will entertain any new flight sim that has all the features of all the sims to date along with all the add-ons available for all the sims to date. So rather than generate another exhaustive wish list, just do some historic research and implement all features. Start there, and you have my attention, anything less will likely get shot down just like the rest.

A $70 flight sim with 1 plane will never sell. We already have so many high detailed C172's. A new flight sim will have to have literally 10,000 more features than what you describe.

Our idea and i say "our" becuase there are 3 more guys envolved with the actual money to invest on this , we do know what ORBX scenery TRUSKY weather depiction and all of the bells and wissels cust to produce also an acurate manufacturer certified model of any trainer comes at an expence thats high up there .. 

We do not have the desire to produce a simulation with a ton of half done aircraft that may look good to the eye but flight no were near of what the actual airplane performs ...

 modeling a single engine aircraft with up to date nav equipment also comes at a price , remember nav equipment sometimes is not made by the AC manufacturer so that may require permit to depict their products on a simulator . 

the 70$ was just a number to set a example ..

Edited April 26, 2018 by rtodepart

[JNS 106]

I think I see where this is going.....A flight sim with EVERYTHING possible (at this time) rolled into one (okay, maybe add 3 or 4 more planes),  a better engine, and with a relatively small number of possible users and $70 is too much.  Hmmm

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by JNS

[fs4fun 366]

For a sim based on modern foundations I'd live with a limited feature set if it appeared to have the potential to evolve to support adding frameworks for different aircraft types, weather, ATC, navigation and so on. Half of this hobby for me is development so I'd be looking for the potential to make scenery, aircraft or other types of addons (as freeware or just for my own amusement).

With the demise of FSW I'm planning to look more closely at AFS2, but a Unigine based sim would be very interesting as well.

 

[rtodepart 761]

28 minutes ago, JNS said:

I think I see where this is going.....A flight sim with EVERYTHING possible (at this time) rolled into one (okay, maybe add 3 or 4 more planes),  a better engine, and with a relatively small number of possible users and $70 is too much.  Hmmm

 

the big picture will include a broader list of features that appeal more to other groups .to set an example when it comes to ground equipment training there is a potential for  customers outside of the flight simulation community that can use the software to better train potential new ramp cargo agents . the operator could train a new employee loading and offloading aircraft up on arrival offline  without the risk of aircraft damage and later can join a server where either you the simmer or a flight school arrives at the gate and the ground equipment its actually operated by a human and not AI. so yes ground equipment can be operated also not just the pilot simulation side ...

this is one of the many features that we think will bring customers with a bigger budgets in . the idea is to have an option for both the casual at home user and the bigger more serious customers ...  

Edited April 26, 2018 by rtodepart

[TravelRunner404 596]

Make it a wide open sandbox and as backward compatiable as possible.

The inventible problem is no one is going to change without their aircraft and scenery.  Then the lack of mainstream popularity makes it incredibly difficult to acquire a new user base fast enough for commercial viability. 

I believe flight sim has a great future but I don’t think the market is big enough to go after a new user base and slowly bring over the legacy. Unless you have Middle East oil money you’ll bleed out pretty quick. The legacy people here have 10+ (some 20+!) years of investment and comfort. For a lot of people this is an accumulated $20-$100/month hobby with years of membership. Legacy people simply won’t invest until things are ready and new simmers aren’t plentiful enough to support it through the initial years. 

I haven’t even mentioned that the developer community is fractured and stretched. They have little time or concern or financial viability to develop for a new platform. PMDG is often considered the high end top of the line and they have something like 7 developers? The rest is a scattering of contractors I am sure. They have no time or resources to invest in a new platform unless the numbers are there screaming at them and even if they started today it would take 2-4 years to see a 737/747/777. 

Not that an uphill stacked deck battle should ever stop a good entrepreneur! But you really have to nail the right idea from the start and it’s not just an updated engine and high FPS people want. As someone who started a business with 2 people and now has over 100 employees, the thing that always saved us was the right idea from the start and sticking to that. It’s so hard to fix a bad idea and lack of focus.