23 minutes ago, rtodepart said:

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 ...  

Rtodepart, sorry,  but I didn't mean to imply that I thought $70 was too much.  :)

20 minutes ago, JNS said:

Rtodepart, sorry,  but I didn't mean to imply that I thought $70 was too much.  🙂

No worries 😉 just a misunderstanding...

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by rtodepart

Personally I do not see a need for the compulsion to complete your training before purchasing more.  If it is live mentoured training that you are buying maybe.

While I do try to be as correct with my flying as possible I do not like that mode.  My money, my computer my sim.

-Support for the modding/addon community both freeware and payware by ways of a user friendly SDK of sorts where users are more able to easily customize their sim. Whether it is the tools to make an airport, an aircraft or even customize the environment and world.

-Stable performance and smart use of modern pc hardware such as utilizing multiple cpu cores and gpu appropriately. Vulcan, Dx12, etc

-Updated/current global vector, city, land, vegetation and airport data. Perhaps even a way for the user to update this data over time, especially airport related data.

-Autogen object variety including objects such as global landmarks and regional styles. Perhaps a way to also implement osm city building elevation data

-Strong focus on a realistic depiction of overall weather, atmosphere, clouds, large variety in meteorological phenomena, precipitation, sky etc while capturing those small little details of flying whether it's condensation effects, icing, or even that insanely fast perception of speed you get when flying through clouds:

 

As others have mentioned you also have areas such as functioning ATC for IFR and VFR flight, live weather, AI airline, general aviation, sea, and road traffic system, and multiplayer whether it is through an in simulator server browser, open to external hosts such as ivao or vatsim, or both. As long as the core pieces are in place, and these core pieces are able to be enhanced and or expanded then specific areas can be augmented even further over time by users/developers, etc. I believe that is what led to the success of the microsoft flight simulator series, it provided a beginner entry level default sandbox experience out of the box that covered all the important and basic areas of aviation and flight which could then later be expanded in which ever direction the user saw fit. I equate the ideal base platform for flight simulation to model trains in terms of how a hobbyist is able to customize the theme of his or her track, what accessories they want, as well as types of trains and scale to suite their tastes.

Please, not again!! These wish lists pop up quite regularly & we will obviously never get what we wish for.

Do not forget that it takes a lot of time and money for any developer to buy in to a totally new sim without any history of any development.

Remember Flight School died a quick death. We have many 'sand-box' type sims, such as FS2004 --- have a look at the great stuff, payware & freeware that it still being developed for this 14 year old sim. FSX, FSX-SE, X-Plane & even FlightGear which is free & open source!

Also, do not forget that to get everything we wish for, we will need a very up-specced PC! Lets start spending more time actually flying & having fun. There is, & will never be a Holy Grail for us simmers.

6 hours ago, rtodepart said:

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 ..

The price is not the issue, value is the issue. Developers can determine their own quality, and with todays "Hi-Fi/A2A/PMDG/Flightbeam/Orbx" quality standard, that will be a bar to beat.

Aircraft performance in a sim as it relates to reality will be in the eye of the beholder, but flying a simulator will always be different than reality.

What you are describing, for instance, has already been achieved with P3Dv4/XP11 loaded with add-ons. Throw in a Sporty's or King Schools learn to fly course and there is no need for more of the same. In other words, whatever is presented to the community needs to exceed what we already have or it will fail no matter how inexpensive or expensive it is.

I'm not here to discourage you or anybody, just some friendly advice based on past failures.

Further advice, make the sim in silence, since you have the money. Release the sim when its ready. You already have available to you all the wish lists that you need. Just represent reality as best as possible, and let the quality/sale/profit of the product do the talking.

I wish you well.  

But please learn to spell!  We would have a lot more confidence then.

Also, do you have ANY idea how much a new sim is going to cost to develop?

I forget who, but we have seen this before, when a developer (NextGenFlightSim) promised the best, & ended up selling caps to raise money!

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by Wobbie

Anybody remember NextGenFlightSim which never came to fruition. Not to knock anyone's enthusiasm on this, but you won't be the first who has tried to use this engine for a flight sim, and probably won't be the last.

 

 

Compatibility =/= new engine

It is simply not possible. 

You have to leave weight behind to walk forward.

Your 3 'sponsors' .... do they have any development experience or are they only backers?

5 hours ago, harrry said:

Personally I do not see a need for the compulsion to complete your training before purchasing more.  If it is live mentoured training that you are buying maybe.

While I do try to be as correct with my flying as possible I do not like that mode.  My money, my computer my sim.

Fully agree. Such a mode is good as an option, but I'd suggest not to make it compulsory.

Kind regards, Michael

It is not our fisrt attempt. We looked into this a few years back and quickly realized it takes alot more $ than we had , this time there is a bigger budget BUT its a scary road to go down to and one may think its a better idea to drive up to vegas and throw money at a slot machine and you may get a better return...

6 hours ago, Victoroos said:

Compatibility =/= new engine

It is simply not possible. 

You have to leave weight behind to walk forward

It's not impossible but quite difficult depending on the type of compatibility.

If you want binary compatibility, where a new sim runs addons that were compiled for old sims that is very difficult. You pretty much need to emulate the old sim's binary interfaces at run time. For things like XML gauge code it pretty much amounts to reimplementing the old engine on top of the new one. It can be done but it's a large effort and the end result might not look that great or perform well. Oh, and you probably need to be bug-compatible as well, or otherwise emulate odd behaviors that developers may have taken advantage of. I would say that for products that bypass published API's and hack into internal data structures of the old sim (ASN for example), binary compatibility probably is impossible.

Alternatively you make conversion tools that translate the files so they work on the new sim natively. That wouldn't work for DLL's but for data files it's possible. For example Flight Toolkit's ability to convert FSX scenery and aircraft to run on MS Flight.

Finally you can make compilers or source file conversion tools that developers use to recompile their source files with the new sim as a target, or convert the source files to a form digestible by the new sim's compilers. This is easier but needs developers to do some work and then re-test and repackage their products.

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by fshobby

23 minutes ago, rtodepart said:

It is not our fisrt attempt. We looked into this a few years back and quickly realized it takes alot more $ than we had , this time there is a bigger budget BUT its a scary road to go down to and one may think its a better idea to drive up to vegas and throw money at a slot machine and you may get a better return...

For sure it's a tough business to make money in, especially without commercial or government customers. I'm curious to see how the Deadstick sim will do, where it is trying to focus on doing just one thing really well instead of trying to be a very general purpose platform such as P3D. I don't know if Deadstick will have an SDK but if they give users a way to add scenery or missions that would be appealing.

28 minutes ago, fshobby said:

It's not impossible but quite difficult depending on the type of compatibility.

If you want binary compatibility, where a new sim runs addons that were compiled for old sims that is very difficult. You pretty much need to emulate the old sim's binary interfaces at run time. For things like XML gauge code it pretty much amounts to reimplementing the old engine on top of the new one. It can be done but it's a large effort and the end result might not look that great or perform well. Oh, and you probably need to be bug-compatible as well, or otherwise emulate odd behaviors that developers may have taken advantage of. I would say that for products that bypass published API's and hack into internal data structures of the old sim (ASN for example), binary compatibility probably is impossible.

Alternatively you make conversion tools that translate the files so they work on the new sim natively. That wouldn't work for DLL's but for data files it's possible. For example Flight Toolkit's ability to convert FSX scenery and aircraft to run on MS Flight.

Finally you can make compilers or source file conversion tools that developers use to recompile their source files with the new sim as a target, or convert the source files to a form digestible by the new sim's compilers. This is easier but needs developers to do some work and then re-test and repackage their products.

I know some will not like this but if we do go forward with this project because of some of the things you mention we prefer to start from scratch .other than the 4 of us we do have 7 guys that are current devs for a bigger company thats not aviation related . its alot of money out of our pocket to pay devs  so they can spend time trying to work on backwards compatibility , we rather go forward with newer development ... 

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by rtodepart