Flame outs ?

[Guest Ansgar]

Hello FU3 enthusiasm

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Ansgar,Fortunately, my flights with your 747 don't get anywhere near 34000 feet ;-)Chris Low.

[Guest Pieter]

Peter said it himself: "But unless you offer the world as every other sim does, people won't want it, plain and simple. Everyone wants to fly over there own hometown. Period. If we were to provide world-wide coverage of our scenery, the cost would be prohibitive." In part this it what finally made me use FU less and less. I still do the odd flight now and then and still enjoy it very much then. But one really would like to do things one does (did) in real life over ones own airports and country in a simulator like FU3, especially now when the real flying gets less and less as one gets older and older...Pieter

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I am not particularly bothered about flying over my home town in a flight simulator, just so long as what I am flying over LOOKS GOOD !Chris Low.

[Guest R_Driscoll]

Chris' method of flying the 747 is exactly the reason why I bought FU3 - I wanted high detailed low-flying scenery. People condemned FU3 for only supporting a limited area (althought the first releases of Flight Simulator only had small areas, and the detail was approx zero), yet now they proudly proclaim megasceneries as if they are something new! An ad for the Los Angeles megascenery in my current flight sim magazine proudly says "Now for the first time you can follow roads ...." - I forget the exact wording. "For the first time"? Hah. If LGS could have advertised its brilliant new features half as well as M$F$ launches its rediscoveries of old features, they would still be afloat.So I compared flightsims on the basis of pixel resolution, and after some agonising, settled on FU3 at 4m/pixel. FU3 offered two megasceneries and half a continent. The new M$F$ megasceneries are about 5m/pixel, so we have 25/16 = more than 50% better resolution still, and our game is 6 years old (I'm sure Chris will know the correct age for FU2). More than that, the UKS scenery is better than 4m/pixel. Like Chris, I like flying close to the ground where the 3D nature of flying is most exemplified. Flying over flat photos does nothing for me - the ground must be terrain-textured - and FU3 has ground elevation at 30m/point (the FS megasceneries claim to be about 900m/point in the advertising, but that must be a mistake - they couldn't be that rough, could they?)We have a wonderful sim, cleverly kept secret by a masterful advertising campaign by EA/LGS. I will keep trying to add "verticality" to this landscape, but for pure flying pleasure, I still can't beat a rough weather day through the mountain passes of FU3.I try hard not to be too serious in my posts, but this one on flameouts seems to have touched a nerve with a lot of people. I will go back into "frivolous light" mode now.RobD.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Robert,FU2 is six years old. FU3 is four years old :-)Chris Low.

[Guest Pieter]

I try hard not to be too serious in my posts, but this one on flameouts seems to have touched a nerve with a lot of people.Yes! It comes down to the core of it all - flight modelling! The nerves touched also included the excellence of scenery and tops of flight models of all simulators, beautifully rendered by FU1/2/3. But it also created the same feeling of the user base let-down after the LG/EA turmoil. It all boils down to money making of course.However, as enjoyable as FU3 is today and the basis of pixel resolution, one must always remember that the screen card and its memory access and all things nice rendered by the FU3 program is now outdated, obsolete. When FU3 was developed, OpenGL, geForces and all the others were not even a twinkle in the eyes of the developing team. I can bring my P4 2.6, and the best screen card a home user can afford with all the memory thrown as a bonus, to its knees. This shows me the programming code is outdated in its attempt to be anti-aliased smooth... And this is what makes me sad, uhh serious, uhh whatever. I want FU4, 5, 6. Just think what can be done with an FU-x and new technology with matching program code! Unfortunately, it will be so close to MSFS that it will be back to square one, which caused its downfall anyway: Who, no, rather how many will buy

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Pieter,But that's just the point. Any new extension of the Flight Unlimited series (assuming that it was developed with the same vision as the existing versions) would NOT be the same as MSFS. I could mention any number of things that a potential FU4 could do better (or maybe I should say differently) than its Microsoft counterpart, but we would then be taking the dangerously unstable "my sim is better than your sim" road........so I won't ;-)Chris Low.

[Guest Pieter]

we would then be taking the dangerously unstable "my sim is better than your sim" road........so I won'tPity! There is no need to go that road...We had the FU4 discussions quite a while ago, no need to repeat that as well. However, it would be interesting to have a glimpse into your thoughts what a potential FU4 can present without going into things to do better than FS. It falls in the same category than X-Plane, sort of to each its own? A new view about X-Plane's differences I've read elsewhere states: "There's no reason why you can't use X Plane that way although as a pure IFR simulator it really doesn't have any advantages over MSFS. What X Plane is really best suited for (IMO of course) is for rapid flight modeling and testing of basic concepts. That's the area where it can do things that no other sim I'm aware of can."Of course if the available personnel resources were there, FU-x as a first step should really get the scenery broadened to cover the world. VFR flying would be awesome. But for my own airports either FS or X-Plane can do it as good as any if I want to practice a difficult approach (ILS, etc.) at airports I intend to fly to for real in my country and not some remote place on earth I will never see.I'm really interested in some of your (hidden :-) ) views what a potential FU4 might present to us. Seems to me we should bring the old FU4 discussion back to life. This flame out subject is now too far on a side track. We will, of course, gain nothing again as we all know there will be no more FU's. But still, this is why we are here for

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Pieter,OK, I accept your challenge :-)The following list shows what I would like to see in a hypothetical Flight Unlimited 4:-1. High resolution satellite mapped terrain of the entire British Isles....that's England, Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Outer Hebrides.....and ALL of the hundreds of other islands that litter the coast.2. An enhanced ATC system that takes account of the RANDOM nature of AI planes in FU3. Specific airlines and airliners departing at specific times is all very realistic, but part of FU3's charm is that the AI environment at each airport is different every time that I "play" :-)3. Flight models that abide by the laws of physics. In other words, decent low speed handling characteristics, and the ability to fly a plane "low and slow" without messing around with trim. This isn't unrealistic. It's just that real world pilots prefer to fly higher and faster, which requires alterations to the trim ;-)4. An open architecture, so that extra high resolution scenery areas can be added (and by this, I mean satellite mapped terrain or aerial mapping ONLY. I have no time for generic textures).5. That fancy mirroring technology that works well enough in FU2 and FU3 (and which I prefer to the horrible contrast between the high resolution scenery areas, and the low resolution outer terrain textures). Ironically, an FU4 based on scenery of the entire British Isles wouldn't actually require this technology, since our lovely little island is entirely surrounded by water (generic WATER textures look far more acceptable than generic LAND textures).6. An improved weather engine that accurately simulates the huge variety of cloud sizes and shapes....and the speed at which weather changes at a particular location. The fact that the weather in FU3 can change from "completely overcast with thunderstorms" to "clear blue sky" in seconds is rather too rapid for my liking. Of course, I am not familiar with the weather effects in the latest versions of MSFS, so perhaps Microsoft have nailed this one already ?7. A wider range of default aircraft to fly, including individual examples in the following categories:-a) Regional airliner (eg. Embraer ERJ-135):( Medium range airliner (eg. Boeing 737-700)c) Heavy (eg. Boeing 777-200)d) small twin turboprop (eg. BAe Jetstream 41)e) large four turboprop (eg. Airbus A400M)f) RAF flight refuelling tanker (eg. Vickers VC10...because I want one) :-)g) Any other types that some of you other guys might prefer.8. High resolution elevation data for the terrain (better than that in FU3).9. Consistent quality of terrain textures throughout the scenery. Some of the textures in both scenery areas (and IMHO more noticeable in the Seattle scenery) are clearly of lower resolution than the best examples.10. A decent publisher for the product (the letters "E" and "A" are banned).11. A bug free editor (in other words, not FLED :-lol) to enable the end user to design and build their own airports and scenery packages without crashes, freezes and episodes of "putting one's fists through the nearest wall" :-eek12. A simple, intuitive interface that doesn't require a 500 page manual to decipher....and customise.13. A decent set of external camera viewpoints that have never seen (and never want to see) a sweeping shot of the plane when activated. In addition, these viewpoints should be selectable individually. I do not want to have to cycle through several different viewpoints, simply to get to the one that I want. Oh, and I don't want the view from the cockpit to spring back to "forward" when I let go of the "look left" key, either (this is just an example).14. A VFR cockpit panel, so that I can see where I am going....but with the basic features still visible (airspeed indicator, altimeter, bearing).Oh, and I would like to be given the first option to review this incredible piece of software for PC Pilot magazine. This would NOT be an exclusive. Remember, we want as many people to hear about the project as is humanly possible ;-)As you can see, the ability to fly anywhere in the world is not a high priority. I simply want the scenery that I am flying over to look good. Yes, I know that you could argue that Great Britain scenery is an obvious choice for a Brit to suggest, but another very good reason is that Britain is an island. It is surrounded on all sides by water, and would therefore make an excellent choice for a self contained scenery area that is relatively large, is geographically diverse (from large expanses of flat terrain, to significant mountain ranges), has a large number of airports, and also includes lots of landmarks that could be recreated in model form (bridges, castles, cathedrals.....and lots more).Well, that list will do for now ;-)Chris Low.

[Ckeatin 0]

Hopefully this doesn't make the powers-that-be mad for linking to the other site, but here's good writeup on the FU3 Beech:http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/special/bj400a.htm

[Guest twsimfan]

Pete,I was halfway through editing it into a pinned post but got to thinking... this is a flightsim.com article. They probably wouldn't want it posted so prominately here at AVSIM.

[Guest twsimfan]

Every one interested should print a copy for themselves.

[Guest twsimfan]

Chris,"I know that you could argue that Great Britain scenery is an obvious choice for a Brit to suggest"Gee... ya think? :-lolOh well I lived there for a couple of years... I guess I could go along on that. ;-) The fact that the town I was born & raised in is included in the FU3 scenery is pretty neat for me... and that the FU2 scenery is an area I have spent a great deal of time in helps too. Heck... I can even spot Uncle Len's ranch out in Castro Valley.Seriously the best add-on would be a large block that included Salt Lake City & Denver. Not because I now live in the Denver area... I would be much farther West... probably Port Angeles... if I could manage it. The drama of crossing the Rocky Mountains at this point is something you have to see to believe. Plus going from the Colorado plains to the Utah desert & salt flats is also pretty striking. But it is those mountains that will get you.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/58053.jpgI got those pictures off the net but I live about 2 miles East of that airport... the pictures are looking West... and I attended the "open house" that the C-130 was there for.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/58054.jpgA more practicle area would be the Hawaian Islands. Pretty scenery... not a lot of land area... and reachable from SF or Sea-Tac for those that like to do long airliner flights (not me).My 1st priority always has been an expansion of the Seattle area to include Southern British Columbia on the North... Roosevelt Lake on the East... Northern Oregon on the South... and out to the Pacific Coast on the West.But we are dreaming... again... so we might as well shoot for the Moon. :-ufo2

[Guest Pieter]

"But we are dreaming... again... so we might as well shoot for the Moon."Man without dreams is man without hope or purpose in life...Would you please give me the airport code of which you showed us the pictures? It would be fun for me to check in both FS and X-Plane how it's simulated?RegardsPieter