[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Continuing from http://www.forum.aer...mp;#entry169970

[Rune_ENHD]

Hi Mathijs ,
I would guess some of my Ideas were just to advanced?? That's a real pitty..
I have mentioned something similar to Steve Lahcey(former Aces graphics artist) He thought it was very cool Idea,He called it distribuited computing, but recon'ed that it would open up a new can of worms , well at least I tried... again...


I posted this in June, post#259 page13 here a link to it: my post in June #259 (scroll down to 259), if you wanna get all info.
I took the performance section I wrote and put it in here:
- - - - -

Here are "My Opinions" :

Making it modular like forum-user "Snave" pointed out earlier in the May-Edition post #50
That Would be nice, and the right way to deal with the issue.. upgradeability over the product-cyle, and be able to overhaul the the diffrent parts of the modules independently

1.
Performance as everyone says, this is Really Really important!! Give us slider-controls for everything in advanced settings.
This do not have to be avaliable to the novice and casual user, we could use need an animated pictures showing whats hapening when we adust this and that slider..

I have some Ideas/tips here which might push it into the next millenium Performance-wice:

Say for instance you hawe a quite ok computer for the new Aerosim NG??(Aerosoft's New Simulator )
In the past you have allways upgraded your existing computer with a better videcard, a better CPU, and bigger Harddrive...
What if it was the possibility to offload the AI-traffic-module or a Weather-module to a spare Pc? Most of us have some spare parts around from recent upgrades of the PC, so we most problably have at least part to make one extra PC to use towards somesomting else. So Even if that is not enough we could try and offload the Flightdynamics to a second spare computer.. Now you Would have a lot of processing power towards the Flightsim, and it should run much much smoother. All modules modules should be stand-alone sort off, and it should be possible to trow as much Processing power towards the sim as there is money in your wallet ;-) I mean if you feel want more really good graphics,it should be possible to designate for instance 4 extra PC's towards graphics computing only, and then you would be able to run insane amounts of AA and Anisotropic filtering and really High resolution and widescreen image..
But the beauty of this system is to bulid it out as you see it fit.
If set at Low graphics setting on a single computer, it should atleast provide FSX-graphics maxed-out, for todays multicore graphics-cards and multicore cpus. I hope this is possible to achieve in a flightsim, that would just be awesome!!
- - - - -
Please If you could give some comments back to this I would be really happy!
- - -

At least I hope that that the sound will get a Real overhaull!!!
There's Lots to do in the graphics department and physics department..
I hope you have the possibility to check out FU3 (Flight unlimited series ) there are some really good ideas there, (I constantly see people who have used that sim, comenting about Ideas fra FU series in here)
also perhaps you could talk to the former PM there I think he was named Peter James.

I wish you guys all the best off luck with your new Simulator
Microsoft really need a new compeitor in the civilian sim area...


Best regards
Rune_ENHD

[dukee152]

In the new flight simulator I would like to see a virtual airline linking system because in southwest virtual after every flight we have to file PIREP's where we have to write down how much fuel we used, how long it was from pushback to shut down, and how many nauticle miles we traveled. I have no problem with this but i have to normally write down or memorise all of that information. So instead of doing that i would want the simulator to send it to the airline after I shut down.
I would also like to see a realistic startup sequence that follows all or most of the necceasary proccedures in real life, for example I was watching a video http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page, and some of the stuff in flight simulator x you do not have to do.
In addition i would like to see a less annoying air traffic control service because. In fsx thy are not really the best to deal with they can be inaccurate and dont help that much, like when you land ILS they will not line you up with the runway, but that is what you get with automated computerised airtrafic control services.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

dukee152, on 07 July 2009 - 06:06 AM, said:

In the new flight simulator I would like to see a virtual airline linking system because in southwest virtual after every flight we have to file PIREP's where we have to write down how much fuel we used, how long it was from pushback to shut down, and how many nauticle miles we traveled. I have no problem with this but i have to normally write down or memorise all of that information. So instead of doing that i would want the simulator to send it to the airline after I shut down.

I feel that functions like those belong in add-ons and not in the base software. For example FS Flight Keeper does all you want in a most brilliant way. Just try the free version.

[EDDHFlyer]

Hello fellow simmers and aerosoft,

we all know that it took more than 20 years to microsoft to create the FS and finally to reach the level that it is today. It's not perfect, but we have real time weather, ATC, we fly procedures like real pilots do, bush flying, and the list goes on and on. Now, my question is that how aerosoft can develop a simulation, under everybody's expectations, within 2 or 3 years of development that can reach the same level of realism of today's simulation; and not only that, we are asking them to push the envelope even further! Is it possible to create such a complicated project of that kind in such a short time, or do they have an Ace under their sleeve that we dont know yet?
We were told that they are looking and tresting various game enginees. Perhaps my question might appear silly or even stupid to some people here, but as I am not a computer expert I would like to know. What a game engine has to do with a world simulation? a game engine, I thought, is for a limited "universe" like war or role playing games. Here we are talking about creating a virtual world with its living enviroment and the like.
Apart from all the above, I believe that the future of flying simming shines bright, especially when it comes from a company that has a history of creating top-notch quality products.
Thank you and all the best of luck for your new project.

Panos

[captdini]

Hi Mathijs,

The new forums look great, very slick feel!

I dont know if this is possible to do but here are a couple of suggestions.

When we are flying a circuit and turning base to final we cannot see the runway either in 2D or 3D view when we look left (or right, depending on the pattern). If maybe we can press a hotkey which will give us a view of the runway when we change view in that direction for circuit flying, it would be much easier rather than guessing our position and then correcting laterally and vertically on finals. Just wonder if it would be possible? Right now we would have to shift our eye point accordingly to see the runway, but that means when we come back to the straight/panel view we have to readjust the eye point once again.

Another suggestion, and I realize the limitations of ATC programming, if the flightplanner can include entries for Transition altitudes and levels for origin and destination, then ATC levels and altitudes can be flown more "accurately". Right now MSFS ATC defaults only to 18000' and if I am flying in an area where the real world transition altitude is say 4000' and say the area QNH is 1001, after crossing 4000' I cannot change to STD and fly an ATC assigned level below 18000' because I will keep getting "XYZ 123...you are xxx feet above/below your assigned altitude" which is very annoying

Lastly, any news on when you all plan to set a target date to select an engine and when work will commence on the sim. When I mean commence, I am sure work is already going on, I mean to ask selecting the platform, features, etc?

Thanks for your patience in reading and answering our requests.

Regards,

Dinshaw.

[BPL]

captdini, on 07 July 2009 - 07:19 AM, said:

Right now we would have to shift our eye point accordingly to see the runway, but that means when we come back to the straight/panel view we have to readjust the eye point once again.

This reminded me of a request I would like to make. In FSX, if you move your eye point, it's almost impossible to get it back where it was. You can press Ctrl+Space, but then you lose any previous adjustments to your eye point and have to readjust it. What I would like to see in the new sim is some sort of "make this my default eye point for this aircraft" button. Then you could position your view, press the button, and then if you moved your eye point, all you would have to do to get it back is press Ctrl+Space (or whatever key command is assigned). Maybe you could put the button in the "View" tab of the sim, or even give it a key command.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

EDDHFlyer, on 07 July 2009 - 12:46 PM, said:

Hello fellow simmers and aerosoft,

we all know that it took more than 20 years to microsoft to create the FS and finally to reach the level that it is today. It's not perfect, but we have real time weather, ATC, we fly procedures like real pilots do, bush flying, and the list goes on and on. Now, my question is that how aerosoft can develop a simulation, under everybody's expectations, within 2 or 3 years of development that can reach the same level of realism of today's simulation; and not only that, we are asking them to push the envelope even further! Is it possible to create such a complicated project of that kind in such a short time, or do they have an Ace under their sleeve that we dont know yet?
We were told that they are looking and tresting various game enginees. Perhaps my question might appear silly or even stupid to some people here, but as I am not a computer expert I would like to know. What a game engine has to do with a world simulation? a game engine, I thought, is for a limited "universe" like war or role playing games. Here we are talking about creating a virtual world with its living enviroment and the like.
Apart from all the above, I believe that the future of flying simming shines bright, especially when it comes from a company that has a history of creating top-notch quality products.
Thank you and all the best of luck for your new project.

Panos

Good comments... But you got to keep in mind that we got a lot what MS had to do. We got the aircraft, we got the world and we got a whopping lot of knowledge and friend. What we do not have is the massive bureaucracy of MS where marketing determines what is important. What we also do not have is legacy.

We do not attempt to make a sim that is able to load FSX airacraft or FSX scenery. Apart from the legal issues it just makes no sense. What we have in mind is allowing the developers to recompile their products to the new format. For example for scenery it is sure that we'll use Open Flight. This is a established format, there are viewers, compilers, tools available, we are not going to reinvent the wheel but using a standard open format. The scenery that you will make can be loaded in the 12 million dollar sim at Boeing. If they allow you to get it (they will not), you would be able to load the very expensive scenery we sold them.

Now the game engine is consist of two parts, the first is the mathematical part, how do thing interact, what is ground, what is air etc. The second part is the graphical part, how to display all that. MS spend a lot of time and money on developing that, we know that modern games use engines that can handle that very efficient. We just need to buy that.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

BPL, on 07 July 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

This reminded me of a request I would like to make. In FSX, if you move your eye point, it's almost impossible to get it back where it was. You can press Ctrl+Space, but then you lose any previous adjustments to your eye point and have to readjust it. What I would like to see in the new sim is some sort of "make this my default eye point for this aircraft" button. Then you could position your view, press the button, and then if you moved your eye point, all you would have to do to get it back is press Ctrl+Space (or whatever key command is assigned). Maybe you could put the button in the "View" tab of the sim, or even give it a key command.

That's a very very good one. You earned yourself bonus points.

[Busterbvi]

I Think this is a fantastic idea and I feel that Aerosoft are the only ones to do it. I will be watching and contributing constructive ideas
whenever I can. For now here are a few suggestions

1/ FSX is too gimmicky especially the "Views" to many unesesary views in my opinion. FSX & FS9 are simulations not a game and I think it is fair
to say that the majority of keen simmers are mature individuals, real pilots, wannabe pilots, frustrated pilots and people with a passion for aviation
that crave aircraft that look, feel, fly and sound realistic. Who needs cabin, flight attendant, toilet, fuel probe, underbelly views and all the other gimmicks
that get thrown in. Unesesary rubbish in my opinion. The views offered in FS9 are quite adequate and I will be using it for a long time yet. (LONG LIVE FS9 !)

2/ Upon touch down if using a nice HOTAS system it would be nice to be able to shift the throttle back into a detent that feathers / reverses the props or deploys
the reversers on jets or the braking chute instead of having to hit F2. I have contacted controller manufacturers about this but they claim they cannot do it
because it simply wont work in FS9 or FSX, just cant be configured to do it. Apparently there is a way of doing it using FSUIPC but that way to complicated for me
and probably 95% of others.

3/ Weapons and stores. On millitary aircraft it would be nice to be able fire the guns/missiles, drob the bombs and actually damage things just as you can in MS CFS 3.
I dont see the point in including various loadouts on add on aircraft if you cant use them. Its just eye candy ! I think every combat add on variant should include a
totaly clean load out option.

4/ Scenery. Personaly I never fly outside the UK or Channel islands so the rest of it is wasted and taking up unesesary hardware space, how about giving us the option
of only installing the scenery we desire off the instalation disc

5/ Start up options. personaly I dont have the time or the patience to go through the checklists and whole start up procedure every time I want to fly. I just want to load
my aircraft, set the flaps, switch on the lights, let the brakes off and off we go. If I want to go through the whole procedure, I would like to have that option.

A few thoughts here for a new simm and add on Aircraft I know. Just my fellings on the matter. I wish you well with this project. The simm community needs it !!!

Regards, busterbvi.

" Thy shall maintain thyne airspeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee "

[Arista]

BPL, on 07 July 2009 - 04:47 PM, said:

What I would like to see in the new sim is some sort of "make this my default eye point for this aircraft" button.

That leads me to a related idea: A 'return to previous eye point' function. After a quick glance around, that would take the eye point and view angle back to where it last lingered for some amount of time, without the need to explicitly set a a default. Especially since the default might change according to the phase of flight. For example, during takeoff and climb out, you might want to have a low eye point to see all your engine instruments, however during cruise, the primary six are enough, and you want to see more of the scenery. That function could even keep a history of the last couple of stationary eye points and let you cycle back and forth through them.

Judith

[HugoFields]

Arista, on 07 July 2009 - 09:28 PM, said:

That leads me to a related idea: A 'return to previous eye point' function. After a quick glance around, that would take the eye point and view angle back to where it last lingered for some amount of time, without the need to explicitly set a a default. Especially since the default might change according to the phase of flight. For example, during takeoff and climb out, you might want to have a low eye point to see all your engine instruments, however during cruise, the primary six are enough, and you want to see more of the scenery. That function could even keep a history of the last couple of stationary eye points and let you cycle back and forth through them.

Judith

How about having a system kind of like what we have in FSX in which you can use the mouse to look around, but to change viewpoint? You'd press space of some other key and then you could use the mouse to change the viewpoint position (up, down, left, right, etc) instead of just looking around.

[wyoming]

BPL, on 07 July 2009 - 04:47 PM, said:

This reminded me of a request I would like to make. In FSX, if you move your eye point, it's almost impossible to get it back where it was. You can press Ctrl+Space, but then you lose any previous adjustments to your eye point and have to readjust it. What I would like to see in the new sim is some sort of "make this my default eye point for this aircraft" button. Then you could position your view, press the button, and then if you moved your eye point, all you would have to do to get it back is press Ctrl+Space (or whatever key command is assigned). Maybe you could put the button in the "View" tab of the sim, or even give it a key command.

Well then, why not enter your height somewhere, which would give you your actual eye-point the way it is? Maybe add seat adjustment with some a/c when available (not in my 150!).

[BPL]

wyoming, on 07 July 2009 - 11:39 PM, said:

Well then, why not enter your height somewhere, which would give you your actual eye-point the way it is? Maybe add seat adjustment with some a/c when available (not in my 150!).

I LOVE THIS IDEA! If you've never flown in the real plane, you have have no way of knowing exactly where your viewpoit would be. This would solve the problem. I think wyoming deserves the bonus points, not I.

[Mikethebike]

I'm looking forward for any sim better than FSX or X-Plane etc. A challenge...

But I won't buy for ex. Rise of flight as it's too restricted. ( onlinestatus, planes, sceneries, OS etc. )

[Constantin]

Once the project has started will you follow the MS approach of a ''behind the curtains'' development or will we sort of participate in the development cycle by continuing the ideas input and polling some of the features of the sim that can be presented to us via sceenshots or other means? (I am not aware of any other software of this type that has been initiated by first getting input and ideas from its prospective users , and since it started like this why not extending it in the development cycle ?)

[James A]

Hi Busterbvi,

Here's hoping that you don't take this post as anything other than a critique on what you call "constructive ideas".

Busterbvi, on 07 July 2009 - 10:41 PM, said:

I Think this is a fantastic idea and I feel that Aerosoft are the only ones to do it. I will be watching and contributing constructive ideas whenever I can. For now here are a few suggestions

1/ FSX is too gimmicky especially the "Views" to many unesesary views in my opinion. FSX & FS9 are simulations not a game and I think it is fair
to say that the majority of keen simmers are mature individuals, real pilots, wannabe pilots, frustrated pilots and people with a passion for aviation that crave aircraft that look, feel, fly and sound realistic. Who needs cabin, flight attendant, toilet, fuel probe, underbelly views and all the other gimmicks that get thrown in. Unesesary rubbish in my opinion. The views offered in FS9 are quite adequate and I will be using it for a long time yet. (LONG LIVE FS9 !)

Why state "to many and unnecessary rubbish" when the simple remedy is to not use them, your own individual choice!

Quote

2/ Upon touch down if using a nice HOTAS system it would be nice to be able to shift the throttle back into a detent that feathers / reverses the props or deploys the reversers on jets or the braking chute instead of having to hit F2. I have contacted controller manufacturers about this but they claim they cannot do it because it simply wont work in FS9 or FSX, just cant be configured to do it. Apparently there is a way of doing it using FSUIPC but that way to complicated for me and probably 95% of others.

As far as I am aware and since FS98 or even earlier the option for Arming or deploying Spoilers/Speed Brakes on jets (Airliners) is either Shift + / or on the nose wheel touching the runway is /. Nothing complicated about that in my opinion. F2 (if default settings) is reverse thrust I believe, therefore, if you do not have a throttle quadrant that has the capabilities then you would have to use F2 anyway.

Quote

3/ Weapons and stores. On millitary aircraft it would be nice to be able fire the guns/missiles, drob the bombs and actually damage things just as you can in MS CFS 3. I dont see the point in including various loadouts on add on aircraft if you cant use them. Its just eye candy ! I think every combat add on variant should include a totaly clean load out option.

This one is my pet hate!! Do you know what MFS(any version) and MCFS(any version) actually stands for? These are two totally different simulators and should be kept separate. The reason behind this in my (and no doubt others) opinion is, say you were on a transatlantic flight online, how would you like it if a couple of F16's or similar were to pop up on your six and blow the crap out of you? What sort of a signal would this type of new sim put out to both the serious/dedicated simmer and the general public as a whole? Therefore, I personally would like to see these kept separate. No doubt other hard core shoot me up die hards would have a strong disagreement with this one, but, that's their choice.

Quote

4/ Scenery. Personaly I never fly outside the UK or Channel islands so the rest of it is wasted and taking up unesesary hardware space, how about giving us the option of only installing the scenery we desire off the instalation disc

I would have to agree slightly on this one, letting the individual install only that which he needs/likes. You could say the same for the default aircraft would you not?

Quote

5/ Start up options. personaly I dont have the time or the patience to go through the checklists and whole start up procedure every time I want to fly. I just want to load my aircraft, set the flaps, switch on the lights, let the brakes off and off we go. If I want to go through the whole procedure, I would like to have that option.

You have this option already, therefore I would not see this as in issue in a new sim.

[FlyTweety]

@ Mathijs

I´m wondering, what "the other side" is thinking.
I´m sure, you are not only listening to the customers voice but also the current Add On Industry (which are competitors im most cases) .

What feedback do THEY send to Aerosoft?
I mean, there are important and less important Designer, but PMDG for example is one of the first one.
Guessing it is pretty hard to ignore their demandings and wishes if you want to have a complete equipped SimNG one Day ( If PMDG is speaking with you again .... i only say "Metroliner" ) .
So, would you give us the favour and tell us a little bit of the "Pro´s" feedback ?

What for example do the Plane developers prefer in the future ? More X-Plane like (Aerodynamics are depending to the 3D Model) or like MS (Aerodynamics by spreadsheet).

Maybe you can write down some of their imaginations, if neccessary without telling names.

Thanks

[Rune_ENHD]

Mathijs,
I updated my post(#2 ) to better reflect what I was thinking, so please If you could give some comments back to this I would be really happy! I admit it's a Bold Idea.. though

[BPL]

In this sim, it would be nice to have the tree line around the airports done accurately, not like in FSX where they just put a huge rectangular clearing around the airport. In real life, some airports have trees very close to the runway, but this usually isn't the case in FSX.