Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Ideas & Suggestions & Questions => Topic started by: JP on August 08, 2015, 09:59:10 am
-
Hi,
if FS threads are going on everyones nerves I want to apologize in advance. In this post I want to give some thoughts which are much more detailed than what I have read so far though.
First I would like to give a quick introduction of myself. I am nobody important in the FS-world nor do I know much about software development. I did play around extensively with X-Plane's Plane Maker in the past and am a real world pilot who holds an instrument rating and an absolute aviation-nut since age seven. I am currently studying applied geoscience and, due to an eye injure, will likely never be able to get into professional flying in the future. So I get excited about flight simulators and that is why I am going to make this post!
A.) So what makes a civilian flight simulator (that outerra doesn't already offer):
A.1.) Navaids: When Pilots practice flying on a PC they need Navaids. Navaids are radio-navigation facilities ranging from simple setups such as a non-directional beacon (NDB) which, if in range and tuned to the correct frequency, causes an indicator on the cockpit-instrument "automatic direction finder" (ADF) to point into the facilitie's direction. The Pilot knows the NDB's position from a map and can now use that information to navigate his aircraft.
More elaborate facilities like the VOR station let the pilot know directly which direction FROM the facility his position is. VORTAC and VOR/DME station add distance measuring equipment (DME) so the pilot also knows his distance. Modern instrument flight procedures, even if they use GPS, use the positions of such stations for their instructions. The position can be determined old-school-style using radio navigation or via GPS, although pure GPS waypoints are also sometimes used (but much less fun!). Instrument landing systems (ILS) represent the highest in precision radio navigation and are widely used at bigger airfields and airports.
Digiatal databases of navaids exist and, since their functionality is precisely defined (range etc.), are imported into all big-name flight simulators automatically on a world wide level.
A.2.) Airports: As with navaids, databases for all registered airfields exist containing length, direction, width and type of all runways plus taxiway and tarmac layouts. All big name FSs import them into their world by automation. The tarmac is then, in the case of MSFS, filled with buildings via autogen.
A.3.) A basic weather model which models the effect winds have on an aircraft's trajectory. Wind-, precipitation- and cloudcover-data can even be downloaded from the web inflight!
And thats it! You guys already have some aircraft and a flight model. Now, pls dont take this as: "I think its easy" or anything of that sort. But I hope I could emphasize the point of just how much your engine is destined for exactly that role.
B.) Why I think the market needs a new civilan flight simulator:
B.1.) There is no product which people are really, truly 100% satisfied with at the moment. FSX is from 2006 and has been showing its age for a while now. Microstutters and crashes are reported on even modern PCs. Prepar3D is too expensive and for 90% of simmers not really an option. X-Plane is developed by a group of old men who refuse to do something new and ground breaking and take their product to the next level. What you guys are doing with your engine has been asked for in X-Plane's various forums for ages now and to this day the answer is always the same: "It cannot be technically done!". X-Plane is starting to dust and its not going anywhere under its current leadership. They are very satisfied with what it does and will not try anything groundbreaking and when the *do* try someting new its usually a fail (looking at you X-Plane AI traffic and ATC >:(). I will say, though, that their flight model is to date hands down the best "feeling" on the market!
B.2.) Visuals DO matter! Your engine looks georgeous. Better than FSX and X-Plane combined! People will want to fly in it and they will pay for it! I know I would... ;)
C.) So what am I sugesting here:
In my non-professional opinion I think you guys should do everything to get with someone who knows flight simulation or take advice from real-world aviators and aviation-engineers (or do it yourself) and make Outerra the highly successful flight simulator it deserves to be! Make it what Aces should have done next if they would still exist. Remember, they were making black numbers, just not *enough* for Micro$oft's managers!
I hope I could spark some new thoughts on the issue and wish you guys much success wherever your project leads you!
Peace out!
-
Right now it's mostly a matter of getting the sufficient funds for the development of a simulator, to create a dedicated team for it. Classic investors are avoiding it, possibly for the same reasons Microsoft pulled out - low gains, and in case of other smaller teams without much marketing power also high risks, relatively small and conservative user base that already invested a lot into addons for old FS and will wait with support, and so on.
Crowd funding is an option, but the same problems remain. It's generally understood that an unproven developer can't get over 400k on Kickstarter, but that's just a fraction of the development costs, while the user expectations are high. A barebone simulator that needs lots of extra addons probably won't get even there. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of smaller indie developers willing to work with us, providing the content, so that may be the way for the project.
In any case, with few other options I guess we can only try, but it's clear that the presentation for the crowdfunding campaign must be prepared extremely well. That's what we are doing, or going towards - developing the necessary functionality so that we can show something working for all major areas, but not going into much specifics that would be subject of post-funding development.
And we are going to aim for a combined aircraft/rails/trucks/watercraft/spacecraft simulator platform, not just to widen the potential user base but also because it's possible to do with OT and will be great :)
-
And we are going to aim for a combined aircraft/rails/trucks/watercraft/spacecraft simulator platform, not just to widen the potential user base but also because it's possible to do with OT and will be great :)
No tank love cameni :) I wish you guys all the best and really do hope you get the required funds.
-
No tank love cameni :) I wish you guys all the best and really do hope you get the required funds.
Sounded like a "good bye" !?
-
Physicist Hawking Stphen says everything can be explained with words and drawings.
Currently the game industry bill than film and music, and that was almost unthinkable not long ago.
Grand Theft Auto V cost $ 265 million, slightly less than Avatar, James Cameron's film, which he calculates a cost of nearly $ 300 million
The video game industry generated revenues of 75,000 million dollars in 2014 with an increasing trend (11% in Asia).
There are currently more than 1200 million fans to games (with increases of 35% in areas of mobile / tablets, etc.
The game Destiny has cost over 500 million dollars in the first week and had raised (Activision).
The game Grand Theft Auto V grossed $ 800 million in the first 24 hours.
Balck Ops Call of Duty, reacudó more than 350 million dollars in the first day of its release (production cost $ 30 million) and as of today bears raised more than 1000 million.
Typically, the production of a game costs $ 50 million
I think we're in the right business, another thing ,,, find out who is going to lend the money.
https://youtu.be/9ZyQK6kUdWQ
-
WoW ... had GTA5 $ 265 million budget costs? :o I would have so much for a Flight Sim. Is someone who borrows so much to me, but please today when it comes. Thanks. :)
-
No tank love cameni :) I wish you guys all the best and really do hope you get the required funds.
Sounded like a "good bye" !?
No, not goodbye :) Just missing the tank love.
-
[...] And we are going to aim for a combined aircraft/rails/trucks/watercraft/spacecraft simulator platform, not just to widen the potential user base but also because it's possible to do with OT and will be great :)
You guys are really ambitious and have a big vision. I salute you!
However, getting enough funds do bring something like that into reality at once might be more dificult than it needs to be. Let me express a thought I have on this.
Kickstart just a very rudimentary flight simulator and then refine your vision during a 3 to 5 year early access phase! This could look something like this:
Phase 1) The Kickstarter: Sell early access for a rudimentary flight simulator using your Outerra engine, 3 flyable aircraft and as many airfields as you can get in there for your budget. Make it clear that you intend to take this project for the long haul and what you envision your steps to be!
Phase 2) Early Access: Introduce features step by step as you keep selling early access copies, allowing people to make addon aircraft freely along the way...
2.A.: Get all registered airfields into the simulator using automation and databases (naked tarmac will suffice, X-Plane only recently started addressing that issue)
2.B.: Import navaids and model their functionality
2.C.: You have a solid flight simulator now. Keep selling early access but up the price!
2.D.: Implement a weather-engine and give it the ability to download weather from online sources.
2.E.: Use osm-data to generate what X-Plane devs would call a "plausible world".
2.F.: Implement multiplayer.
2.G.: You now have a good flight simulator. Keep selling early access but up the price!
2.H.: More flyable aircraft. Get payware developer on board too!
2.I.: Implement AI traffic and ATC. DON'T try to do what X-Plane wanted to do. Look at how MSFS handles it.
2.J.: Implement seosonal changes and make sure your autogen represents the style and culture of respective world regions!
2.K.: You now have a banging awesome flight simulator. Sell at full price!
Phase 3.) Develop major addons:
3.A.: Make sure the autogenerated roads are passable everywhere and give the player some trucks and automobiles. AI-traffic for land and sea. Steerable ships and ship naviagtion aids. -> "Land and sea traffic" addon!
3.B.: Introduce an economy: Autogenerated missions for hauling cargo or passengers from port to port, depot to walmart or airfield to airfield. -> "Commerce" addon!
3.C.: Military stuff? Have designated warzones (3-5 % of total planet surface). Affects civilian traffic via no-fly-zones. Brave truckers could try their luck for increased profit. (Must admit I am not a big proponent of war simulation in this!) -> "Combat" addon
I really hope I don't come across as a know-it-all. But I just wanted to share my thoughts. If it was helpfull in any way or sparked just some small considerations then it was worth the time. Essentially I am proposing something similar to what Squad did with their Kerbals...
Peace out and cheers!
-
Hi Cameni!
Translate:
I have an opinion, I am sure it is not far from the truth. If you, the developers give us loyal users, enthusiasts of your product, such an instrument we will be able to create, albeit simple, but the gameplay. We will play it, and we will record video clips, and will share them on YouTube.
What will be a good advertisement for your product.
Take the example of Bohemia Interactive. They at one time made a very correct decision, they gave active users of their product powerful tools to create gameplay. What was he an excellent testing ground for the development of the engine. And an active part of the user to create a free, do a little of what shamelessly took advantage of Bohemia Interactive)
RU:
У меня есть мнение, я уверен оно не далеко от истины. Если вы, разработчики, дадите нам лояльным пользователям, энтузиастам вашего продукта, подобный инструмент, мы сможем создавать, пусть простой, но геймплей. Мы будем его играть, и будем записывать видео ролики, и будем выкладывать их на Ютубе.
Что послужит хорошей рекламой вашему продукту.
Возьмите пример с Bohemia Interactive. Они в своё время приняли очень верное решение, они предоставили активным пользователям своего продукта мощные инструменты для создания игрового процесса. Что послужило им отличным полигоном для развития движка. И активная часть пользователей создала, бесплатно, не мало того, чем Bohemia Interactive беззастенчиво воспользовалась)
-
Возьмите пример с Bohemia Interactive. Они в своё время приняли очень верное решение, они предоставили активным пользователям своего продукта мощные инструменты для создания игрового процесса. Что послужило им отличным полигоном для развития движка. И активная часть пользователей создала, бесплатно, не мало того, чем Bohemia Interactive беззастенчиво воспользовалась)
:o
Хммм...признать чесно, то я ваш пост, точнее выше сказаное;
не совсем понимаю.Это таксказать тонкий намёк на толстые обстоятельства?
Или вы попросту не в курсе, что сегоднешняя группа Titan IM это ничто иное, как
BIS в своём первоначальном виде...ну если так можно выразится. Далее, чтобы не
быть многословным... http://outerra.blogspot.hu/2014/12/titanim-outerra-based-military.html
ну и соствено: http://titanim.net/www/ потому не совсем понятно кто с кого должен брать
пример и для чего, если всё в даный момент обстоит с точностью до наоборот. ::)
-
they gave active users of their product powerful tools to create gameplay
Yes, so there needs to be a product first. A simulator platform would not actually make sense without 3rd party developers being included early in the process.
Right now you are receiving functionality updates developed primarily for our commercial licensees. A simulator needs its own funding, or else it will take forever.
Kickstart just a very rudimentary flight simulator and then refine your vision during a 3 to 5 year early access phase!
I wonder what funding goal would be realistically achievable presenting just a rudimentary flight simulator. What you described isn't really a model for Kickstarter, but an early access model.
Kickstarter gives you a chance to get the necessary funds to kickstart a serious development with all the staff required for it. However, the project must be inspiring enough to gain the necessary support from a wide audience, and I'm not sure how a rudimentary simulator would fare at that.
The biggest problem with the early access model is that you do not get enough funds to hire a sufficiently qualified and capable team for the development, unless you can expose the alpha to a huge community. One possibility there is the Steam early access where millions of people will see it, and even with a low conversion rate (for a simulator) you can get some nice numbers if you manage to get green lighted. It's not without problems though, you basically have to have a well playable alpha there, which in case of a simulator still involves a lot.
To me it means that both the Kickstarter and the Steam Greenlight need something that's already a well playable alpha simulator, and that needs to be developed in advance.
-
Возьмите пример с Bohemia Interactive. Они в своё время приняли очень верное решение, они предоставили активным пользователям своего продукта мощные инструменты для создания игрового процесса. Что послужило им отличным полигоном для развития движка. И активная часть пользователей создала, бесплатно, не мало того, чем Bohemia Interactive беззастенчиво воспользовалась)
:o
Хммм...признать чесно, то я ваш пост, точнее выше сказаное;
не совсем понимаю.Это таксказать тонкий намёк на толстые обстоятельства?
Или вы попросту не в курсе, что сегоднешняя группа Titan IM это ничто иное, как
BIS в своём первоначальном виде...ну если так можно выразится. Далее, чтобы не
быть многословным... http://outerra.blogspot.hu/2014/12/titanim-outerra-based-military.html
ну и соствено: http://titanim.net/www/ потому не совсем понятно кто с кого должен брать
пример и для чего, если всё в даный момент обстоит с точностью до наоборот. ::)
Я в курсе дружище!)
Я привёл BISов в пример, тех, ещё молодых, и амбициозных, которые приняли мудрое решение, дать пользователям максимум возможной информации, и дать инструменты, что бы эти пользователи с пользой для себя и дёшево для BISов, помогали в развитии движка.
http://outerra.blogspot.hu/2014/12/titanim-outerra-based-military.html
Дата последнего поста Sunday, December 7, 2014
На официальном сайте тоже тишина, я даже перестал туда заглядывать.
Может им некогда?
-
I wonder what funding goal would be realistically achievable presenting just a rudimentary flight simulator. What you described isn't really a model for Kickstarter, but an early access model.
Sure it is! As long as you communicate to the community that you're kickstarting an early access project then you can do that.
Kickstarter gives you a chance to get the necessary funds to kickstart a serious development with all the staff required for it.
Not necessarily! Even Chris Roberts's (Star Citizen) original plan was to raise only enough money to come up with something presentable enough to present to a publisher. If he can kickstart a corporate presentation then you guys can kickstart an early access simulator. ;)
However, the project must be inspiring enough to gain the necessary support from a wide audience, and I'm not sure how a rudimentary simulator would fare at that.
Although I can only speak for myself. But if you guys are honest about your intentions and make it clear that you want to take this for the long haul then I would be *much* more inclined to fork over cash than if someone promised something awesome but unrealistic! Lay out your vision and a plausible course of action and people will trust you (I would think...)!
The biggest problem with the early access model is that you do not get enough funds to hire a sufficiently qualified and capable team for the development [...]
Just thought I'd throw in that X-Plane is basically developed by 3 guys or so... :)
To me it means that both the Kickstarter and the Steam Greenlight need something that's already a well playable alpha simulator, and that needs to be developed in advance.
Release anteworld as a demo during your kickstarter and let people fly the included aircraft. That is WAY more than any other kickstarter project had for demonstrating its potential and win people over!
Btw.: Yes I am trying to convince you now! ;D
-
Hi JP, and welcome to OT! :D
I agree, navaids and airports are two primary features necessary for any flight sim.
Navaids are something I have been pursuing for months. Currently, I can actually add them to a specific aircraft on a limited basis by including a script file with all of the necessary parameters, and a function to look up the aircraft's current position and return the data. This could be used to model GPS, ADF, NDB, DME, or even ILS, but would need to include the definition for each airfield, and the scripts be added to each aircraft. A line of sight parameter could also be introduced to model terrain interfering with the signals.
I could easily build a basic demonstration of these capabilities on the Cessna 172, although I am not quite sure how to correctly select the destination and display the data temporarily. (HSI bearing?) I could simply add a user_parameter to the top of the script, which you would set to the destination. Alternatively, I could have the "transponder" ping the airport once the aircraft comes within a certain distance. I would like to hear you suggestion on this! :) It wouldn't be a long-term solution, but could provide you with navaids temporarily. I already have much of the functionality done, and would be happy to work with you to build a demo.
Currently, you can build any airstrip in a matter of minutes using the procedural road system. The process is quite straightforward, and with a little bit of effort you could add dozens in a short amount of time. You can also extract the scenery cache files for a specific area and share these airstrips with the community (See this post: http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3231.msg36246#msg36246 ). Acetone will be posting a short tutorial on building runways on the Scenery board shortly, and I'll post the link HERE.
In the future, OSM includes all of the airfields world-wide in a separate layer, and those can imported automatically. Now, there are some additional functionalities needed to automatically import the navigation beacons along with each airstrip, but I am sure it can be done with the right data source.
The biggest milestone we are all waiting for at the moment is the extended controls and click-able cockpit manipulators. Once those are released aircraft can be built full-featured, including start-up procedures, etc.
To answer some of your other questions:
Weather (physically and visually) are planned features, and Outerra plans to have it updated from online sources.
AI traffic for land, air and sea is feasible in the future.
Seasonal changes are also a planned feature and have been discussed on the forum at great length.
However, as Brano points out, funding is the great cornerstone. JP, you have identified a small number of the features we'll need for a full fledged flight sim, and only for aircraft, however many of these items have many sub-features and dependencies which will be necessary, and there is a long list of requirements in addition to those.
Again, we are not simply building an "aircraft" flight simulator, instead we are trying to gain traction with a much wider audience, interested in space flight simulation, vehicle simulation (including tracked vehicles!), train simulation, etc. The idea is to have a fully integrated environment, where all of these activities can take place simultaneously, and without the limits to scale many other engines have.
To me it means that both the Kickstarter and the Steam Greenlight need something that's already a well playable alpha simulator, and that needs to be developed in advance.
I like the idea of Steam early access, it certainly provides a wider user base, above and beyond the flight sim traffic a Kickstarter campaign might generate. If that is the case, we would need to identify what the basic feature set and requirements should be, and qualify the current state and difficulty of each requirement item.
Best regards,
Uriah
-
To me it means that both the Kickstarter and the Steam Greenlight need something that's already a well playable alpha simulator, and that needs to be developed in advance.
I like the idea of Steam early access, it certainly provides a wider user base, above and beyond the flight sim traffic a Kickstarter campaign might generate. If that is the case, we would need to identify what the basic feature set and requirements should be, and qualify the current state and difficulty of each requirement item.
Kickstarter and Steam Early access share both the same advantages/problems for game devs and users.
For devs, it's a way to get an income before starting to sell the product, something really important in a long term plan. But it requires a lot of communication and progress at a constant rate if you want to keep the momentum and not burn the reputation of your product before you release it. Let's face it, most of the people here are really polite and ready to learn a bit how things work, but dealing with thousands of new users, each one with he's own opinion of what Outerra should be (from Let's do Minecraft, guyz to I'm really disappointed by the lack of ILS); things could go wrong if the project is not strong enough to handle it.
Everyone thinks Outerra is fantastic, because it's easy to see what great things you could do with it. But it's not possible to do everything with it at the same time.
That's why I think it is indeed wise to not jump into the wagon until the roller-coaster is ready. The list made by JP (welcome!) is interesting, I think he's giving a good picture of what should be available from start for this kind of project. In my opinion some sort of basic career/job system should also be ready day one, even if it's really basic. Even if it may irritate a small part of the audience, it will help keep a larger one interested and maybe even ready to be invested in the project.
I have the impression that Outerra is slowly creating a real momentum, not only attracting the attention of users from various fields of interest but more importantly, content creators.
And a lot of nice folks to talk with :)
-
First of all I would like to thank all you folks in here for the warm welcome. I am really seeing a lot of positive enthusiasm and much good vibe in here! 8)
@Uriah:
Looks like you guys are well ahead of me! Hehe. As far as navaids are concerned I have no clue how to code their behavior into a program BUT I actually just went down into the basement to dig up my old flight school course-books. I can definitely help out and give some advice on how these setups work out in real life. How much advice depends on your knowledge level! ;)
I can definitely recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Jeppesen-Instrument-Commercial-Staff/dp/0884873870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439155351&sr=1-1&keywords=jeppesen+instrument+commercial
I have an edition a few years older but it does a really good job at explaining the basics and everything else a pilot needs to know!
From what you write, though, I get you already have some pretty good ideas about how to program it, but perhaps not so much experience with the real *animal*. Some things I want to point out:
1.) The functionality of each of the types of radio-navigation-stations is precisely defined by international regulations. For example: A HVOR (High Altitude VHF Omnidirectional RAnge) station has a service range of 40 nm (nautical miles) from 1k to 14,5k feet, 100nm from 14,5k to 18k feet, 130 nm from 18k to 45k feet and 100 nm from 45k to 60k feet. When such station's signal would be interfered with by terrain within this "Altitude Service Volume" the station could, by definition, not be placed in such a location. This is why if you import their real-world locations and model their behavior according to real life definitions there is no need to model terrain interference in-engine!
2.) Navigation stations are seperate from airfields and should be treated as different entities. Pilots use them to navigate from airfield to airfield but the locations of these beacons are very often not very close to the airfield. Thats what makes instrument flying so much fun! ;)
Feel free to send me a PM and I will be very happy to help out with some advice however detailed it would need to be (Within my own capabilities ofc.)! Some of these things get complicated and it would help to exchange sketches and pictures so we should exchange contact info if you want.
Cheers! :)
-
a way to finance projects is kickstarter, but Acetone and highlighted the pros and cons,, and works just like you open a restaurant with a bad cook and even then put a good cook, the restaurant just closed.
relatively speaking,, will look for a project, which is further supported by steam, and serve as a reference,,, it is a superb device simulator (Harrier), and the target for funding is libras.antes 70000 day 2 of September,
we will follow.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1413102387/combat-air-patrol-2/updates
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=353863895
vídeo del proyecto: combat air patrol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecyndnwkg5g
https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4748/
https://www.facebook.com/combatairpatrol2
-
One of the primary reasons I have stayed at Outerra is because of the community/developer interaction and overall attitude here. Not only is the OT engine unique and absolutely incredible on its own, but I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the developers (which says a lot) and have considerable trust in their ability to deliver a solid platform for the kind of simulation engine we need.
I would be very grateful for your help in working on a Navaid system! I sent you a PM with my contact info, check your inbox.
Let's make this thing happen! :)
Regards,
Uriah
-
Currently, you can build any airstrip in a matter of minutes using the procedural road system. The process is quite straightforward, and with a little bit of effort you could add dozens in a short amount of time. You can also extract the scenery cache files for a specific area and share these airstrips with the community (See this post: http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3231.msg36246#msg36246 ). Acetone will be posting a short tutorial on building runways on the Scenery board shortly, and I'll post the link HERE.
It's here http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3371 (http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3371) :)
-
Why everyone talking about a civil aviation simulator? Do ya'll want to leave us combat guys hanging? :'( i mean... why not have a unified flight simulator for once...
EDIT: You also left us glider pilots hanging! Any good flight simulator needs a good weather simulation. i would argue that weather might be one of the most important things in a flight simulator.
-
A well thought out solution meets the requirements of all of the above, without favoring one over the other. Things are designed to be extensible, not purpose built for only one application. We do not take the add-on approach, but rather proceed with an integrated/unified solution which encompasses all of the use cases.
This is why, in my opinion, an add-on approach is completely unfeasible. First users would get the "civil aviation" pack, then the "military aircraft" pack, then the "land vehicles" pack, then the "watercraft" pack, then the "train" pack, then the "rocket" pack, etc... and while all of these might be able to run at the same time, each would essentially be developed in virtual isolation, and may be incompatible with one another. Take the JSB and Bullet incompatibility for example. JSB and Bullet were developed separately, outside of OT, and once both were integrated into OT it was found they were mutually exclusive. Now that may not be the best example, but it serves to demonstrate why the compartmentalization of functional building blocks of a game engine has serious downfalls. In other words, if one hand does not know about the other, they can't be made to work together.
If we want OT to be more than just the sum of its parts, things must be fully integrated from the very start. If we want vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, rockets, trains and fill in the blank, to coexist in a fully immersive simulation environment where all objects can effect all other objects, than we must build a comprehensive platform which takes all of these into account as primary requirements, and not as after thoughts.
Regards,
Uriah
-
I love the idea of having everything in the same game.. but do we have enough to make each part of the game so realistic? to even appeal to the flight sim community you almost need the top notch flight models, models, terrain (haha), weather, systems modelling etc. and i think you would need something similar for the other stuff too..
I think the right call would be "alright, we are going to make this simulator really good" i just fear that if you have something that is everything, but isn't the best at anything. then the people who fly flight simulators etc. will just go back to their other simulators again.. Thats why i think the best bet is to focus on one thing at first, and if it's sucessful, you can try expanding it.
I dont really know.. but i really wouldn't feel like flying simple planes in outerra if i could go do the same just in advanced planes in DCS.. yes, i do that exact thing right now, but that's only because there might be a future to it.. but if the future is only simple airplanes then i would just leave.
Not saying it's not possible to do it.. just questioning if its possible to do everything to a high realism level in less than a decade...
-
My previous post was more from an architectural and development perspective, and not a content perspective. In terms of content, it is already proven that aircraft are far ahead of the pack and will certainly receive the most effort overall, there is no question about that. My comments simply put forth the multitude of development approaches which are possible, and explain why I think an integrated approach is better, over one which favors a more compartmentalized development cycle.
I was specifically talking about the base level functionality, code interfaces, user interfaces, development tools, etc... necessary to make things work. The current state of aircraft development in Outerra is already far ahead of vehicles, simply because there is more interest, more people building aircraft and talking about the potential of OT as a flight simulator. As I have already proven, it is possible to build rockets, and the same functionality which will provide fully featured cockpits for aircraft, will of course be directly compatible for rockets, spacecraft, vehicles, watercraft, etc... It is up to the "content creators" to take these tools and build X, Y and Z of their own accord. Outerra will of course build content as well, as much to have something included with the OT download by default, as to provide an example for modding community to follow in their own efforts to build whatever their heart desires.
For instance, you wouldn't want to develop a set of features which are immediately implemented for aircraft, and then a year later try to apply that to a vehicle, just to find out the two are incompatible and you have to start over, or re-integrate multiple implementations of the same functionality, one which works for aircraft and another for vehicles. Be it a navigation system, sensor system, electrical system, etc.
"Simple planes"... who said anything about that?!?! 8)
The AH-64D Apache Longbow project (http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3253.msg37360#msg37360) I'm working on with KW71 for Outerra, promises to deliver an extremely detailed and fully featured aircraft which integrates not only the functionalities necessary for civil aviation, but also military aircraft, and the code developed for the Apache will be applicable to both airplanes and helicopters, and even vehicles in the long run. Whether you are a fan of helicopters or not, or whether you enjoy civil aviation or military simulation, or even if you never intend to fly an aircraft in Outerra and prefer vehicles of one form or another, the core functionalities will be shared among them all, and all of these different types of content must be compatible and operate within an integrated simulation.
I hope that serves to clarify what I mean.
Regards,
Uriah
-
I dont really know.. but i really wouldn't feel like flying simple planes in outerra if i could go do the same just in advanced planes in DCS.. yes, i do that exact thing right now, but that's only because there might be a future to it.. but if the future is only simple airplanes then i would just leave.
I am always amazed when I see how people can be manipulated. You are talking
about dcs and if I'm going to ask you how many mistakes alone 190D / 109K
has, as the 3D model (let even their so-called super-puper afm), then I would wager
times that you can not even call 2-3 errors. And that's perfectly OK, because today,
most are only interested in a little fun. The case our all story remains on track - f...k it.
The main thing they can pull out of his pocket what we (Aviation History Funs).
And it is not the worst thing expecting a, because the worst thing is that the young
generation will be completely fooled. Of course you can always today not digitize everything
and be able to play on PC to 90%, but I'm talking about the little things that are
doable and when the error amounts that render then complete everything
to naught. I think if an X-team want to make as a kind of Sim, should consider very
carefully what it does.
Personally, I am of 1csg, dcs, 1c mg, or as the all always hot, very disappointed and
they can all me happy go to hell because they are not a good example, or they will ever
be one. 8)
OT is a completely new and above all very potentials Sim engine and any dcs etc. as
comparison does not need it, because I think they can all together did not even give
her the water, even in her today's alpha-stage.
my 5cent to .... :)
P.S. sorry Sir, but I can no longer hear of this dcs, mu-mu-cs, kwa-kwa-cs ... so do not
take anything personally. ;)
-
I was not trying to criticize anyone. just that.. seeing how much time it takes to make a complex aircraft like the ones in dcs, i don't believe it can be done over the night.
I have more than enough faith that this can and will be greater than dcs.
Btw... is there any possibility for clickable cockpits? ;)
-
The game Destiny has cost over 500 million dollars in the first week and had raised (Activision).
The game Grand Theft Auto V grossed $ 800 million in the first 24 hours.
Balck Ops Call of Duty, reacudó more than 350 million dollars in the first day of its release (production cost $ 30 million) and as of today bears raised more than 1000 million.
... those are generics ... dont think a simulator will ewer see such money. They have witchcraft backing it ! ... ya know, this kind of witchcraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXFHkuiM23k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXFHkuiM23k)
... that amazes me, how it can work at all.
-
I was not trying to criticize anyone. just that.. seeing how much time it takes to make a complex aircraft like the ones in dcs, i don't believe it can be done over the night.
I have more than enough faith that this can and will be greater than dcs.
Btw... is there any possibility for clickable cockpits? ;)
I did not say that you criticize someone. I just said that any comparisons with what other OT's still too early. I'm pretty sure that every game will have its Fun's, but that does not have long known that these games are made correctly and authentically. One can make 1xxxx clickable cockpits, but this will not mean equal, that they are all correct, when compared with the original.
In addition, it is an impertinence of user demand 50-60€ for a model that not even 20% of the original appeals.
What I mean to say, you can make a good Flysim, but only if one grabs with his heart in it.
No marketing strategy can puschen a model forward, if it is done from the beginning cross and wrong.
And so can you give me your faith give a little,
Here you can see for yourself and understand about what I mean.
http://www.forum.jgr124.ru/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=897
(couple of years ago, the russians Community have activated because errors dcs Dora ... I have this taken only cockpit under the microscope ... so the things that you could correct ... but nothing was happening ... and if you will ask me personally, I'm not ready for such Flysims to pay 1€ ... I would not even get paid. :facepalm:)
-
Yes.. i have in fact read that thread..
this wasn't going to be a thread about what dcs is and isnt. i just used it as an example of what the competition would be like.
No matter what you say about dcs right now.. could you offer me another combat flight simulator with the same features.
I have yet to see the perfectly modeled aircraft in any game, and i probably never will. that's just how it is.
Anyways, i think you'd have to expect similar prices for aircraft in outerra.
-
I have yet to see the perfectly modeled aircraft in any game, and i probably never will. that's just how it is.
Anyways, i think you'd have to expect similar prices for aircraft in outerra.
Well Sir, that's what I show you now 1/3 of what we have. So, not included in the calculation; Fw190A-5,6,7,8,9, Fw190D-9, 11,12,13, Ta-152C & H-series, more than 100 documentaries - Flight Tests & Engine Tests. All original plus written in my mother tongue ... total approximately 5000+ pages.
The 3.5 thousand Working drawings I could not provide you show, because it's too much and do I have more than 100 posts Write here ... that you understand it ... so, you can trust me on word. ;)
So, you trust us that we can do it at last to provide a correct Fw190 to his feet and what they will be willing to pay for it?
What we've done so far, you can see in German-Thread. :)
Fw190A-1 bis A-4 Dokus.
(http://www11.pic-upload.de/thumb/12.08.15/ppv1w8rfzcsl.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-27979967/Fw190A-1bis4-A.png.html)
(http://www11.pic-upload.de/thumb/12.08.15/p11eew2vxtlj.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-27979985/Fw190A-1bis4-B.png.html)
(http://www11.pic-upload.de/thumb/12.08.15/v31luq4372py.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-27979990/Fw190A-1bis4-C.png.html)
(http://www11.pic-upload.de/thumb/12.08.15/xwhfjvmzlg6.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-27979992/Fw190A-1bis4-D.png.html)
BR,
Stefan
-
Nice stack of paper ... doe, i think his point was, that any serious comercial sim-dev team would hit the wall the moment they try to do anything since the cold-war era stuff. Such documentation may wont be given away, just like that by the original manufacturers for various reasons, or it will be taken as simply a too much time-eating effort, compared for doing the next alike modification and cutting detail level to more managable manner.
BUT, when things are handled by a motivated comunity, then the roof is much higher and going to the last screw will be possible, limited only by theyr effort. Also pointing out, the need for such people, forming up in the community.
-
Interesting thread, nice to see people giving their opinions on the subject of Outerra's future.
I personally agree with Uriah, about both the community, it's developers openness to communicate and the fact that designing in isolation isn't the way forward...
A commercial airliner sim would just repeat the mistakes of other developers... so I'd rather see the emphasis on competitive combat simulation..... afterall you get that right and the commercial airliner sim is a given.
-
I have no doubt its possible to make things more accurate.. my point is that making an accurate model take a lot of time, and i would expect that it takes some money to do it too..
I don't think the game would need to be better in all aspects at release, but for people to be interested in switching i think you need to be able to show that it can become better over time.
Just an example:
Release a alpha/beta version of the simulator with at least one fully modeled airplane. (in my opinion 1 fully modeled airplane is better than 50 unrealistic airplanes...)
Very realistic flight modeling.
It needs all airports modeled in the game. you could go the x-plane way and start off with 2d airports, and let the community make them 3d over time. (if you do this i would suggest implementing the airports into the updater itself.. having to go on the internet to download everything all the time is not a good idea for scenery..)
A flight simulator would need good decent OSM
And finally Weather. (clouds in outerra already looks awesome, but we need different types of clouds.. we also need realistic thermals and such.. but i dont find it necessary for a initial alpha/beta release)
Over time i think you would have to release different variations in the landscape around the world... smaller details like fields etc.. to make the flat landscape more pleasing to look at.
-
Need I clarify again, we are talking about completely different subjects.
Functionality: Methods, interfaces, integrated physics, sensors, displays, transponders, etc.
Content: (assets) specific aircraft, vehicles, rockets, trains, etc...
I am NOT talking about content!
What I AM talking about is the necessary functionality for each CLASS or TYPE of asset, 1. airplanes, 2. helicopters, 3. vehicles, 4. tanks, 5. watercraft, 6. trains, 7. rockets, 8. characters, 9. static objects (buildings), 10. animated/functional static objects (Aerodrome beacon, radio tower, animated building).
The functionality needs to be built to handle all of these types, and have each compatible with one another.
Content released by Outerra and by the community will fall into these categories, regardless if there is one of each type, for five hundred.
Examples of compatible functionality:
Airplanes and helicopters needs to be able to land on watercraft and crash into buildings. (They currently don't because they rely on two separate physics engines which are not integrated)
Transponders need to be able to communicate between all assets in the world.
Radar needs to be able to detect both air and ground targets.
Cameras needs to be able to render to displays for all types of assets.
And we are going to aim for a combined aircraft/rails/trucks/watercraft/spacecraft simulator platform, not just to widen the potential user base but also because it's possible to do with OT and will be great :)
As cameni said, Outerra's horizons are much wider than a traditional "flight simulator", and therefore the scope of the development needs to encompass all of the necessary functionality. Content is a given, and in all likelihood Outerra will build one high fidelity asset of each type listed above. The assets currently included with Outerra; C172 (airplane), MiG-29 (jet), AH-64 (helicopter), SM11 and T817 (vehicles), Mercenary (character) and a number of buildings, represent a baseline of examples which the modding community or a developer can use as examples to build new content.
I hope that helps clarify things.
Regards,
Uriah
-
The main problem is your generation are you running somewhere too fast. You have to stop running. No one is behind your back and pushes you forward. I am already old-bag and one thing I could say; no matter how fast you're running, its destiny can not overtake. :D ;)
First measure 1,000 times and then deposited.
One should plan carefully every step and cover, as it will affect the whole.
Because weather operations, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Because the exactly is done the better it will affect many aspects such as FM / DM and everything possible to do so. Especially when we are talking about internal combustion engines (gasoline engine). Everything else is so unimportant and could gradually be added after this.
BR,
immer noch isch :)
p.s.
I have no doubt its possible to make things more accurate.. my point is that making an accurate model take a lot of time, and i would expect that it takes some money to do it too..
I don't think the game would need to be better in all aspects at release, but for people to be interested in switching i think you need to be able to show that it can become better over time.
It sounds like an excuse for those who have failed to operate a first extensive research in terms one or another aircraft.
I think that one or the other such operators have simply taken the wrong path and their product looks no different than a cheap piss against their loyal customers.
We believe that the better way is to make slow to any fault to go out of the way and to create a product that in first line ourselves happy. :)
-
Im sorry... i don't really understand what you are saying..
Are you saying that we cant expect that everything will be done over the night? Or that we should not accept an alpha/beta stage aircraft to be released? or both...
-
I fully agreed whith what you said Uriah... My point was simply to show that it whatever the simulation will be, it will take a long time to get everything right. i probably did a bad job with my example..
-
I've written and deleted 2 posts before posting this one, so to say I'm finding this thread challenging is an understatement.
I wonder if the possible divergence in thought is down to being either a player or a modder at heart.
Not that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with either.
Farlander, you've raised an obvious issue about increased complexity/accuracy requiring longer time and that maybe it's best to start with simply a single accurate model.. showing the capabilites, versatilities of Outerra and then allowing the Modding community to run with it and create content.
Well I think you'll find we're all on the same song sheet with this one.
I think for me the issue lies in this assumption that increased accuracy/complexity HAS to take longer... naturally this assumption is quite rightly based on our experiences of just how it's done elsewhere.
But what if, having seen how it's done elsewhere, seen how long it takes and having identified their failures.... WE do it differently.
For them it's impossible as they've already created this 'rod for their own backs' code and changing now would require a complete strip down and rewrite.. but for us we just have to think smarter.
And I think that's the nub of this...
We here along with the Outerra developers know we can do it better than elsewhere.
Simon
A little bit about me,
I do flight models for a bomber crew combat flight sim... I originaly did 3d modeling (as it's my day job), but having completed a model I soon discovered that FDM quality was way behind that of 3D and 2D. Damage animation seemed to be simple with only very rudementary links into the flight model... All in all my dream of flying home a badly damaged B17 was taking a bit of a nose dive.
So I set out to make a simpler/better way of making flight models.
-
Are you saying that we cant expect that everything will be done over the night? Or that we should not accept an alpha/beta stage aircraft to be released? or both...
Not at all. We're waiting on the extended controls and 3d cockpit manipulator functionality to be released by Outerra. This will be a major milestone, and allow both aircraft and vehicles, built by both OT and the modding community, to be built with player functionality which doesn't currently exist, as we are limited to a finite set of controls at the moment.
Once these features are released, a number of aircraft will be updated with this functionality and released as well. As I said, the Apache will be released with implementations of the latest features in Outerra, and I expect the Cessna C172 and the MiG-29 will be as well.
Again, there are two separate discussions, functionality and content.
I tried my best to explain the difference above. We can't just blindly rush the functionality in order to simply get content released. We must get the functionality working in the correct manner which is in line with a long term development road map, which has certain long term requirements, and then we can release content using that functionality. As I explained, the functionality should be compatible with all types of assets.
In the case of extended controls for example, that same functionality will be compatible with aircraft, vehicles, rockets, trains, etc... and our goal is not just to focus on aircraft, (FROM A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE), but to make a comprehensive simulation environment which support all types of asset using the SAME functional components.
It is clear the community is overwhelmingly more interested in "flight simulation" than other areas, and due to that there will be more focus on releasing accurate and detailed aircraft than vehicles for example, but that doesn't mean we should build functionality exclusively for aircraft, and at some point in the future go back and say, "Oh darn, all of that work we did for aircraft over the last year doesn't work on vehicles, and now we have to do it over again!"
We need aircraft and vehicles to be compatible within the simulation environment so they have interact, like the case I mentioned of an aircraft landing on an aircraft carrier, so the functionality and compatibility need to be a forethought, not an after thought.
I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.
Regards,
Uriah
-
I'll use a metophore instead.
If you are going to build a house, you start by hiring an architect to draft the plans for the house. These plans include all of the requirements, including the type of materials to be used in construction, the dimensions of the walls, doors, windows and ceiling, etc. Now the first thing you need to build is the foundation. Think of the foundation as the architectural platform which the rest of the house (content) will sit on. You don't start by building the first story of the house simply to please the customer, who wants to move into their new house right away and start decorating. Instead the concrete crew comes in and lays the foundation. The specifications for the foundation are derived from the requirements, and these come from the physical aspects, such as how many stories the house will have, how much load the foundation needs to support, where the load bearing pilings and footers need to be located for the walls, etc. The foundation is must be built correctly and completely before you start working on the rest of the house. If the foundation doesn't meet the requirements of the house, the house may collapse if the foundation can't bear the load of the walls and upper structure.
In this way a game platform is no different. If you start building the house and decorating it before the foundation is finished, your house will not be up to code and will need to be demolished, and then all of your valuable work and time has been wasted for nothing.
Now, Outerra is laying the ground work, so to speak. They have started by grading the building site which the foundation will sit on (terrain/world), and are proceeding to construct the foundation. We can't rush the rest of the house at this point.
Don't worry, you'll get your content, but you can't move in until the house is built, and you can't build a house until the foundation is complete.
Of course we already have some content, a few aircraft and vehicles, but why rush the construction of the foundation? Do you want the concrete and mortar to fail, and the house to be un-safe to live in?
Regards,
Uriah
-
EDIT: I fully agree. No need to continue wen in the end, we were thinking the same thing.. (im just not that pro at expressing myself).. Case closed ;)
-
the best Flightsim in the world ... start without ailerons, wing half and with one elevator ... pure flight physics realism ... blah, blah, blah ... =D =D =D =D =D =D =D =D =D
https://youtu.be/hd81zpXv14A (https://youtu.be/hd81zpXv14A)
-
... well, if adding Gremlins is a Sim-thing. :D
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e2/c3/f9/e2c3f905132060f17dbe977d93f9f2a7.jpg)
-
What game is that?
-
What game is that?
I'm assuming IL-2 Sturmovik
-
You laugh, but just as they position themselves ...
Zitat: Realistic sounds and physics, detailed aircraft systems modeling, advanced aerodynamics and state-of-the-art flight modeling gives you a real sensation of flight
Unique and detailed damage model shows how deadly the weapons can be and will challenge even the best pilots
http://il2sturmovik.com/
8)