Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Ideas & Suggestions & Questions => Topic started by: ZeosPantera on March 16, 2012, 03:12:59 pm
-
I haven't owned a flight sim since FS98 so I haven't really been in the loop as to what makes up a desirable Flight Sim. I am curious to find out specifically what the FS community is actually looking for in their "perfect" flight sim. Is it 100% complete control arrays, Accurate airport surroundings, the view out the window from 20,000 feet? Does air combat factor into the whole flight sim family or is it a bastard offspring?
-
I'd say planes are a good start.
-
Good topic here!
Not to dive deep into dreams:
- lakes and rivers
- clouds
- airports
- expanded materials (bumps, reflection)
- opening for 3rd part developers
This will be good start for serious competition with FSX and X-plane.
Then we'll need:
- Navigation net (ILS VOR)
- Weather
- Trees and vegetation
- Traffic and controllers
- Cities (small and large)
- Roads, electric mains and railways (FSX have no btw)
- Some aircraft in default version (However side developers could solve this)
- Realistic lights
...
-
Id like to add that multyplayer could be a usefull additon. havent you ever wanted to fly in formation?
-
Adding some MP peer to peer system would be a nice addition and allow people to test the world sim together in a more productive manner. Perhaps adding in a 1st Person sim so players can jump into planes but also land at locations to look around on foot if needed.
-
I guess one feature would be the ability to refine the height map and coast lines. Also terrain morphing tools to flatten areas etc.
-
I guess one feature would be the ability to refine the height map and coast lines. Also terrain morphing tools to flatten areas etc.
Spore earth modification tools ftw!
(overpowered aliens with powerfull terraforming tools)
-
1) Some form of realistic wind simulation would be great:
http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg759#msg759 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg759#msg759)
Considering the numerical power of today's gaming PCs, it might be the right time to introduce some real physics into the wind models of flight sims. Knowing that this limits the wind simulation to NVidia users: Would CUDA be an idea for this? There is quite a number of fluid simulation codes in CUDA at http://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone (http://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone) .
2) Scenario content based on geographical information:
http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=849.msg9802#msg9802 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=849.msg9802#msg9802)
Cheers, Martin
-
One more - touchable virtual cockpit.
-
1) Some form of realistic wind simulation would be great:
http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg759#msg759 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg759#msg759)
Considering the numerical power of today's gaming PCs, it might be the right time to introduce some real physics into the wind models of flight sims. Knowing that this limits the wind simulation to NVidia users: Would CUDA be an idea for this? There is quite a number of fluid simulation codes in CUDA at http://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone (http://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone) .
2) Scenario content based on geographical information:
http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=849.msg9802#msg9802 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=849.msg9802#msg9802)
Cheers, Martin
Cuda is buggy, and not portable to other cards in the least. By doing so, you'd gear the engine to a specific graphics card :(
I've done some research into Cuda, due to an issue I had months ago, and had to finally disable it because of those specific issues which nVidia refuses to address. From what I understood at the time (while it was a nice idea), it didn't work as intended, and may be phased out eventually, especially as GPU speeds increase over the course of the next few years.
My video editing app utilizes Cuda, but crashes almost every time it's enabled, due to the inherent bugs. nVidia has a long way to go to get it working right, but even then, you're leaving ATI guys in the dust if you develop an app that takes advantage of it.
-
You're right, of course, about tieing the simulation to NVidia cards. I wasn't aware that CUDA is so buggy - just looked like a cool thing to me.
That said - is something like CUDA actually needed? I guess someone who can program graphics could do without, or not? There will however be the issue of loading the graphics card with more stuff, though.
-
Good topic here!
Not to dive deep into dreams:
- lakes and rivers
- clouds
- airports
- expanded materials (bumps, reflection)
- opening for 3rd part developers
This will be good start for serious competition with FSX and X-plane.
Then we'll need:
- Navigation net (ILS VOR)
- Weather
- Trees and vegetation
- Traffic and controllers
- Cities (small and large)
- Roads, electric mains and railways (FSX have no btw)
- Some aircraft in default version (However side developers could solve this)
- Realistic lights
...
Cockpit with clickable buttons.
-
OpenCL is like CUDA but on all cards I believe. I think it would be better to use all cores of a CPU for that. I have 8 threads, but the only game to use 6 was GTA IV.
-
Zeos,
I think you may have opened a can of worms on this one ;D
Ok, I have been flying with flight simulator for many years as well as having achieved about 80% of my private pilot license. I have found flight simulation paramount to my success so far in my real training.
The following factors are crucial to flying whether it be real or simulated with no differences (if you have the money for the gear) other than the potential loss of life if things go wrong. All systems can be replicated it's just the time involved figuring out how to do it. So, the following are my ideas about what a flight simulator should encompass to make it an immersive experience.
I will briefly outline each Module to give you an idea of the significant areas that impact flight, that, if simulated with multiple sub-systems, would make for a truly great experience.
i will leave out any areas that are non simulated factors i.e Human Factors, how to speak on the radio etc...
**Real World Modules**
>>Weather<<
- Atmospheric Pressure
- Temperature and Heat Exchange Processes
- Atmospheric Moisture
- Wind
- Stability of Air
- Local Winds
- Inversions
- Cloud and its Classification
- Precipitation
- Visibility
- Fog
- Fronts and Depressions
- Thunderstorms
- Icing
- Turbulence
- Climatology - Topography, Regional Weather Patterns, Oceanic Surroundings
- Weather Information Services
+ Weather Forecasts
+ Weather Stations
- Metar and Terminal Area Forecasts for use with Flight Planning
>>Technical<< (Mechanics of flight; this is a juicy topic involving multiple sub-systems if simulated)
- Airframe
- Engine
- Carburetor or Jet Propulsion System
- Fuel System
- Engine Handling (different types of engines)
- Electrical Systems
- Pressure Instruments
- Gyroscopic Instruments
- Magnetic instruments (affected by Magnetic Variation)
- Flight Controls
- Aerodynamics
- Performance
- Weight and Balance
>>Navigation and Flight Planning<<
- Navigation Instruments
- Navigational Aids
- Airport and Runway data -- Longitude, Latitude, Elevation, Runway length and width, Parking and Gates.
>>Aviation Law<<
- I'm really only going to speak of one thing here: Airspace; Controlled, Uncontrolled, Military which have simulation relevance in that areas that are reserved for specific flying purposes. These are mapped out by the Aviation Authorities.
One item rarely discussed but such an important plugin would be AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Ok sorry for such a long list but these are the primary factors that need consideration for flight, the next thing is what should be in a future sim if given the chance to build one? All of the above, as much as possible to recreate an aviation dream.
I have all my training documentation and relevant books that go through all this in depth so can provide more info if this got of the ground (excuse the pun).
Let's not forget compatibility with hardware devices and allowing multiple key selections (as you would have seen in a previous post of mine on the forum - almost hijacked that thread too :-[)
Things that I think will be pleasing to the eye are as follows:
>>Simulation Aesthetics<<
Rendering
Simulation Effects
Time flow (for a lack of any better words)
Topology elements (especially for VFR flying)
Multiple texture types i.e Asphalt/concrete/bitumen runways and taxiways, Foliage, Urban/Rural/Metropolitan areas etc...
Airport activity with all the chaos that comes with airports
You know i'm sure all of this data can be obtained from a previous flight simulator and then updated to meet today's data. Maybe using navigraph data - this would save so much time given that the first step would be to gather data before it can be validated then applied.
I'm sure something else will pop into my head but many limitations have hampered developers in previous simulators such as unique weather phenomenons (i.e simulating Coriolis effect, Hemispherical pressure systems; cyclones/anticyclones, Sharp unrealistic wind shifts causing aircraft jerking and s-turns with auto pilots, wind sloping runways, limited atmospheric layers for weather reproduction, simple point of contact for aircraft to ground (I suppose you call it colliders or something to that effect), sub systems for aircraft (namely those I have mentioned in technical above), flat textures, terrain and other visual distortions like repetitive textures etc.. I could go on.
Sounds like algorithms and mathematics are vital to this product and so you would be in your element with a flight simulator given the mathematics required to work all this stuff out... angle of attack, performance calculations on airframe, pressure gradients and lapse rates.. all working simultaneously with multiple other systems - i'm sweating just thinking about it.
Thanks for reading. :-)
-
One more - touchable virtual cockpit.
ONLY, if you use a kinect and reach out to touch them. Which is feasible...
-
One more - touchable virtual cockpit.
ONLY, if you use a kinect and reach out to touch them. Which is feasible...
I mean with mouse :) Sorry for bad English )
-
I mean with mouse :) Sorry for bad English )
No, I understood perfectly. I just think the next logical step would be Kinect tracking your hand and an in-game hand could reach for the controls and alter them. Want to talk about immersion!
-
Good list Kelvinr. I approve ;D
-
From an aircraft developer perspective, I would say the need for C++ and XML integration for gauge programming, the ability to modify the aircraft parameters from a .cfg file or xml file (for things such as COG, engine parameters etc. .dds or a similar format for external paint kits (ideally it would be the ability to use initially a PSD format as a dual acceptable format (this would allow user repainters to more adequately view their work as it progresses) The ability to program weather effect biases such as not having enough angle into the wind to generate lift etc. I could go on for hours, but that is a good start.
-
I think the lists people gave for civil flight simulations apply very good for what modern flight simulations should include. In fact, these kind of details will attract a lot of people to flight simulation again.
What a lot of people don't understand is the fact, that the flight simmers are a huge bunch of people who are desperately seeking for the ultimate simulation. And this is the state they/ we are all stuck in since years!
Take the civil flight simulation market for example. What people have is X-Plane and MS Flight Simulator. Now, Im not an expert in these simulations but I can tell you that for everyone who is interested in flying has to chose between these two options. MS Flight is a big overloaded donkey, where people have put so much stuff and addons to, that the donkey finally gave up walking. It's overloaded and doesn't offer any of the details I or any of my flight sim fans look for.
Then there is X-Plane. Well, it's X-Plane and as far as I can remember it has the most ridiculous physics I have ever come across in a flight simulation.
To understand what flight simmers really need, it comes down to the things Kelvinr and others have posted already. It's about looks, physics and expendability. If an engine is able to provide these basic modules, it's an instant win.
But I would like to speak for another group within the flight simmers, that I think is a little underrepresented here. Because I'm actually not interested in flying a Cessna from A to B, looking to the left and right. It's fun, yes and sometimes it can be very educational.
But I am into the military flight simulation all the way. And let me tell you, there are so many military flight enthusiasts out there, it's incredible. Military flight sims were the first games so many people were confronted with in the old days. And they have grown up. So did technology. But the simulation genre didn't for some reasons. Now what people still stick to, are games that are totally outdated. Like Falcon - which is an incredible simulation but just grown out. There are addons like BMS that still try to keep only the Falcon community alive and attracted. I've been playing this simulation for years and I love it. But it's time for a real game changer. People thought, that DCS might be able to do it - but they didn't.
So I think, that the military flight simulation could boost Outerras development to a whole different level and the fact, that it is able to process data so detailed will let every mil-flight-sim fan fall in love immediately.
In fact, I have thought about combining the civil and military flight sims, +war simulation and strategy/ economy into one big sim and let it run online in a "persistent world". ATC's could be implemented, diplomacy and strategy ... the perfect next-gen MMO :)
I can go on with my idea - whoever might be interested, I can offer a book of ideas!
So - flight simmers need lots of things. But it becomes truely amazing with military simulation. It's like a beer. It's great, but ultimately amazing when it's cold.
-
Everything is already said in this thread about what a flight sim should be so I also dream about one to come out of superb Outerra platform :)
-
One more - touchable virtual cockpit.
ONLY, if you use a kinect and reach out to touch them. Which is feasible...
A full-clic pit would do it, just like some DCS comunity people : My Power Glove - Updated DL Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg#noexternalembed)
Homemade is homemade! Let it to the comunity people. :P
-
A very interesting topic here!
I am into flightsimming for quite some time now with FlightSimulator X as my core platform.
And indeed:
Most of the things that I expect from a new “state-of-the-art-flightsim” have been mentioned here already – especially Kelvinr’s list says a lot!
I also really like the ideas of Michael and his approach towards military flightsims – although I am into general aviation and airliners, I can really understand his enthusiasm when it comes down to military-planes.
So:
It would be great to keep multiple options available…
For the General Aviation people, all their light planes,
For the Militaryflyers all their iron,
For the Airliners all their heavy planes and for the Vintageflyers all these wonderful old planes …
But besides that and yet really, really important:
An environment and virtual world that is really worth (!) to fly into then and to be explored and experienced!
It can be achieved…, become real and run all together – as long as there is an engine available that generates the environment for it – and Outerra truly has the potential to do exactly that!
So keep on with it!
But(!): Please…
Keep it open for the community – users/freeware developers and commercial developers!
Because only then the “Outerra-world” will grow, become alive, get the most detailed airplanes and other vehicles, become updated on a regular bases and improved continuously and so on …
It does not and can not be here all at once and from the start – no one can expect that.
But if there is a reliable, good working core- or basic-platform/engine that offers the opportunities to build on it continuously, it will become a great world – a great Outerra and a great flightsim!
At least that’s what I think … :)
-
I'm honestly amazed at how fluid Outerra is while flying. The terrain detail is amazingly accurate and I could do touch and go's all day long even in this alpha stage. I think Outerra could really "take off" as a SERIOUS flight simulator with just a few additions to show it's full potential. The timing couldn't be better. There are so many upset simmers right now (and 3rd party developers) with their limited options that Outerra could quickly become the new leader in flight simulation. Add the following list (just for starters) to awe the potential market. Then be ready for the explosion. This thing is going to get hot fast.
Add:
At least all the MAJOR airports in the world.
Simple clouds (a complex atmosphere generator can come later and could probably even be a third party add-on.)
Major bodies of water (rivers and lakes)
An improved flight model would be nice, but for demonstration purposes what you currently have is o.k.
Bonus:
Radio towers
Navigational aids (VOR's NDB's etc...)
These are just the basics that should be added to show that Outerra is capable of pulling this off. To answer the original question of what I would eventually want in a perfect/complete flight sim would be:
MS FSX flight engine and airport/navaid database including obstacles (radio towers mainly)
REX weather including real time world weather
ORBX quality scenery (as an add-on by airport or city is fine, but the quality is what I'm referring to)
An improved Radar Contact type ATC engine
A live traffic utility (like AirNav's FS Live Traffic)
All merged on to Outerra's world terrain (Can we really not get this in 3D???)
I'll then give up my pilot's license and finish my home cockpit.
But seriously... show real intent of moving Outerra towards flight simulation by adding the basics that I listed at the top. Open a donation center and list Outerra and it's intent on every flight simulation forum known to man. You WILL get donations, because flight simulation is like a drug. Use that money and develop THE best flight simulator possible. You have the technology. You have a desperate market. And you have established 3rd party developers that are on standby to see who is going to do this.
I'd donate right now if I knew a complete full world flight simulator was the direction.
-
We are receiving emails about donations to make a flight sim, I'll copy my recent reply here:
We've been thinking about it, not just for a flight sim platform but for a global simulation platform uniting several simulation cores into one world, since with Outerra it's became possible, probably for the first time. In fact, it's our long term goal anyway, but we are considering the ways to speed it up and committing to it publicly.
However, it's a huge undertaking in any case, and we don't feel like we should rely on donations. I have been thinking about crowdfunding for the project, via sites like Kickstarter, where developer sets up a funding goal and people pledge donations, and if the goal is reached in given time, only then the money change hands.
An approach like that would show us the support, allow us to fully take on the project, expand our team and dedicate devs to it, all of which would be hard and/or risky if we had to rely on the donations only.
There is couple of successful projects that got their funding this way, see for example Wasteland 2 (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2) or Double Fine Adventure (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure). It would be interesting to see how sim fans would react to it though.
What do the flight simmers here think?
-
What do the flight simmers here think?
Actually, whyte the possability to donate and comunity-giwen stuff (modells, fine tunning and some more in-depth works of people, who just do it for the comunity and dewelopper for free), if we (the free will stuff comunity) would ewen group-build ourselwes (whyte the hard work and siding in certain problematiocs and stuff - like simulation realistics enhancement, single type modell building (like just airplaines or age-oriented ...) etc.), it cloud be an werry progressive/teaching and effective way of building up Outerra and its comunity ....
... so, who´s getting in the air-, ground-, ship- and who to the submarine-creation group ? :JP (saying, all of these would group an substructure : model building, internal model building(cockpits-insides), simulation, advanced simulation (specials a the weapon-related stuff for war-simmers), etc., making it for "ready to integrate" stage, witch would be then taken from the Outerra team, letting it working corectly in the engine and update it to the "Download stuff" menu)
-
hey Cameni,
I'm about to have a brain fart so this is just stuff that pops out in no particular order:
Although its a pleasent thought to think that Aerosoft et al will all jump aboard and start hammering out quality 3rd party stuff there is no infrastructure to support this yet afaik?
What happens if you crowdfund but only come up with a small amount?
Have you thought about approaching the flight gear crew to assist? The flip side to this is if you FOSS the development you are cutting yourself out of a chunk of money at the end.
How about venture capitalists? If you don't want to give up the engine (as in for the capitalists cut), you could make an entirly seperate business for the flight sim licencing the engine from yourselves.
Perhaps a dedicated Outerra flight sim website so we can spread the word throughout the sim community and try and get people to register their interest/support.
A more disturbing trend I have noticed is that most places I see Outerra mentioned (be they forums or sim sites) there are alot of people who don't believe Outerra is suitable for flight simulation. This is way off the mark in my opinion. Here is an example from simflight.com from when the tech demo was released.
A lot of people seem to believe that Outerra is going to be the next great thing in the FS arsenal, while to others it is simply a procedural world generator that happens to include a flight mode to show off the created world, but it will never be a viable ‘hard core’ flight simulation.
http://www.simflight.com/2012/03/02/outerra-demo-released/ (http://www.simflight.com/2012/03/02/outerra-demo-released/)
As far as I'm concerned this is just plain mis-information. What about that orbx guy slating outerra in some forums? These sites/people are influential in the flight simulation community and some people will just follow what they say blindly.
You have the seed from which the best flight simulator ever produced can grow from but how to manage that transition? Wish I could help more.
-
What happens if you crowdfund but only come up with a small amount?
That's actually the nice thing about Kickstarter-style funding: if the funding goal is not met, nothing takes place. Because there's no point in even starting it.
To get things straight - we aren't desperate to get a funding, I'm just wondering if (with the amount of flight simmers wanting to donate and make it happen) it would be a way to launch the development of a sim. Mostly in parallel with the development of OT, that's going to happen regardless.
A more disturbing trend I have noticed is that most places I see Outerra mentioned (be they forums or sim sites) there are alot of people who don't believe Outerra is suitable for flight simulation. This is way off the mark in my opinion. ....
They have their rights to doubt, but it's true some make judgement without even knowing anything about the tech. But most of them simply say that it's a lot of work and given that they have been promised many things by many companies (or just by the One), they take it as improbable and treat it as such. But I think it will change as we are going to add more stuff, and I'm not worried about that at all.
What about that orbx guy slating outerra in some forums? These sites/people are influential in the flight simulation community and some people will just follow what they say blindly.
Been in contact with John Venema for a quite short while, way back. We gave them pre-pre-pre-alpha for a peek, and that was a mistake. When John today says he was/is not impressed and that it's not suitable for a sim, he's largely basing it on that first encounter. I don't know what he expected, he saw the videos and got interested, and then he was disappointed by the very same thing live? I thought he'd be able to see the potential (the version he got was really ugly in comparison to what we've got now), but from the experience with these companies (AS, too) I can say that they always play it safe and wait for another big fish to attach to. In that respect it's quite ironic what M$ did to them during the development of Flight.
From what I've read at the Orbx forums later, I understood that they thought someone bigger was behind us and that we were making a sim ...
You have the seed from which the best flight simulator ever produced can grow from but how to manage that transition? Wish I could help more.
Again - we are perfectly fine as it is, we are patient (ehm, at least I am :D) and know what we've got here and where we are heading. I'm just loosely thinking about the situation with flight sims, what simmers want and would like to happen. You raised an important issue there, how flight sim companies would react and how they could kill it by a negative backlash too ...
-
Thanks for answers Cameni :)
I don't doubt your drive and ambition, I just fear that, as you have previously said, making a flight sim is an expensive business and could lead to ruin if done wrong.
I think with FS companies and negative backlash, these people are in the business to make money (and I guess they like flight simming :) ). If you can create a base sim which attracts alot of simmers they will eventually have to follow the simming crowd (i.e. money) or risk business failure.
-
As I've said elsewhere, an accessible, broad sim makes the most out of the unique capabilities of this engine. The fact that you can easily have the player walk around in a space station, get in a spaceplane, fly down to the planet and come in over berlin, fly across the Mediterranean, land in Tunisia, get in a car and drive to the dock, get in a speedboat and hydroplane out to an oil derrick, get on a sub and dive down to the sea floor, and do that all without seeing a single loading screen, is almost totally unheard of.
So don't limit the potential of the game by focusing exclusively on flight simulators, and don't limit the audience by demanding an extreme level of mastery over flight controls.
-
I agree with PTTG. Outerra in its early stages (IE Now) can't start dedicating too much time to a single simulator discipline. It should progress with an equal development schedule on all aspects.
At the end of that cycle however, the sky is the limit. Assuming there is an influx of people that wish to use this universal simulator and cash flow at that point is enough to hire new people.. AND Cameni has enough of the engine coded to allow 3rd parties (Hired Employees at this point) to work on the specific genre's everything can be refined to its maximum. Planes can be setup to be 100% realistic in controls and interfaces. Cars can start having their tire models refined, submarines can have their interiors modeled.
First thing first.. Finish the entire world. Biomes, weather and bug fixes. These are things ALL sim disciplines are going to benefit from.
-
If enough money was pledged they could hire a couple extra people to specialise in making the flight simulation aspect of the games. But yes the main guys should get the engine up to spec overall to suit all simulation aspects.
I personally would love to see Infantry/Soldier/Human and Tank/Half-tracks simulations being more fleshed out.
-
hmmm, I haven't purchased my lotto ticket yet.
-
We only need a good API and tools to import stuff in.
-
Great points made here. It's true that this has the potential to be an "all-inclusive" simulator for ANYTHING, and that it can be as complex as you want it to be for any level (perfect flight sim, FPS, driving sim, space conquest, etc...). I guess I'm too old school to get away from thinking that a program has to go in 1 direction.
To appease everyone, how about the ability to turn some things on or off. For instance, someone who wants a true flight simulator so they can practice for their check-ride might not like doing touch-and-go's at their local airport just to find a guy running on to the runway with a rocket launcher. So the sim guy could turn off the "FPS switch" before starting up his session. The same could go for any other extension of simulation. The users would have to be placed in a world with other users of equal settings, so you would actually have multiple "games" running at the same time (flight sim, FPS, space conquest, etc...). You could still have an "everything" mode for some real fun! I'd love to see some players trying to just build up a community in one part of the world and then get caught in the middle of a gunfight between two factions for the community's natural resources. Just when you think the community is about to be waxed, their mother ship swoops down from an outpost in space and drops 43 JigaHectreTons of urethric plasma on their heads!
....where did you say I can donate?
-
TrackIR-support. Heli's. 3d-party-support for planes and other addon's. Powerfull editor (i wanna make my own Mars-Station with a spaceship right in front of it). Cars and motorcycles (wanna do some realistic rally). A nice physics system supporting projectile trajectory (i love VBS II). VBS II and Outerra intermixed would be the ultimate ultimate ultimate Battlefield-Simulation.
-
....where did you say I can donate?
Buy yourself and everyone you know the $15 beta. That seems to work best!
Actually is there a gift option yet? I know I could squeeze some more $$ out for the cause.
-
The military would be interested in buying many licences if this engine had all the features of VBS, mainly because of the fact outerra would allow them to choose and setup real world combat scenarios much easier. However VBS engine (based off arma etc..) has ALLOT of very very cool stuff so its probably something that would take serious effort.
-
All of the suggestions here are excellent. Aircraft physics is already supported by a good system, but could always be expanded upon by others and implemented into the sim. Two things this this engine absolutely has to have to destroy other sims is very detailed wind/turbulence physics and fluid multiplayer net code. The wind/turbulence code in other sims is very simple and canned. It does not replicate real world encounters, in my opinion. Also, the multiplayer net code for all sims, besides the LockOn/FC/DCS series is terrible for what I enjoy doing. I spend almost all of my flight simulation time doing online formation flying and having a very stable aircraft to fly off of is the most important aspect that I take into account when choosing a sim.
As stated before, keeping the engine open to development in all areas is the most important thing at this point. Once weather/climate code is implemented, this will take off with 3rd party support, and I am just one of many who are interested in developing within this environment.
-
You also need to be able to crash your aircraft and have a epic explosion and crater effects, maybe even a slick crash landing scrap along the ground :)
-
A more disturbing trend I have noticed is that most places I see Outerra mentioned (be they forums or sim sites) there are alot of people who don't believe Outerra is suitable for flight simulation. This is way off the mark in my opinion. Here is an example from simflight.com from when the tech demo was released.
Why do they think the engine isn't suitable for flight sims?
-
Why do they think the engine isn't suitable for flight sims?
I think it is because it isn't planning on becoming a dedicated flight sim or the fact that it is being developed by by a small group and likely won't get the corporate approval for using real names on planes and such..
Makes no nevermind to me. Having the flight sim aspect (physics at least) become full blown simulator is something I am all for, but only when it comes right besides all the other genre's this engine is destined to handle.
-
Outerra can become easily the bed of the next gen flight simulators and those who do not see that in the horizon in my opinion, are motivated by emotional protection of their beloved flight simulators (and I mean the known Flight Simulators developers or followers)... I heard skepticism on Xplane forum toward Outerra and it is clear why.... ;)
I believe that Flight Dynamics / Virtual Aerodynamics codes/libraries and capabilities are around since the early days of PC simulation so no new news in that domain...Therefore we see many indie FLight Sims that can appear every now and then and not just MSFS or the "new Commercial" title Xplane10...
However what we do not see in the Flight Simulator titles today, is a new way of simulating the world.
The known Flight Simulator engines are more or less using the same world representation methods that are sometimes more than 10 years old technologically and conceptually in my opinion...
So what can make Outerra stands out of the usual PC Flight Simulation engines that are used for commercial or indie Flight Simulators, is by being first and before everything else, a sort of "next gen" dynamic world simulator or earth simulator.
If Outerra is pushed to simulate dynamicaly and in new ways everything related to atmospheric light, nature per regions, weather, seasons, vegetation, urban developement etc etc. and the interaction of all these together, then adding Flight Dynamics libraries to it would be a peace of cake in my opinion.
For example, XPlane 10 has only 1 seasonal textures set (green) coupled with a nice month switching slider that no matter on what month you put it, your world will remain the same, green... And no matter what real weather phenomenon you download, it could be the big snow storm in Canada, it will happen on green lands...
The reason why no seasonal textures are developed for XP10 is most probably the lack of artistic ressources to create the whole database of textures for fall, winter, spring and summer... And because the engine is based on this 4 seasons textures switching method (as far as I heard on their forum)
To me, this lack of seasonal variation, no matter what the reason is behind not including it in XP10, kills one of the most important immersion factor in a modern simulator engine made in 2011/2012...
No matter how "realistic" XP dynamics are, it is no more the big news in my opinion, we saw flight dynamic capabilities since a long time now and I think in 2012 we want to see an immersible realistic and dynamic world...
Hence, an efficient new method of simulating the dynamic world, like Outerra will reduce allot of the old primitive methods that tried to simulate our planet and required allot of texture developement...
All in all even if I am a very dedicated aviation lover and Flight Simmer, I look forward to see Outerra, before becoming a Flight Simulator engine, to become a super realistic and dynamic earth simulator engine that could make MSFS / Flight and XPlane engines look made of the old old past
Cheers!
-
I agree that almost everything has been said about the necessities for a modern PC-Flightsimulator. Nevertheless one of my favouite items has been only covered once by Andrey as kind of a sidenote. Every distinct Flight Simulator makes use of a worldwide system of navigation points. There are many ways to do this but only ONE decent way to achieve absolute efficiency, and that's the use of an official ARINC 424 dataset. There are however two possibilities how to give the user access to this:
- the first would be that the simulator contains a complete native ARINC 424 dataset which can be updated on a voluntary basis by the user at the 28-days AIRAC cycle. This would imply that every developer would either use the ARINC dataset directly for all navigational purposes including Departure and Arrival Procedures or each delevloper would create his own parser which would convert the ARINC data into a suitable format for his developments. That's how most of the today's Flight Simulators handle navigational data except that parsing is done externally by Navigraph and no native ARINC 424 dataset is present in the simulator.
- my favourite second possibility would be that the creator of the simulator decides about the final format of a parsed ARINC 424 dataset and will only allow this dataset to be used for each kind of add-on. The obvious advantage of this method would be a single replacement of the database for each AIRAC cycle - compared to what we have in today's simulators (mainly FSX) where each add-on developer has his own parsing system and the user therefore needs to update several databases for one cycle. For someone (e.g. like me) who uses many high-level add-ons including planning tools and other programs the number of databases to be updated easily reaches a figure of more than a dozen!
The most inportant thing however is that it should be avoided to use databases with different effective dates within the same simulator. Even X-Plane is going the wrong way in that respect by usind DAFIF data for it's main database and hence forces each add-on developer to use his own set of Departure and Approach Procedures derived from an ARINC dataset which again causes mixups as these databases usually are again of a different effectivity date. Furthermore DAFIF is not a complete database and it's data integrity is not guaranteed for data outside of the US. The result at present is not ecouraging as there are actually only two add-ons using ARINC data and each of them a different parsing - one of them even a mixture of two different datasets! Inconsistencies like those should be avoided in any case - and be it also (but not only) for the benefit of the user...
-
Very interesting thread.
As a cockpitbuilder there is one essential thing needed: A accessible data protocol like FSUIPC is in the MS series. Since our airplane is simulated in a external or standalone software, we need a method to collect data from the sim regarding position, height, air preassure, temperature, wind etc.
If these data can be collected via some kind of addressed protocol, we're good to go :D
As a flightsimmer I want PHYSICS, the realistic one. Objects, airplanes in my case, need to act realistically in different settings, influenced by wind as an example.
Easy ways to add sceneries and landclass would also be great to get a "living world". I see in the 3D model warehouse that a lot of airports is made with high detail and I believe it should be easy to insert these formats now. Sketchup is a powerful tool that is free and easy to learn. Supporting these formats can make the 3rd part movement really really big. Placing your own house in the sim wold be doable for everyone.
As a dreamer I have longed for the day where flightsimmers, trainsimmers, boatsimmers, construction and farm simmers and so on, can play together in the same world.
Think, running the trainsim, looking to the sky and there is a airplane flying by. Both the train and the airplane run their own online controlling systems, but still "live together".
I'm not all that into wargames, but have had my hours in the combat sims and Battlefield i.e.
I would like them to play in the same world as well, but there have to be a option to be able to detect damage. If some kiddo could enter his F-16 and blast me of the skies, I wouldn't use the sim at all. But being able to jump into one myself, it would be cool to join some dogfights. Just that it need to be my own choice.
Outerra can be a platform for so many games I forget to mention here, but bare with me.
I hope many many get their wishes and dreams fulfilled with this platform.
I know this would be my platform of choice for my long lasting flight sim hobby if the terms is right. As for now it have great potential.
-
Very interesting thread.
As a cockpitbuilder there is one essential thing needed: A accessible data protocol like FSUIPC is in the MS series. Since our airplane is simulated in a external or standalone software, we need a method to collect data from the sim regarding position, height, air preassure, temperature, wind etc.
If these data can be collected via some kind of addressed protocol, we're good to go :D
As a flightsimmer I want PHYSICS, the realistic one. Objects, airplanes in my case, need to act realistically in different settings, influenced by wind as an example.
Easy ways to add sceneries and landclass would also be great to get a "living world". I see in the 3D model warehouse that a lot of airports is made with high detail and I believe it should be easy to insert these formats now. Sketchup is a powerful tool that is free and easy to learn. Supporting these formats can make the 3rd part movement really really big. Placing your own house in the sim wold be doable for everyone.
As a dreamer I have longed for the day where flightsimmers, trainsimmers, boatsimmers, construction and farm simmers and so on, can play together in the same world.
Think, running the trainsim, looking to the sky and there is a airplane flying by. Both the train and the airplane run their own online controlling systems, but still "live together".
I'm not all that into wargames, but have had my hours in the combat sims and Battlefield i.e.
I would like them to play in the same world as well, but there have to be a option to be able to detect damage. If some kiddo could enter his F-16 and blast me of the skies, I wouldn't use the sim at all. But being able to jump into one myself, it would be cool to join some dogfights. Just that it need to be my own choice. ...
Well, there is still a question, how the realization of pressure/wind/turbulences whyte the global weather will be simulated in outerra. As the possible data-collestion from weather-stations is possible, an all ground-to-atmosphere volume must be filled whyte such data in their acordance and of course dynamically to updated data .... if it would be a "simple" calculations present at the outerra core, then the possition data + a communication would be all needed to share ... but sure, it would be maybe too much weather-simulation for a train-sim for sure. Well see what Cameni and co. will get out of it. Still, woud like the core-based version if it would not be too much hardware demanding, making the transitions between those sims. better.
Like the "live together" thought, its good to see more of such people and as for the "interaction" problems ... lets just say there would be picked up all most famous battle-places of the earth and would be battle-only (just enabling the "Fire buttons" to work at that locality) ... still flying and going around the world, but not bombing someones train or bus at chigago or elswhere out of the conflict zones ...
Its maybe too early to say, but imagine an entire wirtual earth ... just some players getting there when they like ... procedural city/air/naval traffic in witch you could just wallk up to one and take--sim. driwe. Or just spawn one of course, whyle the types would be all the present at the database allowing you enter one (based on your buyed ones? ... well see how the adding tool will be working and if the simmable would be payd due to autors/comunity work ...). Would be interesting.
-
Hi
Good thread!
To tell the truth - do not linch me please :) - if OT (or the simulator which using OT engine) could offer the same variety of options which is offered by today's flight simulator (MS or X-Plane) would be already fine. Just think how many things is possible in FS2004 or FSX or even in X-Plane! It offers really complex systems like navigation, air traffic control, AI traffic system, weather, seasons (minus X-Plane), timing, gauge programming, networking and a lot more. And the best of it, it can be altered, influenced by 3rd party softwares.
I believe we do not have to find out the wheel again. We just have to make it better and smoother. If it's only better in the graphic engine so be it!
If we do not stop at the graphic engine is even better. Let's make a better flying model! Even-though this is for me a topic which I'll never understand why people overestimating the importance of it. Your computer is a simulator, no simulator even the full motion simulator can not fully simulate the real thing. If I take a normal armchairpilot with his/her PC, beyond the aircraft's performance and the maneuvering abilities you can simulate do much more. You can not simulate the forces, you can not simulate the forces which effects the control surfaces (force feedback yokes or joysticks creates very minor contraforces nothing to compare with real life). That is the reason I do not understand when people say this 737 has an unrealistic flying character in the simulator. Really? How do you know? Have you ever tried a 737? You can not compare a PC and a real thing. I could accept the following: Unrealistic that this plane climbing with 7000 fpm with this GW and CG. Also I found the military fighter simulator a little bit funny as well, when I see they make a 180 degree turn with mach 2 above a small cornfield. Try to do it in real life. Your brain would move into your feet. But in simulator you just have to roll 90 degree right or left and pull the joy all the way back. In the meanwhile you can drink some Budweiser if you like. Just try to recover a C172 from a spin in real life, you will know what I'm talking about.
I could imagine a better weather projecting. Once I visited a full motion 737 simulator. The graphics of the scenery was not so nice, but the projecting of the weather was unbelievable. The visibility simulation was extraordinary. The fog, the precipitation looked so real. This is where I think our simulator could be improved.
The other thing which should be improved is the simulation of the air's behavior. A better wind simulation, better airflow simulation. Better thermic behavior. When I was flying with a real C172 on a hot summer day I was very surprised how the upward moving air influenced my flight. I arrived above the hot asphalt runway and the warm air was pushing up the plane. During my training I also experienced the other way round. With a C152 on a crosswind leg we flew into a downward moving colder air, the plane with full power set could not maintain the altitude and we had to change course to fly out of it. 500 feet AGL it was not so funny. Than I learnt two things: Respect the weather and flight simulator can not teach you for that (yet).
As a scenery designer I also wish to have a wide variety of options to create add-on's. For example easily add animations, conditions etc etc.
-
AFAIK one of the advantages of Outerra engine is most of the visual grunt needed is handled by the gpu not the cpu (which is so much better than fsx model). This should leave alot of the cpu free for the actual simulation of systems.
-
Nice spoken, tsgucci.
I dont need a simulation of a airplane down to the very last bolt. I like a sim, that makes me wanna fly around and explore areas. Outerra has the potential for that. A "realistic" sim is great. But without a nice environment it will get boring. Hardcore-Simmers will have other priorities, sure. FSX with the Outerra-Engine would be absolutely great.
-
Well as long as we can crash the planes in spectacular-cinematic then all is good :)
blender 3D plane explosion VFX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZETn3keANkI#ws)
-
Well as long as we can crash the planes in spectacular-cinematic then all is good :)
If that's the only thing you want from a flight simulator... Have you turned 12 yet?
-
I think the most important thing is weather.
Looking at the way you've been doing things, you obviously don't want to do lots of manual labor. Details such as airports, planes, roads and the like are best left to the community. Not only will the community generally be happy to make this, they'll also keep them updated.
I strongly agree that there needs to be an easy way to access most aspects of the entire engine. I recall that you used JSBSIM, similar to half of flight-gear. If done properly, this should help with simulating the weather and such.
Some thoughts about licensing:
I'm fairly sure that using the google maps viewer to make roads in the same spot as real-life is against it's terms of use. Flight-gear has had trouble with this before, to a small degree.
If it were possible for you to somehow use a lot of flight-gear's assets, that would be a great boon to you. Of course, if you were to do, it might be diplomatic to make sure that you stay compatible with flight-gear. Licensing-wise, I don't think you could legally include any of flight-gears GPL assets, as they're licensed under the GPL (which has been described as "viral").
-
I have just discovered your engine and I do beleive that you have something in your hands which would change the sim market widely.
I'm myself one European business guy and I beleive your question is very marketing related, why?
because defining the specs for the "best" flight simulator depends on the clients/customers you targer : in other word, there are different level of flight sim users :
private user : gamers, serious hobbyists,
civilian professional users : academics, flight schools, museums, craft/planes/helico builders who are interested in having training platforms for their customers, etc
military users.
Adding all these market segments, flight simulation or generic simulation is VERY strategic!
The few companies who will be able to put on the market affordable flight sims with professional capabilities (realistic flight physics/models, super good realism, multi channel viewing or spherical FOVs, etc...) should be profitable.
Why did Lockeed Martin purchased the old MS code to develop Prepard3D, (wich, according to me, is the Flight Sim you would benchmark with) for making a new FSX for private gamers?
Yes maybe but I don't think so, rather it is because they target their usual customers : pro simmers and above all, military users = $$$$$
Maybe you also miss the fact that most of the serious actors in this domain are from the US or from North America (biggest flight simulators builder is a Canadian company).
Aren't you, Outerra's owners, European guys / people? yes? maybe you can then understand that it's all about competition and as long as you start to touch mil apps, it becomes very sensible.
I am from Europe and I am NOT at all against the US/Americans, instead it is the contrary,
but maybe I understand why others may see you as future strong competition : they do their job with critics on your nice techno... that's the business game
Okay, if you are interested in continuing this discussion more deeply, you can PM me
Cheers
-
sorry I made a mistake above
You should read : the "best" flight simulator depends on the clients/customers you TARGET
-
Well as long as we can crash the planes in spectacular-cinematic then all is good :)
If that's the only thing you want from a flight simulator... Have you turned 12 yet?
Some people juggle geese.
If someone is going to go through the trouble of getting a simulator as accurate as possible in the air why stop at any point of the journey? It is good inspiration to land properly if the possible ensuing fireball might destroy the airport or town you're landing in.
-
I'm myself one European business guy and I beleive your question is very marketing related, why?
The question was put up by Zeos, our avid fan from Manhattan, who is not a dedicated flight simmer and probably just wanted to get the idea what the simmers really want.
Maybe you also miss the fact that most of the serious actors in this domain are from the US or from North America (biggest flight simulators builder is a Canadian company).
Aren't you, Outerra's owners, European guys / people? yes? maybe you can then understand that it's all about competition and as long as you start to touch mil apps, it becomes very sensible.
There are several fields where Outerra makes circles in the water, not just the flight sim market. When we are talking about military customers, there's the VBS by Bohemia Interactive which is Czech based (we are based in Slovakia). There are other fields where customers would like to get a global coverage with the level of detail we've got, like UAV simulation etc.
I'm perfectly aware that a competition would simply have to say things because of the business game. But at the moment we technically aren't competing with anyone.
Much less with the big dogs on US grounds; without us having a serious backing, they would outlaw us with silly patents in a blink of the European night ;)
-
As a user/operator of flight simulators with multiple screens/projectors I have one concern. Though Outerra works fine as it is with multiple screens it is still only one projection. This will create undesirable effects when the field of view is getting close to 180 degrees (bent horizon line etc). It would be desirable to be able to define several views with their own projections to be able to cover a 360 degrees field of view with a varible number of screens in a good way.
It is also not possible, as far as I understand, to define a rear view or similarly "detatched" view in Outerra. This is something that in many implementations of simulations are very important.
On top of this it is important to have functions for adjusting the views and their projections to create a good representation of the simulated world based on screen size and distance from the viewer. This is something I think Outerra is lacking today.
-
There will be an option that will do a spherical or multi-planar projection, so that these distortions can be suppressed. Detached views will be possible as well.
I guess the screen size and distance setup functions will automatically appear together with the additional projections, as these need to be configurable.
-
I totally agree with what Pherp is saying above : you must be able, for any simulation you offer (flight, ground, sub, etc...), to provide the best visual experience :
Please offer full 360° immersion, 360° field of view, Horizontal and Vertical.
allow the user to set up multi views driving multi screens/projectors.
Of course, I do not think that very large FOV with high resolution is today feasible with only one single CPU (even with several GPUs).
By the way it is NOT feasible neither in FSX nor with Prepar3D,
so implement multi-channel Image Generation with networked PCs sharing the same world/LOD/point of view.
Dear Cameni, about my above "marketing / competition " comments, I know that you are not naive at all and as BISimulations main team is closed to you, being in Europe does not mean being in trouble at all, ;)
However I wonder if we, European, are still capable of funding interesting advanced startups/projects? I hope so...
Finally another question : is there already any real 3D simulator (stereo viewing) on the market ?
we have 3D screens, we have 3D capable projectors... what if ?
For the rest, many members have already answered but focus on what you are the best at,
then open your engine for add-ons and/or look for partnering with others who are very flight specific...
-
There will be an option that will do a spherical or multi-planar projection, so that these distortions can be suppressed. Detached views will be possible as well.
I guess the screen size and distance setup functions will automatically appear together with the additional projections, as these need to be configurable.
There are several "paying" software around that do manage pretty easily the cylindrical, spherical, multi-planar and so displays / projections.
I know many specialists which are doing warping and blending, so as long as you can let the user define the views parameters, this is something solved...
It is sure that if you can implement geometrical corrections and images mixing/juxtapositions, it would be nice!
Please do not forget cylindrical projections as they are very easy to create, I mean physically...
-
Nowadays the projection can be done in the GPU shader, acting over one virtual screen surface. It's possible to do many projection types, as long as the geometry tesselation is sufficiently high.
-
Ok, so you mean that one can already generate multi views as long as the GPU is able to do so?
I look forward to testing your engine as soon as I will be back at my office (I'm travelling right now)
( I must admit that I still had no time to really get into your tech demo). I will be back in touch by 2 weeks...
-
I mean that we will be able to render the view using almost any projection, because in OT the scene is tesselated fairly well and we can do the projection step in the vertex shader, which decides where on the screen the triangles end up. Otherwise you would have to approximate the curved projections using multiple flat views joined together, which brings its own precision and performance problems.
-
Why do they think the engine isn't suitable for flight sims?
I think it is because it isn't planning on becoming a dedicated flight sim or the fact that it is being developed by by a small group and likely won't get the corporate approval for using real names on planes and such..
Seriously? You'd think that the hardcore crowd would value the ability to fly anywhere in a completely simulated Earth more than a few logo textures...
-
I mean that we will be able to render the view using almost any projection, ......... Otherwise you would have to approximate the curved projections using multiple flat views joined together, which brings its own precision and performance problems.
Yes I agree, today, to have cylindrical or spherical projections from entry level or semi pro simulators equals approximations...
so Wahooo, if you can render direct, using almost any projection surface, this is becoming very powerful !!!
Maybe only the super high end "simulators" are able to make geometrics corrections in their image generation?
-
I don't know, but I guess that previously it had to be done with special hardware, and that must have been pretty costly (and thus high end).
-
I dont think most of the bigger airplane companies would be against using their names and such in an entertainment level simulation engine. At least they are not going after numerous payware and freeware authors in various FSims now (well apart from Gulfstream but that is a different story)
http://aerowinx.com/html/simulator.html (http://aerowinx.com/html/simulator.html) Perhaps you can talk to these guys - the simulator they are writing is more or less an airplane simulator, if you let them integrate reasonably, and use Outtera as a visualization platform, there might be some market there.
-
I haven't owned a flight sim since FS98 so I haven't really been in the loop as to what makes up a desirable Flight Sim. I am curious to find out specifically what the FS community is actually looking for in their "perfect" flight sim. Is it 100% complete control arrays, Accurate airport surroundings, the view out the window from 20,000 feet? Does air combat factor into the whole flight sim family or is it a bastard offspring?
Hello!
I have long been using flight simulators. And for me it would be very good, if the simulator will be able to transfer all the user settings of FS9 or FSX. I would be interested in: move traffic to maintain their traditional setting keys to control in flight. I know that a lot of people around the world love the traffic and would be willing to move in this simulator the usual setup, scenerys, and traffic. It would be convenient if this simulator contain the opportunity to make it simple to move all the familiar and the best of the FS9 or FSX.
-
I don't think this would be very easy given the different type of techniques used and Outerra compared with FSX and the like. Outerra uses smart techniques that are just not available in FSX, FS9, or any other flight sim. Remember as Cameni has explained before this is an engine that, in essence, will be a base for simulators to sit on top of so we will all have to see where it leads. But, it is looking like a very promising and capable engine to be used for a flight simulator as it renders the entire planet and will used methods to call on various environmental elements that are all relevant for flight simulation. All I can say is that if I had the funds to fund this project with the knowledge that it would become a flight simulator I would indeed invest.
-
Sooner or later, there will be a point when MSFS users will have to break out of their laziness and accept a different platform. It is a fair point that a good UI is needed. This is the biggest problem X-Plane has - it has very little user interface at all...
Being able to migrate settings, and especially traffic etc. from FS - sorry, that is bull.
-
Well depending on how Cameni codes the controls you should be able to load a custom HTML UI to suit any needs or wants. HTML is easy enough almost anyone can do it as long as the parameters exist.
-
Hello everyone,
I'd just like to thank you guys at Outerra for reaching out to us in the FlightSim community and asking for our opinions and ideas... I have been watching this project with great anticipation for at least two years and truly believe that Outerra can become the next true Sim for all of us hardcore simmers...
I've had a FlightSim since it's inception back in the 80's... I have owned a and purchased products for them since FS95. I currently still run the old FS2004 simply because there is nothing out there that I believe is worth upgrading too! FSX is so buggy and the fact that it's not backwards compatible simply keeps me and thousands of others from moving over. The cost of updating all the sceneries and aircraft, is absolutely a big part of that.. coupled with the poor performance of FSX just keeps it from being a viable option. There are those that use FSX, and love it but moving on to something new is equally problematic because again, you have to start from scratch..or to something better!!!
I've read in this thread a few remarks concerning the Flight Simulator specific possibilities of Outerra and some who say just add some runways and a few towers and we're good to go! Well I don't agree, and if you decide to move in the Flight Simulator direction it would be foolish to follow such advice! You would be stepping back some 15 years, and would be unfortunately, on the same page as MS and their crappy "Flight" game. A true flight simulation..."simulator" has to encompass the entire globe with cities and airports from the largest urban centres to remote airports in the Canadian high arctic...
X-plane 10 was unfortunately very disappointing. They built a very nice looking Sim with all the moving traffic but left out so many important features that made them completely obsolete even before the game was ever released! And even when some commented on their forums (including myself) we were brushed off.. if not by the actual team then by other supporters that can't bare to hear a different opinion... As a result I don't believe that they actually expanded their clientele and most probably simply maintained their original supporters....a real shame!
I am part of various FS AI groups (some with 7 thousand members) that produce and release freeware AI models for FS2004 and FSX series. All are multiple LOD models that are extremely detailed and realistic. In a true Flight Simulator you can depart New York JFK with the entire city and airport and land in London Heathrow just like in real life... Having detailed cities and airports, filled with air traffic and vehicles both on the airport and on the roads is what makes the experience special and what makes a Sim great! The added bonus would be that by adding all these details you would benefit all other Sims like Rail, Ship and road sims that can take advantage of the scenery...all in one Outerra world! ;)
I'm including some ideas and opinions as to what I think are must haves in a Simulator for the 21st century...
--------------
Weather
--------------
-Realistic seasons
-Realistic clouds, winds and weather.. Check out REX (http://realenvironmentxtreme.com/overdrive.html (http://realenvironmentxtreme.com/overdrive.html)) and Active Sky (http://www.hifitechinc.com/ (http://www.hifitechinc.com/)) for the weather engine
-Realistic rain and snow..it would be nice to have accumulation and it's effects! :-*
-Stormy waters, lakes and Oceans
--------------
Scenery
--------------
-The ability to import other format sceneries from MS flightsim, especially airports! :'( :-* This is already done with X-plane 10...
-Cities and towns in detail... http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_screenshots/screenshots.php?sp=fsx&p=manhattanx (http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_screenshots/screenshots.php?sp=fsx&p=manhattanx)
-roads with vehicle traffic
-realistic streets and highways with realistic lighting and city lights.. i.e . http://www.scenerysolutions.com/ut_fsx_usa.html (http://www.scenerysolutions.com/ut_fsx_usa.html)
-Train tracks and AI trains
-AI Ships and boats
-Birds and animals...already used in FSX and X-plane
--------------
Airports
--------------
-The ability to import existing airports from MSFS would be great ..as mentioned above as in X-Plane!! :)
-The ability to edit airport Afcads that include aircraft parking, taxiing and vehicle movements
-Dynamic vehicles in airports and a way to edit them and their movements.
-Sloping runways and taxiways
-realistic default approns, taxiways and runways with dirt and grime..
-realistic airport lighting both for the buildings and runways and taxiways..
-------------
User Aircraft
-------------
Again with this it would be fantastic to add support to the hundreds of products already on the market!!
-Complete, fully functional virtual cockpits...http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd,,121590 (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd,,121590)
-realistic systems
-Realistic aircraft functionality and behaviour
-camera and effects system ....http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=ezdockcam (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=ezdockcam)
-------------
AI Aircraft
-------------
-The ability to use the hundreds of multiple LOD models already made for MSFS.. Perhaps with a simple program that can convert them (mdl format) and the CFG and AIR files to work in Outerra...
-A true air traffic control engine that can handle hundreds of aircraft movements at major airports! so they can look like this.. but function properly in Sim!!
(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac71/fmcs2/KMEM_3.jpg) (http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac71/fmcs2/MMMX_5.jpg)
(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac71/fmcs2/ubbb1.jpg)
(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac71/fmcs2/lszh2.jpg)
As I stated before, there is a huge market here for you guys at Outerra. Most of us MSFS users are only looking for an excuse to put MS away and move on to something newer and better and the rest of the industry will do the same! I'd also suggest trying to reach out to the community beyond this forum at Avsim.com, Flightsim.com and some of the freeware developers sites like FSdeveloper and AI development sites like Alpha India Group (http://www.alpha-india.net/forums/index.php (http://www.alpha-india.net/forums/index.php)), The Fruit Stand ( http://www.the-fruit-stand.com/ (http://www.the-fruit-stand.com/)) and Military AI Works (http://www.militaryaiworks.com/ (http://www.militaryaiworks.com/)) ... as well as payware developers like PMDG, Aerosoft, Corenado, FlyTampa and UK2000, too name a few...
Many of these groups have done some incredible work for FS that far exceeds what MSFS intended, from AI flightplans to aircraft, airports and scenery design. There are individuals here that can certainly give incite and ideas as to how Outerra can implement them if you choose too...
The possibilities are endless and most of us would be willing to pay $100 or more for a Sim that is open source that gives us what you guys certainly can! .... Keep up the great work!!! :)
;)
Frank
-
I've read this thread, and I'd like to offer some of my own thoughts.
As a flight simulation user and developer, I'd like to see something like the following for outerra.
A way to integrate a simulation engine into the outerra world.
Notes on that......
I expect that outerra will develop in to a fantastic high fidelity world, and with that will come enough data in the land classes, environment and atmosphere to feed vehicle simulation engines with the appropriate data. I don't believe that the simulation engines should bring with them their own atmosphere/terrain/land interaction models. That is a compromise that doesn't need to be made here.
You do have the opportunity to create a product that can revolutionise and stimulate this market, but it needs to be done in an intelligent and objective manner - the team has already shown it can do this.
I hope that outerra won't get tied in to closed off commercial partnerships for this, since one of my aims is to create a flight simulator.
-
Well that's what we are doing or attempting. Our goal is to create a high fidelity environment for games and simulators. Truth is, we aren't dedicated fans of any particular simulation domain; what interests us most is the rendering and generation of worlds, using techniques that allow for integration of custom physics and real world data so it's of use to a wide range of applications.
JSBSim has been chosen to showcase the flight sim aspect of it because it was designed as a standalone FDM that could be integrated easily. I agree with you that simulation engines should not bring their own world rendering; usually it's only a secondary interest to the simulator creators who focus on the area of their primary interest - their particular simulation domain, and it shows. For us the world is the primary thing (but then maybe we are obsessed with things that don't matter much to others :) )
Thus one of our goals is to make a simulation platform and open it to sim devs, even for niche sim areas and indie devs that would otherwise get only poor chances of a good visualization. Once the capabilities of environment rendering mature I'm sure we will see also some profi sims appearing here.
-
And I finally found this thread. I was deluded into thinking it would be necessary to integrate X-Plane and Outerra, but that is not remotely sensible. It's time to hang up Blade Element Theory, I guess! X-Plane is marvelous for developing new aircraft designs, but these designs can then be analyzed and then converted to JSBSim format when their aerodynamics are mature. At least that's what I'm going to try to do first.
I'm a long time X-Plane adherent, I'll admit, and while I think highly of Outerra, I understand that Laminar wants to do things their own way. Hence the rejection on X-Plane.org, and a rejection that was echoed by members that knew of Laminar's position as X-Plane 10 was developed. It became a bit of a dead horse beating. Unfortunately, XP10 missed the mark in many ways, although it remains to be seen how it will improve when it becomes more mature. But the world engine, even when completed, isn't going to have the fractal detail level of Outerra when complete. I guess it depends on whether you want to experience the world or the joys of burying one's head in an IFR cockpit, mired in procedure. I see Anteworld as a more of an emotional flying experience. When the SDK is released and we can spool up complex aircraft systems, we can have both.
What do I want in a perfect sim? The ability to modify EVERYTHING! And I want the immersion that TrackIR gives me if I can't afford a huge simulator room with dome projection. ;) Ultimately, I want to feel like I've flown for real -- minus natural temperature extremes and the cost of formal flight training, aircraft rental and aviation fuel! ;D
-
Oh, I thought X-planers lived and died by the blade element theory :)
But seriously, Outerra is not limited to JSBSim, and there are other FDMs out there that could be used. Technically it could be also possible to generate JSBSim tabular data from a blade element model. Maybe the guys at JSBSim will be able to tell more.
We were rejected at X-Plane.org? I have read a blog entry by Ben Supnik, but understood his views. Even the part where he says that "Outerra has been sent to us approximately 1,343,234,319,393 times" and doesn't want to hear it anymore :)
There's no easy way of merging two technologies and all the tools and everything, even if it was politically acceptable. We could only become a competition to them one day, when OT matures enough. So much can happen ..
Like Microsoft killing Flight (http://kotaku.com/5929141/microsoft-shuts-down-vancouver+based-studio) :o
-
MS Flight was doomed from the beginning when they tried to make a game out of it. Hawaii is nice, but flight sims have been growing more towards being able to handle the whole world for a long time, so getting just the islands is like flying in a prison. A nice prison, but a prison nonetheless.
Blade Element Theory does make for a more nimble FDM, but for most practical flying, I've come to realize that it's not essential. If it were, all of the professional flight simulators everywhere would be using it, and that's just not the case. X-Plane benefits from BET in that it makes it possible to design your own unique aircraft planform and have it fly realistically. I've done that with GrizzlyJet, a VLJ bush jet that I use in my homebuilt cockpit. Once I'm really happy with the way the bird flies, there are scads of analytical possibilities offered by X-Plane that should allow me to extract the JSBSim data. It might even be possible to do that with an X-Plane plugin, and I've got a bit of experience there. That would make X-Plane a partner to Anteworld in some ways.
You saw Ben's post, did you? Funny one. He's a good dude, but I can understand the frustration of being badgered with someone else's work. And I have to admit, I've chimed in with a bit of political control myself since I sympathized. After all, if X-Plane adopted Outerra, a LOT of effort would go down the tubes. But now I've seen that Outerra has the potential to provide a more stimulating environment. X-Plane just looks so dated, especially at altitude.
Right now X-Plane is, if I'm not mistaken, the only closed-source flight simulator on the market. In the past few days, I've seen that other options are definitely nipping at their heels. And if you can keep Outerra/Anteworld moving forward, Brano, you'll be near the head of the pack yourself.
-
Yes, MS Flight was doomed from day one, but MS could always have reverted their greedy policy of not allowing third party developers to access the platform. I kind of expected that to happen, after some time, so it somewhat surprised me now that they have killed it completely instead. But then again, since they don't have hearts in what they are doing, it's kind of not surprising at all.
Many FS franchise simmers are now comforting themselves that it's the Golden Age of FSX, with the HW finally catching on, many good years or they are putting their hopes on Lockheed. MS created a hole but it's also a niche market there; honestly I don't know where it all is going to lead.
However, our path is kind of independent of it all ...
Our goal is a global combined sim because with OT it's possible, and apart from it being a dream to come true for many, it would be also merging several simulation fields and generating a synergetic effect. Once Anteworld can demonstrate also the prototypes of train/ship simulators and expands on the aircraft and cars, it may be a good idea to crowdfund and kickstart the development of such a sim platform, open to third party devs to build a lively sim world, almost the exact opposite of what MS tried to do.
-
I actually don't believe that BET is the best way forward - there are lots of fudges going on in X-Plane as far as I am concerned (and I'm a decade long user - it's the best we've got from an engineering stand point, but this can be done better)). I also don't believe the development tools are all that good any more. There's been a lot of growth in some areas and almost none in others. Again - it's the best we've got though.
I'm very happy at the prospect of having the great virtual world that is outerra to plug in to.
MS Flight......I feel sorry for the poor guys who had to do what they were told, and are now out of a job.