Outerra forum

Outerra Apps => Outerra World Simulator => Topic started by: cameni on July 08, 2010, 04:50:37 am

Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 08, 2010, 04:50:37 am
(http://www.outerra.com/images/ow_logo.png)

Gals and lads,

There's a tiny chance that we might be doing or participating on a global simulator thing with Outerra. I say tiny, but a chance.
We have been approached by "a second biggest player in the flight simulation in Germany" some time ago, and there are other possibilities gradually opening as well.

The ultimate goal would be an integrated simulator for air/ground/water/space simulation, where possibly different companies will be able to provide specialized simulator cores for particular vehicles or scenery plugins and other types of addons, on a unified platform.

We'd like to gather some opinions about the whole business here, particularly with regards to the viability and market space.

For example, is the option of having different vehicle classes at disposal in a single world more/less important than the highest possible fidelity of a single simulator type? If you say less, should we try to compete with other players just because of the unique properties Outerra engine has, or it would be more reasonable to focus on the non-covered segment of multi-sims and boost the fidelity in successive steps later?

There are surely other aspects you could see and tell.

But please don't get too wild, would you? It's just a survey to gather some raw information for us, nothing ever may come out of it :)
Title: Survey
Post by: corona on July 08, 2010, 05:34:08 am
"is the option of having different vehicle classes at disposal in a single world more/less important than the highest possible fidelity of a single simulator type?"

Personally, I would have to say less, but I don't see how that is a choice we would have to make.

Outerra provides visuals, IMO it should do very little else as an engine. Physics model, input handling, etc should come via plugins. This way, eg. Aerosoft can bring a weather engine and flightsim tailored physics engine to the table, along with a base library of say airports. Then another company for instance could plug into that, and provide a visual Airliner, or they could even develop their very own physics model, outside of the base flightsim model someone offers. Someone completely different could do ATC simulation. This way, even more potential depth is achieved.

Stepping outside of flightsim, lets look at a racing sim on top of outerra.
Such a racing plugin would probably bring in proper physics model, as well as tons of carefully designed tracks. (when im in my flightsim helo I can fly over those for instance). A racing sime could also bring police AI, and more immersive city scapes, perhaps pedastrians. As long as lod levellin is done propertly, a flightsimmer can profit from all of those things as well, and vice versa. Race your Porsche to the airport and see AI generated traffic take off over you, something like that.

So, for me personally, I want maximum immersion in a genre. However, I believe the multi vehicle/simulation aspect helps rather than hurts/limits this aspect. I also think that with one united base engine, the modding community will be huge.

Edit: I appologize, removed reference to specific companies.
Title: Survey
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on July 08, 2010, 12:40:27 pm
Outerra is a graphics engine.  The most it should be involved in vehicles is in making them look as realistic as possible.  Of course, air/water/ground/space simulation will affect how the vehicles behave, but that should be all.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 08, 2010, 12:50:25 pm
Guys, we are not talking here about the engine, but about a simulator built on the engine.

And anyway, it's not just a graphics engine, at minimum it will also provide the data for collision handling (since it generates the world when refining real data), object management, spatial queries, and many other tightly tied services for the possible addons.

And since directly upon the start there won't be many addons right away, it would have to provide default implementation of physics for the supported vehicle classes.
Title: Survey
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on July 08, 2010, 12:53:51 pm
Oh.  In that case, I think that variety should take precedence to individual detailing.  While some vehicles may not be very detailed, others can make them more detailed later.
Title: Survey
Post by: Abc94 on July 08, 2010, 02:36:42 pm
Quote from: cameni
There's a tiny chance that we might be doing or participating on a global simulator thing with Outerra. I say tiny, but a chance...

We'd like to gather some opinions about the whole business here, particularly with regards to the viability and market space.

For example, is the option of having different vehicle classes at disposal in a single world more/less important than the highest possible fidelity of a single simulator type?

I don't quite understand.  Are you asking if you should focus more on making a specific simulator rather than trying to make more of a base engine that others can use to create games/simulators with?
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 08, 2010, 03:04:02 pm
Apparently I phrased it somewhat wrongly :)
It's not about the engine, that's why this is in a separate category. This is solely about a simulator product that would be using the engine, and given its specific properties it could combine several simulators into one. People not interested in such a simulator should just ignore this section, the engine goes on.

But the thing is, there is a possibility such project might happen, and thanks to the state of the engine and its architecture we'd be deeply involved. So that's why I'm basically asking what's the market potential here.

Like, is the sim world comprised of disjoint groups of hardcore sim fans of their specific genres, so that the product would be getting equal bashing from all sides because not being focused on their sim domain, or is there a significant base of users wishing for a universal simulator platform, that would probably evolve more slowly? (but it might not, in the end, if the architecture is open to allow companies providing the sim cores)

Hopefully it's more clear now :)
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 08, 2010, 06:28:03 pm
Quote from: cameni
Like, is the sim world comprised of disjoint groups of hardcore sim fans of their specific genres, so that the product would be getting equal bashing from all sides because not being focused on their sim domain, or is there a significant base of users wishing for a universal simulator platform, that would probably evolve more slowly? (but it might not, in the end, if the architecture is open to allow companies providing the sim cores)

There are both hardcore and casual simmers.  

If Outerra supported plugins so that the physics/systems/weather/AI simulations could be written by 3rd parties then those plugins could be as hardcore as the 3rd party developer desires.

If the company approaching you is Aerosoft then you should really jump on the chance to have them partner with you in a global sim.  They are leaders in flight sim development (aircraft and scenery) and to have them developing products for an Outerra based global sim would be a dream come true.

Why would a global sim partner slow down Outerra platform development? What extra features do you need to support a global sim?

A global sim is the holy grail...  I would buy it in a instant even if initially it only had a single basic aircraft available.

Just think with a global sim we could have a single weather addon producing weather for flight, train, driving and ship activities.

With a global sim we could do things like fly into Athens, drive to marina, jump into yatch and do some sailing around the Greek Isles... how amazing!
Title: Survey
Post by: corona on July 09, 2010, 12:58:42 am
I think I understand better now.

Personally I think the market for a "do everything but only so-so" type of world sim is rather small. But I think the market for a "do everything but only so-so out of the box, but extend it with both commercial and free addons" type of sim is huge.

My personal oppinion is that you should jump onto this opportunity, if only to get some funding, and generate more buzz at the start. Hell I'll buy it if only for a bit of sandbox mode to play around with.

But the key thing IMO is to get modders interested. As I'm sure you know, MSFS is a goner. Aerosoft is at least 2 years out from a product, if they do one at all. Other alternatives are so so. So make it real easy, click and play easy (like the road layout demo u showed) to for instance create new airports/change existing ones. Same for roads/rivers. People can easily recreate their corner of the world. Have an option to sync it to a server, and others to pull from it. Ship, right at the start, right there, an exporter for 3d modelling software. People need to see the potential of this.

As I'm sure you noticed, alot of people look at this from a flight-sim perspective (me included). There is a reason for that. Try to take advantage of it. If MSFS were still alive, quite frankly, you wouldnt have this opportunity. But you have to jump onto it, before another company takes the lead and the modders jump to them. Your mentioned simulator could be a way to get it into peoples hands.

Extensibility, extensibility, extensibility. And, engagement with the community. If that's not happening, then this hypothetical sim will forever stay nothing but a little toy.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 09, 2010, 03:01:08 am
Not Aerosoft, Matthew, no need to flood their forums there :)
But thanks for the support.
Not sure if this one will have the courage in the end .. started with big enthusiasm but as the scale uncovers, they are cooling down :/
Nevertheless this is starting to appear more and more as people are realizing the possibilities, so I think this will come sooner or later.

A global sim won't slow down the Outerra platform development, because a global environment is what defines the platform in the first place. It could postpone the development of non-platform games using the engine, simply because the platform is more work. But I think that a normal version of engine will be developed sooner than a global stuff will be realized, so it's a non-issue.
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 09, 2010, 04:05:16 am
It's a shame about Aerosoft since they have a lot of scenery products (Airports) that could be ported over relatively easily I imagine.  Frankly I'm a little sceptical they will even go ahead with AFS 2013.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 09, 2010, 02:56:40 pm
Well, since somebody still keeps mentioning Aerosoft. Honestly, I don't think it would work with Aerosoft even if they actually asked us to show something on a round earth, with sight lines of 100 miles, using DX11 and not using more then 30% of resources (their recent comment) *

One thing is that we aren't using DX11 and given their fixation to it, that thing alone would be a huge obstacle. Never mind OpenGL4 with OpenCL matches the functionality while allowing porting to Macs and Linux .. but let's say that they may have their reasons.

But a more serious issue here is that our engine works differently from the engines used in flight simulators, which (among many positive outcomes you might have seen here already) brings one significant disadvantage - content creation pipeline must be rebuilt too, and the tools will be different as well. This would actually have big consequences, and I don't think they would be wishing to work it off.

And somehow I got this feeling it would probably not work also because of other incompatibilities in other areas ..


* Reading some threads on their forums, I see Kok saying they tested several engines that rely heavy on fractals (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=32217&view=findpost&p=206652) and found them unsatisfactory, so that's probably why they didn't bother. Somebody please enlighten me, which ones could these be?
And this one - after multiple posts that make no sense for me, apparently upon finally reading what's it about, suddenly also relaxing the tone, he brings the final lethal argument against the fractal model. Saying that it generates level of detail unnecessary for a flight simulation (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=32217&view=findpost&p=207232). Well, what can I say :)

Edit: cooled down :)
Title: Survey
Post by: corona on July 09, 2010, 04:19:54 pm
DX11 is more of a marketing thing I guess. Somehow I was under the assumption though that they were in contact with you at some point, are you saying they never even actually bothered to do so? Eg. get a tech demonstration?

My personal opinion is that the whole thing is stuck in business negotiations behind closed doors and all they have done so far is look at a few engines out there, and by look I mean probably just gathered publicly available data, and used that to build a rough concept to convince investors. At this point, I'm fairly sceptical it will happen at all.

That being said, I think with this forum the last hope of cooperation is gone. From a business perspective I wouldn't have posted that honestly, though I can see and agree with your arguments.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 09, 2010, 04:48:01 pm
No, no tech demo, they just expressed initial interest with rather appreciative words, we expressed interest to participate, and then it died off :)
I too thought they were in business negotiations and all that, then I read that stuff on their forums and I just don't understand. Clearly they are failing minimally in communicating their stances, as there are negative comments on their forums and elsewhere already and they seem to not know why is that.

But this thread is really not about Aerosoft :)
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 09, 2010, 06:05:06 pm
Quote from: cameni
he brings the final lethal argument against the fractal model. Saying that it generates level of detail unnecessary for a flight simulation (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=32217&view=findpost&p=207232). Well, what can I say :)

If he believes that then he doesn't understand the VFR "low and slow" segment of the market. Every "bush flyer" out their will absolutely love the naturalistic level of detail Outerra can provide.

It will be very interesting to see how simmers respond when you start posting pictures of scenic areas which showcase features such as lakes, rivers, coastlines, eg the Pacific North West of USA.  Have a look at this FSX product called Full Terrain (http://fullterrain.com/).  Simmers love detail!
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on July 10, 2010, 01:53:04 am
Quote from: cameni
This is solely about a simulator product that would be using the engine, and given its specific properties it could combine several simulators into one

I'm basically asking what's the market potential here.

Like, is the sim world comprised of disjoint groups of hardcore sim fans of their specific genres, so that the product would be getting equal bashing from all sides because not being focused on their sim domain

Truthfully, once you have the world and as accurate a physics model as you can insert into that world all other elements for all sim types should fall in place. Gravity for a car is the same as gravity for a plane is the same as gravity for a submarine and if the physics are correct gravity affecting an orbiting space-craft should be the same gravity just less of it due to distance.

I never really understood how "sims" could all be so different. The forces around us are pretty constant. If 9.8 m/s^2 is the force then it should be the force in every sim. I can understand how not having severe collision modeling in a pure flight sim would be simpler because noone is suppose to crash, but why not work on a complete physics engine in the first place.

Driving sims have to either have incredible collision instance tracking so that 4 spinning tires of a certain compound interacting with a surface material cause a car to move forward and turn(RBR). Some older and cheaper games just fake it all with vector data and throttle positioning (GTA4). But a driving sim would also need to calculate wind resistance and downforce from a spoiler or splitter so wouldn't that mean it needs to do all the calculations a flight sim currently does to reproduce that aspect correctly?

I say all or nothing. No point in simulating the whole world and limiting it to only one aspect of anything. You should literally sell the whole empty world to us and we can just install all the golf, driving, sea exploration, helicopter racing, mountain climbing, bobsledding, baseball, railroad, cattle-driving, curling, murdering sim modules we want to use the world and its physics.

I imagine something along the lines of "Steam" You download steam and you get access to a huge list of games. Why not subscribe and download Outerra, Get the world and all its updates and then just buy modules that can be added. A separate company could then put their module with all the models and control configs up for sale. You buy and add it to your outerra world. Even a simple puzzle game could just exist in the middle of the desert somewhere. Right next to my race-track and WWII tanks.

Multi-player is however what outerra should really focus on. No point in simulating the earth and 2.2 billion km into space if it will be you alone. I have to think 50,000 people roaming around in the outerra world would still leave plenty of elbow room. Just break it into different dimensions if need be. I really am talking about world changing possibilities here. Or maybe I am just rambling.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 11, 2010, 11:26:38 am
Well, a simulation is just an approximation of reality, a complete physics engine would be infinitely slow to both make and run :)
But I'm sure you didn't mean that completeness :)

Still, it's always a compromise. RoR (http://www.rigsofrods.com) guys are simulating the vehicles with advanced beam physics that can make a realistic simulation and deformation (with proper models). But it is also quite demanding, able to down any system easily, to the point it ceases to be fun.
Except for hardcore fans who favor sampled realism over the fun, that is.

But I say it doesn't matter. We want to create a platform where even such physics could be run. We want to create a world that is needed by every one such simulation or by the games that want to play on whole planets with detail at all levels. And let's make it open in a way allowing to plug-in any simulation system, that would be lightened from the burden of having to create a believable world every time.

However, I think the platform should come with a good implementation for basic vehicle classes to successfully jumpstart.

Other points are valid - the platform should be available for both developers and users, and it should provide the market place for addons etc.
And the multiplayer, yes it will be very important too.

The different dimensions should be the separate realms where one can be, the overlays defining in what epoch the world is and how it is changed from its natural state (=civilization). Crossing between the realms will be limited, at least for the active roles (unless it's a part of a game), but for the passive viewers it might be quite a fun to cross over to the age of dinosaurs with a jet fighter :)
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on July 11, 2010, 02:21:33 pm
Quote from: cameni
the age of dinosaurs with a jet fighter :)

You had me at dinosaurs...
Title: Survey
Post by: corona on July 12, 2010, 02:05:54 am
Wow, cameni, don't get me wrong, the epoch thing sounds super duper awesome, and I really mean that.

But don't aim too high at first. It worries me that it'll be another DNF (wow I just release dnf = did not finish and duke nukem forever.....rofl). If you haven't done so already, clearly define, right now, exactly what will be in, lets call it Engine V0.1 or whatever that you release first.

And I fully agree with your other points, provide a baseline physics model, but keep everything open.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 12, 2010, 02:29:51 am
Don't be afraid, we have enough professional experience to know not to aim too high :cool: Erm .. not too often? :)
But also from the same experience I got used to outlining the path to the end goals in advance, just to have it on mind when designing the elements of the project.

For example here it means that when we'll be doing a persistence layer, for storing and loading the world data on servers, we'll be making it with the realm support in mind, even when initially there will be just a single world. Otherwise we'd have to redesign it later for sure. So I want to include it into the code paths that are clear and independent now, and to keep it in mind when designing those not so clear.

Because it's extremely easy to simplify things in a way that later really complicates everything. On the other hand, it's always about finding a good balance between what one can dream about and what he can do when awake :)
Title: Survey
Post by: tasmanet on July 12, 2010, 04:26:34 am
Hi Guys

I have just landed here after giving Mathijs Kok a bit of a stir over at Aerosoft for "Stuffing People Around" .Personally I dont think Aerosoft will ever get there.

My only effort was creating "WDW2012" for FS2004 allowing for only 5 EMails must have been half decent or extremely bad.
But  AVSIM has lost the files and I dont have time to upload a newer version
So I have built a FERRY and Monorails from scratch , designed a new A380 Cockpit, modified FX's,made AI plus of course all the buildings/scenery etc around the Magic Kindom Area.

I get what you are stating about an all inclusive FS World with sub contractors / licensees developing their own Worlds within  same FS World

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=30062&st=328

Got to go and will ponder about some of the above posts

Tas
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 12, 2010, 12:04:34 pm
Yeah I see the forums are getting pretty cross-linked back and forth :)
But apparently mainly the people with inclination towards multi-sims are coming here, which I consider a good thing.
Title: Survey
Post by: Michal on July 12, 2010, 06:51:15 pm
I'm interested in two or three types of simulated vehicles. Aircrafts (including helicopters and lighter than air airships), trains and ships. FSX with high quality aircrafts is my primary simulator (I have few additional aircrafts - most of them have high-end avionics). I like to play Railworks and thinking about getting Ship Simulator too. Two of these three games have one drawback - they don't have whole world to play.

I was waiting for Microsofts Train Simulator 2 (the second one, based on FSX engine). They had really awesome idea behind this title:

Quote
Q: What is the "World of Rails" feature?
A: High Accuracy Route = track accuracy and geospecific scenery. World of Rails = corridor accuracy and geotypical scenery. What the World of Rails means for players is that you will be able to drive a train anywhere in our default set of rails around the world and can keep driving for as far as the track extends without having to leave the game to load a new level. For builders, it means you have a head-start of good-quality digital elevation models, landclass, and demographic data from which to start building a route, but you can also start from scratch or build a fantasy route.

http://tsinsider.com/



This is how I'd see multisimulator - as an engine to play and build for community. It would require scripting engine for additional vehicle systems (like avionics in aircrafts, or complex engine management for steam locomotives etc.). Maybe it would be possible to expand script interpreter to scenery too - like ground vehicles on airports, ATC, or signalling and dispatcher for rail simulator. I don't know if it's possible, but it would be nice to have :)
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 13, 2010, 04:06:41 am
I've been always wondering how the FSX engine would fare in a train simulator, given it would be all about ground level detail.

Quote from: _michal
This is how I'd see multisimulator - as an engine to play and build for community. It would require scripting engine for additional vehicle systems (like avionics in aircrafts, or complex engine management for steam locomotives etc.). Maybe it would be possible to expand script interpreter to scenery too - like ground vehicles on airports, ATC, or signalling and dispatcher for rail simulator. I don't know if it's possible, but it would be nice to have :)
It doesn't necessarily have to be a scripting language to handle this, rather the plugin architecture should be designed to handle it (it may delegate it to a script, of course, but the core functionality should be compiled for performance reasons). I'd guess that a creator of an airport will code the vehicles and signals etc as well.
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 13, 2010, 04:35:53 am
Quote from: cameni
I've been always wondering how the FSX engine would fare in a train simulator, given it would be all about ground level detail.

ACES had done a lot of work on enhancing the ground level experience.... FSX and TS2 were based on the same "core" engine, with extra stuff added in to the core engine to cater for TS2 (eg animated people on stations/trains etc).  Apparently they had a core engine team as well as the TS2 team.  Then FS11 would have resulted in the core engine being enhanced again.

Gee TS2 would have already been released over 18months ago if Steve Balmer had not pulled the plug and ACES would have only been 6 months from releasing FS11.  

In another universe some lucky buggers are TS2 simming right now!  :)

Quote from: cameni
It doesn't necessarily have to be a scripting language to handle this, rather the plugin architecture should be designed to handle it (it may delegate it to a script, of course, but the core functionality should be compiled for performance reasons). I'd guess that a creator of an airport will code the vehicles and signals etc as well.

Yes IMHO just have a flexible plugin API and then developers can use what they want, C++, C#, Perl etc.  Integrated scripting at the expense of a plugin API is never going to be attractive to commercial developers.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 13, 2010, 05:24:15 am
Quote from: MatthewS
ACES had done a lot of work on enhancing the ground level experience.... FSX and TS2 were based on the same "core" engine, with extra stuff added in to the core engine to cater for TS2 (eg animated people on stations/trains etc).  Apparently they had a core engine team as well as the TS2 team.  Then FS11 would have resulted in the core engine being enhanced again.
But that's mainly for modeled areas like stations or the track corridors, isn't it? If you created a custom track elsewhere you'd have to model everything again. And it needs a huge amount of data to be modeled to enjoy and believe the world.

 I perceive it as a big advantage of a procedurally pre-modeled world that the terra incognita will be already looking natural, and you only "civilize" it. Not every one will like some implications of this approach, though.
Title: Survey
Post by: Michal on July 13, 2010, 11:31:58 am
Whole world was supposed to be populated with generic data - landclass (forests, meadows, urban area) and vector - tracks, roads, rivers, lakes and seashores. In Trainz or RailWorks you have empty flat area. Route developer has to place every single tree, every meter of track, every road or river. There is even no height data. World of Rails was a huge step in right direction. I think it would be possible to place a railstations, signalling, and you have believable prototype of nice route. This approach is impossible in RailWorks or Trainz. That's why I think Outerra has a huge potential. In fact your flat trees already looks better than forests in FSX, Trainz, or RailWorks. If you'll be able to make a core platform for open simulator (open means open architecture, not open source), I'm sold.

About scripting engine - scripting (like xml in FSX or Railworks) is much easier to learn for non-programmers like myself. I can make complete avionics for my planes in xml, but I have no idea how to make the same in C++ ;) I believe this is main reason why FSX developers are ignoring XPlane. Because of it's plugin system.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 13, 2010, 12:12:51 pm
Quote from: _michal
Whole world was supposed to be populated with generic data - landclass (forests, meadows, urban area) and vector - tracks, roads, rivers, lakes and seashores.
Ah, I see. But wouldn't the default resolution of landclass and elevation data be unsatisfactory for a train sim? I mean, for a flight sim it is already nothing much when low flying, without some large addons providing more detail for a specific area. I can't imagine how the generic terrain would look in a train simulator then.

Quote
About scripting engine - scripting (like xml in FSX or Railworks) is much easier to learn for non-programmers like myself. I can make complete avionics for my planes in xml, but I have no idea how to make the same in C++ ;) I believe this is main reason why FSX developers are ignoring XPlane. Because of it's plugin system.
I understand; what I wanted to say is that the core system won't be directly interacting with scripting, rather that the ability to script something will be tied to a particular plugin or interface itself. Scripting is less generic, easier because it's designed for a particular purpose, so there's no point making it overly generic within the architecture. However, a unified scripting subsystem should be available to all plugin makers so they can expose scriptable parts in a universal way. Like, scripting the avionics or the behavior of ground vehicles on an airport, and such.
Title: Survey
Post by: Michal on July 13, 2010, 02:29:51 pm
Here are few screenshots without custom objects, only World of Rails data:

http://tsinsider.com/Articles/AboutTS2/WorldOfRails.aspx

It looks good in my opinion. I've read on train sim forums, that Aces were working on new lighting system, not implemented on these screenshots yet.

I think it should be possible to make something like this with Open Street Map. There are raw vector data for rail tracks. Engine should be able to automatically add junctions, crossings, etc. It should be possible to change tracks layout by hand in some kind of editor.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 13, 2010, 03:02:20 pm
Not bad, although those screens can hide quite a lot. Popping objects and trees, for example.
Anyhow, it doesn't matter now :/

Yes, OSM should be usable here.
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 13, 2010, 08:31:16 pm
Quote from: cameni
Not bad, although those screens can hide quite a lot. Popping objects and trees, for example.
Anyhow, it doesn't matter now :/
Yes, OSM should be usable here.

Though at ground level (in FSX) you cant really notice popup trees/objects as much since the distant objects are usually hidden by nearer objects.  It probably wouldn't have affected TS2 that much except I guess for very scenic distant views over a valley etc.
Title: Survey
Post by: MatthewS on July 13, 2010, 08:37:31 pm
Quote from: cameni
Like, scripting the avionics or the behavior of ground vehicles on an airport, and such.

Yes for airport ground vehicles but also for "AI Aircraft" that are flying real world schedules controlled by a plug-in.

Think how nice it would be to have all the models and schedules from World Of AI available in Outerra.  An "AI Aircraft" plug-in could then control these aircraft and the virtual skies of Outerra would be filled with AI aircraft in accurate liveries flying real world schedules!!!

http://www.world-of-ai.com/
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on July 14, 2010, 02:42:49 pm
I am completely 1000% more interested in car physics over the flight, train aspect. I don't really know of any opensource physics engines for racing games. I know ISI (rFactor Developer) did license their engine to other companies (SimBin) for modification and use in their games. Not sure how difficult it would be to implement into a round world.

You're using bullet physics currently for testing with the tatra aren't you? Any chance of giving a faster 2 wheel drive vehicle a few laps on a generated road? Just to see how it "handles". Even if its just a box with no model.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 15, 2010, 02:27:37 am
Well we are primarily focusing on the terrain and planet rendering, the vehicle simulation is only secondary now, though important - we want to test how it will look, and implement the functionality it will need with respect to terrain.

But we aren't going into a great detail with it at the moment, so for example the physics of wheels isn't as accurate as it could be. There's no big point in showing how such vehicle behaves now, it would just show how the current, simpler physics works, but not how it should/will work in a car simulator.

Outside of the car simulation domain, the current physics is sufficient for many other areas we are/will be working on.
Title: Survey
Post by: InviZ on July 15, 2010, 10:07:50 am
Hello,

Cameni, what about good bullet simulation and good human-models with animation?
I think, it could be good to give possibility to community to make mods like soldier sim! Like Armed Assault.
If you look for example to www.armaholic.com (http://www.armaholic.com), you'll see a lot of content. These guys only need some tools and good engine :)
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on July 15, 2010, 10:35:54 am
I see no big problems there, apart from the amount of work it needs.
 Due to the lack of time, and because our first potential licensees don't need it, we postponed character animation to a later time. But of course once it's in there will be no stopping them army guys ;)
Title: Survey
Post by: tasmanet on July 19, 2010, 11:07:37 am
I would stick to AI vehicles, planes , trains ,animals etc.

And a  simple AI every developer could use as the default
Title: Survey
Post by: tasmanet on August 18, 2010, 02:43:48 am
Well you can give up on the FS bit as M$ are back in the Game

I would stick to a good Train Simulator

Give up on anything to do with war as it is well served already
and why waste a quality product like this on idiots who want
to blow thing up.

Anyhow time for me to move on

Best of luck

Tas
Title: Survey
Post by: Timmo on August 18, 2010, 09:20:00 pm
It will be interesting to see what MS does for sure, however, if history is anything to go by they won't be going down the fractal route.

As an FSX scenery developer, ideally what I would look for in a sim is fairly much what MS did with FSX but with a few tweaks- Better physics, better crash/surface detection and fractal enhancement for the algorithmic real world data and textures.

FSX does a lot quite well, particularly in how it allows enhancement of various components of the sim using real world vector data and aerial imagery. It has proven that if you provide the tools, SDK and a decent engine, then developers will support it well with addons.

I firmly believe that the future of simulation lies with combining algorithmic data with fractal enhancement. I.e. lowish (~1km) resolution landclass layers providing different terrain and texture sub-routines for rendering- A rock landclass is tied to a different terrain 'roughness'  value and texture.

I'm watching this site with great interest :)
Title: Survey
Post by: McArcher on August 23, 2010, 05:13:15 pm
I have learned about Outerra project just a few hours ago and I want to say that this project seems to be what I have been tinking about for years.

Looking at such PC games as OFP, Arma2, NWN2 and other cool games with cool editors, I think that every one of us have ever wanted to create something or take part in creating something. As for me, I used to create in NWN2 and make some game mission for Arma2. Looking at popularity of Arma2 addonmaking, I think people need a GLOBAL PROJECT, such as Outerra, for which they will write addons and contribute to game engine.

I want Outerra to be a universal simulator in nowaday computer world, simulating many aspects of life. It means that it will be some kind of open source project, and people from all over the world will contribute to it, I think it is the key to success.

For example, if Outerra has a perfect universal physics engine, then the community will only write addons for it and expand the game.

I'll give some examples. For example, if a railroad type of objects, locos and wagons are included into game, the railsim fans will start porting their models to the game. When tracked vehicles are introduced, we can include tank, BMP and other vehicles from military games or self-made models. Airplanes, cars, people, animals, buildings.... many other things will be ported from other sources or created from scratch...

I think this engine needs to be very realistic in many aspects to make it popular. Just imagine, one simulator for all kinds of games...

It will simulate wet road and mud traction, bullet flight trajectory, rails, interracting with water, wind, graphical FX like smoke and so on, realistic collisions, material penetration, explosions, to simulate armored vehicles with different types of armor, every vehicle and object will contain sub-objects with working physics... the future of engine is infinite... Look at Operation Flashpoint game... its engine is very ugly, but it lives now as Arma2, though it lacks very important moments, and it lives with a great commnity, because they are free to contribute to it.

To sum up, I think this project has a great future if it is made open-source or with a great SDK for making addons.

I, personally, want to see a realistic simulation of armored vehicles damaging (for Military Simulation), an ability to morph the terrain by a script or code (to simulate bulldozers, shovels, trenches making, holes after explosions, digging, ...), different types of rockets and ammo addons.... and of course, everything else...

My dream is that someday I will see a universal sim, that is made by all people in the world with physics like in real life, and no corporations making millions, no wars and no crime in real life :) When we are united, we are much stronger force than fighting with each other. Sorry if this seems to be an offtopic...
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on August 24, 2010, 02:14:22 am
Basically it's what the platform should be about. The idea is that in the open world you'll be able to see a 3rd party made plane normally operating, whether by AI or other players, but you won't be able to fly it unless you buy or rent one. If it's a freeware or open source plane, you could do so without payment, of course.
This way the platform really becomes a universal platform in every sense, a simulator operating system of a kind.

Not sure yet if brand licensing will not be slightly problematic here, with the free/open content combined with commercial one.

Quote from: McArcher
My dream is that someday I will see a universal sim, that is made by all people in the world with physics like in real life, and no corporations making millions, no wars and no crime in real life :) When we are united, we are much stronger force than fighting with each other. Sorry if this seems to be an offtopic...

Sure sure, and free energy, lunches and chicks for everyone :)
We might unite against an alien invasion for a while, but otherwise it's always evolutionary fight for domination and survival, and no amount of idealistic thinking will change that, I'm sorry ;)
Title: Survey
Post by: AWM Mars on August 24, 2010, 11:26:13 am
Quote from: McArcher
My dream is that someday I will see a universal sim, that is made by all people in the world with physics like in real life, and no corporations making millions, no wars and no crime in real life :) When we are united, we are much stronger force than fighting with each other. Sorry if this seems to be an offtopic...
Well, this would have to be hosted somewhere, which will involve a corp or two making several millions... Or... with the new MPEG formats, we may see a similar business model to the ilks of Skype... unicasting/cloud computing. Someone somewhere will still control the copper wire/optical fibre.. so a payoff is always on the cards.
Title: Survey
Post by: McArcher on August 24, 2010, 11:41:39 am
Quote from: AWM Mars
Well, this would have to be hosted somewhere.
Web-hosting, you mean? It is not so expensive, especially when cost divided between members of community. And earnings from that is not million :)

I'd like to take part in such community, but I don't know whether I will be usefull right now (I'm not a professional programmer or modeller, but used to learn this in the past as a hobby, and I don't refuse to come back to it in future again. At least now I'm learning Photoshop, Corel Draw, Lightwave. Maybe, I will revise C++ if needed, but it will take some time). Any chances to take part in this universal engine project in nearest future?
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on August 24, 2010, 03:12:20 pm
The way I see it. By ZeosPantera

The way I see Outerra coming to bear on our society as a system is a simple one. Take the model of efficiency and awesome that is Steam. Valve has done what was almost impossible. Corner the PC gaming market. You want a PC game what do you do. You see if it is on steam and then look elsewhere. Well now I am not saying outerra should be on steam. Hell that is just silly.

What I am proposing is that like the steam client. (That 700 Meg download you get before any games are installed) Outerra should be the client. Free of charge everyone on earth can download the entire world to their HD's 192 gigs once extracted if I am correct. A very large HD investment for some.

So now that 100,000 people have torrent'd the world what can they do in it? Well nothing really. It would come with maybe one plane or the tatra truck. The basic world editing tools would be there. But that is it. You can hook to other computers via the multi-player and walk through the forests for literally years if you like.

The key is when you load the outerra client program it will have a STORE/DOWNLOAD section just like steam.. And in this store all the commercially and freeware modifications that can be added to the empty world are kept neatly organized with compatibility notes and beautifully written descriptions. You want lavishly detailed cities? Buy one or two from pro modding companies or download the whole pack free made by some obsessive compulsive in his basement. Want the all the commercial jets ever made? Buy the addon. Cars, Buy them? Shooting packs with guns, artillery and the correct tweaks to make windage and such realistic? Buy the addons. Or download the free mods that are probably 90% as good. And each one is selectable.

Start Outerra and checkbox the mods you want to enable. Perhaps you just want to go fishing. Load the fishing mod and nothing else. You dont need complex cities or jets flying over to fish. Same goes for hunting. Now if I load my driving sim mod I will also need the Roads infrastructure mod enabled and detailed cities.

If you're a flight sim nut. Load the flight sim addon and roads if you like? Cities if your into it. The Cameni airport pack with all his Himalayan airports. Plan on landing and driving your celebrity AI somewhere? Throw the driving sim on as well.

Other details like communications with friends and managing different multiplayer worlds to join would be part of the client. Not sure how to go about hosting something like outerra.. I mean could standard client computers host the entire world with normal bandwith? Or is some $200 a month super computer at a hosting company needed?

Anyways that is really the only way I can see a system that needs this much hard drive space being run acceptably.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on August 24, 2010, 03:32:55 pm
No, it doesn't need to unpack the data on disk, it uses the 13GB dataset in packed form. And it will use much smaller part of it normally (that can be downloaded on demand), according to what parts of Earth you are using in what detail.
 If you land vertically somewhere and run few tens of kilometers around, it will only download ~40MB of data, caching it. A mad traveler would have to visit every place on Earth, traveling on the ground, in order to force downloading the complete dataset. Needless to say, it would take a very long time :)
Title: Survey
Post by: Blockaderunner on August 31, 2010, 04:24:56 pm
So, finally i've read this through.

1. I think base scripts and physics for ground, water, orbit, rail, air etc. vehicles should be there. One copy for one type. Just for showcases, demos and ad-making. Or testing :)

2. How about "divided" content distribution? Free tools, plugins and mods are based on the FREE version of Outerra SDK/platform (can be incorrect so 2 versions are given) and huge, detailed are paid but based on the full version of SDK/platform and developed by your team (mb) or by 3rd party developers. I think it's common solution nowadays. Yes, this maybe problematic. Maybe 3rd party developers will be satisfied with sharing stakes in your company?.. Maybe... 8 percent rate per game copy...

3. TS2 has very bad phototextures. I think they very huge and ideal worldsim must simulate everything, including textures =D

4. Last. I believe Outerra should offer more flexibility in displaying different vehicles/activities classes than the fidelity of certain class. It's better wider than deeper.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 01, 2010, 07:51:50 am
1) Yes, that's how I imagine it as well - a few basic vehicles for each type

2) It will probably have to be divided somehow, otherwise authors of free content will not be able to create models of known brands on the commercial platform

3) We are generating the textures. Final version will use 500m landclass data that will be fractal refined to obtain more detail, and atop of it comes vector based landclass overlay for artificial structures, like fields/pastures etc.

4) like 1)
Title: Survey
Post by: Blockaderunner on September 01, 2010, 03:29:48 pm
Quote from: cameni
... 3) We are generating the textures.
Exactly what I meant :)

Also Outerra can be medieval, like Mount'n'Blade. But much better. Oh...
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on September 01, 2010, 06:12:35 pm
Quote from: cameni
1)3) We are generating the textures. Final version will use 500m landclass data that will be fractal refined to obtain more detail, and atop of it comes vector based landclass overlay for artificial structures, like fields/pastures etc.

How will outerra handle different land "materials". For example. The Sahara Desert http://ancientafricah.wikispaces.com/file/view/Lone_Palm,_Sahara_Desert.jpg has rolling, ever changing dunes of sand. SOFT sand. Do you have anything in mind for handling "soft" ground features vs only slightly soft topsoil vs impervious rock (ie every surface in every game ever)

Secondly, When you speak about artificial structures are you also talking about things like random rocks and logs? http://www.rosiejones.com/RAW/xarno.rosiejones.com/v2_0/myXarno/rosiejones.com/myAttic/websitephotos/photo_lg_ireland.jpg
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 03, 2010, 04:48:14 am
No support of sand dunes yet, that would need some kind of dynamic modulation in the shaders, seems to be doable eventually. It won't be feasible to do with vector patches.

Random rocks will be created in two ways - free ones as a vegetation (probability & sparsity), and others as semi-random fluctuations in fractal function meant to create faults and such.
Title: Survey
Post by: alainneedle1 on September 06, 2010, 01:19:10 pm
OK I'm new here just like Timmo.....  : O)  ....I don't understand engine and stuff like that so forgive me if my question is not posted at the right place...

Is SLI, PhysX, DX11, Hyperthreading and the use of multiple cores related to the way the engine is built?

If yes will the engine be built to take advantage of all this....

Thank you.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 06, 2010, 02:54:06 pm
SLI and related technologies require engine support for optimal performance - not yet supported but it will be tested soon.

PhysX is just one of many physics libraries, but physics support isn't directly related to the rendering engine, a developer can use practically any of the libraries. We are including Bullet physics library for demonstration of integration with engine, and JSBSim for flight dynamics model.

The engine isn't using Microsoft's DX11 but OpenGL3.3, and will use OpenGL4 later. OpenGL4+OpenCL provide the same level of features as DX11, additionally allowing for portability to Mac and Linux platforms.

The engine is using multiple cores but more importantly it heavily utilizes GPU for rendering, leaving CPU for simulation. From the figures given recently to one wannabe sim developer: when approaching Lukla in the last video, we've been consuming 14% of CPU time total on a 4-processor intel core 2 Q6600 CPU running at 1.5GHz (i.e. 60% of one core), with circa 4 mil triangles rendered.
Title: Survey
Post by: alainneedle1 on September 06, 2010, 03:27:18 pm
Quote from: alainneedle1
OK I'm new here just like Timmo.....  : O)  ....I don't understand engine and stuff like that so forgive me if my question is not posted at the right place...

Is SLI, PhysX, DX11, Hyperthreading and the use of multiple cores related to the way the engine is built?

If yes will the engine be built to take advantage of all this....

Thank you.

Thankyou very much for this information....I just can't imagine what kind of perf. we can get out of your engine with an up to date rig like I'm building right now....i7 980x, GTX 480, 200MHz 7-7-7-20,PCIe SSD card and more.......

I can't imagine running a sim.like that with 2 GPU.....

This is very VERY exiting news...there is a lot of good dev. at the moment who did a phenomenal job at making FSX better than ever but we still stuck with stutterings, popping trees and a partially functionning DX10 unless we lower the sliders controlling the eyes candy.

Now I know my next question is probably a shot in the dark but looking at what you have done so far and applying the same time frame it took for you guys to get where you'r at from the start what will be your best estimate as far as predicting when this can be up and running for us simmers?
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 06, 2010, 03:53:28 pm
Of course, the performance depends on many things - what kind of detail should be generated at what speed, detail settings, but the engine is in development and we'll be adding more things but also optimizing it.
But I'd say that the engine architecture really pays off.

Now for the question of when ..
We can't really apply the same time frame to estimate the timelines, and the big question is also what will be done. There are more areas where we are taking this engine, but with regard to simulators, the closest and most probable thing I can foresee right now is that the engine could be used in a combat flight simulator (or two), as a few developers approached us about that some time ago already. Generally they want to start their development in 2011, with some 2-3 years development time. But of course this is very very early and nothing could come out of it as well.

Otherwise there will be a flyable/drivable demo (alpha) sometime later this year, that should give some initial impressions. Beware though, whole world is a single land type with pines everywhere.
It will allow building roads and runways and placing some buildings etc.
Title: Survey
Post by: alainneedle1 on September 06, 2010, 05:41:26 pm
Another question or two if I may.... with an engine like yours is it possible to have flags, trees leafs , tall grass, smoke and dust moving along with the wind or is it something up to the dev. and something we can only dream about...

Is it possible to have real time weather like hurricane with that kind of engine or is it too soon to tell?
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 07, 2010, 01:11:03 am
Well all those items are of course possible, it depends mostly on the priority when they could be done (after weather and particle systems).

Similarly the hurricanes. But the engine should support only the rendering of various atmospheric and particle effects initially, with possible external plugin for real weather or with some physically based but random one in the engine.
Title: Survey
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on September 07, 2010, 02:10:00 am
Sounds good; keep it simple at first, we can make it fancier later.  It's what we've been saying for some time.  And congratulations on your 400th post Brano! :cool:
Title: Survey
Post by: angrypig on September 07, 2010, 03:29:39 am
I join the congratulations :D
Title: Survey
Post by: locoidal on September 07, 2010, 05:31:05 am
Hello to everyone.
Firstly: !!!Congratulations for this fantastic engine that you are building!!!

second:

Quote from: cameni
but with regard to simulators, the closest and most probable thing I can foresee right now is that the engine could be used in a combat flight simulator (or two), as a few developers approached us about that some time ago already. Generally they want to start their development in 2011, with some 2-3 years development time. But of course this is very very early and nothing could come out of it as well.

I'm not sure.....but.....i think that probably the DCS' guys are behind these combat sim?. If this is true I'm going to be the happiest man in the world.

You are Gurus men!!!!
Title: Survey
Post by: steve_1979 on September 07, 2010, 05:46:09 am
Great works so far guys. The lighting changes from ground level up through the atmosphere look very impressive.  Assuming the videos were recorded real time and not pre-renderded the frame rates seem very smooth for the level of detail. The OpenGL tessalation looks every bit as good as the DX11 tessalation too.

To answer your initial survay question about wether you should have an integrated simulator for air/ground/water/space or focus on just one specific area. As I am a keen gamer who plays flight sims (FSX) racing sims (GTR) and combat sims (ARMA) I find the idea on a single integrated 'everything' simulator very exciting so long as any necessary graphical comprimises to do this aren't too excessive. The integrated 'everything' simulator idea get a big thumbs up from me.

It will be interesting to see how weather and enviromental effects will be implemented. I would also be interested to see how capable the physics engine is - what happens when objects collide? Are there things like real time damage/deformation that can effect the handling of vehicles.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 07, 2010, 06:27:36 am
Quote from: locoidal
I'm not sure.....but.....i think that probably the DCS' guys are behind these combat sim?. If this is true I'm going to be the happiest man in the world.
Remember that it's still in alpha state so whoever it is (can't tell), it does not necessarily mean anything :)
I was just saying that there's an interest from several developers, but we still have to implement a few features for it to become usable in their scenarios.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 07, 2010, 06:52:09 am
Quote from: steve_1979
Great works so far guys. The lighting changes from ground level up through the atmosphere look very impressive.  Assuming the videos were recorded real time and not pre-renderded the frame rates seem very smooth for the level of detail. The OpenGL tessalation looks every bit as good as the DX11 tessalation too.
There's no DX11-level tesselation used, even though it may look so. It's a fractal refinement done with DX10-level means. Actually tesselation shaders aren't needed here.

Quote
It will be interesting to see how weather and enviromental effects will be implemented. I would also be interested to see how capable the physics engine is - what happens when objects collide? Are there things like real time damage/deformation that can effect the handling of vehicles.
Note physics isn't necessarily tied to the rendering engine, we are demoing the integration with Bullet physics but developers may want to integrate different libraries here as well. Of course some feedback from the engine is required because the terrain is generated below certain resolution and so it has to provide the data for collision purposes. Another area where the engine will provide some help is the spatial index. Current physics engines weren't built for such large scales so they would behave in a suboptimal way.
Title: Survey
Post by: locoidal on September 07, 2010, 06:57:35 am
Quote from: cameni
Quote from: locoidal
I'm not sure.....but.....i think that probably the DCS' guys are behind these combat sim?. If this is true I'm going to be the happiest man in the world.
Remember that it's still in alpha state so whoever it is (can't tell), it does not necessarily mean anything :)
I was just saying that there's an interest from several developers, but we still have to implement a few features for it to become usable in their scenarios.

Thank you for your response.
Don't know why, but i have the feeling that i'm going to be very happy in the future....


Br
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 07, 2010, 06:58:09 am
Quote from: RaikoRaufoss
And congratulations on your 400th post Brano! :cool:
You know if Angrypig wrote as much as he talks in comparison with me, he would be at 1000 :D
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on September 07, 2010, 01:49:13 pm
Quote from: cameni
Current physics engines weren't built for such large scales so they would behave in a suboptimal way.

Well then. I suggest you start working on coding a brand new physics engine to use specifically with Outerra. The you can charge an arm and a leg and sell the technology to your competitors.

Now although it would be more to show off a physics engine nothing would make me happier then a quick implementation of physics sandbox building in the world of Outerra. Kind of like what Garry's mod is to the source engine.

Using welds, axis, rope, ballsockets and random props to build your own

Car - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noDSxkQlA7Y&fmt=22

Plane - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0aKZtHEEA&fmt=35

Train - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvploF-r7M&fmt=35

War-machine - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ZxXhBV-Ls&fmt=35

and run it around in outerra for several hundred hours. God knows I have wasted way more time then that in the cramped quarters of source's map size limits. Would cover the current driving, flight, war simulations for the demo.
Title: Survey
Post by: Abc94 on September 08, 2010, 01:34:41 pm
Yes!!  A Garry's mod like sandbox game using the Outerra engine is a must!

Also would be great to have something like Wire Mod (http://wiki.garrysmod.com/?title=Wire_Addon) with it as well.
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 08, 2010, 10:03:55 pm
Cameni and Angrypig just had coronaries considering all of this :)

Hehehe.

*edit* Not to mention the crap I've sent to Cameni lately through email.  They're all probably exhausted and wish they'd never created a forum.

*edited because I have a happy trigger finger*
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on September 08, 2010, 10:39:00 pm
Quote from: cshawnsmith
Not to mention the crap I've sent to Cameni lately through email.

what's so important that you can't post it on the forums.. you have to be all secretive and send emails..
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 09, 2010, 01:43:36 am
LOL ... personal questions regarding a few applications of the engine I'm interested in, for projects of a fictional nature.

I'm currently working on a trilogy of fantasy novels, loosely entitled The Journeys of the Greywolf, which will chronicle a main character's journey during a war he didn't want to be a part of.  It was loosely based on a PBS television series called "How the West was Lost."  One of the projects I want to create would be a companion application that would take a potential reader on a virtual tour of the world I'm creating.  Thus the reason I'm interested in model hierarchies, the way the engine builds the level of detail, etc.

Currently, I'm working in Lightwave and Zbrush to create the world, but I haven't been able to achieve the level of detail I want for the video clips (I've come very close, using some layering techniques the Outerra engine uses, but it's still in its early stages).  Something like the Outerra engine would give me that level of detail, provided I can come up with the height maps and other details necessary (which I'm currently working on).  Plus, there are a few other side projects that I recently began contemplating that the Outerra engine may be able to do for me, which most other current freeware engines only barely are able to accomplish, without a lot of re-coding.  Since I'm not a programmer (just a glorified HTML jockey and pixel pusher by trade), the Outerra engine has possibilities for me that only one or two others come close to approaching.
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on September 09, 2010, 01:59:00 am
Oh. I mostly just emailed him nude photo's of myself, but I guess your stuff is more interesting to him because he never replies to mine :/
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 09, 2010, 02:00:02 am
Not to mention that Cameni has been a genuinely nice guy, and very supportive in his emails :).  Most other indy engines currently in development don't have devs of this quality.
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 09, 2010, 02:01:03 am
And ROTFL!!!
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 09, 2010, 02:42:42 am
But I was thinking that in the demo there could be something to shoot at .. like some nude guys running out of the forests screaming .. or some such ;)
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 09, 2010, 02:56:04 am
LOL

So inspiration strikes me:

ZeosPantera emerges from the Forest of Woe, disheveled, haggard, and completely nude.  All the warnings to him had gone unheeded, and now he's paying the price.

The last straw was the giant tree that tried to eat him.  A tree with teeth was something unheard of, even in the most ridiculous of fairy tales.  But it happened, and Zeos wasn't happy about it.

As Zeos emerged from the gloomy veil of the tree-line, he stood face-to-face with Cameni the Barbarian.  Realizing his predicament -- no weapon, no armor, and completely nude -- Zeos sighed and fell to his knees.

"Just get it over with, already," he said, fate weighing in his voice.

Cameni laughed, sending shivers down Zeos's spine.  As he raised the sword above his head ...........
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on September 09, 2010, 03:22:47 am
Quote from: cshawnsmith
blah blah blah.

I don't see anything about me riding a dinosaur in this. Fail


I had a great thought for the demo however.. Go get perfectly to scale models of recognizable landmarks (Statue of liberty, The Empire State building, Eiffel Tower, The Colosseum, etc) and allow us to spawn them where-ever we like. Just as a reference. I mean scale is a big thing in outerra and having a teeny tiny Eiffel Tower amidst the ever expanding mountain ranges would do it for me. Especially if you were to just walk under it in-game.
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on September 09, 2010, 03:51:53 am
http://www.outerra.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=32&p=5

There you go.  No Fail. :D
Title: Survey
Post by: CMBH on October 06, 2010, 12:09:21 pm
I think that the best solution addon is a unique(only) simulator grouping together(including) all the sorts of simulation in the form of!

Example simulation of driving(behavior) or air simulation including forest fire simulation and weather simulation .

The most beautiful would be a forest fire truck but the me in demand too much not?

http://pompiers63.blogspot.com/2009/07/defile-du-14-juillet-nouveau-ccfm.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74K0NXtRI0
Title: Survey
Post by: OGREMAN on October 31, 2010, 12:30:56 am
I am new to this forum so forgive my lack of knowledge about OUTERRA, this terrain generating engine ABSOLUTELY ROCKS MY WORLD..... I am not very knowledgable in computer code but I do know a groundbreaking piece of software when I see it and this is it.
My particular interest is in combat flight simming which I have been doing since writing a basic code for a flight sim on a sinclair zx back in1978. Since then I have tried em all and I can say without doubt that the graphic detail of this terrain engine far exceeds anything out there at this point in time.
So this is my point.... the "holy grail" of simmers is definately to have a high fidelity environment where the physics that govern the behavior of vehicles and objects in that environment are incorruptable. The unbending physics thing is essential in a competetive multiplay environment where cheating to win is rife. For that reason I would urge you not to leave the architecture of the engine so open as to allow third party modders to bend the virtual world physics to their will.

In my opinion you should pursue the vision of a world terrain environment generator that has a set of tools that others can use to populate the environment with their specialised interest vehicle/object.  That in itself is a massive undertaking, ROBUST FIDELITY NOW, DIVERSITY LATER.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on November 03, 2010, 07:39:11 am
Quote from: OGREMAN
I would urge you not to leave the architecture of the engine so open as to allow third party modders to bend the virtual world physics to their will.

In my opinion you should pursue the vision of a world terrain environment generator that has a set of tools that others can use to populate the environment with their specialised interest vehicle/object.  That in itself is a massive undertaking, ROBUST FIDELITY NOW, DIVERSITY LATER.
The architecture open to pluggable modules is aimed at the developers, rather than the users. And I'd imagine that including a plugin for public distribution will be subject to some quality and conformity checking anyway, for example it cannot cause slowdowns because of poor programming, things like that. In any case I'd like to have a detection system in place for pinpointing such an infringing module even in real time - we would not like to be blamed for poor performance when the cause lies elsewhere, but it should be also giving hints to the developers about problematic parts.

Tunability of individual parameters within a specific vehicle is a different matter, but that will lie in the hands of the plugin maker.
Title: Survey
Post by: flightmaster on November 13, 2010, 06:49:27 pm
I think the best way to make an actual product out of this is to create scenery add-ons for simulators, and maybe license the use of the engine to game developers. You could create your own games or simulators, but wouldn't it be better if you joined up with a big player such as Activision or Microsoft for that?
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on November 14, 2010, 02:32:08 am
Well it cannot be used for scenery addons for other simulators as the architecture is radically different. New simulators don't get created every day, but I think it's a matter of time when someone will want to develop one with it. We still have to mature the engine as well.
Title: Survey
Post by: alainneedle1 on November 19, 2010, 07:19:44 pm
Quote from: cameni
Well it cannot be used for scenery addons for other simulators as the architecture is radically different. New simulators don't get created every day, but I think it's a matter of time when someone will want to develop one with it. We still have to mature the engine as well.

OK so let me understand this, any of the already existing addons can't be use with your engine because of the architecture of your engine been different....

In another post here..     http://www.outerra.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=1715#p1715 you stated the fact that you are talking with several developers....in all of them is there at least one (or more than one) in the flight simulation business?
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on November 20, 2010, 01:51:19 am
I understood the question was if we can make scenery addons for other simulators with it. But the answer is no also the other way around. The engine needs to import & use vector data to maintain the level of detail on the whole detail range.

In fact the majority of the developers we are talking to are in flight sim business, and some previous contacts have been resurrected too.
Title: Survey
Post by: flightmaster on November 20, 2010, 11:56:44 am
Quote from: cameni
I understood the question was if we can make scenery addons for other simulators with it. But the answer is no also the other way around. The engine needs to import & use vector data to maintain the level of detail on the whole detail range.

In fact the majority of the developers we are talking to are in flight sim business, and some previous contacts have been resurrected too.
YAY!!!
sorry, my inner child surfaced! :D
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on November 20, 2010, 08:57:11 pm
I would hate to see this amount of terrain detail mostly wasted with ONLY flight sims. This engine deserves more interaction with the ground and its features.
Title: Survey
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on November 20, 2010, 11:24:35 pm
Quote from: ZeosPantera
I would hate to see this amount of terrain detail mostly wasted with ONLY flight sims. This engine deserves more interaction with the ground and its features.
I definitely agree.
Title: Survey
Post by: alainneedle1 on November 21, 2010, 09:51:34 am
Quote from: cameni
I understood the question was if we can make scenery addons for other simulators with it. But the answer is no also the other way around. The engine needs to import & use vector data to maintain the level of detail on the whole detail range.

In fact the majority of the developers we are talking to are in flight sim business, and some previous contacts have been resurrected too.

As we all know there is not to many dev. (good one) in the flight simulation business, any specific on whom is interrested in your engine....I remember in another thread somewhere you said you were having contact with Aerosoft and for what I understood they just vanish from the discussion....are they back in?

Do you have any NDA with any of the dev. ....I'm asking all these questions because I would hate to see only one dev. taking over your engine...
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on November 21, 2010, 10:49:03 am
You must be aware that this technology is still in its early stage and I think it's preliminary to draw conclusions now. What it shows is a potential - on the other hand it certainly lacks many of the tools needed to make sceneries for simulators, a robust API to interact with and so on. Any developer that will want to use the engine early on must be prepared to plan their development in a way that counts with our development plan, being able to implement some missing parts themselves or generally work in special mode with us. That's why we also cannot support too many developers at this time. Can't be specific as to which ones are these, both because of agreements or because it's too early to tell.

Our best course would be to make a game on the engine first, that would mature it and make more feature complete. It should be essentially a propagation/demo of the engine. While we can't aim for a flight simulator with it, it could contain flight sim components such as realistic FDM, working cockpits etc. So we are thinking about this, how to incorporate stuff that will make it interesting for many groups (yes, you car driving maniacs and planet blasters and sandboxers as well), while not burdening us too much on our path with the engine.

As for Aerosoft, I remember Mathijs Kok writing somewhere they are only now selecting the engine to be used in the simulator, and I have reasons to believe that they will be talking to us yet :)
However, even when they would, there are many problematic areas to be overcome before there's a chance it could lead somewhere ...
Title: Survey
Post by: ligerox on January 01, 2011, 09:31:39 pm
hey guys i am new here and loving this engine it beats so many other things i have seen
like for instance i am a flight sim fan and its engine comes no where near this or the quality
but i have to say i like the idea of having multiple sim's on one engine like a train sim so you
deliver your goods to a boat(boat sim) then the boat takes over then goes to a port somewhere
off loads onto a truck(truck sim) the truck takes it to the airport where the cargo plane(flight sim) drops
 it off on the other side of the world then another truck takes over and delivers it to the store.

Its like the ultimate teamwork to get the goods there on time plus you dont have to buy multiple sims
say for instance you wanted a flight simulator then go buy microsofts one but that means you are restricted
to aircraft and when people try to change the sim by making trucks and cars for it, it dosnt work anyway
becuase the sim was designed for aircraft not trucks and cars but by having lots of sim's in one we get
rid of this problem :D

Cheer's
Ligerox
Title: Survey
Post by: grabacr 31770 on January 02, 2011, 06:11:46 am
Quote from: ligerox
hey guys i am new here and loving this engine it beats so many other things i have seen
like for instance i am a flight sim fan and its engine comes no where near this or the quality
but i have to say i like the idea of having multiple sim's on one engine like a train sim so you
deliver your goods to a boat(boat sim) then the boat takes over then goes to a port somewhere
off loads onto a truck(truck sim) the truck takes it to the airport where the cargo plane(flight sim) drops
 it off on the other side of the world then another truck takes over and delivers it to the store.

Its like the ultimate teamwork to get the goods there on time plus you dont have to buy multiple sims
say for instance you wanted a flight simulator then go buy microsofts one but that means you are restricted
to aircraft and when people try to change the sim by making trucks and cars for it, it dosnt work anyway
becuase the sim was designed for aircraft not trucks and cars but by having lots of sim's in one we get
rid of this problem :D

Cheer's
Ligerox

You basically just explained exactly what I would like from this simulator :D

The goods transporting idea is great, but I think the engine should work like FSX- where there is the option to do 'missions' like that one, maybe in specific vehicles or a range of them, and there is also a free-roam mode where you can pick any vehicle and just drive/fly around, of course while haveing all the editor options like the road editor which can be saved and would appear in freeroam every other time, but probably not the missions which could have specifically designed sceneries for them.
Title: Survey
Post by: Fresh on January 07, 2011, 12:34:52 am
This idea of a 'world simulator' is finally becoming closer to reality and I'm so excited to see I'm not the only one who has been thinking about it for so long. I share McArcher's view..."My dream is that someday I will see a universal sim, that is made by all people in the world with physics like in real life".

Whatever project you guys have in mind, I hope you'll push forward and make it a reality.

As a life long fan of simulations, particularily air and more recently land, I've always hoped that someday the two would seamlessly merge, something similar to second life, but more based in a 'real world' environment. There could be various 'continents' representing different realities.

Something more of an 'earth' based simulator where people could be logged into the same space, doing different things in a high fidelity physics environment. If the Outerra engine could have similar physics to the'tricky truck' simulator, (http://www.gravitysensation.com/trickytruck) the results would be spectacular. Additionally, by allowing easy importation of cad file and other 3D assets, people could easily build virtual homes in the environment, bringing an element of sim city, etc... And multiplayer is key. As ZeosPantera pointed out, "Multi-player is however what outerra should really focus on. No point in simulating the earth and 2.2 billion km into space if it will be you alone. I have to think 50,000 people roaming around in the outerra world would still leave plenty of elbow room. Just break it into different dimensions if need be. I really am talking about world changing possibilities here."


Outerra reminds me a lot of one of my favorite games called Armed Assault2, a sequel to the 'operation flashpoint' series. I have been of fan since first trying the demo many years back. ARMA2 is a war simulator powered by the virtuality game engine and looks quite good. My favorite aspect of the game is flying helicopters. Unfortunately, the game's cockpits and features aren't in great detail, but that's to be expected. Anyway, the incredible aspect of that game is the open environment which allows to fly, boat or drive within the same space in a very beautiful natural environment (with cities from time to time).

Outerra looks to have some serious potential as a great flight sim, train sim, ship sim and even a race car sim. Can't wait to see the demo, keep up the good work.
 :D
Title: Survey
Post by: TankBo on January 11, 2011, 05:42:44 am
Hi guys,

I've been following Outerra's progress for many months now and as this thread shows up some quite interesting but also alarming postings, I now feel like throwing in my 2 cents. ;-)

I am a developer myself with a high interest in dynamic game environments and would like to share my thoughts of what kind of game would really work in my opinion.

Nowadays we probably have products for all different kind of areas. Some are more realistic, some are more fun, some look brilliant, some look bad. But there're also some products that are just revolutionary. And when you look at those, you will mostly find one aspect that brought in the success: Being able to modify the environment, to bring in your own fantasy and creative genius.

A very recent and successful example is a tiny game called "Minecraft". I bet the majority of you guys have heard from it or even played/bought it (minecraft.net). It started as a pure sandbox game (well, it wasn't even a game in the past) where you could place blocks of different materials in an infinite world. Yes, this is definitely NOT groundbreaking, but it had an immense success. In my opinion that is because players have the possibility to change the environment how they like it do be (as most as the engine supports it) *together*.

Okay, back to Outerra land: The postings from the developers that show some "marketing ideas" are on one side very exciting but also alarming. You should definitely choose the "open" way. Bring in a toolbox and let the users decide what they want to build with it. This doesn't mean to release the engine as Open Source (even if I think that it's the only way how software can work, but because we don't live in an ideal world, it's just a dream ;)), but do everything to NOT get in the way of users who want to extend a world they'd love to build.

Sure, do an "Outerra Store", but leave the option to be not forced to use it. As an user, I'm not interested in getting limited in my creativity. When I see an engine *would be* capable of doing things I'd like to do and I can't because of dumb licensing or marketing stuff, then that's given away success. Just be fair, charge for something and give it away, let the users decide what to do with it.

Of course this leads us to another region, namely to make one's bread. And this is an area I'm often facepalming in because companies seem to think that the majority of their possible users are evil, and a product wouldn't pay off if it was of an "open-minded" nature. Again, just be fair. For example sell the basic client for a relatively low price. It's worth it, because the threshold of when a customer really becomes a such will be much much lower, thus leading to higher sell amounts. On the other side of the road, namely game hosters, can be asked to pay up much more, since they're making money themselves with the product, so it's fair to ask just for more.

The same goes to add-on developers who want to make their living with the Outerra basis: They want to earn money, so they can be charged, which is just fair. But always leave the freedom to users who want to be creative with Outerra. What's possible for the game hoster, add-on creator or whoever may contribute to Outerra from a commercial point of view, should be available to the "just for fun" user, without any limitations.

A side-effect, which is by the way unvaluable, is the immense public interest you're generating. People telling their buddies "Hey look, I got this Outerra thing, we can do anything we'd like to do with it, and it even doesn't cost much!" are probably much better than ones saying "Ok cool, Outerra looks fantastic, but it's only starting to make fun when you buy X, Y and Z from the Outerra store. I would like to create an own would, but then I'd have to pay $8,000 for a server license. And I've got this brilliant idea, but Outerra is not designed to plug it in or distribute it so that many others can have fun with it.".

So, generally speaking, take the Minecraft idea to a MUCH bigger level. Leave the freedom for creative prople, don't throw in limitations, be fair in pricing.

Regarding the world simulator -- actually what this topic is about, I'm btw. sorry being off-topic here, but because others brought those facts to the table, I felt like replying ;) -- I think it's a brilliant idea. Outerra should be nothing more than a toolbox that can be used for specific tasks. However it must be guaranteed that compatibility is always given, so modules can merge. If that can be accomplished (which is hard as hell, I know what I'm talking about), then well, you will have the greatest "game" ever created.

Please keep it up, your work is just fantastic. And I really appreciate your contact to interested users in this forum (but I also bet you can take advantages out of it, since all the opinions and ideas support Outerra in the end).

Greetings!
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on January 11, 2011, 04:17:12 pm
Hi TankBo, thanks for your post.
Can't say I agree completely, or better said, I think that reaching the versatility of Minecraft in this environment will be neither easy nor cheap. What I mean is that Minecraft uses a few simple rules and easy world definition, but you can't easily extend it, say to a spherical world, or to use it with finer structures without encountering performance problems. I know you didn't mean that Outerra should use the same principles as Minecraft, I'm just saying that Minecraft occupies one island in the space of realizable things, and there's no direct route to the place where an Outerra application would be usable with the same degree of creative possibilities.

Outerra is more comparable to FS in terms of how the world is managed. Now in FS you have the possibility to mod the world, yet for obvious reasons only a marginal part of users can mod to their own satisfaction, because it's not an easy process. The question is, can the world building be made easy as in Minecraft with reasonable performance? If it can, I bet it won't be easy. There are engines with extensive tool set aimed at world building, yet not everyone can create. But developing the tools took quite some time and worfkforce.

So I think reaching the same level of freedom in creativity won't be that easy. With procedural approach we are taking huge steps, but it won't be sufficient for everything. There are also other aspects of free world building that aren't so well thought - like multiplayer vs. wreckers of everybody's fun.

But yes, we want to converge towards that goal, but I think it will need several iterations of more constrained games and extensive tools development to get there.
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on January 12, 2011, 01:06:21 am
Well in all fairness. My vision for OT has always been one similar to Tanks...

Here is the whole world beautifully rendered and empty. What mod do you want to load?

So for example you can select the purchased flight sim mod that comes with its own custom air physics and professionally made models and rock out on that mods networked servers.

Or load the free, open source flight mod and do all the same things with just a slightly less polished feel.

I look at it in sim racing terms. If someone asks what racing sim do you want there are only 2 you SHOULD have rFactor and iRacing.

rFactor is a game from 2005 that has had little updated by the creators. BUT the game was designed in a way which has allowed modders to generate an immense collection (http://www.rfactorcentral.com) of award winning FREE mods (cars/tracks/plugins) that still 6 years after its release make it a must have today.

Now iRacing on the other hand is the new boy on the block with NO community mods allowed. It costs money to JOIN.. then it costs money PER CAR and money PER TRACK. So you have a choice of maybe 12 different series all professionally modeled, proper sound recorded cars with proper sorted physics models to choose from (if you buy them all AND get your license points and safety rating up high enough) and you can race with the other members on iRacings servers which are the only servers available. Tracks are also all laser scanned and said to be accurate to the CM (I laugh as repaving a track happens too often for that to matter.) But past all the money it costs it has shaped up to be the best race sim for people who want to race.

I can see a parallel with the OT "engine" (engine being used here with the word graphical missing).  OT is not a game engine. It just makes the world pretty. A real engine would have developed its own physics and sound and lighting engines (is lighting coming from OT? I forget). So in that sense the OT team would need to depend on some Corporate interests to purchase and have their own developmental team for the rest . OR develop all the other stuff by themselves and try to get it to the point where a community can support itself with content.

Its a long road in either direction.
Title: Survey
Post by: cameni on January 12, 2011, 02:43:56 am
No doubt about the ability to make mods - it's a must. I was talking about achieving the level of user creativity comparable to Minecraft. That, IMO, will be hard to reach.
Title: Survey
Post by: TankBo on January 12, 2011, 11:29:53 am
Of course you're right cameni, and like you said, I didn't mean that Outerra is anyhow comparible to Minecraft regarding to the target features, audience and a lot more. It's clear that you won't be digging for coal or other materials like in Minecraft, or building stuff out of blocks. I was just comparing the nature of Minecraft to a possible one for Outerra, namely to enable interested people to join the Outerra party without limitations (i.e. fair conditions).

You also said that the target group for creating stuff for Outerra is slightly different, and I also agree to that. Whereas Minecraft is armed at gamers that can easily modify all the stuff in the game itself (which is the whole game's goal ;)), Outerra won't be like that from what I've read so far. You will need developers to fill Outerra's world -- at least initially, because developers could be establishing modules (I dislike the terms "mod" and "add-on", because I think they don't fit) that make the whole process either easier for not-so-involved people or create modules for specific tasks that can then be used with ease (like a traffic simulation thing that comes with an easy-to-use user interface and toolbox).

However, I am sure that you guys will fiddle out something good and productive for creative people. My personal opinion is that such a product would produce an immense impact. :)
Title: Survey
Post by: SpaceFlight on January 15, 2011, 01:25:45 pm
Quote from: cameni
(http://www.outerra.com/images/ow_logo.png)
For example, is the option of having different vehicle classes at disposal in a single world more/less important than the highest possible fidelity of a single simulator type? If you say less, should we try to compete with other players just because of the unique properties Outerra engine has, or it would be more reasonable to focus on the non-covered segment of multi-sims and boost the fidelity in successive steps later?

Hi,

I just discovered the Outerra engine today and I am impressed by its potential.

To answer the question:
I would say focus on the segment of multi-simulators first and boost the fidelity later
and make sure that you do not go bankrupt or anything like that in the process.
That would be a shame.

The engine reminds me of this game ("Infinity Universe"),
but I do not know if it will ever be released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eREddMjt4

and this game ("Nexus 2"), it was never released : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhZQEvg1V0Y

Off topic:
I would like to see a spacesimulator in the future with this engine and my question would be:
is it possible to build an entire solar systems with planets with it,
so that you can theoretically travel from one to the next and vice versa
without loading screens (seamless transition between them) ?
Additionally I would hope to see cities at one point,
with buildings that can be entered and explored fully (e.g. skyscrapers, multi storey buildings, etc).
Would that be possible with this engine ?

Cheers, best of luck and keep up this interesting project.  :)

SF
Title: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on January 15, 2011, 02:12:53 pm
I got this one.

Quote from: SpaceFlight
is it possible to build an entire solar systems with planets with it,
so that you can theoretically travel from one to the next and vice versa

yes. That has been discussed and it is possible, but not until earth is finished.

Quote from: SpaceFlight
without loading screens (seamless transition between them) ?

there are no loading screens in outerra

Quote from: SpaceFlight
Additionally, I would hope to see cities at one point,
with buildings that can be entered and explored fully (e.g. skyscrapers, multi storey buildings, etc).

That is not a plan to be implemented by the Outerra developmental team. However if another company or interest were to create the buildings in a compatible format with proper LOD than they could be implemented in this engine.
Title: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on January 15, 2011, 02:29:10 pm
Don't forget Fractalopolis ;)  AFAIK, the only city currently in Outerra Earth, although we haven't ever seen it up close.
Title: Survey
Post by: Grind and Click on March 20, 2011, 02:37:44 pm
I didnt see this before i posted in the ideas thread.

But i definitely think a multi-cross over vehicle system is the way to go, i mean after all it can be improved over time and im sure a post-medium effort could be made for the initial time being on all levels, if differing companies worked especialy on each part.
Title: Survey
Post by: Alexander_Kulikov on April 10, 2011, 08:57:07 am
Hi Guys! :)

Happened to see your work, please accept congratulations, it's fantastic!

We would like to see from you aviation simulator based on your engine.

What I see now, that's fine, good luck with your work!

Sincerely.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Skyknight on September 24, 2011, 01:27:49 pm
I know it's a pretty late reply but you can focus on a multi-sim, I mean different sim engines in a suite or each sim as a standalone, you can release one by one and then when you have the multi-sim you can release the suite.

Also if I can help in anyway providing models in different formats, I would be more than happy, I would like to use your engine in a movie instead of a game :)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: cameni on September 24, 2011, 02:23:36 pm
A movie? What kind of movie would that be? :)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: DarkDXZ on September 24, 2011, 03:01:22 pm
Movies in Outerra?
ME WANT!


Err...Seriously, but what movie? Not whole plot, but at least genre, please...?
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Skyknight on September 24, 2011, 03:53:23 pm
Something between adventure, action and sci-fi  :3
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: BlankCache on December 20, 2011, 04:08:18 pm
I would vote for the many different classes being avaliable and fidelity aded as it moves forward. Having different classes of vehicles avaliable might help narrow down the ones less used so as not to waste resources developing fidelity on classes not used or wanted. Ultimatly I think Outerra is going to be epic no matter how its transversed.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: krz9000 on January 05, 2012, 06:25:22 pm
i think outerra should make deals with plattforms like openstreetmap. like becoming the "google earth" of openstreetmap. on top of that make deals with companies like laminar research to ask them to write sim modules for your engine that you add via an api system. have deals with weather companies and news shows to visualize locations and so on. i dont think there is a chance for you to catch up with sim development on your on and surpass the big dogs. better work together with them
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: DarkDXZ on January 06, 2012, 06:40:49 am
Well, I still think that Outerra will be the most versatile, beatiful, optimized and overall perfect engine ever.

I guess it's no more just a dream of a naturally-scaled RTS games or flight simulators.

I dare you that sooner or later players would recreate whole damn world, including all kinds of vehicles ever made (from a Ford T to Concorde to Titanic), massive amounts of...Weapons? Monsters? Vegetation types? Replicas of worlds from other games and franchises (Equestria, Middle-Earth, Tamriel...)

All we need now is a bit of patience and wish the best of luck for "Slovakian gods of programming"...

Wait, a movie? Somebody, call Cameron and tell him that he should end his job the next day, as movies made in Outerra would be far more bad-ass than all of his movies he made! (not to be rude, Cameron makes epic movies, but with Outerra we could make even more epic). Even the God wouldn't know what happened if Cameron or Lucas touched Outerra to make a movie... (Star Wars: The New Trilogy anyone?)

PS: Am I going off-topic now?
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: PRiME on January 29, 2012, 07:17:50 pm
I think a global simulator with many class types would be ideal, with the ability to add in modules depending on each business idea(s). However many will want Outerra to go exclusive, lets look at the issue; If its sold to bigger companies they will not like the idea of an open ended mod-engine/community, we all know the public can make some great stuff; look at Armed Assault series of games which also has MANY classes for simulation, allot of the content made surpasses the original developers work. Now that's ok as its a exclusive product to them.

So all in all I believe it may not be as attractive to a developer as having exclusive control over content such as landscape assets etc... 

Not sure if I'm making sense here, but basically its a great idea (World Module Simulation for any gaming business model). Most content will likely come from the public, IF you permit that (sounds like you are in the alpha?). I like how Unreal engine is done, fully open to community. However they don't provide you with a planet to do things on so no two mods/games look identical content wise.

Essentially you will be selling access to the landscape and basic assets, not sure if you will see allot of AAA developers jumping on it at the start (Indie developers will be jumping for joy however :) ). As for the AAA developers, they may feel unconfortable having such a uniform base product to start with, especially since other titles can possibly look very similar to their own; However a good developer will see that making unique modules for their game(s) will set it apart from all the other clones. The landscapes will still look very similar, unless they modify it enough that is :).

PS. Not sure if the above is valid input or not, I'm just trying to answer more critically.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: mctash on January 29, 2012, 08:04:56 pm
I mostly agree PRiME. I think if released right though, with a clear separation between commercial usage (i.e. high end simulation environment) and community usage ( a la udk) the folks at Outerra are on to a clear winner.

Something to note, the people at Lockheed Martin acquired the source to FSX (and created Prepar3d) and have done something pretty clever in my opinion. They charge around $500 for a single client license(I think one of the terms is it can't be used for gaming, so think FAA approved sims here). However, they only charge $10 a month access to the developer network which affords you two client licenses for development purposes. I'm sure in the long run this will mean loads of additional content being created/converted from FSX which in turn will attract the corporate/commercial business for the standard client license.

Perhaps a similar model could be used with Outerra? Cheap/free sdk/developer license and use of engine , which in turn will hopefully spawn loads of additional content which in turn again will attract clientele for the full commercial/corporate license.

McTash
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: neopangaia on February 17, 2012, 01:41:31 am
kickstart an open source project ;)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Oldtown on February 27, 2012, 07:34:33 am
That could be my ultimate game. I like it to move big things around in simulations. Moving a train in one moment and get to a plane in the next would be great. If these addons are also well designed with a look on the technology-part then I would be very happy.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: PTTG on March 09, 2012, 01:53:03 pm
I think that the best way to take advantage of Outerra is something that fully shows the totally smooth transition from space to centimeter-level detail.

To do that best, some kind of first person, multiple-vehicle game is a must. Sometimes you want to drive a dragster though the flats of death valley. Sometimes you want to try piloting a sailboat through the northwest passage. Sometimes you want to ski down Mount Everest. Sometimes you want to take off from Australia and fly your space fighter up until you can see the whole planet.

Outerra is quite possibly the only game engine where you could do it all.

The only thing I really ask is, license the engine but keep it available for indie use... I want a chance to use it myself!
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: PRiME on March 09, 2012, 04:41:01 pm
Hmm Kerbal Space Program? :)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: KelvinNZ on March 10, 2012, 05:54:37 am
Guys, we are not talking here about the engine, but about a simulator built on the engine.

And anyway, it's not just a graphics engine, at minimum it will also provide the data for collision handling (since it generates the world when refining real data), object management, spatial queries, and many other tightly tied services for the possible addons.

And since directly upon the start there won't be many addons right away, it would have to provide default implementation of physics for the supported vehicle classes.

I agree with you here, I do think that with just a base it is not viable to just leave it as that.

I think for a flight simulator alone this will need such attentions to Weather, Flight Dymanics (which it has already), Aircrafy modelling (which should be left up to 3rd parties), Aviation data such as the entire world of Airport locations and runway data along with taxiways and ground handling vehicles. I think if you can provide this then you are pretty much there to run as a Flight Simulator alone as land classes can be developed by 3rd party developers and even airports can be enhanced by them aswell.

Things like dynamic water and livestock will add to the immersion also Cloud shadows moving accross the land. All these would be the base package and then Developers can build ontop as they please and ignore the weather system if they want to because perhaps the particular game will not need to draw on it, OR, perhaps they will making racing games for example more challening with the visual and traction issues that can result.

I think there can be a base system that has the world and all it's elements and 3rd parties can add as they see fit but the base would allow for a great experience by default. Look at Flight Simulator X, other than it's horrible graphics you see that it has all airports (although not sloping which would be great) it has airport activity and air traffic control (which could perhaps be left up to an addon developer with Outerra). FSX does have everything that, as a base, does it's job.

In all my years of Flight Simming and gaming I believe that this as a Flight Simulator would be a healthy choice. But that's a little biased because that's what I would like to see come out of it.

The Flight Simulation community is i'm sure a multi million dollar industry and to be a part of that in a new era of visuals you would have a monopoly and even outrun Microsoft Flight. Simmers want serious and a professional experience with the micro details available to them.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on March 10, 2012, 09:33:45 pm
The Flight Simulation community is i'm sure a multi million dollar industry and to be a part of that in a new era of visuals you would have a monopoly and even outrun Microsoft Flight. Simmers want serious and a professional experience with the micro details available to them.

I'm not so certain of that anymore.  From my 12-years of gaming experience, both in Flight Sims and other genres, I'm seeing a fundamental shift among developers and audiences in the nature of gaming.  First Person Shooters used to be the rage, and everyone copied them.  Then Real Time Strategy was the rage, and everyone copied them.  Then Sims were the rage, and so on.

I think what we see is that the disparity of genres has created a niche set of groups, who look for one particular thing in an engine, not matter what it is.  Outerra is unique in that it has the potential to satisfy ALL niche groups, and bring them closer together.

Imagine and RTS game, that you can play in FPS style, and then hop a plane sim-style, to get to the next battleground.  Imagine getting to the battleground and building via a sim-style interface, your fortifications, and playing both RTS, FPS, and Sim, all in one.  That hasn't been done before, except in a rudimentary scale.

Ultimately, Anteworld the Game will be a combo of all of this, and a platform that could host all styles via portals (similar to how Second Life runs).  I'm envisioning a possibility that Outerra could be sort of an "operating system" on which multiple games are based.  Just click on the style you want to play, and voila!  You're there.  In this way, it could cater to everyone, but it would need to have the backing of a community, as well as several developers.

I also see entities such as NASA and military around the world wanting it for simulation purposes.  In NASA's hands, they could pre-explore potential planets for landing zones, by inputing their own height data into the engine.  Imagine a pre-flight training sim where an astronaut landing on the Moon or Mars could literally VISUALIZE down to 2cm detail where he was supposed to go.  Survival just increased 90%.  Imagine a soldier in the back woods of some obscure country, having done a simulation at this level of detail.  Again, he knows the terrain as if he'd already been there, since he's been trained using the Outerra engine.

If I was either NASA or military, I'd be jumping on this engine in a heartbeat, for what it could provide.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: KelvinNZ on March 10, 2012, 10:41:30 pm
Nice point. And like i said i am biased towards a flight sim but realise the potential in the engine. Hmmm an "operating system" to drive a specific world of simulation, yes, that means that any developer could in fact build a flight simulator (in its many forms) on this engine, now that has never been done before in this case. Especially when all the right elements are available; the world for starters, then, land, water, shore, and vegetation classifications... weather, procedural methods to place all this data globally. etc...

I will follow this concept moving forward. Man, it just seems such a huge undertaking, but never been done before...it really does feel like the idea of this technology will shift to the next level.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: C. Shawn Smith on March 10, 2012, 10:50:49 pm
I will follow this concept moving forward. Man, it just seems such a huge undertaking, but never been done before...it really does feel like the idea of this technology will shift to the next level.

And now you know the TRUE power of Outerra :)

As I said a LONG time ago:

Quote
One Engine to rule them all,
One Engine to find them,
One Engine to bring them all
and in the pixels bind them.

;)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: ZeosPantera on March 10, 2012, 11:33:31 pm
When the modders get a hold and start making just small concentrated games.. Paintball in the forest. Baloon races around the world. Drug Running across the border. The Interstate76 Redux Project.

That is when it gets interesting.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: emils on March 23, 2012, 02:06:13 pm
Hi! I "found" Outerra a few weeks ago and I am deeply impressed!

I work in the simulator business and would like to express my "wet" dream about this project.




So to sum it up. A product that handle world visualization and terrain info, that can be integrated into your own application using an Outerra  library, and you would have, I say, a killer app. Especially when you also have cross platform support.

As a separate app, still ok.

Complete physics engine, not needed for us, and I think this would drive a possible community much better.
Still outerra could provide one as long as all the hooks mentioned above still exists.
But I think an engine should just do a few things and then do it good. This should be the core of outerra.
Everything else are extensions to the core. Which could be separate products for you (or others).

Just my 2 cents. Thank you!



Title: Re: Survey
Post by: traumstrand5 on May 22, 2012, 05:27:57 am
I would like to see what is here already but tuned to what, at least as far as I understood it, Outerra is intent to be:
An engine that replicates/simulates/renders (however the perfect term is) earth and in a second phase then all the worlds beyond  ;)
But:
Maybe the developers and gurus behind OT could choose a specific area for the beginning where rivers, lakes, coastlines, mountains (maybe volcanos as well), some rich biodiversity then also at least one bigger city and some smaller villages, roads and infrastructures (including railways, airports, etc.) can be found and where all of Outerra's possible and actual features can be presented properly then and also updated frequently.
Sure: Also including all the stuff from great landclass details or terrain-mesh to dynamic lighting and shadowing or dynamic weather (with clouds and cloudshadows, winds and all that) and so on!
There are dozens of places that can be chosen for this, ranging from areas in New Zealand to even more dryer places such as deserts, or smaller islands such as the Azores and so on in an endless list of equally great places ;)

I think that once a "showcase" like that is available I am more than confident, that it will not just be amazing for those who already are familiar with OT, but 3rd party modellers and developers (for freeware and/or payware "add-ons") alike.
Sure a little like the "SandBox-game" idea maybe, but with many of the great features of OT enabled on the base already then and - only for the beginning though - focuesed on a specific area (to really show a lot and all kinds of details, that will later on be available for all parts of the world and all it's great diversities in OT anyway)
 :)
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Trustvainer on March 31, 2013, 11:35:03 am
A global simulator would be nice.
I could play in my farm with my agricultural vehicles and then transport the grains or animals to city with a truck.
Drive a bus or a taxi in the same city or between cities.
You know.. all connected. All simulators influencing each other.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Komak57 on May 06, 2013, 12:19:30 pm
After reading through all 9 pages of feeds, my intense interest in said engine has almost flat-lined.

To bluntly answer your question, no. I do not believe focusing any direct development solely on adding Flight Sim capabilities at the cost of content.

Now to explain why. For a typical game developer, I look at an engine and ask a very simple question. What can I do with you. A game engine is a set of tools with a baseline kit, and the fundamentals to make game creation faster. The terms I'm hearing thrown about such as 'loading a flight sim mod' and such just baffles me, and not in a good way. That isn't to say that having a flight sim option would be undesirable.
In my honest opinion, some of these Flight Sim groups are interested in the availability of designing their physics into your game engine, and are curious of the potentials and limitations. This goes with the mindset of the most noble of questions that I think has been blurred since I first took interest in the Outerra Engine. Can I compile a stand-alone version from your engine for a playable game I can then distribute (with licence) via selling, or free releases. This comes with the additional comment. A game engine should be focusing on the fundamentals, and pre-packed with samples, tools, and guides to help a developer (me) understand what can realistically be done in the name of a game, and how to do it. Is this vision accurate to what you are implementing, or is your game engine simply going to be a 3D world editing environment specifically for use in your upcoming game.

Now that that's out of the way, if you answer "Yes, you can compile stand-alone versions", I can immediately suggest that you start implementing plugin/scripting 'hooks' to allow the developer to 'overwrite' your basic toolkit, and thusly offer the users the option to export and import resources to be distributable (freely or otherwise) to other developers, be this via a Shop accessible inside the engine, on your website, or, quite frankly, by the developers own means. If these Sim developers really want to create their own flight sim, racing sim, space sim or etc, let them compile it into their own games after purchasing a heft developers license from your company. If they so wished, they could make tool-kits for other users to make similar games if they so pleased, or the community themselves could develop their own mimicry of simulators to be implemented at the developers particular need for such.

With this in mind, I see an almost immediate flood of survival adventure games such as Arma2, DayZ, CS: World War, and so on, as well as a number of Minecraft spin-offs dealing with the destruction of earth to generate resources which can then be re-placed in 'glob' or even 'cube' deformations. Then there will be city creation toolkits to kingdom come, as well as custom world generators. The potential here is ridiculously unlimited, and yet uniformed around a realism attribute set by playing within a 'world' rather than a 'map'.

If your answer, however, is "No, you will be able to develop mods, but no on-hands compiler will be available" then I fail to see where you expect to go with this beyond your own game. You'll have lost a good chunk of your interested developers, and it may very well lead to your downfall (who really knows, right?).

Overall, I hope to see where you intend to take this before giving up all hope, so make me proud.

- almost forgot. As far as desert generators go, might I suggest using a perlin noise generator of sorts to generate 2 different maps, and 'shift' one into the next over time (based on wind)? Takes considerably less resources, and provides a semi-realism to desert terrain, as well as any soft-dirt.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: cameni on May 06, 2013, 01:17:07 pm
Note this (fairly old) topic is solely about a simulator platform, not about the game engine for universal use. Simulators are just one area where the engine might find its use, that's why this thread discusses just that topic.

Then again, simulators are usually the ones that need and want to use a global world based on real data, unlike common games that often work happily with constrained and artificial game levels, and that's probably why simulators take most interest in OT.

That, however, doesn't mean we don't want the engine to become usable for all kinds of games and simulators that can use it, once the engine is ready. It's just questionable how many games will actually be able to utilize a global world, and consequently whether we would be able to compete with other standard engines in terms of developers being able to make games that are fun. I suspect it would be tough, and basing our business only on the game engine licensing could very well be unsustainable. A simulator platform is the least risky area here with that regard: developers who are making content for simulators just want to focus on their area of expertise, and more users they share in a common environment - the better.
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Woogey on May 25, 2013, 09:04:19 pm
I very much like the multi genre sim platform (MgSp) concept.  I personally, like driving, Flight, and FPS type simulations.  But you really get to thinking about the posibility's, Golf maps for something like tiger woods, Nascar tracks in the U.S.   Ship simulation, with swells, breakers, foam and splashes.  Scenery packs such as International Soccer stadiums, castles of the Rhine, etc.  Each pack should have a full LOD map to keep frames down, and make compatability Greater.  The key I think, is the physical avatar representation of the player.  Also, How the activation of the different modules is implemented.   

Personally, I envision something like the GTA series.  When you walk up to a vehicle to enter/board, maybe a pop up asking if you would like to execute that module?  Lod's could have a "boots on the ground" (or weight on wheels) feature that say would pop in the grass and ground physics.  -Woog
Title: Re: Survey
Post by: Atrax on May 28, 2013, 06:17:36 am
I know this thread is old, but I would like to say that if combinig driving/racing with fps, flight sim, ship sim is possible it would probably be the greatest thing ever, cause that's what I (and many many others) have always wanted to see. A world where you can do whatever you want, shoot, drive, fly, float, build and everything in between. If you are able to execute something along those lines I can assure you you will have no shortage of players/buyers. But up to this point in time something on that scale was never possible. :( So if you can do that and make it run decently than I don't see why not do it.
Maybe Outerra will finaly make something like this possible. I really hope so.