Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JP]

First of all I would like to thank all you folks in here for the warm welcome. I am really seeing a lot of positive enthusiasm and much good vibe in here! 


@Uriah:

Looks like you guys are well ahead of me! Hehe. As far as navaids are concerned I have no clue how to code their behavior into a program BUT I actually just went down into the basement to dig up my old flight school course-books. I can definitely help out and give some advice on how these setups work out in real life. How much advice depends on your knowledge level!

I can definitely recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Jeppesen-Instrument-Commercial-Staff/dp/0884873870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439155351&sr=1-1&keywords=jeppesen+instrument+commercial

I have an edition a few years older but it does a really good job at explaining the basics and everything else a pilot needs to know!

From what you write, though, I get you already have some pretty good ideas about how to program it, but perhaps not so much experience with the real *animal*. Some things I want to point out:

1.) The functionality of each of the types of radio-navigation-stations is precisely defined by international regulations. For example: A HVOR (High Altitude VHF Omnidirectional RAnge) station has a service range of 40 nm (nautical miles) from 1k to 14,5k feet, 100nm from 14,5k to 18k feet, 130 nm from 18k to 45k feet and 100 nm from 45k to 60k feet. When such station's signal would be interfered with by terrain within this "Altitude Service Volume" the station could, by definition, not be placed in such a location. This is why if you import their real-world locations and model their behavior according to real life definitions there is no need to model terrain interference in-engine!

2.) Navigation stations are seperate from airfields and should be treated as different entities. Pilots use them to navigate from airfield to airfield but the locations of these beacons are very often not very close to the airfield. Thats what makes instrument flying so much fun!

Feel free to send me a PM and I will be very happy to help out with some advice however detailed it would need to be (Within my own capabilities ofc.)! Some of these things get complicated and it would help to exchange sketches and pictures so we should exchange contact info if you want.


Cheers!

[aWac9]

a way to finance projects is kickstarter, but Acetone and highlighted the pros and cons,, and works just like you open a restaurant with a bad cook and even then put a good cook, the restaurant just closed.
relatively speaking,, will look for a project, which is further supported by steam, and serve as a reference,,, it is a superb device simulator (Harrier), and the target for funding is libras.antes 70000 day 2 of September,
we will follow.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1413102387/combat-air-patrol-2/updates
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=353863895

vídeo del proyecto: combat air patrol


https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4748/
https://www.facebook.com/combatairpatrol2

[Uriah]

One of the primary reasons I have stayed at Outerra is because of the community/developer interaction and overall attitude here. Not only is the OT engine unique and absolutely incredible on its own, but I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the developers (which says a lot) and have considerable trust in their ability to deliver a solid platform for the kind of simulation engine we need.

I would be very grateful for your help in working on a Navaid system! I sent you a PM with my contact info, check your inbox.

Let's make this thing happen!

Regards,
Uriah

[Acetone]

Currently, you can build any airstrip in a matter of minutes using the procedural road system. The process is quite straightforward, and with a little bit of effort you could add dozens in a short amount of time. You can also extract the scenery cache files for a specific area and share these airstrips with the community (See this post: http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3231.msg36246#msg36246 ). Acetone will be posting a short tutorial on building runways on the Scenery board shortly, and I'll post the link HERE.

It's here http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=3371

[FarlanderMiG]

Why everyone talking about a civil aviation simulator? Do ya'll want to leave us combat guys hanging? i mean... why not have a unified flight simulator for once...

EDIT: You also left us glider pilots hanging! Any good flight simulator needs a good weather simulation. i would argue that weather might be one of the most important things in a flight simulator.

[Uriah]

A well thought out solution meets the requirements of all of the above, without favoring one over the other. Things are designed to be extensible, not purpose built for only one application. We do not take the add-on approach, but rather proceed with an integrated/unified solution which encompasses all of the use cases.

This is why, in my opinion, an add-on approach is completely unfeasible. First users would get the "civil aviation" pack, then the "military aircraft" pack, then the "land vehicles" pack, then the "watercraft" pack, then the "train" pack, then the "rocket" pack, etc... and while all of these might be able to run at the same time, each would essentially be developed in virtual isolation, and may be incompatible with one another. Take the JSB and Bullet incompatibility for example. JSB and Bullet were developed separately, outside of OT, and once both were integrated into OT it was found they were mutually exclusive. Now that may not be the best example, but it serves to demonstrate why the compartmentalization of functional building blocks of a game engine has serious downfalls. In other words, if one hand does not know about the other, they can't be made to work together.

If we want OT to be more than just the sum of its parts, things must be fully integrated from the very start. If we want vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, rockets, trains and fill in the blank, to coexist in a fully immersive simulation environment where all objects can effect all other objects, than we must build a comprehensive platform which takes all of these into account as primary requirements, and not as after thoughts.

Regards,
Uriah

[FarlanderMiG]

I love the idea of having everything in the same game.. but do we have enough to make each part of the game so realistic? to even appeal to the flight sim community you almost need the top notch flight models, models, terrain (haha), weather, systems modelling etc. and i think you would need something similar for the other stuff too..

I think the right call would be "alright, we are going to make this simulator really good" i just fear that if you have something that is everything, but isn't the best at anything. then the people who fly flight simulators etc. will just go back to their other simulators again.. Thats why i think the best bet is to focus on one thing at first, and if it's sucessful, you can try expanding it.

I dont really know.. but i really wouldn't feel like flying simple planes in outerra if i could go do the same just in advanced planes in DCS.. yes, i do that exact thing right now, but that's only because there might be a future to it.. but if the future is only simple airplanes then i would just leave.

Not saying it's not possible to do it.. just questioning if its possible to do everything to a high realism level in less than a decade...

[Uriah]

My previous post was more from an architectural and development perspective, and not a content perspective. In terms of content, it is already proven that aircraft are far ahead of the pack and will certainly receive the most effort overall, there is no question about that. My comments simply put forth the multitude of development approaches which are possible, and explain why I think an integrated approach is better, over one which favors a more compartmentalized development cycle.

I was specifically talking about the base level functionality, code interfaces, user interfaces, development tools, etc... necessary to make things work. The current state of aircraft development in Outerra is already far ahead of vehicles, simply because there is more interest, more people building aircraft and talking about the potential of OT as a flight simulator. As I have already proven, it is possible to build rockets, and the same functionality which will provide fully featured cockpits for aircraft, will of course be directly compatible for rockets, spacecraft, vehicles, watercraft, etc... It is up to the "content creators" to take these tools and build X, Y and Z of their own accord. Outerra will of course build content as well, as much to have something included with the OT download by default, as to provide an example for modding community to follow in their own efforts to build whatever their heart desires.

For instance, you wouldn't want to develop a set of features which are immediately implemented for aircraft, and then a year later try to apply that to a vehicle, just to find out the two are incompatible and you have to start over, or re-integrate multiple implementations of the same functionality, one which works for aircraft and another for vehicles. Be it a navigation system, sensor system, electrical system, etc.

"Simple planes"... who said anything about that?!?! 

The AH-64D Apache Longbow project I'm working on with KW71 for Outerra, promises to deliver an extremely detailed and fully featured aircraft which integrates not only the functionalities necessary for civil aviation, but also military aircraft, and the code developed for the Apache will be applicable to both airplanes and helicopters, and even vehicles in the long run. Whether you are a fan of helicopters or not, or whether you enjoy civil aviation or military simulation, or even if you never intend to fly an aircraft in Outerra and prefer vehicles of one form or another, the core functionalities will be shared among them all, and all of these different types of content must be compatible and operate within an integrated simulation.

I hope that serves to clarify what I mean.

Regards,
Uriah

[Revolver]

I dont really know.. but i really wouldn't feel like flying simple planes in outerra if i could go do the same just in advanced planes in DCS.. yes, i do that exact thing right now, but that's only because there might be a future to it.. but if the future is only simple airplanes then i would just leave.

I am always amazed when I see how people can be manipulated. You are talking
about dcs and if I'm going to ask you how many mistakes  alone 190D / 109K
has, as the 3D model (let even their so-called super-puper afm), then I would wager
times that you can not even call 2-3 errors. And that's perfectly OK, because today,
most are only interested in a little fun. The case our all story remains on track - f...k it.
The main thing they can pull out of his pocket what we (Aviation History Funs).
And it is not the worst thing expecting a, because the worst thing is that the young
generation will be completely fooled. Of course you can always today not digitize everything
and be able to play on PC to 90%, but I'm talking about the little things that are
doable and when the error amounts that render then complete everything
to naught. I think if an X-team want to make as a kind of Sim, should consider very
carefully what it does.
Personally, I am of 1csg, dcs, 1c mg, or as the all always hot, very disappointed and
they can all me happy go to hell because they are not a good example, or they will ever
be one.

OT is a completely new and above all very potentials Sim engine and any dcs etc. as
comparison does not need it, because I think they can all together did not even give
her the water, even in her today's alpha-stage.

my 5cent to ....

P.S. sorry Sir, but I can no longer hear of this dcs, mu-mu-cs, kwa-kwa-cs ... so do not
take anything personally.

[FarlanderMiG]

I was not trying to criticize anyone. just that.. seeing how much time it takes to make a complex aircraft like the ones in dcs, i don't believe it can be done over the night.

I have more than enough faith that this can and will be greater than dcs.

Btw... is there any possibility for clickable cockpits?

[PytonPago]

The game Destiny has cost over 500 million dollars in the first week and had raised (Activision).
The game Grand Theft Auto V grossed $ 800 million in the first 24 hours.
Balck Ops Call of Duty, reacudó more than 350 million dollars in the first day of its release (production cost $ 30 million) and as of today bears raised more than 1000 million.

 ... those are generics ... dont think a simulator will ewer see such money. They have witchcraft backing it ! ... ya know, this kind of witchcraft:



... that amazes me, how it can work at all.

[Revolver]

I was not trying to criticize anyone. just that.. seeing how much time it takes to make a complex aircraft like the ones in dcs, i don't believe it can be done over the night.

I have more than enough faith that this can and will be greater than dcs.

Btw... is there any possibility for clickable cockpits?

I did not say that you criticize someone. I just said that any comparisons with what other OT's still too early. I'm pretty sure that every game will have its Fun's, but that does not have long known that these games are made correctly and authentically. One can make 1xxxx clickable cockpits, but this will not mean equal, that they are all correct, when compared with the original.
In addition, it is an impertinence of user demand 50-60€ for a model that not even 20% of the original appeals.
What I mean to say, you can make a good Flysim, but only if one grabs with his heart in it.
No marketing strategy can puschen a model forward, if it is done from the beginning cross and wrong.
And so can you give me your faith give a little,
Here you can see for yourself and understand about what I mean.
http://www.forum.jgr124.ru/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=897
(couple of years ago, the russians Community have activated because errors dcs Dora ... I have this taken only cockpit under the microscope ... so the things that you could correct ... but nothing was happening ... and if you will ask me personally, I'm not ready for such Flysims to pay  1€ ... I would not even get paid. )

[FarlanderMiG]

Yes.. i have in fact read that thread..

this wasn't going to be a thread about what dcs is and isnt. i just used it as an example of what the competition would be like.
No matter what you say about dcs right now.. could you offer me another combat flight simulator with the same features.

I have yet to see the perfectly modeled aircraft in any game, and i probably never will. that's just how it is.

Anyways, i think you'd have to expect similar prices for aircraft in outerra.

[Revolver]

I have yet to see the perfectly modeled aircraft in any game, and i probably never will. that's just how it is.

Anyways, i think you'd have to expect similar prices for aircraft in outerra.

Well Sir, that's what I show you now 1/3 of what we have. So, not included in the calculation; Fw190A-5,6,7,8,9, Fw190D-9, 11,12,13, Ta-152C & H-series, more than 100 documentaries - Flight Tests & Engine Tests. All original plus written in my mother tongue ... total approximately 5000+ pages.
The 3.5 thousand Working drawings I could not provide you show, because it's too much and do I have more than 100 posts Write here ... that you understand it ... so, you can trust me on word. 
So, you trust us that we can do it at last to provide a correct Fw190 to his feet and what they will be willing to pay for it?

What we've done so far, you can see in German-Thread.

Fw190A-1 bis A-4 Dokus.









BR,
Stefan

[PytonPago]

Nice stack of paper ... doe, i think his point was, that any serious comercial sim-dev team would hit the wall the moment they try to do anything since the cold-war era stuff. Such documentation may wont be given away, just like that by the original manufacturers for various reasons, or it will be taken as simply a too much time-eating effort, compared for doing the next alike modification and cutting detail level to more managable manner.

BUT, when things are handled by a motivated comunity, then the roof is much higher and going to the last screw will be possible, limited only by theyr effort. Also pointing out, the need for such people, forming up in the community.