Print

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

[bomber]

Interesting thread, nice to see people giving their opinions on the subject of Outerra's future.

I personally agree with Uriah, about both the community, it's developers openness to communicate and the fact that designing in isolation isn't the way forward...

A commercial airliner sim would just repeat the mistakes of other developers... so I'd rather see the emphasis on competitive combat simulation..... afterall you get that right and the commercial airliner sim is a given.

[FarlanderMiG]

I have no doubt its possible to make things more accurate.. my point is that making an accurate model take a lot of time, and i would expect that it takes some money to do it too..

I don't think the game would need to be better in all aspects at release, but for people to be interested in switching i think you need to be able to show that it can become better over time.

Just an example:
Release a alpha/beta version of the simulator with at least one fully modeled airplane. (in my opinion 1 fully modeled airplane is better than 50 unrealistic airplanes...)
Very realistic flight modeling.
It needs all airports modeled in the game. you could go the x-plane way and start off with 2d airports, and let the community make them 3d over time. (if you do this i would suggest implementing the airports into the updater itself.. having to go on the internet to download everything all the time is not a good idea for scenery..)
A flight simulator would need good decent OSM
And finally Weather. (clouds in outerra already looks awesome, but we need different types of clouds.. we also need realistic thermals and such.. but i dont find it necessary for a initial alpha/beta release)

Over time i think you would have to release different variations in the landscape around the world... smaller details like fields etc.. to make the flat landscape more pleasing to look at.

[Uriah]

Need I clarify again, we are talking about completely different subjects.

Functionality: Methods, interfaces, integrated physics, sensors, displays, transponders, etc.

Content: (assets) specific aircraft, vehicles, rockets, trains, etc...

I am NOT talking about content!

What I AM talking about is the necessary functionality for each CLASS or TYPE of asset, 1. airplanes, 2. helicopters, 3. vehicles, 4. tanks, 5. watercraft, 6. trains, 7. rockets, 8. characters, 9. static objects (buildings), 10. animated/functional static objects (Aerodrome beacon, radio tower, animated building).

The functionality needs to be built to handle all of these types, and have each compatible with one another.

Content released by Outerra and by the community will fall into these categories, regardless if there is one of each type, for five hundred.

Examples of compatible functionality:
Airplanes and helicopters needs to be able to land on watercraft and crash into buildings. (They currently don't because they rely on two separate physics engines which are not integrated)
Transponders need to be able to communicate between all assets in the world.
Radar needs to be able to detect both air and ground targets.
Cameras needs to be able to render to displays for all types of assets.

And we are going to aim for a combined aircraft/rails/trucks/watercraft/spacecraft simulator platform, not just to widen the potential user base but also because it's possible to do with OT and will be great

As cameni said, Outerra's horizons are much wider than a traditional "flight simulator", and therefore the scope of the development needs to encompass all of the necessary functionality. Content is a given, and in all likelihood Outerra will build one high fidelity asset of each type listed above. The assets currently included with Outerra; C172 (airplane), MiG-29 (jet), AH-64 (helicopter), SM11 and T817 (vehicles), Mercenary (character) and a number of buildings, represent a baseline of examples which the modding community or a developer can use as examples to build new content.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Regards,
Uriah

[Revolver]

The main problem is your generation are you running somewhere too fast. You have to stop running. No one is behind your back and pushes you forward. I am already old-bag and one thing I could say; no matter how fast you're running, its destiny can not overtake.
First measure 1,000 times and then deposited.
One should plan carefully every step and cover, as it will affect the whole.
Because weather operations, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Because the exactly is done the better it will affect many aspects such as FM / DM and everything possible to do so. Especially when we are talking about internal combustion engines (gasoline engine). Everything else is so unimportant and could gradually be added after this.

BR,
immer noch isch 

p.s.

I have no doubt its possible to make things more accurate.. my point is that making an accurate model take a lot of time, and i would expect that it takes some money to do it too..
I don't think the game would need to be better in all aspects at release, but for people to be interested in switching i think you need to be able to show that it can become better over time.

It sounds like an excuse for those who have failed to operate a first extensive research in terms one or another aircraft.
I think that one or the other such operators have simply taken the wrong path and their product looks no different than a cheap piss against their loyal customers.
We believe that the better way is to make slow to any fault to go out of the way and to create a product that in first line ourselves happy.

[FarlanderMiG]

Im sorry... i don't really understand what you are saying..

Are you saying that we cant expect that everything will be done over the night? Or that we should not accept an alpha/beta stage aircraft to be released? or both...

[FarlanderMiG]

I fully agreed whith what you said Uriah... My point was simply to show that it whatever the simulation will be, it will take a long time to get everything right. i probably did a bad job with my example..

[bomber]

I've written and deleted 2 posts before posting this one, so to say I'm finding this thread challenging is an understatement.

I wonder if the possible divergence in thought is down to being either a player or a modder at heart.

Not that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with either.

Farlander, you've raised an obvious issue about increased complexity/accuracy requiring longer time and that maybe it's best to start with simply a single accurate model.. showing the capabilites, versatilities of Outerra and then allowing the Modding community to run with it and create content.

Well I think you'll find we're all on the same song sheet with this one.

I think for me the issue lies in this assumption that increased accuracy/complexity HAS to take longer... naturally this assumption is quite rightly based on our experiences of just how it's done elsewhere.

But what if, having seen how it's done elsewhere, seen how long it takes and having identified their failures.... WE do it differently.

For them it's impossible as they've already created this 'rod for their own backs' code and changing now would require a complete strip down and rewrite.. but for us we just have to think smarter.

And I think that's the nub of this...

We here along with the Outerra developers know we can do it better than elsewhere.


Simon


A little bit about me,

I do flight models for a bomber crew combat flight sim... I originaly did 3d modeling (as it's my day job), but having completed a model I soon discovered that FDM quality was way behind that of 3D and 2D. Damage animation seemed to be simple with only very rudementary links into the flight model... All in all my dream of flying home a badly damaged B17 was taking a bit of a nose dive.

So I set out to make a simpler/better way of making flight models.

[Uriah]

Are you saying that we cant expect that everything will be done over the night? Or that we should not accept an alpha/beta stage aircraft to be released? or both...

Not at all. We're waiting on the extended controls and 3d cockpit manipulator functionality to be released by Outerra. This will be a major milestone, and allow both aircraft and vehicles, built by both OT and the modding community, to be built with player functionality which doesn't currently exist, as we are limited to a finite set of controls at the moment.

Once these features are released, a number of aircraft will be updated with this functionality and released as well. As I said, the Apache will be released with implementations of the latest features in Outerra, and I expect the Cessna C172 and the MiG-29 will be as well.

Again, there are two separate discussions, functionality and content.

I tried my best to explain the difference above. We can't just blindly rush the functionality in order to simply get content released. We must get the functionality working in the correct manner which is in line with a long term development road map, which has certain long term requirements, and then we can release content using that functionality. As I explained, the functionality should be compatible with all types of assets.

In the case of extended controls for example, that same functionality will be compatible with aircraft, vehicles, rockets, trains, etc... and our goal is not just to focus on aircraft, (FROM A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE), but to make a comprehensive simulation environment which support all types of asset using the SAME functional components.

It is clear the community is overwhelmingly more interested in "flight simulation" than other areas, and due to that there will be more focus on releasing accurate and detailed aircraft than vehicles for example, but that doesn't mean we should build functionality exclusively for aircraft, and at some point in the future go back and say, "Oh darn, all of that work we did for aircraft over the last year doesn't work on vehicles, and now we have to do it over again!"

We need aircraft and vehicles to be compatible within the simulation environment so they have interact, like the case I mentioned of an aircraft landing on an aircraft carrier, so the functionality and compatibility need to be a forethought, not an after thought.

I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.

Regards,
Uriah

[Uriah]

I'll use a metophore instead.

If you are going to build a house, you start by hiring an architect to draft the plans for the house. These plans include all of the requirements, including the type of materials to be used in construction, the dimensions of the walls, doors, windows and ceiling, etc. Now the first thing you need to build is the foundation. Think of the foundation as the architectural platform which the rest of the house (content) will sit on. You don't start by building the first story of the house simply to please the customer, who wants to move into their new house right away and start decorating. Instead the concrete crew comes in and lays the foundation. The specifications for the foundation are derived from the requirements, and these come from the physical aspects, such as how many stories the house will have, how much load the foundation needs to support, where the load bearing pilings and footers need to be located for the walls, etc. The foundation is must be built correctly and completely before you start working on the rest of the house. If the foundation doesn't meet the requirements of the house, the house may collapse if the foundation can't bear the load of the walls and upper structure.

In this way a game platform is no different. If you start building the house and decorating it before the foundation is finished, your house will not be up to code and will need to be demolished, and then all of your valuable work and time has been wasted for nothing.

Now, Outerra is laying the ground work, so to speak. They have started by grading the building site which the foundation will sit on (terrain/world), and are proceeding to construct the foundation. We can't rush the rest of the house at this point.

Don't worry, you'll get your content, but you can't move in until the house is built, and you can't build a house until the foundation is complete.

Of course we already have some content, a few aircraft and vehicles, but why rush the construction of the foundation? Do you want the concrete and mortar to fail, and the house to be un-safe to live in?

Regards,
Uriah

[FarlanderMiG]

EDIT: I fully agree. No need to continue wen in the end, we were thinking the same thing.. (im just not that pro at expressing myself).. Case closed

[Revolver]

the best Flightsim in the world ... start without ailerons, wing half and with one elevator ... pure flight physics realism ... blah, blah, blah ...

[PytonPago]

 ... well, if adding Gremlins is a Sim-thing.

[Uriah]

What game is that?

[HiFlyer]

What game is that?

I'm assuming IL-2 Sturmovik

[Revolver]

You laugh, but just as they position themselves ...

Zitat:  Realistic sounds and physics, detailed aircraft systems modeling, advanced aerodynamics and state-of-the-art flight modeling gives you a real sensation of flight
Unique and detailed damage model shows how deadly the weapons can be and will challenge even the best pilots
http://il2sturmovik.com/