A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FLIGHT SIMULATOR - home built!@
dam...@freenet.vcu.edu
- a proposal for a new flight simulator -
----
by David Murr (dm...@pen.k12.va.us)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I. An introduction to the project
An idea entered my head on Monday, April 8, 1996. "'Why wait
around for some large company to make what WE want? Why not do it
ourselves'". Think about it -- there's certainly not a lack creativty,
ingenuity, or desire among our tight-knit group of about 1 000.
What have we been posting to newsgroups for months, even
years? Wish lists. We forward them to webmasters at Microsoft, Sierra,
SubLogic, whomever, only to have the e-mails dumped in the "recycling
bin".
Let's examine what we have out there -- what has been
done already with what huge corporations like Microsoft have given
us.
1) We have dissected the file structure of nearly EVERYTHING to some
extent with MS Flight Simulator 5.x.
2) Maurizio Gavoli (please excuse my spelling) and someone else whose
name escapes me at the moment have created two excellent aircraft
for MSFS5 - without the need of any add-on programs!
3) Chuck Dome, who "reverse-engineered" the .AIRcraft files and came
up with AIRMOD, an excellent utility used to modify flight and
color characteristics of default (and the two Simula FlightWare planes)
aircraft for FS5. Thanks, Chuck for a utility that certainly tided
us over until the release of Flight Shop.
4) Curt Olson's Real-Wx, which allows the user to download real, current
weather for a multitude of US and Canadian cities and automatically
import that data directly into FS5!
5) The creators of FSASM, SCASM, BGLCOMP, BGLGEN, Airport, and countless
other scenery creation utilities that have undone the .bgl files
and made the format publicly available, besides giving us excellent
tools to make our own, even photo-realitic, scenery!
... and countless other, excellent contributions by generous simmers!
(Sorry guys, I don't have the space or time to list you all, but you
know who you are!)
What does this have to do with Flight Gear, you ask? Well, I'm
sitting here, wondering, "With all this creativeness, WHY wouldn't be
possible to make our own simulator?". It only makes sense - it's the
next logical progression. Isn't it?
So, now that you know where I'm coming from, let's get to
some of the specifics of the program.
II. Overview of main features and specs
Here is a condensed list of things we DEFINATELY need in this program:
* Interactive, "smart" ATC that SPEAKS when there is a sound card present
* ATP-level or better graphics
* Acceptable frame rate on a 486SX/25
* Possible minimum setup: 2/386DX/20 with 4 megs of RAM, 512K VRAM,
12MB of harddrive space?, etc.
* Compatible with MSFS5 default (maybe FSFS?) aircraft files and textures
* Compatible with MSFS5 scenery files
* Compatible with MSFS5 panel files
* Additional, proprietory format for a/c, scenery, and panels to be
implemented in v2.0.
NOTE: is there any copyright violations in making our sim
compatible with MSFS5? Code violations. Rings a bell
with SubLogic - or was this just over flight dynamics
code?
* Accurate, flyable flight models
* Accurate, but non-processor intensive graphics (good frame rate)
* Simple on-board radar system with GPS "moving map" display
* Default planes include Cessna SkyLane RG, Beechcraft Bonanza, a
hot air balloon, Boeing 777, maybe a float plane?
* Written in C and assembly for controlled, robust, fast code for
optimum performance
* RUNS UNDER DOS 5.0 OR ABOVE! NO CD's AND **NO** WINDOWS 95! YAY!
* FREE! Flight Gear MUST be FREEWARE and easily accessible via the
Internet, AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, Wow!, etc.
* Tech support by e-mail.
Anything you'd like to add? Please let me know -- my e-mail address is:
dm...@pen.k12.va.us. Oh, BTW, supplemental info will be available at:
http://users.aol.com/fsnews/flightgear/.
III. So, who's gonna put this thing together?
Good question. Here is a list of people I *HOPE* to get on our team.
Keep in mind that I haven't contacted any of them yet, so...
* Maurizio Gavioli and Chuck Dome - implementation of aircraft
* Curt Olson - STN and wx development, C aide
* ? - Panel Conversion
* Enno Borgsteede and the SCASM/FSASM development teams - scenery
* Mark Stotzer - project consultant/supervisor
* Mike Vidal - flight modeling
... and others. These people seem to be experts in the particular field
I have placed them in, so...
IV. Got any kind of release date yet?
Yeah, right. Next question! <g>
V. Miscellaneous
Got any input for this project? THEN PLEASE e-mail me at
dm...@pen.k12.va.us! Sorry to take up all this bandwidth, but
I felt this was something that most would be interested in.
Regards,
David Murr
Editor - FSNews
http://users.aol.com/fsnews/
--
_________ __
/ __/ __/ |/ /__ _ _____ | Editor - FSNews
/ _/_\ \/ -_) |/|/ (_-< | http://user.aol.com/fsnews/
/_/ /___/_/|_/\__/|__,__/___) | The leader in flight-sim news!
Eric J. Korpela
> [Idea for our own flight simulator]
Great Idea! count me in. I have some experience with 3D graphics.
As well as scenery design and reverse engineering of FS. I'd also like
to add a couple of things to your list of desires.
Add me to your designer's list and let's get started on the major function
calls......
>* Interactive, "smart" ATC that SPEAKS when there is a sound card present
>* ATP-level or better graphics
>* Acceptable frame rate on a 486SX/25
>* Possible minimum setup: 2/386DX/20 with 4 megs of RAM, 512K VRAM,
> 12MB of harddrive space?, etc.
* Forget 286. The 16 bit code will slow things down.
* No FPU required on some flight (all?) models.
>* Compatible with MSFS5 default (maybe FSFS?) aircraft files and textures
* Compatible with FS4 scenery (.scn,.sc1,dyn,.dy1, USA East, USA West)
>* Compatible with MSFS5 scenery files
>* Compatible with MSFS5 panel files
* Compatible with FS4 AAF planes and adventures.
>* Additional, proprietory format for a/c, scenery, and panels to be
> implemented in v2.0.
> NOTE: is there any copyright violations in making our sim
> compatible with MSFS5? Code violations. Rings a bell
> with SubLogic - or was this just over flight dynamics
> code?
No there are not. The MS/BAO/Sublogic problem came from two things...
1. Sublogic was using the "Flight Simulator (tm)" in it's products.
The trademark is owned by BAO
2. Sublogic was using B.A.'s flight and graphics code.
As long as we don't take code from MSFS5, there's no copyright violation.
>* Accurate, flyable flight models
>* Accurate, but non-processor intensive graphics (good frame rate)
>* Simple on-board radar system with GPS "moving map" display
>* Default planes include Cessna SkyLane RG, Beechcraft Bonanza, a
> hot air balloon, Boeing 777, maybe a float plane?
>* Written in C and assembly for controlled, robust, fast code for
> optimum performance
* 32 bit only (DJGPP or GCC) DPMI compatible
* Assembly only in display drivers or in #ifdefs. So it's easily portable
to Mac, Unix, and OS/2.
>* RUNS UNDER DOS 5.0 OR ABOVE! NO CD's AND **NO** WINDOWS 95! YAY!
>* FREE! Flight Gear MUST be FREEWARE and easily accessible via the
> Internet, AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, Wow!, etc.
* Distributed with source.
--
Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be
kor...@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped.
<a href="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/finger/mofo.ssl.berkeley.edu/korpela/w">
Click here for more info.</a>
Eric J. Korpela
Curt Olson
I have been pondering the same sort of thing. It would be a
tremendous amount of work, but if enough people contributed, we just
might be able to something. Here are some critical things to worry
about as I see them.
- fast scene rendering routines. we'd probably need an assembly
wizard for this.
- accurate flight modeling. we'd probably need an aeronautical
engineering wizard for this.
- well thought out design.
- well thought out and well designed interfaces. If this was done
correctly we could have different pieces of the simulator running
on different machines. This could be as simple as splitting the
load across a couple of machines at home for a performance boost.
Or you could do more complicated things such as a central weather
server, or central scenery server. Or connect up to ATC which is
being run by an actual (hopefully benevolent :-) person.
The possibilities are endless. The point is that if we have good
well thought out interfaces between the pieces, many of these
things would be possible to implement.
- a leader. A good leader with "vision" will make or break this project.
- lots of cheap volunteer labor. :-)
--
Curtis Olson E-mail: clo...@me.umn.edu
Try Linux! WWW: http://www.me.umn.edu/home/clolson/main.html
Mike Flexman Flex
I like this idea a lot. It's in the spirit of the FS and the internet.
I've a good deal of programming experience, 3D work and databases and would be
willing to spend some of my time over the next few years with just such a
project. At the moment I specialize in simulating complex behavior patterns
from simple rule structures (a game coming out real soon based on this).
Firstly I'd like to promote an open discussion on this newsgroup about this
idea. Are people genuinely interested or will motivation slip by?
This is an opportunity to put together the first Open Architecture simulator
for the desktop.
We can have a "Physics model by ... 3D by ... Ground ATC by ..."
It's not hard to have the skies filled with commercial flights following
international air lanes, or Ground directing aircraft around a taxiway system.
Before we ask the question "how?", we should ask "should we?".
I want to see responses here, out in the open for all to see and discuss.
And just maybe, I too might be added to that developer list.
MY wish list...
Busy airports. Air/Ground traffic.
Plug 'in modules (eg. Fixed wing, Rotary wing model)
Different terrain engines (patchwork, flat, pixel)
FS 5 Aircraft conversion
Bendable aircraft (lose a wingtip or wheel)
32bit, VESA 2.0, DOS environment
Acceptable frame rate on P133 (just kidding)
> >* Default planes include Cessna SkyLane RG, Beechcraft Bonanza, a
> > hot air balloon, Boeing 777, maybe a float plane?
> >* Written in C and assembly for controlled, robust, fast code for
> > optimum performance
>
> * 32 bit only (DJGPP or GCC) DPMI compatible
> * Assembly only in display drivers or in #ifdefs. So it's easily portable
> to Mac, Unix, and OS/2.
Mike "Flexman" Flex, Major ***
Leeds, England
Vermilion Eurofighter Squadron (Kali) "Above and below and bang we go"
Jacco van Schaik
dam...@freenet.vcu.edu writes:
> FLIGHT GEAR
> - a proposal for a new flight simulator -
> ----
> by David Murr (dm...@pen.k12.va.us)
[ ... ]
> Regards,
> David Murr
> Editor - FSNews
> http://users.aol.com/fsnews/
I like this idea a lot, but I do have some notes I'd like to make.
Firstly, seeing your list of requirements it looks like you're starting
out to build the flightsim to end all flightsims. I would argue that
that is not the way to go. You (or anyone else) cannot be expected to
do everything that all those other companies, with their teams of
full-time developers have done, AND do it better.
I think the way to go here is flexibility and expendability. The first
version of this flightsim should be a very simple one, but with a lot
of potential to grow. The best example of how such an approach could
work is Linux. This (if you didn't know) is a Unix clone that started
out as a hobby project, but has now blossomed into a Unix system that
can rival any commercial offering.
All this means (IMHO, of course) that the flight-sim should consist
of a number of independent modules, so that if (for example) someone
decides that he or she can make a much better autopilot module than
the existing one, it should be no trouble at all to replace it. By the
same token there should be modules to handle aerodynamics, instrument
panels, 3D out-the-window display, sound, input devices, network
connections, ATC, etc.
Secondly, your wish to make it compatible with FS5 scenery. Although
this seems like a good idea, I think you should be careful not to be
bound by any of FS5's design issues. For example, as far as I know
(which, I admit, is not very far) FS5 uses tiles to create its
scenery which makes it very hard to create accurate coastlines. You
might decide that a better approach is to use polygons, which would
make it a lot harder to support FS5's "native" scenery format. In
that case, I would suggest that a flexible design is more important
than backward compatibility.
(Of course, if you maintain a modular design as outlined above, it
is always possible for someone to add FS5 compatiblity to the scenery
module at a later stage.)
Anyway, I'd be happy to help put this thing together. I think it could
have a lot of potential.
My 2 cents. (Well, looks more like 2 dollars/pounds/guilders now)
Greetings, - Jacco
--
"When things get so big +------------------------------------+
I don't trust them at all, | In real life: Jacco van Schaik |
You wanna keep control, | e-mail: ja...@nlr.nl |
you've got to keep it small" | phone : +31 20 511 3546 |
| URL: http://www.nlr.nl/NARSIM.html |
- Peter Gabriel in "DIY" +------------------------------------+
Russ Smith
the GNU-licensed (i.e., free, copyable-but-non-saleable
full SOURCE availability) ACM 4.N flight simulator.
Don't start from ground zero with your public FS, start
with the source of ACM and move from there.
ACM is a X-window (and possibly uSoft Windows by now)
F-16 simulator for network play - it uses a server
program and clients that connect to it (both client and
server can be on the same box, so offline flying is quite
possible (your box's OS must be capable of true
multi-tasking, of course, so Linux, Win95, OS/2 are your
probable choices, not DOS)). Though the program has its
faults it would be an excellent tool for learning what
can (overall) be the methods for a flight simulator.
The last source I heard of was something like "acm-4.0.tar.Z"
but I've actually seen ACM 4.5 flying around; couldn't find
it with a net search but I'm sure it's at many sites out there.
I installed a version under plain old SYS5/BSD-clone and it
worked fine, albeit the workstation holding the server and the
local net as well were brought to their knees when a number of
people got it...
Russ <Sm...@ur-guh.com>
Harold Bien
[...]
: Firstly, seeing your list of requirements it looks like you're starting
: out to build the flightsim to end all flightsims. I would argue that
: that is not the way to go. You (or anyone else) cannot be expected to
: do everything that all those other companies, with their teams of
: full-time developers have done, AND do it better.
I agree. Many software design philosophies now follow this
"waterfall" recursive method of building a small, simple program that is
flexible and work your way up from there.
: I think the way to go here is flexibility and expendability. The first
: version of this flightsim should be a very simple one, but with a lot
: of potential to grow. The best example of how such an approach could
: work is Linux. This (if you didn't know) is a Unix clone that started
: out as a hobby project, but has now blossomed into a Unix system that
: can rival any commercial offering.
I think that a good choice of language would be C++ instead of
C. This would allow the "flexibility" of which Jacco speaks. This would
allow "objects" which can be modified and enchanced without altering the
public interface. Also, ideas such as DLL's and the like would help in
making the program as flexible as possible.
Gerner
"Flexman" Flex) wrote :
>Firstly I'd like to promote an open discussion on this newsgroup about this
>idea. Are people genuinely interested or will motivation slip by?
Yes, it depends on the time taken.
If the project is overtaken by a software house, and they do look
here, yes ?
>
>This is an opportunity to put together the first Open Architecture simulator
>for the desktop.
>
>We can have a "Physics model by ... 3D by ... Ground ATC by ..."
>It's not hard to have the skies filled with commercial flights following
>international air lanes, or Ground directing aircraft around a taxiway system.
>
>Before we ask the question "how?", we should ask "should we?".
Yes.
>
>I want to see responses here, out in the open for all to see and discuss.
>And just maybe, I too might be added to that developer list.
>
>
>
>MY wish list...
>
> Busy airports. Air/Ground traffic.
If planes is flying all around you, you need some kind of warning
system = GPS ?
> Plug 'in modules (eg. Fixed wing, Rotary wing model)
> Different terrain engines (patchwork, flat, pixel)
> FS 5 Aircraft conversion
> Bendable aircraft (lose a wingtip or wheel)
> 32bit, VESA 2.0, DOS environment
32 bit ? Win95 ? That spell SB 32awe also and so on. Or ? Old 16 bit
machine out ?
Remember, that flying in FS5.1, even with adventure factory is a bit
boring, because you sit in the plane and never leaves it, seeing
inside/outside the plane only (aside spot and tower views).
So why not some 3D men and women as in a 3D game, where the mouse have
to be pointed to move the "hero" around. And around should be ground
service to ok the flt.pln., check ins and where a small plane pilot
have to go before a flight and where a com. air pilot have to go,
determined by the plane you choose or are giving in a "letter" from
the company or the plane you "own".
And passenger/fuel balancing calculations.
--
\/
___m_oo_m___
Gerner.
http://inet.uni-c.dk/~gerner1
The worlds most boring web page.
NO hyper/super links to nowhere.
Mike Flexman Flex
> I think that a good choice of language would be C++ instead of
> C. This would allow the "flexibility" of which Jacco speaks. This would
> allow "objects" which can be modified and enchanced without altering the
> public interface. Also, ideas such as DLL's and the like would help in
> making the program as flexible as possible.
Yes indeed, C++ objects provide that vital run-time decision making necessary
for an open architecture project (public interface). Plus it also provides us
with a more flexible approach for importing different data structures and
backward compatibility of data.
Can I just say I don't want to turn this into a programming thread.
But from what I gather so far what people want is...
Something modula
That looks like and/or better than ATP
With more interaction with outside systems (ATC, flight plans etc)
Some backward compatibility with old FS scenery and aircraft
Simulation of real world navigation, GPS, VFR etc.
These are the basics as I understand?
How about some sort of IP packet support. A Kali like server hookup where all
pilots on the same server fly in the same world. This raises questions on how
object positional data is updated.
Also the renderer should ideally be optimized for the terrain format (vice
versa), if the 3D engine is modular there could be a need for different terrain
formats or a single multi-use format for patchwork/ploygon/vector/pixel styles.
I envisage different rendering styles to encompass all (reasonable) machine
speeds. Patchwork quilt style for high end machines, pixel for lo end 486s.
Is there any preliminary work on such a format for describing a scene?
Mike Flexman Flex
> >Firstly I'd like to promote an open discussion on this newsgroup about this
> >idea. Are people genuinely interested or will motivation slip by?
>
> Yes, it depends on the time taken.
> If the project is overtaken by a software house, and they do look
> here, yes ?
If FS 6 is pretty much what is proposed here then should we waste our time?
> > Busy airports. Air/Ground traffic.
> If planes is flying all around you, you need some kind of warning
> system = GPS ?
Sorry do you mean ground proxi or global positioning? I think you mean global
pos' system, not difficult, I have written a mathematical sim which controls
hundreds of individual ships and fighters totally autonomous and behave pseudo
intelligently. It's a very simple process and no trouble to indicate avoiding
action which will in turn disturb the natural flow of the simulation and create
even more chaos leading to a more realistic (in the sense of real world
behavior) state. I can never predict exactly *what* will happen just a probable
outcome.
> 32 bit ? Win95 ? That spell SB 32awe also and so on. Or ? Old 16 bit
> machine out ?
Er too early to say. It's fair to say anything less than a 386 will be out.
Win'95 will probably be out (FS 6 is Win'95 isn't it?). This is supposed to be
a peoples simulator and I suspect that means MsDOS.
> Remember, that flying in FS5.1, even with adventure factory is a bit
> boring, because you sit in the plane and never leaves it, seeing
> inside/outside the plane only (aside spot and tower views).
Ultimately that's flying a plane. You look out the window, check your
instruments, pray that carb doesn't foul up again, think about food.
> So why not some 3D men and women as in a 3D game, where the mouse have
> to be pointed to move the "hero" around.
And give him/her a gun they can shoot all the baddies with? :) Sorry couldn't
resist.
> And around should be ground service to ok the flt.pln., check ins and
> where a small plane pilot have to go before a flight and where a com.
> air pilot have to go, determined by the plane you choose or are giving
> in a "letter" from the company or the plane you "own".
Are we talking role playing? Some form of continuity, you "purchase" an
aircraft and aquire it's documentation, service record, hanger, costs etc. This
is for the private pilot of course.
> And passenger/fuel balancing calculations.
Isn't this done by on board and pocket computers now?
Dean
something to the effect of...>"Flexman" Flex) wrote :
>
>
>>Firstly I'd like to promote an open discussion on this newsgroup about this
>>idea. Are people genuinely interested or will motivation slip by?
>
>Yes, it depends on the time taken.
>If the project is overtaken by a software house, and they do look
>here, yes ?
>
>>
>>for the desktop.
>>
>>We can have a "Physics model by ... 3D by ... Ground ATC by ..."
>>It's not hard to have the skies filled with commercial flights following
>>international air lanes, or Ground directing aircraft around a taxiway
system.
>>
>>Before we ask the question "how?", we should ask "should we?".
>Yes.
>
>>
>>I want to see responses here, out in the open for all to see and discuss.
>>And just maybe, I too might be added to that developer list.
>>
>>
>>
>>MY wish list...
>>
>If planes is flying all around you, you need some kind of warning
>system = GPS ?
>
>> Different terrain engines (patchwork, flat, pixel)
>> FS 5 Aircraft conversion
>> Bendable aircraft (lose a wingtip or wheel)
>> 32bit, VESA 2.0, DOS environment
>machine out ?
>
>boring, because you sit in the plane and never leaves it, seeing
>inside/outside the plane only (aside spot and tower views).
>
>service to ok the flt.pln., check ins and where a small plane pilot
>have to go before a flight and where a com. air pilot have to go,
>determined by the plane you choose or are giving in a "letter" from
>the company or the plane you "own".
>
>--
>
> \/
> ___m_oo_m___
>
>Gerner.
>http://inet.uni-c.dk/~gerner1
>The worlds most boring web page.
>NO hyper/super links to nowhere.
has some great ideas, but if we put them all together, we will have an awesome
sim that won't run on anything but a Cray! :)
I think the ideas we have are leaning toward something that will run over the
'net, and with dofeerent modules so you can run as many/few as you want or
can. Did that make sense? I think we need to draw the line at 486/Pentium, are
there still enough 386's out there to warant it not being that way? (I'm not
flaming 386's, I'm asking.)
Although I am running Win95 on my system, I would say we should develop this
for a DOS platform first, since Microsoft's DirectX doesn't seen that stable
yet.
Keep the ideas coming!
Dean
--
_________________________________________________
| Dean J. Catalano de...@on-ramp.ior.com |
| ____________________ ____________________ |
| \_____\_____\____\__\_____/__/____/_____/_____/ |
| \__\_____\_____\___|||||||___/_____/_____/__/ |
| \_____\____\_____\|||||||/_____/____/_____/ |
| \|||||/ |
| ----- |
|_________________________________________________|
ral...@wimsey.com
>I think the ideas we have are leaning toward something that will run over the
>'net, and with dofeerent modules so you can run as many/few as you want or
>can.
Ah, this is something I've been thinking about for awhile now, and here are
where my ideas are at:
For flight simulation, the field is split into two segments: reality based
flight simulation, and arcade based flight simulation. The reality based FS is
your Flight Simulator type program that trys to give you a real look out the
cockpit, the real reactions you get from flying, etc. The arcade based FS is
like Falcon, where you can fly around and shoot things, but you can set the
reality to be a little um.. unreal. :)
I would propose that this project concentrate on a good mixture between the two
segments. Sure, have all the reality you can handle, but lets make it fun too!
So, how about a network playable game wereby you can fly a fighter jet, bomb the
hell out of some poor saps on the ground, and try to avoid AA fire on the race
back to base? Sound familiar? Sure, but when you wingman is some other human
player, well, that hasn't been done too often yet. Toss in realism, good
terrain mapping, and you have the elements of a good game.
Ultimately, the project should concentrate on something that is fun, don't you
think? I mean, why go through all the effort of developing something that noone
is going to touch?
>Although I am running Win95 on my system, I would say we should develop this
>for a DOS platform first, since Microsoft's DirectX doesn't seen that stable
>yet.
I think it's too early right now to discuss anything other than objectives.
Leave the platform discussions until later. It seems logical to first of all
try and document what features and objectives are wanted, and then let that list
dictate the hardware you need to run it on. After that, discussions on how to
approach the task programming wise, and then finally the actual coding would be
last on the things to do. :)
Personally, I would imagine the quality of the graphics, and the quality of the
flight engine are two elements that would have to be hashed out fairly early.
These two alone would weigh heavily in a decision on platforms.
So how about some discussion on what objectives we would like to reach in this
FS? I've stated mine: Realism, Fun, Graphics, Multi-User.
Regards,
Ralph.
Dean
to the effect of...
>
<SNIPPED>
>So, how about a network playable game wereby you can fly a fighter jet, bomb
the
>hell out of some poor saps on the ground, and try to avoid AA fire on the
race
>back to base? Sound familiar? Sure, but when you wingman is some other
human
>player, well, that hasn't been done too often yet.
Well, here I would have to disagree with you Ralph. This type of project has
already been undertaken by several different project teams. Two that come to
mind are Air Warrior and the newer WarBirds. I never actually played Air
Warrior on-line, but Warbirds will do all of the above that you mentioned,
with more than 100 players online. If your curious, check out
http://www.icigames.com.
So I would have to say that this project will probably lean toward an ATP/FS5
variant with emphasis on realism of the flight enviroment such as control,wx,
aircraft model, etc. Not everyone finds this exciting, but some people love
it for the challenge that it is. Although I'll be the first one to admit that
even real world flying gets downright boring sometime!! <g> I just don't see
the need for us to duplicate the efforts of whats already been accomplished
(AW, WB).
With Gen Aviation/ Commercial Sims however, it seems that most people agree
that something is definately lacking in the market. And with MS sucking up
BAO and ATP off the market, all that is left is FS5, which is somewhat
lacking. Yes, I know Sierra is working on a new sim, but I don't have any
details, and as for FS6/Win95, I don't expect much change other that porting
the code over to the new O/S to take advantage of DirectX. I don't see MS
rewriting the flight model or scenery code.
SNIPPED
>
>I think it's too early right now to discuss anything other than objectives.
>Leave the platform discussions until later.
SNIPPED
>Regards,
>Ralph.
>
I agree with you here. It is way TOO EARLY to be discussing this in detail. I
was merely responding to another post which posed the question.
Mike Flexman Flex
I had to reply to this before I went to bed (otherwise I'd never get round to
it).
ral...@wimsey.com wrote:
> I think it's too early right now to discuss anything other than objectives.
Agreed. I think anyone seriously thinking of contributing to this project would
agree also.
> Personally, I would imagine the quality of the graphics, and the quality of the
> flight engine are two elements that would have to be hashed out fairly early.
Well, the graphics engine would partly depend on it's scenery description which
should be optimized for said engine no? But the flight engine can be a simple
bolt-on executable module. Scenery descriptions are harder to change after the
fact. If you see my point (I think I made it as clear as mud). For development
purposes a simple 6 axis function would do. If a physics genius wants to do a
molecular flow model later then great.
> These two alone would weigh heavily in a decision on platforms.
I think a 386 and upwards would be just dandy. Bolt on what ever modules you
think your hardware can handle. Simple enough.
> So how about some discussion on what objectives we would like to reach in this
> FS? I've stated mine: Realism, Fun, Graphics, Multi-User.
Ask yourself why you fly MS Flight Simulator instead of EF2000 or Warbirds that
day. It's not to blow things up. You do it because perhaps you always wanted to
be an airline pilot perhaps, take part in a bigger scheme or hold the lives of
hundreds of people in your hands. It's the simulation of systems.
I know persons who get a kick just from twiddling the HFD radar on Falcon 3.
And why not?
There have always been three types of flight simulator enthusiast, the systems
nut, the strategist and the shooter. They liked FS4-5, F117a and Comanche
respectively. The latter have plenty of product to choose from, but the former
very little.
And if it's open arch', the "tinkers" can build their hydraulic platforms and
have a direct interface with the program.
QUESTION TIME
Is there anyone in the role of project manager?
Do you have a freeware SVGA 3D engine?
Enquiring minds want to know. Lets get this thing moving.
Mike "Flexman" Flex, Major ****
Leeds, England
Vermilion Eurofighter Squadron (Kali) "No fee too small, no frame rate too high"
Eric J. Korpela
Mike "Flexman" Flex <fl...@euronet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>If FS 6 is pretty much what is proposed here then should we waste our time?
>
1. FS6 runs only in Win95, a pseudo-operating operating system that many
of us don't ever want to run. Flight gear will be more platform
independant.
2. Once we buy FS6, microsoft will be releasing FS7 which will be entirely
incompatible with FS6 add ons. We're all tired of the "send MS $60 for
latest version BS."
3. Flight gear will be more easily extensible that FS6. FSFS took 3 years
to get to the level of functionality that we had on FS4 with ASD and
AAF. You can expect FSFS for FS6 to be released in 2002.
4. MS hasn't fixed the bugs in FS5.1 and already they're pushing FS6 on us.
5. We know what we want. MS ignores what we want.
Eric
Clifford Coles
> of us don't ever want to run. Flight gear will be more platform
So, we have a name for this already- "Flight Gear"? Not bad...
>3. Flight gear will be more easily extensible that FS6. FSFS took 3 years
> to get to the level of functionality that we had on FS4 with ASD and
> AAF. You can expect FSFS for FS6 to be released in 2002.
Unfortunately, FSFS *still* isn't up to the level of FS4/ASD/AAF- there's
no commercial scenery designer available. We've had to do it all
"ourselves" in that department.
>5. We know what we want. MS ignores what we want.
The best argument of all!!
Though others might have already said it, I'd request only two things
from this simulator: ATC, and other aircraft traffic. Someone else made
the suggestion of a role-play mode (sort of like WC3/4 or even Flight
Unlimited) and I second that suggestion. There could be a logbook/report
card function where if you decide to blow through ATC areas without
clearance, or threaten life or property, you lose "points" or something
like that.
Just my .02,
Cliff
Gerner
>In <4kpv00$j...@tofu.alt.net>, de...@on-ramp.ior.com (Dean) writes:
>>I think the ideas we have are leaning toward something that will run over the
>>'net, and with dofeerent modules so you can run as many/few as you want or
>>can.
Can I have some more info on "run over the net" thing ?
If it means online via a telephone line, where you (many does, you
know) pay a telephone company for use of there line, I am against
that. But for multiuser via null modem or other internal net.
But both can be made ?
>
>Ah, this is something I've been thinking about for awhile now, and here are
>where my ideas are at:
>
>For flight simulation, the field is split into two segments: reality based
>flight simulation, and arcade based flight simulation. The reality based FS is
Hmm, I think it will be hard enough to blend in what we got now for a
non shoot them up flightsim.
>Ultimately, the project should concentrate on something that is fun, don't you
>think? I mean, why go through all the effort of developing something that noone
>is going to touch?
I think we all ready have too many shoot them up flight sims, and to
blend all these together to an ultimate (relative) shoot them up
flightsim, can be done in another project, with net play also.
But of cause we should have some fun thing going on in this project
too.
>Personally, I would imagine the quality of the graphics, and the quality of the
>flight engine are two elements that would have to be hashed out fairly early.
>These two alone would weigh heavily in a decision on platforms.
>
>So how about some discussion on what objectives we would like to reach in this
>FS? I've stated mine: Realism, Fun, Graphics, Multi-User.
Yes.
Bill Gillam
"Flexman" Flex) wrote:
>I think a 386 and upwards would be just dandy. Bolt on what ever modules you
>think your hardware can handle. Simple enough.
If it was a true module approach. If not, I would suggest a 486/33, or
66 as a base, since that seems to be a minimum system today.
True weather radar would be a real nice feature. Random system
failures, based on accumulated hours in different aircraft would be
nice. (Perhaps a tracking system to maintain/adjust hours on planes)
Regards-
Bill
Mike Manthei
>
> Ralph.
In order, I think Multi-User and Fun should be on the top of the list.
Even the simple games are great as long as the opponents are human.
A long time ago, I played a game (on a Radio Shack Color Computer)
called P51. It ran on two computers connected by a 300 baud modem -or
null modem cable. (Ran sufficiently well on a 0.8 mhz computer.)
It was simple with a good logical game design. The fact that it was
human against human was the key - our minds filled in the blanks where
realism failed.
The graphics detail can be added later as long as it's still smooth
enough to play.
What's to make this different than the already popular "air warrior"
type internet game?
- another opinion.
Mike
Dean
>
>
>
>Is there anyone in the role of project manager?
>
>Do you have a freeware SVGA 3D engine?
>
NAFAIK, yet. This thread is barely a week old, and still in the VERY
preliminary planning stages. However all inputs are gladly accepted.
>
>Enquiring minds want to know. Lets get this thing moving.
>
>
>Mike "Flexman" Flex, Major ****
>Leeds, England
>
>Vermilion Eurofighter Squadron (Kali) "No fee too small, no frame rate too
high"
--
Gerner
"Flexman" Flex) wrote :
>
>I had to reply to this before I went to bed (otherwise I'd never get round to
>it).
>
And I have to make a suggestion to split this tread.
It is all ready x-posted to 2 groups. 1 sim-grp and 1 prog-grp.
I suggest it because I do not need to know how or how many things,
that have to be programmed.
I suggest, that the sim-grp. keeps the "we need this in a new sim"
writings, just to hold it simple. All suggestions do not need to be
sane or wise, but keep them coming and let the programmers discuss, if
it is possible to implement, somewhere else.
Then, when no new suggestions is flowing in to this (the sim.grp)
group, the programmers can summarize, in a list of suggested things,
what they want to implement in the project.
Moo the Cow
>In <4kpv00$j...@tofu.alt.net>, de...@on-ramp.ior.com (Dean) writes:
>>I think the ideas we have are leaning toward something that will run over the
>>'net, and with dofeerent modules so you can run as many/few as you want or
>>can.
>
>where my ideas are at:
>
>For flight simulation, the field is split into two segments: reality based
>flight simulation, and arcade based flight simulation. The reality based FS is
>cockpit, the real reactions you get from flying, etc. The arcade based FS is
>like Falcon, where you can fly around and shoot things, but you can set the
>reality to be a little um.. unreal. :)
>
>I would propose that this project concentrate on a good mixture between the two
>segments. Sure, have all the reality you can handle, but lets make it fun too!
>
>hell out of some poor saps on the ground, and try to avoid AA fire on the race
>back to base? Sound familiar? Sure, but when you wingman is some other human
>terrain mapping, and you have the elements of a good game.
>
>think? I mean, why go through all the effort of developing something that noone
>is going to touch?
>
>>for a DOS platform first, since Microsoft's DirectX doesn't seen that stable
>>yet.
I think you should be looking at cross platform support -- why limit
it to MS platforms ?
What's wrong with MacIntosh and Unix ?
Creating stuff that will work portably isn't that hard if you know
what you're doing, alas most programmers seem to think Bill invented
C++ and "cross-platform" means it will work on any Windows compatible
graphics card.
>Personally, I would imagine the quality of the graphics, and the quality of the
>flight engine are two elements that would have to be hashed out fairly early.
>These two alone would weigh heavily in a decision on platforms.
The quality of the graphics should be fiddlable, so the people with
Indy IIs can have all the leaves on the trees and the rest of us can
texture mapped polys and Mr 386 can have no trees at all.
--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
"It's not a personality.. it's a bulldozer." | This text intentionally left
Keith Lucas -- sill...@wardrobe.demon.co.uk.| completely meaningless.
--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
ral...@wimsey.com
I kinda jumped into the middle of this thread, so I wasn't sure what the
original idea behind FGFS was/is. But now that I know... I can toss in some
more thoughts. :)
Okay, lets say we go (initally) for the FS5 model, realism over action. Then
the realism should take into account ATC (already mentioned), weather (grab the
current weather from a internet site!) and have a variable depth scenery.
One should be able to file a flight plan, 'walk' into their plane (ala doom?)
and request clearance from the ATC. Take off, fly somewhere and land. Refuel,
turn around and fly back.
Use the net as part of the 'world', but not necessairly as part of the game
play. (Er, not game play, simulation!) What am I trying to say? Hmm. Assume
you're flying around, and you're lost. You get on the radio, broadcast a
mayday, and some other pilot in the area can chime in and help you out. Or you
can practice tandem flying or whatever. But the idea is that the net just
extends the world, doesn't force you into playing with others if you don't want
to.
For weather, you should be able to be downright freaked out if there is ice-fog
at ground level, and your IFR has failed... :)
For graphics... variable depth is where when you're 20 miles from something, you
don't see much detail, versus when you're 2 city blocks away and flying right at
it. At night, one should be able to see headlights moving along highways.
Oh, and I think I'll check out that web page too. :)
Regards,
Ralph.
Dean
>
>
>type internet game?
>
>- another opinion.
>Mike
aviation/commercial airline flight (similar to FS5/ATP) rather than an air
combat sim such as Air Warrior or WarBirds. We have no interest in duplicating
their efforts.
Dean
Dean
>
Jacco van Schaik
ger...@inet.uni-c.dk (Gerner) writes:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:18:53 GMT, fl...@euronet.demon.co.uk (Mike
> "Flexman" Flex) wrote :
>
> >
> >I had to reply to this before I went to bed (otherwise I'd never get round to
> >it).
> >
> And I have to make a suggestion to split this tread.
> It is all ready x-posted to 2 groups. 1 sim-grp and 1 prog-grp.
>
> I suggest it because I do not need to know how or how many things,
> that have to be programmed.
>
> I suggest, that the sim-grp. keeps the "we need this in a new sim"
> writings, just to hold it simple. All suggestions do not need to be
> sane or wise, but keep them coming and let the programmers discuss, if
> it is possible to implement, somewhere else.
>
As I understand there's already a developer's mailing list (see the
WWW page). We could have programmer's discussions there, and keep the
"user requirement" discussions here.
> Then, when no new suggestions is flowing in to this (the sim.grp)
> group, the programmers can summarize, in a list of suggested things,
> what they want to implement in the project.
As I've said before, let's not try to build the greatest flight-sim
the world has ever known (well, not just yet anyway :-). Let's just
build something with enough hooks to allow people to extend it.
We should be very conservative in promising features that we won't
be able to implement, if only to prevent too many disappointments.
Regards, - Jacco
Patrick Hanevold
>For graphics... variable depth is where when you're 20 miles from something,
>you don't see much detail, versus when you're 2 city blocks away and flying
>right at it. At night, one should be able to see headlights moving along
>highways.
Other people on the net are driving those cars ofcos. :)
How about some action too, like war situations?
If you dont want no action, then just stay out of the war area.
And guys. Please think multi-platform!
Hope this is more that a dream.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. Patrick Hanevold - VR developer - patrick....@login.eunet.no ///
.... Amiga and official Be developer - Visual Technologies \\\///
...... Is this funy? \X//
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ral...@wimsey.com
>And guys. Please think multi-platform!
I hope so too! (Seeing as how I run os/2). I didn't want to mention that too
early, hence my previously mentioning that it was waaay too early to discuss
platforms.
>
>Hope this is more that a dream.
Ditto!
Dean
don't think this will be a problem, although some planning will make it
easier to adapt the code for different platforms.
Dean
Kevin MacClay
: I think it's too early right now to discuss anything other than objectives.
: Leave the platform discussions until later. It seems logical to first of all
: try and document what features and objectives are wanted, and then let that list
: dictate the hardware you need to run it on. After that, discussions on how to
: approach the task programming wise, and then finally the actual coding would be
: last on the things to do. :)
: Personally, I would imagine the quality of the graphics, and the quality of the
: flight engine are two elements that would have to be hashed out fairly early.
: These two alone would weigh heavily in a decision on platforms.
: So how about some discussion on what objectives we would like to reach in this
: FS? I've stated mine: Realism, Fun, Graphics, Multi-User.
: Regards,
: Ralph.
I would like to see a game where ALL opponents are human players.. In
your example, even the AA guns would be manned by humans.. It would be
neet to even have some people have the task of coordinating others, like
running the larger campaign of operations (like a general) or have some
people manning the flight control tower, and relaying messages to
different players.. It's something I may do in the future.
dam...@freenet.vcu.edu
some of this... :)
As far as "shoot-em-up" games go, we might have one,
non-network (though it's possible) game, probably something
like FS3's WWI module. Except for the fact that it would be
more updated as far a time period goes, plus, the dynamic craft
will be more than "flying-sticks"! ;)
Thanks for your input, everyone -- let's make this a good one!
/dlm - David Murr, Editor - FSNews
"Flight Gear - the grass roots flight simualtor!"
"Truly is as real as it gets!"
--- which one do you like better as a "slogan" (too early for
this, but what the hell?)
--
_________ __
/ __/ __/ |/ /__ _ _____ | Editor - FSNews
/ _/_\ \/ -_) |/|/ (_-< | http://user.aol.com/fsnews/
/_/ /___/_/|_/\__/|__,__/___) | The leader in flight-sim news!
Shmuel Ben-Artzi
>>
>I agree with you here. It is way TOO EARLY to be discussing this in detail. I
>was merely responding to another post which posed the question.
>--
Let me jump in at this point. I started out posting an article here
(in response to an article by Mika Tamminiemi) saying how neat it
would be if there were an integrated European scenery set for ATP like
USA which could then integrate with USA to provide full Western
Hemisphere flight options for ATP.
Since then, I have been following the thread of this discussion. I
love the idea that's being floated here. I also agree with you, Dean,
that it's way too early to be talking specifics. It seems to me that
what's really needed at this point is a comprehensive brainstorming
session. Neat trick in this kind of forum, but if everyone who had
ideas in any specific areas could put them forth without any
evaluation of those ideas being undertaken at this point, it would
facilitate doing a serious systems analysis when the time is right.
I've been trying to put together a comprehensive list of the various
ideas that have suggested, and I can't find some of the earlier
postings. Is this site being purged on a regular basis? If so, I would
suggest finding an alternative forum on the Internet, maybe E-Flight,
(which has both a forum and a Powwow site) or Peter's or Doug's Web
sites.
I'm not a designer or an expert in flight systems (in fact, my own
experience with ATP is fairly limited). I'll be glad to pitch in and
do whatever I can, though, because with ATP off the market, I'm afraid
that the only honest future for this type of product will be a
user-designed one with plenty of hooks for anyone who wants to to
design enhancements.
I'll post my own wish list a little later.
Regards and Shalom,
Shmuel Ben-Artzi
Gerner
>/dlm - David Murr, Editor - FSNews
>"Flight Gear - the grass roots flight simualtor!"
>"Truly is as real as it gets!"
>
>--- which one do you like better as a "slogan" (too early for
>this, but what the hell?)
>
"Flight Gear - The Internet Flight Simulator!" (TIFS) ???
2 new threads = TIFS Wish list and TIFS how to. ?????
Both in the sim.group and someone could start 1 or 2 by sampling the
wishes and the how to and put all the relevant suggestions in one or
the other ???????
Then stop this tread and the x-posting ?????
jayicon
>
> In article <4l5q9h$l...@cerdo.micro-ctrl.com>,
> Kevin MacClay <cs...@inet.micro-ctrl.com> wrote:
> >I would like to see a game where ALL opponents are human players.. In
> >your example, even the AA guns would be manned by humans.. It would be
> >neet to even have some people have the task of coordinating others, like
> >running the larger campaign of operations (like a general) or have some
> >people manning the flight control tower, and relaying messages to
> >different players.. It's something I may do in the future.
>
> the late '80s.
>
> Check out http://www.kesmai.com
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steven Miale, Kesmai Corp. <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale.html>
another one similar to air warrior is one called "Warbirds" for more info on this, check out
http://www.icigames.com however, Warbirds is pay to play, while air warrior is free. I personally think that
air warriors front end is sharp but their flight modeling is not as realistic. That is my opinion in the
difference. I have played them both and I prefer warbirds. The design of the warbirds front end is simple, I
do believe ICI has put alot more time into flight modeling than looks. I am not saying that it looks bad
though. You can download the software for warbirds and play offline for free, but that doesn't do the game any
justice. It will show you the basics though.