Flight Sim World Coming to Steam

[trev123]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/38928 ... Sim_World/

Thought I would put this here until someone makes a new sub forum for it if interested. Early Access coming May. Should be soon.

[trev123]

https://www.facebook.com/flightsimworld

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Are there UE4 based flight sims around? Or doesn't the rendition of world and scenery really matter once you're airborne at over 3000 ft?

I only have DCS, which is a great military flight sim, probably the best.

Any recommendations for a civic flight sim? I've been looking into Aeroflight FS2 since it offers native VR headset and tracked motion controllers support.
It has good reviews but still is in Early Access.

Scenery offered at the present is Southwestern USA, Northeastern USA, Utah and Switzerland
I am not so interested in the big jet liners, more in smaller prop driven planes, sailplanes and stunters.

[Griphos]

I have FSX (since the beginning of the franchise actually) and P3D, since v2, and DCS and Aerofly 1, and several versions of X-Plane, and am a RL pilot.

DCS offers the best flight model, by far, but is not a civil sim. Still, that's mostly how I use it. (I've had most of the air combat sim's ever made as well).

Of the 32 bit sims, I'd go with the current P3Dv3.4. Most addons available for FSX work in it. Some require licenses specifically for P3D, but if you're just starting, that isn't an issue. It's the most fully featured sim, and can be enhanced to provide the most environmental and systems fidelity.

The 64 bit sims look promising. Aerofly uses its own engine, and it is incredibly well optimized. I'll probably get v2 but it is in early stages and lacks a lot of features, like ATC, and seasons, and night lighting, and fully interactive cockpits. They are working on most of these. Its flight model shows its heritage as an RC plane simulator, and is better in some ways and less so in others. It offers the only real native VR support.

X-Plane 11 is 64 bit, and is in many ways a brand new sim from earlier incarnations. It has its own unique flight physics model, but as a pilot, I don't find it more faithful than the others, and less so in some ways. I have never found X-Plane very appealing, but you can d/l a free demo and give it a try yourself.

FSW (and P3D) are built out of the FSX code, so are just extensions of that now quite aging engine. P3D rumors a 64 bit version in the possible v4 that might come someday.

If you bought DTG's Flight School, you will get a copy of FSW for free, so I'm looking forward to trying it out.

If I were just starting, I'd probably go with FSW, or at least one of the 64 bit sims. Pushing the old architecture of the 32 bit sims with the many common and complex addons leads to numerous problems, not least of which is memory issues. And the old code is deeply CPU bound and performs marginally on most computers.

You can try X-Plane 11 for free. Keep an eye on Aerofly2 and FSW. In some ways, it's exciting times for flight simming, but a lot remains to be seen.

[trev123]

I

FSX (and P3D) are built out of the FSX code, so are just extensions of that now quite aging engine. P3D rumors a 64 bit version in the possible v4 that might come someday.

.

Changed your typo.

[Griphos]

What did I originally write? What I meant to say is what it says in my post now. FSW and P3D are both built out of the FSX (ESP) code. FSW is 64 bit, but it's not new code. They are making a LOT of changes, though, from what I can tell. I doubt it will have simconnect ability, or even compatibility with (a new) version of FSUIPC.

And to speak to another part of the question, no, there are no UE4 flight sims. The trouble with most graphic engines is trying to reproduce an entire world. Scenery does matter, and 3000 ft isn't very high. Even at 30,000 ft I want the world to look like a world. Maybe it's because I'm a pilot and so know what the world looks like at any altitude, but I can't fly if the scenery isn't at least minimally realistic. So even default FSX was completely uninteresting to me, as it bears very little resemblance to any part of the world.

There are basically three approaches to flight sim scenery.

1) a layered scenery, with mesh covered by land class tiles telling the sim what kind of textures go where, covered by textures, filled in with autogen buildings and trees and other objects. This basic layer cake can be customized with hand placed objects a la Orbx. This is only a general representation of world that can't really match reality (you can't fly over your house).

2) or, since the basic architecture of the engine is mesh and tiles, those tiles can just be photo images taken from image data like google earth. This is pictures of what's actually there, but it is flat, two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. This is obvious at most altitudes, and ugly at lower altitudes. The world is three-dimensional, obvious even at altitude, so flat pictures look just like what they are, flat pictures, and it is unconvincing to fly over that. You can fly over your house, it just won't look much like your house, or even like a house at all.

3) or some combination of the above, mostly textures with some photoreal (FSX with Orbx), or mostly photoreal with some 3-D autogen (Aerofly2). Aerofly can look stunning in uninhabited areas, mountains and deserts, with good high resolution images, but looks flat and stretched in areas with human structures but no autogen.

In both, very close flying, like very low altitude or flying near mountains or in canyons, makes for very pixelated base layers that are far from convincing (at least outside small areas enhanced with very high resolution images or custom autogen grasses,etc).

DCS takes a completely different approach because it builds the traditional graphic "maps" of FP games, or traditional air combat sims. This means very limited areas in which to fly. You cannot do tradtional maps of significant chunks of the globe. There simply isn't enough memory for that in any system. Such maps, even the new Normandy map for DCS, look like video game representations of the world, rather than the world. Even the kind of clearly representational quality of scenery we get in TSW would bring a cutting edge computer to its knees if the map tried to cover enough area to fly over. Something like the ARMA graphic engine wouldn't even load if large enough to really fly (which is why they do islands). However, if ARMA had flight models that were even remotely faithful, that's probably what I'd mostly fly. ARMA3 offers a convincing virtual world.

[buzz456]

Of course most "real" simulators mostly have super crappy outside viewing since that's not what simulators are supposed to be about. If you are looking for beautiful viewing from elevation why not just zoom around using Google Earth? Just a thought, why doesn't someone figure out how to tie Google Earth to a Flight sim game?

[Griphos]

People have figured that out, but it looks terrible. Zooming around in Google earth isn't anything like flying. And it sort of misses the whole simulator part where there's, you know, an airplane to control and all. Zooming around in Google earth is more like free camera mode in TS. It's not exactly simulating anything. And Google earth resolution sucks at normal GA flight altitudes.

And I beg to differ on what "simulators" are "supposed to be about." Of course, part of the "simulation" is simulation of the systems of the vehicles being simulated. But part of what is inherently intended is "simulation" of the activity as a whole. Simulating submarines need not bother much about what is outside the vehicle, but simulating flight in aircraft, particularly GA aircraft, and most particularly low and slow GA aircraft, like the Piper Cub, say, is most definitely about what is outside the vehicle. As someone with many hours in actual Cubs and Champs and Chiefs (one of which I owned for many years), your attention is MOSTLY outside the vehicle. I only had six gauges in the Chief. Most of what I needed to know to fly the thing came from information derived from outside the vehicle. Simulating flight in such a vehicle absolutely requires high fidelity simulation of the complete environment.

So, no, it is not the case that "real" simulators have crappy outside views. Some (but not all) airline simulators do, because they don't need much simulated outside the complex "office." But even there, I suspect, the crappiness of the outside views have more to do with hardware limitations than lack of need for detail. I don't even know what is meant by the distinction of "real." Simulators are simulators. Some are professional and others are for entertainment. Professional driving simulators offer incredibly detailed external environments. Unthinkable as simulators without that.

Have you taken a look at pCars or Assetto Corsa? Sometimes I can't tell I'm not driving a real car around a real track, at least visually.

And Farming simulators, which are really farm vehicle simulators, have decent outside views, and the main thrust of them seems to be about improving the external environment. Of course, there aren't any professional farming simulators. I don't know if there are any professional train simulators. But I will say for my own part, which you well know, that fidelity to the environment matters a great deal to the "simulation" of train operations for me.

This is the old argument. But you can't offer "real" as an authority to settle it. For some, the environment doesn't seem to matter as much. I don't understand those people. You apparently don't understand me.

[buzz456]

The simulator that I took my multi engine re-current was a piece of unrealistic junk inside and out. MSFT simulator was better than that. I have about 5000 hrs on AVSIM and a couple of thousand real time and the Midwest anyway is not real exciting from 8000 feet in real life but you're right the scenery 'low and slow' has a long way to go.

[trev123]

Glad to see that DTG are calling FSW early access, save them getting all the flack that they got after the release of TSW by not calling it an early access release. Lesson learn't I suppose.

[Griphos]

AVSIM? The forum? Do they have a multiplayer server for FSX or something?

Well, I just bought Aerofly FS 2, so I'll let folks know what I think when I finally get it downloaded and try it out. It's 31gb for the main sim, and another 85gb for the free high res scenery. It'll be later this week.....(at my 4mb d/l speed). I figure since I'm getting FSW for free....

I saw a video where someone did a power off stall in a Robin and it stalled and went right into a spin. He let it develop a few turns, then used proper recovery technique and it flew out of it. Most realistic looking spin I've ever seen in a flight sim.

I also liked what I saw in terms of soaring. Ridge lift in particular seems to be decently modeled from several videos I've seen.

I just tried out XP11 again (the demo) and still think it's not very realistic. Any wind at all and the plane flies like a bucking horse. Silly. Tried soaring in P3D3.4 just now to compare, and with AS2016, it does thermals and a decent job of the flight dynamics. I flew out of Truckee with real weather and encountered a couple of decent thermals in the ASK21. As with all things P3D and FSX, stable flight in all but calm conditions is a bit too stable relative to reality.

Anyway, a report on Aerofly FS2 will be forthcoming.

[buzz456]

Sorry mis-spoke.

https://www.vatsim.net/

[Griphos]

Ah yes, Vatsim. Know it well.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

AVSIM? The forum? Do they have a multiplayer server for FSX or something?

Well, I just bought Aerofly FS 2, so I'll let folks know what I think when I finally get it downloaded and try it out. It's 31gb for the main sim, and another 85gb for the free high res scenery. It'll be later this week.....(at my 4mb d/l speed). I figure since I'm getting FSW for free....

I saw a video where someone did a power off stall in a Robin and it stalled and went right into a spin. He let it develop a few turns, then used proper recovery technique and it flew out of it. Most realistic looking spin I've ever seen in a flight sim.

I also liked what I saw in terms of soaring. Ridge lift in particular seems to be decently modeled from several videos I've seen.

I just tried out XP11 again (the demo) and still think it's not very realistic. Any wind at all and the plane flies like a bucking horse. Silly. Tried soaring in P3D3.4 just now to compare, and with AS2016, it does thermals and a decent job of the flight dynamics. I flew out of Truckee with real weather and encountered a couple of decent thermals in the ASK21. As with all things P3D and FSX, stable flight in all but calm conditions is a bit too stable relative to reality.

Anyway, a report on Aerofly FS2 will be forthcoming.

Thanks, Griphos, for your detailed analysis.
My holiday allowance is due end of the month, and Aerofly FS2 is high in my list. What hardware (yokes, pedals, instruments) is supported for 2D use (3D use is apparently catered for in full HTC Vive support). The previously Saitek stuff is coming back under its new Logitech brand.

[Griphos]

I'm pretty sure all hardware is supported, but I'll check when able (about half way through the first download of the program itself).

Saitek is under Logitech now. I've never had good luck with Saitek products, especially once Mad Catz bought them out. Cheap pots. Perhaps build quality will improve now under Logitech. External appearance is different for the throttle quadrant on the new version, I think.

CH products are bullet proof. My CH pedals are over a decade old and calibrate like new. I don't have any of the instrument panels, but will check that support.