Today what people casually interested in flying want is a cheap thing *that actually flies* and has a live video feed. For $50* I estimate it's possible to build a plane with 10 KM range and live feed that's fed through open 2.4 Ghz stations and/or 3G mobile network. For short ranges it should also have a direct realtime control like traditional RC except with pad/keyboard but beyond that range it would be waypoint controlled from tablet/laptop with return to home based on left battery life.

edit: Removed platform speculation since it's confirmed PC game.

Just because the name isn't as dry as it used to doesn't necessarily mean they've dumbed it down The market for a realistic simulator is probably larger than the people who just want to fly planes in their computer for kicks (and besides, that lot are easily satisifed with semi-realistic air combat simulators) so this will be an interesting development.

I wonder what will happen to Train Simulator, and if Microsoft might consider buying the best simulation game of all time: Forklift Simulator

W3bbo said:

It says it's "Live-enabled" but that could mean anything: does it only allow play when connected to the Internet? Or does it mean that it uses the Live matchmaking service instead of Zone.com (oooh, nostalgia rush there!)

 

Just because the name isn't as dry as it used to doesn't necessarily mean they've dumbed it down The market for a realistic simulator is probably larger than the people who just want to fly planes in their computer for kicks (and besides, that lot are easily satisifed with semi-realistic air combat simulators) so this will be an interesting development.

 

I wonder what will happen to Train Simulator, and if Microsoft might consider buying the best simulation game of all time: Forklift Simulator

I agree that there is a large and dedicated market for the old Flight Simulator line. My fear though is that this 'reboot' won't be compatible and will try to appeal to the FPS crowd and will please noone. There is no detailed information available at all atm though, so it's just a fear. I wonder how many of the Flight sim crowd have moved to X-Plane already.

rhm said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

I agree that there is a large and dedicated market for the old Flight Simulator line. My fear though is that this 'reboot' won't be compatible and will try to appeal to the FPS crowd and will please noone. There is no detailed information available at all atm though, so it's just a fear. I wonder how many of the Flight sim crowd have moved to X-Plane already.

 

As someone who's part of the Flight Sim crowd I can say: almost no one. Heck, a good percentage of the hard core crowd (particularly those who fly "heavy metal" (big jets)) are still on FS2004.

I can tell you why in exactly three words: third party add-ons.

Sven Groot said:

Are you talking about RC airplanes? Because those exist, are very expensive, pretty difficult to fly, and heavily regulated where they're allowed to fly and what frequencies they can use.

I remember looking into real RC planes when I was a kid and that was very expensive and complicated. Nowdays I fly a real paraglider once or twice a week: it is not very complicated and it feels thousands of times better than any first person game or any live video feed (just make sure you get proper training before you do fly on your own)!

I think that if I did not have the opportunity to fly something real myself I would rather try a simulator over a remote controlled model.

I have fond childhood memories of playing Flight Simulator 95, and flying from Chicago to Philadelphia.

spivonious said:

I'm hoping "Live enabled" means that you'll be playing the Flight Simulator of old but with millions of other users in the world. Those AI-controlled planes at Meigs Field were never very smart.

 

I have fond childhood memories of playing Flight Simulator 95, and flying from Chicago to Philadelphia.

I'm hoping "Live enabled" means that you'll be playing the Flight Simulator of old but with millions of other users in the world. Those AI-controlled planes at Meigs Field were never very smart.

This is essentially what VATSIM provides, except replace millions with hundreds (thousands on a good day). You get real people flying other aircraft, and real people providing ATC. Better still, becoming a controller on VATSIM requires passing exams so competency is guaranteed (though similar requirements are not placed on pilots, so you do occasionally come across complete idiots there). Strict adherence to real-world procedures (as far as possible, anyway) is required. If you prefer things to be a bit looser (and less realistic), you can try IVAO instead (both IVAO and VATSIM split off from the old SATCO network after disagreements about how closely realism should be adhered to).

VATSIM can be great fun, regardless of whether you prefer to fly VFR in a single engine prop or like to jet around the world in an Airbus A380, Boeing 747, or even Concorde. Especially fun are the big events, which get a huge number of pilots together in an area which, for the duration of the event, typically has guaranteed full ATC coverage. The biggest such event is Cross the Pond, organised twice a year, which sees a few hundred planes cross the Atlantic in the space of a few hours. This also includes such things as oceanic clearance and non-radar procedures which you don't often get to deal with otherwise.

Considering what the average FSX multiplayer sessions is like (where most people don't show any regard for procedures or even common sense, controllers and pilots alike), I'd shudder to think what a world-wide Games for Windows Live network populated by Leroy Jenkins types would be like to fly in. It'd be complete anarchy.

ManipUni said:

I assumed the re-branding means they're changing the focus. Instead of being a hardcore but realistic Flight Simulation game, it will have that, but it will also contain things like fighter planes, rescue missions with a helicopter, and other exciting aircraft based fun. I might be wrong but part of me hopes they DO do this. They already started in that direction with the latest Flight Sim' but couldn't go really seriously in that direction due to the game's focus and audience.

I hope that as well. Some of the missions in FSX were pretty fun (although I never could get the hang of flour bombing due to the lack of actual depth perception). As long as they keep the realistic simulation element and extensibility I don't see why they shouldn't have some more fun elements to attract a bigger crowd.

I also hope they revise some of the flight lessons. While they're useful for starters, some of the more advanced lessons are downright wrong in some respects, and whoever designed the nigh-impossible gauntlet that is the instrument rating checkride should be shot. I've managed to do nearly the entire checkride, which took an incredible amount of patience, dozens of attempts, and consulting the actual script file that defines the checkride to see what it actually expected you to do. But still I never passed. It always failed me at the end because I didn't do the procedure turn for the approach correctly, even though I did.

Today what people casually interested in flying want is a cheap thing *that actually flies* and has a live video feed.

Or is that just what you want?

ManipUni said:

I assumed the re-branding means they're changing the focus. Instead of being a hardcore but realistic Flight Simulation game, it will have that, but it will also contain things like fighter planes, rescue missions with a helicopter, and other exciting aircraft based fun. I might be wrong but part of me hopes they DO do this. They already started in that direction with the latest Flight Sim' but couldn't go really seriously in that direction due to the game's focus and audience.

I'm thinking they'll turn it into a game like Dogfighter instead. Doesn't that look like fun?

LarryLarsen said:

FWIW: I'm a huge Flight Sim fan with 3 x 42" 1080p displays and a full Saitek control setup on my desk at home. So I'm following this very closely. I reached out to the team behind this yesterday. I wouldn't assume what they are going to do, but when they are ready to pull the curtain back and talk a little more about this, Channel 9 will be there.

The last flight simulator I tried was F-29 Retalliator, that's a couple of days ago. I never tried Flight Simulator but was in a state of monumental disappointment about decision to shut down work on the product and fire all developers because seeing some of the latest beautiful photo-realistic screenshots made me want to try it and it appeared to be the best game of its kind. I really hope this new effort is not an attempt at a dumbed down Flight Simulator but an honest attempt at continuing the series, albeit under a new name.

Speaking of simulation. Take a look at this Brian Beckman video about real-time simulation of tire-physics, in the context of Forza (Forrrrza). It's a great video.

rhm said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

I'm thinking they'll turn it into a game like Dogfighter instead. Doesn't that look like fun?

Looks a lot like Snoopy Flying Ace.

For some reason I could never get into Flight Sim... instead I was always rather fond of X-Plane as with only a minor couple of tweaks enables you to fly on mars.

dahat said:

rhm said:

*snip*

Looks a lot like Snoopy Flying Ace.

 

For some reason I could never get into Flight Sim... instead I was always rather fond of X-Plane as with only a minor couple of tweaks enables you to fly on mars.

Not a very exciting landscape though, is it? Quite devoid of detail.

exoteric said:

dahat said:

*snip*

Not a very exciting landscape though, is it? Quite devoid of detail.

The X-Plane Mars thing is 10 years old, so that's actually pretty amazing.

exoteric said:

LarryLarsen said:

*snip*

The last flight simulator I tried was F-29 Retalliator, that's a couple of days ago. I never tried Flight Simulator but was in a state of monumental disappointment about decision to shut down work on the product and fire all developers because seeing some of the latest beautiful photo-realistic screenshots made me want to try it and it appeared to be the best game of its kind. I really hope this new effort is not an attempt at a dumbed down Flight Simulator but an honest attempt at continuing the series, albeit under a new name.

 

Speaking of simulation. Take a look at this Brian Beckman video about real-time simulation of tire-physics, in the context of Forza (Forrrrza). It's a great video.

 

It's worth getting, especially now that you can find it on sale. With DX10, multi-mon, and multi-core support, it's not even close to being dated yet, and nothing can touch the graphics/detail on it, IMHO.  I like Xplane, but I've been playing FS since 1.0 on my TRS-80, so I have a special place in my heart for the title.

I agree, I was more than a little disappointed when they shut that team down, but I suspected it wouldn't stay gone. It's the oldest video game in history, we can't let that one go. 

Here's what I suspect Microsoft Flight is:

one or both:

1. A mobile game that allows to control the plane by tilting the device

2. A Kinect game that allows some kind of physical movement to control the plane/ailerons/wings or whatever. I don't see the Kinects latency issue being a crippling here if the game was more focused on just "flight" rather than eg."simulating flying a jet" and landing was either assisted for really fast planes or it only used slow planes. Or possibly you wouldn't even control a plane but maybe it would be some kind of "fantasy flying" where the aim is just to make the physical movement map to someway to the flying experience. Not the best example but moving hands could be interpreted as flapping the wings - I could imagine it being fun for kids and atleast one time embarrasing thrill for adults.

However to make option 2 truly interesting there should be controllable wind generation (aka bunch of fans all over room lol)  so the game would know the wind conditions and you would also feel them. I doubt this would sell given the additional cost but in some kind of purpose designed room where you can be physically airlifted by heavy upward wind this could be real exciting (for one time thrill atleast). There would need to be more computer controlled fans so that the fans would keep you stably in the air even when you tilted around to "turn" and the whole room would need to be covered with displays 360 degrees. I don't go to amusement parks anymore but if there was that kind of stuff that might get me going. The current systems I've heard of just lift you up rather than create a fully visual and physical "being a bird" experience that's possible if there were hundreds of computer controlled fans. Though that creates a problem - the displays all over the room. So maybe it would need glasses instead for monitors... 

So in the end scratch option 2 since *virtual* flying, just like flight sim, gets boring unless there's some challenge involved. The best flying games I've played were mission based and fun was either performing the task/mission or some kind of acrobatics. Of course there's plenty of opportunity to make flying rewarding by making it more challenging in games. My favorite flying game is actually BF:DC mod where it took week of intense practise to just get & stay in the air with the choppers and another week to learn to land reliably just where you wanted. I never fully mastered the choppers to the level I'd have liked though despite playing for a year, shame the mod kinda died quick after BF2 came around. It was freaking hilarious to watch people crashing all the time when the mod just came around. The control scheme was really simple: Hold button to accelerate up, release and the engine power is killed and you crash. So essentially the power was controlled tapping the accel key. I don't recall exactly but I think the other games used the system of press a key and you're up in the air and stay there. So the realism took the fun factor away from flying.

androidi said:

I thought about this a bit more. (edit: Instead of doing THAT I should've read the source again. It's indeed a PC game.)

 

Here's what I suspect Microsoft Flight is:

 

one or both:

1. A mobile game that allows to control the plane by tilting the device

2. A Kinect game that allows some kind of physical movement to control the plane/ailerons/wings or whatever. I don't see the Kinects latency issue being a crippling here if the game was more focused on just "flight" rather than eg."simulating flying a jet" and landing was either assisted for really fast planes or it only used slow planes. Or possibly you wouldn't even control a plane but maybe it would be some kind of "fantasy flying" where the aim is just to make the physical movement map to someway to the flying experience. Not the best example but moving hands could be interpreted as flapping the wings - I could imagine it being fun for kids and atleast one time embarrasing thrill for adults.

 

However to make option 2 truly interesting there should be controllable wind generation (aka bunch of fans all over room lol)  so the game would know the wind conditions and you would also feel them. I doubt this would sell given the additional cost but in some kind of purpose designed room where you can be physically airlifted by heavy upward wind this could be real exciting (for one time thrill atleast). There would need to be more computer controlled fans so that the fans would keep you stably in the air even when you tilted around to "turn" and the whole room would need to be covered with displays 360 degrees. I don't go to amusement parks anymore but if there was that kind of stuff that might get me going. The current systems I've heard of just lift you up rather than create a fully visual and physical "being a bird" experience that's possible if there were hundreds of computer controlled fans. Though that creates a problem - the displays all over the room. So maybe it would need glasses instead for monitors... 

 

So in the end scratch option 2 since *virtual* flying, just like flight sim, gets boring unless there's some challenge involved. The best flying games I've played were mission based and fun was either performing the task/mission or some kind of acrobatics. Of course there's plenty of opportunity to make flying rewarding by making it more challenging in games. My favorite flying game is actually BF:DC mod where it took week of intense practise to just get & stay in the air with the choppers and another week to learn to land reliably just where you wanted. I never fully mastered the choppers to the level I'd have liked though despite playing for a year, shame the mod kinda died quick after BF2 came around. It was freaking hilarious to watch people crashing all the time when the mod just came around. The control scheme was really simple: Hold button to accelerate up, release and the engine power is killed and you crash. So essentially the power was controlled tapping the accel key. I don't recall exactly but I think the other games used the system of press a key and you're up in the air and stay there. So the realism took the fun factor away from flying.

Here's what I suspect Microsoft Flight is:

The announcements I've read all state it's a PC exclusive title, thus ruling out both of those options.

Personally I suspect it's just a rebrand of FS, and maybe they'll have some more multiplayer stuff and some more missions like FSX had.

EDIT: And you want challenge? Try flying into KLAX at a busy time of day on VATSIM. Or participate in some of the real world ops events.

Sven Groot said:

androidi said:

*snip*

The announcements I've read all state it's a PC exclusive title, thus ruling out both of those options.

 

Personally I suspect it's just a rebrand of FS, and maybe they'll have some more multiplayer stuff and some more missions like FSX had.

 

EDIT: And you want challenge? Try flying into KLAX at a busy time of day on VATSIM. Or participate in some of the real world ops events.

Whoops I guess I should've worded that bit differently. Obviously there are challenges in those games but if you catched the drift from my DC control notes above, I liked the very direct, instant control of flying those virtual choppers. Not realistic at all but fun in a similar way as playing piano can be fun. Very simple kind of fun rather than the "memorize bunch of manuals and procedures" kind of fun. Maybe what you suggest is not such things however that's the whole image of Flight Sim for example to me. It's easy to just fly around, it gets hard if you try to play it like a real world simulator. I'm not into procedures and protocols when looking for entertainment. There's a reason EVERYONE rushed to those planes (preferring the choppers every time due to fun controls and suitability to low level flight) in the BF DC mod if they were there. I don't see everyone rushing to buy Flight sim unless they're interested in as real as possible simulation.

I'd probably still play the DC mod if it wasn't killed due to variety of external factors: EA with sequels, cheaters and possibly some changes they did with the updates after 0.38d version. I guess they wanted to try make action game more realistic rather than more fun. Fail.

androidi said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Whoops I guess I should've worded that bit differently. Obviously there are challenges in those games but if you catched the drift from my DC control notes above, I liked the very direct, instant control of flying those virtual choppers. Not realistic at all but fun in a similar way as playing piano can be fun. Very simple kind of fun rather than the "memorize bunch of manuals and procedures" kind of fun. Maybe what you suggest is not such things however that's the whole image of Flight Sim for example to me. It's easy to just fly around, it gets hard if you try to play it like a real world simulator. I'm not into procedures and protocols when looking for entertainment. There's a reason EVERYONE rushed to those planes (preferring the choppers every time due to fun controls and suitability to low level flight) in the BF DC mod if they were there. I don't see everyone rushing to buy Flight sim unless they're interested in as real as possible simulation.

 

I'd probably still play the DC mod if it wasn't killed due to variety of external factors: EA with sequels, cheaters and possibly some changes they did with the updates after 0.38d version. I guess they wanted to try make action game more realistic rather than more fun. Fail.

But FS already has that. You don't need to memory a lot of manuals to fly the hangglider or a simple plane like the Cessna, especially with realism settings kept low. And all the jets in FS are incredibly dumbed down, they're unusable for serious flying. If you want realistic big planes you need something like the PMDG 747. And for smaller planes you can also greatly improve the experience with things like the planes from Carenado.

Just because you think realistic flying is boring doesn't mean everyone thinks that. FS is a very successful software product, and just because it doesn't meet your criteria of fun doesn't mean they should abandon realism completely.

Sven Groot said:

androidi said:

*snip*

But FS already has that. You don't need to memory a lot of manuals to fly the hangglider or a simple plane like the Cessna, especially with realism settings kept low. And all the jets in FS are incredibly dumbed down, they're unusable for serious flying. If you want realistic big planes you need something like the PMDG 747. And for smaller planes you can also greatly improve the experience with things like the planes from Carenado.

 

Just because you think realistic flying is boring doesn't mean everyone thinks that. FS is a very successful software product, and just because it doesn't meet your criteria of fun doesn't mean they should abandon realism completely.

I went to those lines of discussion because they took the Sim out of the name so I wanted to air a bit what I think makes a flying game fun should they be listening for ideas incase they're going non-sim market this time.

Re: "The announcements I've read all state it's a PC exclusive title"

Looked again at the source and while it only mentions the phone, that was actually separated from the game announcement with a semicolon. So yes those absurd ideas I spent not too much thought above are out the window.

Sven Groot said:

androidi said:

*snip*

But FS already has that. You don't need to memory a lot of manuals to fly the hangglider or a simple plane like the Cessna, especially with realism settings kept low. And all the jets in FS are incredibly dumbed down, they're unusable for serious flying. If you want realistic big planes you need something like the PMDG 747. And for smaller planes you can also greatly improve the experience with things like the planes from Carenado.

 

Just because you think realistic flying is boring doesn't mean everyone thinks that. FS is a very successful software product, and just because it doesn't meet your criteria of fun doesn't mean they should abandon realism completely.

I thought Flight Simulator was so realistic that some airlines would start their pilots out on it?

ManipUni said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

I thought Flight Simulator was so realistic that some airlines would start their pilots out on it?

Flight Simulator is very realistic when it comes to the simpler planes. It's fine if you want to practice maneuvres like traffic patterns or steep turns or stalls. It's also a great tool to learn the basics of IFR flying. And it's still fine for learning to operate so-called complex aircraft (planes with retractable gear, variable-pitch propellors, and cowl flaps).

But if you want to learn how to operate a 747, the built-in plane just won't do, and this is true for any jet included with FS. Sure, if you just want to get a feel for how different a jet engine is compared to a piston engine (and it's very different, particularly due to the power lag) it'll do. But the systems simulation of the bigger planes is just far from complete. Most crucially, no built-in aircraft has a Flight Management Computer, which is arguably the most important component of any modern jet. You can still use FS to train for those things, but you will need third-party aircraft like those from PMDG or Level-D.

Sven Groot said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

Flight Simulator is very realistic when it comes to the simpler planes. It's fine if you want to practice maneuvres like traffic patterns or steep turns or stalls. It's also a great tool to learn the basics of IFR flying. And it's still fine for learning to operate so-called complex aircraft (planes with retractable gear, variable-pitch propellors, and cowl flaps).

 

But if you want to learn how to operate a 747, the built-in plane just won't do, and this is true for any jet included with FS. Sure, if you just want to get a feel for how different a jet engine is compared to a piston engine (and it's very different, particularly due to the power lag) it'll do. But the systems simulation of the bigger planes is just far from complete. Most crucially, no built-in aircraft has a Flight Management Computer, which is arguably the most important component of any modern jet. You can still use FS to train for those things, but you will need third-party aircraft like those from PMDG or Level-D.

When I first played FS95 I thought the 737 simulation wasn't all that good, on account of how the cockpit controls didn't feature those massive arrays of switches located around the cockpit for things like lights and emergency oxygen, that'd be cool (to put the fear of death into your passengers )

W3bbo said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

When I first played FS95 I thought the 737 simulation wasn't all that good, on account of how the cockpit controls didn't feature those massive arrays of switches located around the cockpit for things like lights and emergency oxygen, that'd be cool (to put the fear of death into your passengers )

I'm not sure about FS95, but the 737 in FS2004 and FSX does have most of the switches of the real thing (though not all; at the very least some of the real autopilot function switches are missing on the MCP; I'm not sure if the cockpit model shows the FMC-CDU, but if it's there it can't be used at least), just not all of them can be used.

Also, if you look at a photo of a cockpit, be sure you don't confuse circuit breakers with switches. A typical cockpit has far more circuit breakers than switches, and on some models (e.g. the 747-400) they are located above the overhead panel so to the untrained eye they look like they're just a whole bunch of switches. Modern computerized cockpits don't really have that many switches to begin with, not when you compare them to the cockpit of something truly complicated.

Bas said:

*snip*

 

Or is that just what you want?

It sounds like it. However, speaking of things in the sky. What about cloud-managed model planes with an autonomous flight control system that manages plane landing and take-off, as well as collision detection and avoidance. Rent yourself a model plane, pay for play. See a live 3D video feed from the plane from various beautiful regions of the world. Real mechanics standing by, servicing an army of planes. Planes will only operate within preset borders and will return to base autonomously if loosing connection.

exoteric said:

Bas said:

*snip*

It sounds like it. However, speaking of things in the sky. What about cloud-managed model planes with an autonomous flight control system that manages plane landing and take-off, as well as collision detection and avoidance. Rent yourself a model plane, pay for play. See a live 3D video feed from the plane from various beautiful regions of the world. Real mechanics standing by, servicing an army of planes. Planes will only operate within preset borders and will return to base autonomously if loosing connection.

Sounds very expensive. You're talking about UAV's with a level of sophistication that's pretty much reserved to the military at present.

Just paying for the fuel of these things would be expensive. And who's going to do maintenance? RC planes aren't exactly tough.

Sven Groot said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

Sounds very expensive. You're talking about UAV's with a level of sophistication that's pretty much reserved to the military at present.

 

Just paying for the fuel of these things would be expensive. And who's going to do maintenance? RC planes aren't exactly tough.

The mechanics! - That said, it's not a serious proposal, just loosely dreaming...

I know what the name of the system would be though. Clearly it would be called Sky.NET!

ManipUni said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

I thought Flight Simulator was so realistic that some airlines would start their pilots out on it?

There are a lot of pilots who use Flight Sim for training. It's great for practicing checklists and navigation. Of course no (affordable) simulator can replace actual flight. When I was in flight school, FAA regs allowed you to mark down some amount of hours of simulation in your log book each year. Flight Sim isn't one of the systems you can use for this. When I finally got some simulator time, it was this horrible desktop box with some gauges on it. Like some kind of flight Eniac from the 50s. I used it for an hour, which was a horrible experience, and then went home to MS Flight Sim which was so much more realistic and detailed that it put the simulator to absolute shame.

With laser vision or something like that it would also be possible to fill in data to the simulation to present obstacles that are missing from the sim/game data. (edit: found that MIT had done this feature in their uav project last year)

Flight sim never looked this good.

http://vimeo.com/9326169 http://vimeo.com/14293116 http://vimeo.com/13806474 

This stuff is still advancing in features and coming down in cost. Eventually it should advance to the point where you can fly a low cost plane around the world non-stop I believe, as the weight comes down and computers are programmed to utilize wind effectively and maybe it would be possible to also recharge the battery from wind in some conditions.