PDA

View Full Version : What will flight sims be like in 10 years?



XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 05:57 PM
I'd love to hear from all you long time FS fans your opinion about this. Today, after having some great fun with IL-2 (which I consider the BEST FS I've ever played, and I have played quite a lot), I went back with my memory to the sims I played in the early 90's (that's when i got my first PC) and jesus, we went a long way indeed! Back then I used to play Falcon 3, B-17, Aces of the Pacific and, most of all, Red Baron, a game that literally got me bewitched. A 386 and a thick grey polygon used to model clouds, a hp based damage model, a primitive flight model... hehe those were the times. About 12 years have gone by since then and now flight sims got to a whole new level, problem is, I can't quite imagine waht they will be like in, say, 2015 or so... My guess is:

- We won't get photorealistic graphics, not yet. Too soon for that, I guess it will take another 50 years for that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
- FM ENTIRELY based on real time fluidodynamics equations integration, that would be SOOOO beautiful and elegant. Once you have the distributed force system acting on your plane, just pass them on to Newton's mechanical laws, and there you go. No more room for whiners here. This would be the greatest achievement ever for FS, but I'm unsure we'll get enough computing power in just a few years to efficently run such a comples algorithm. Imagine how easy it would be to add another plane to a FS featuring a FM like this: just provide the planes's shape (boundary for our fluidodynamics equations set!), which comes by itself with the plane's 3D model, and then the plane's mass inertias and center of gravity position... that's it. The simplest yet most realistic flight model ever. Too bad we gonna need one hell of a computing power to handle that stuff! But who knows, I think in 10 years we'll get powerful enough PC's!

And now, what is your hope/wish/guess?

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 05:57 PM
I'd love to hear from all you long time FS fans your opinion about this. Today, after having some great fun with IL-2 (which I consider the BEST FS I've ever played, and I have played quite a lot), I went back with my memory to the sims I played in the early 90's (that's when i got my first PC) and jesus, we went a long way indeed! Back then I used to play Falcon 3, B-17, Aces of the Pacific and, most of all, Red Baron, a game that literally got me bewitched. A 386 and a thick grey polygon used to model clouds, a hp based damage model, a primitive flight model... hehe those were the times. About 12 years have gone by since then and now flight sims got to a whole new level, problem is, I can't quite imagine waht they will be like in, say, 2015 or so... My guess is:

- We won't get photorealistic graphics, not yet. Too soon for that, I guess it will take another 50 years for that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
- FM ENTIRELY based on real time fluidodynamics equations integration, that would be SOOOO beautiful and elegant. Once you have the distributed force system acting on your plane, just pass them on to Newton's mechanical laws, and there you go. No more room for whiners here. This would be the greatest achievement ever for FS, but I'm unsure we'll get enough computing power in just a few years to efficently run such a comples algorithm. Imagine how easy it would be to add another plane to a FS featuring a FM like this: just provide the planes's shape (boundary for our fluidodynamics equations set!), which comes by itself with the plane's 3D model, and then the plane's mass inertias and center of gravity position... that's it. The simplest yet most realistic flight model ever. Too bad we gonna need one hell of a computing power to handle that stuff! But who knows, I think in 10 years we'll get powerful enough PC's!

And now, what is your hope/wish/guess?

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:04 PM
I think that it will be sooner than you think on the fluidodynamics replacing coded FM's. Same for the photorealism that we all want so badly. Computer technology seems to be on the brink of a huge leap in processing power. It's all going to depend on the size of our wallets.

http://nedchristie.freeservers.com/images/nedchristie.senate.jpg

Tsalagi Asgaya Equa!

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:12 PM
I agree with tsisqua. I think we will be further along than we can all hope. As for the FM's, doesn't Xplane have a system similar to this? Plus with breakthroughs in "new" processors I think computers are gonna be screaming in 5 years.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:12 PM
You're far too pessimistic, Garbazz! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Did you ever see Final Fantasy, Shrek, or Toy Story? That's what we'll be playing in less than 5 years, and that is no stretch of the imagination.

The same goes for a real world physics based model. It's only numbers, after all.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0yn9h/notpostcount.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:12 PM
they will be so real that people will loose touch with reality and congress will be forced to bann as they are 'unhealthy'.

If you don't believe me read this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/health/main560372.shtml

everything begins and ends in california.

________________________________________
http://www.angelfire.com/80s/prettypaper/images/Viper.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:22 PM
ziifnab wrote:
- I agree with tsisqua. I think we will be further
- along than we can all hope. As for the FM's, doesn't
- Xplane have a system similar to this? Plus with
- breakthroughs in "new" processors I think computers
- are gonna be screaming in 5 years.
-
-

on my mate im reading about this xplane thing and yes looks like my prophecy turned into reality already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
beautiful, im dl'ing the demo

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:26 PM
garbazzz wrote:
- I think in 10 years we'll get powerful enough PC's!
-

And I will be one of the first in line when they ship belive me/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg <CENTER><Center><div style="width:200;color:F0FFFF;font-size:11pt;filter:glow[color=black,strength=3)">A society flexible enough to stand for everything really stands for nothing </div></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:35 PM
in 10 years my pc will be worth 2 dollars

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://members.cox.net/lallend/KUNG_FU.GIF

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:37 PM
garbazzz wrote:
- And now, what is your hope/wish/guess?

HOPE: That they take the extra processing power and use it with the current (non-fluidodynamics equations) FM and better AI to PUT MORE PLANES IN THE SKY!! If you remember way back when.. There was a sim called EAW. Now the neat thing about EAW was it too forever to come out.. And what was neat about that was the graphics (EYE CANDY) portion was rather dated by the time it finally came out.. So instead of updating the grphics to make use of the extra PC power they simply added more aircraft.. First time I got to see more than 3 or 4 B17s in formation.

WISH: See HOPE! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GUESS: They wont do that.. they will just keep adding more and more detail to the graphics.. or *other* things.. telephone polls, men manning AAA with name tags on thier shirts, etc.. I personlyy could live with the state of IL2 graphics for a long time.. Just put more AC in the air.. but due to the current wave of whinning for all the extra PC cycle steeling eye candy I fear I will never see a formation of 100+ B17s streaking across the sky.


<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion



Message Edited on 08/24/0310:43AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:41 PM
garbazzz wrote:
-
- ziifnab wrote:
-- I agree with tsisqua. I think we will be further
-- along than we can all hope. As for the FM's, doesn't
-- Xplane have a system similar to this? Plus with
-- breakthroughs in "new" processors I think computers
-- are gonna be screaming in 5 years.

Actually it XPLANE is not the first to do it, a flight sim call *FLY* that came out about.. gosh.. 4 or 5 years ago had them.. Now is was only one ac in the air.. and it was not a combat sim.. it was a acrobat flying sim.. But they did do it but back they only had enough processing power to do one ac at a time.



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:58 PM
When they develop a virtual reality hood that is economical, then we will enjoy major breakthroughs in all flight simulators.

Think about just turning your head, stretching your neck or any head and body movement will give visual ability that is very close to realistic. The CFS developers can build the code right now to create the software. Probably take only a few years for outstanding software after the VR headgear is available.

-----------------------------------

An actual moving cockpit will always be expensive, because the equipment needed to physically move the virtual cockpit is mechanical and not much can be improved in the pricing of the hardware components required.

I'm ready for my VR headgear now..LOL

------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:03 PM
nearmiss wrote:
- I'm ready for my VR headgear now..LOL

Next best thing.. TrackIR



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:03 PM
I think "photoreallisticness" is just a matter of perception, and most probably in 10 years real-time pc graphics will be almost as today computer-generated films. But what films will be then? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the other hand, FM will surely be "better", but "real" is a strong word. Since fluid dinamics are the most complex calculations that must be performed by computers, and nowadays are the most time consuming ones, I don't think the "put the shape and go" aproach could be practical in 10 years. There are not so happy opinions about x-plane FM, it's just a good concept, but still far from reality. Tuned FM are for the moment the better aproach, and will be for some time(on a real-time simulation).

Probably an aeoronautical engineer that deal with practical simulations(those that are used on real plane design) could give you an idea of the computing power needed to make those simulations run in real time(ie. each second of "reality" could take hours... days... or even weeks on a today pc)

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:33 PM
i think that flight models will be come more dynamic and the same with damage models but i think little detials will spring up and be sorteed like the canopy sliding back much better animations for stuff on the plane and particle efffects

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:28 PM
just given xplane a try... graphics suck to say the least, still I find the idea behind it fascinating... only thing im slightly concerned about is I managed to dive a 747-400 into a 360 loop lol either this can happen (I dare anybody to find out IRL by himself though) or this fm is suspicious...
who knows?
many thanks for all your replies!

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:30 PM
garbazzz wrote:
-- FM ENTIRELY based on real time fluidodynamics equations integration, that would be SOOOO beautiful and elegant.
[...]
- But who knows, I think in 10 years we'll get powerful
- enough PC's!

Currently for non-real time fluid dynamics calculations
in detail a 512-node beowulf (i.e. 512 PCs) is not
uncommon.

If you use Moore's law as a rule, then the current
PC's won't meet that for another 13 years, so it would
be 13 years (barring any other sudden increases in
computational power) to be able to have detailed
CFD-based flight models, and even then not in real time,
and only for one plane.

I think in 10 years we can expect more detail, but
unless the quantum computing conundrum can be solved,
I think we are a long way from having fine-grained
CFD-based flight models.

Like I said, though, we can expect a lot more detail
than we have now as PCs are likely to be 50 to 100
times more powerful in 10 years than they are today,
and maybe more if new PCs can be used to design the
next PCs in a more synergistic way than they are now.

I think we actually have more chance of getting better
graphics, and VR headsets in the next 10 years.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 11:45 PM
If trends continue at thier current pace I think we will see CGI type graphics in sims and games in general very soon. Look at Madden 2003.... You have to do a double take to see if you are watching a real game. There was a link to a site from Japan that had some P-51s fighting Zeros. I thought I had saved the link but I cant find it. The visuals are stunning. If not fore the close up of the kid you would think you were watching a movie...they were that good. I think we will see this in 5 years or so. Look at the progress in 10 years......we have come a long way. Even if current technology doesnt allow it I think we will have some breakthroughs in the next few years.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:13 AM
they will look like cgi graphics and effects, models will have more then 500,000 polygons and be rendered at realtime.

Or we will all be living like cavemen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:24 AM
The smell of petrol, windsocks on runways, -30 c at 30000ft, being driven to the 7 Sqnd dispersal and the Co telling you that."Its Bremen tonight- a pretty hot target group took a pasting last night bloody fools giving us the same target two nights running".

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:38 AM
In ten years I will be using my 133GHz computer to run 2003 FB with enough aircraft and surface units to sim a real life frontline environment.

Judging from FB and the evolution of the Flanker series, grafix, FM and DM detail will vastly increase to the point that only the Player plane can be in the sim with no processing power left for AI. That is the future of Combat Flight Sim. But at least the FM will be Complete. Interestingly, the more the Grafix, FM, and DM detail, the more the whining. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


-- As aircraft become more expensive, each side will only
-- be able to afford one bomber. If it has a flat tire,
-- a war will not be able to start.
~Bill Gunsten


=================================

*bah* 2015 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 08/25/0312:04AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:16 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:

There was a link to a site from Japan
- that had some P-51s fighting Zeros. I thought I had
- saved the link but I cant find it. The visuals are
- stunning. If not fore the close up of the kid you
- would think you were watching a movie...they were
- that good.

Yeah, they are!

Here's the links:

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1945/1945.mpg

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1942/1942.mpg

http://oliverch.cpgl.net/REQUIEM_705k.wmv


<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:51 AM
SECUDUS wrote:
- Bearcat99 wrote:
-
- There was a link to a site from Japan
-- that had some P-51s fighting Zeros. I thought I had
-- saved the link but I cant find it. The visuals are
-- stunning. If not fore the close up of the kid you
-- would think you were watching a movie...they were
-- that good.
-
- Yeah, they are!
-
- Here's the links:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1945/
- 1945.mpg"
- target=_blank>http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airpla
- ne/1945/1945.mpg</a>
-
-
- <a
- href="http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1942/
- 1942.mpg"
- target=_blank>http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airpla
- ne/1942/1942.mpg</a>
-
-
- <a href="http://oliverch.cpgl.net/REQUIEM_705k.wmv"
- target=_blank>http://oliverch.cpgl.net/REQUIEM_705
- k.wmv</a>
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/
- QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957">
-
- 'Whirlwind Whiner'
-
- The First of the Few

yep, this is probably 5 years from now. u can barely tell that its a game, with perfect models and no sharp edges. the next flight sim, or the one after it will probably have graphics close to this. lockon's graphics come pretty close IMHO.
something that i also hope will be showing up in the near future, if instead of premade damage effects to a plane, a plane will actually fire a projectile. this would mean that u would never ever see the same damage on ur plane, and that if u shoot somewhere u will see a bullet hole in that exact place, unlike todays flight sims where u see damage in the general area.


Message Edited on 08/24/0304:56PM by jj8325

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 03:01 AM
I doubt games will get much more complex or detailed than FB although computer speeds will go through the roof. IL-2 took many years to make and I doubt programmers will put more time into a game than maybe a couple years. To create a game with photorealistic graphics, fliudodynamic FM's, and human-like AI will surely take much too many years to develop (unless there's a huge breakthrough in programming language, which I doubt). Unless the standard price of games is jacked up from $50 to $100, I doubt things will change TOO much. BTW, this is all IMO.


http://home.grics.net/~donovan/lzsymbls.jpg
"Though the course may change sometimes, rivers always reach the sea."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:10 AM
EvilBen wrote:
- I doubt games will get much more complex or detailed
- than FB although computer speeds will go through the
- roof. IL-2 took many years to make and I doubt
- programmers will put more time into a game than
- maybe a couple years. To create a game with
- photorealistic graphics, fliudodynamic FM's, and
- human-like AI will surely take much too many years
- to develop (unless there's a huge breakthrough in
- programming language, which I doubt). Unless the
- standard price of games is jacked up from $50 to
- $100, I doubt things will change TOO much. BTW, this
- is all IMO.
-
-
- http://home.grics.net/~donovan/lzsymbls.jpg
- "Though the course may change sometimes, rivers
- always reach the sea."

i disagree. i cant see flight sims being similar to forgotten battles in 10 years.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:20 AM
garbazzz wrote:

-Imagine how easy it would be to add another plane to a FS featuring a FM like this: just provide the planes's shape (boundary for our fluidodynamics equations set!), which comes by itself with the plane's 3D model, and then the plane's mass inertias and center of gravity position... that's it. The simplest yet most realistic flight model ever.


Not so fast. Even given a high sampling fuidodynamics system and all of Newton's laws we would only reach a certain degree of fidelity since many other very relevant factors will be left to subjective opinion. This would include engine performance, damage model aspects, and still some flight model attributes that are subjective since there are few flyable aircraft to test against.

What we're left with is a tolerance for error that could make using a FD system unnecessary, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. There is a lot of room for improved fidelity and well-researched approximations to get the FM "close enough" for those of us who will never fly the real thing (read: all of us /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

Instead we will be able to add:

1) More planes: necessary for re-creation of historic battles
2) Enhanced landscape geometry: better looking mountains, buildings variety, gulleys and canyons, etc.
3) More dynamic objects: Who wouldn't want to strafe infantry, or a flock of sheep for that matter. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
4) Improved AI: as good as it is now there is room for improvement already once we get some more horsepower. The AI system they used for the hordes in Lord of the Rings comes to mind where each "unit" in a set of hundreds has it's own set of simple decisions in reaction to an outside event. Watch those sheep part before your cannons! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
5) I can hardly believe how nice the weather/clouds/time of day effects already are in FB but there is vast room for visual improvement. Improved clouds will add to the tactical possibilities even.
6) Hardware: Mentioned earlier are VR helmets. With advances in "fold-able" organic LED displays this may be closer than you think. Imagine a 120 degree high-res LED visor with a motion sensitive sensor similar to that used in "tilt" controllers, to relay your head position. For now, TrackIR works like a dream but the next version or the one after will be able to detect Z axis as well to let us lean a few degrees in our virtual cockpits to see over that pesky 190 strut bar. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Things are heating up for some great simming and mass ensuing divorce proceedings over the next ten years!





<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:16 AM
Here is what I want:

Random mechanical failures. Not just combat realted. Purely randomn. This can range from minor inconveniences to catastrophic failures. Ex: runaway propellers, hydrolic failure, oxygen supply failure, external fuel tanks and bombs getting hung up,etc.

I want every gauge and switch in a cockpit to be functional.

I want people to have to fly "properly". you know... let the oil warm up before you gun the engine, check the magnetos, etc...

Better communication with AI. IL2 is the best at this.

I think that communications between players is one the biggest areas of development. More multi-crew planes with enhaced communications between crew.

More airplanes.

It would be fun to play online at once with 1000+ people all inhabitting the same "universe". Kind of like Battlefield 1942 but more realistic and with many many many more players.


I am actually quite happy with the current state of graphics. I wish the colors were less "cartoon-ish", but that is all.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:22 AM
PriK wrote:
4) Improved AI: as good as it is now there is room for improvement already once we get some more horsepower.

Don't let them trick you about this. DOS Flanker 1.0 could get 80+ AI aircraft with a 133Mhz Pentium. And while there was less overall AI routines in general, the Flanker guns-only dogfight AI was to me more a challeng than FB. Here in FB the AI runs away half the time and if not, all you gotta do is a gentle bank and the AI waste all ammmo. That never happened in Flanker x.y

Flanker 1.0 :: 80+ AI before frame stutter on 133MHz Pentium.

FB 1.1b :: 30+ AI before frame stutter on Athlon 1700+ (about 1400MHz)

Somebody here *please* tell me nothing is going badly wrong here.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:33 AM
Of course I will regret posting all that crap. Nothing is as fun as using Oleg's FMs. But mostly I will wait a few years before I can sim Eastern Front properly with FB, as the more aircraft you can sim at one time, the less the often (but ~not~ always) corny AI behavior is apparent.

One thing I do like is Oleg actually uses vertical distance in calculating the distance between aircraft. I had a flight of Fw190s at 8km and Yak~1s at 500m and they never saw each other. I set the FWs at 7km, and they dove on the Yaks....straight into the ocean. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They say AMD's new 64bit chip will run fast 32bit code native. So my Next Sim may very well be FB in a few years.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:09 PM
I can't comment on Flanker but I suspect the AI was vastly simpler in that it used "tricks" like predicting where you will be by extrapolating joystick input and such the like. FB uses this method as well, especially for keeping your flight wing together but there is much more going on.

I sympathize with you on the number of possible aircraft in one theatre though. I would love to dive into the midst of 100+ bombers, picking out the loosest formation with 100's of gunners filling the sky with lead, but it may have to wait a year or two if we want to keep the same level of AI we have today.

cheers



<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:40 PM
I say the next major advance is the vr helmet.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:43 PM
Mmmm... I haven't finished watching those, but does anyone think maybe we ought not to let our japanese minions make games about ww2? They might make out like they were the good guys.

That first one, Well, the mustanges won, but it looked like they were chasing a lil kid when it started.

Message Edited on 08/25/0303:45PM by GreySaber14

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:00 PM
Whre are these films from? are they a new game or just demo's for graphics etc? They look fantastic!!!! I WANT NOW!

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:06 PM
GreySaber14 wrote:
- Mmmm... I haven't finished watching those, but does
- anyone think maybe we ought not to let our japanese
- minions make games about ww2? They might make out
- like they were the good guys.


"Let our Japanese minions?" You must be a kid........That and the rest of your post sounds as silly as the whole "Oleg intentionally made VVS planes better.." foolishness. Since Japan is a soverign nation and they already make excellent games I dont see how we could stop them. As far as good guys bad guys goes......who are the "good" guys and who are the "bad" guys in FB? Historically we all know the answer to the question and even then it is relative. There were no doubt German soldiers and airmen etc. who wanted nothinfg more than to go home and live out the rest of thier lives just like us. For sim purposes I think we all know who the bad guys are......the other guys whoever they may be.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 05:55 PM
Quite frankly, I think you guys are underestimating hardware in some areas, and overestimating it in others. True to life, real flight models don't come cheap. Even the fluidodynamic equations are ment for only laminar flow, and any kind of turbulence would eally throw your equations off. The only proper equations to use are the Navier-Stokes equations, and good luck getting computers to approximate solutions inside of ten years. I think it'd be more realistic to continue using pre-calculated approximations to the solutions of the fluidodynamic equations for the next ten years. Developers could definately work on the quality of the approximations, increasing the number of steps used. I'd really love to see AI fly by the same flight models as we use. AI intellegence could also be given a few bumps in the next ten years. What's really cool on the hardware side, is that we may see multi-cored processors instead of the current hyperthreaded CPUs. Intel already has plans to release CPUs capable of hadling more than two threads with the Tejas core, the successor to the Prescott core comming out in the third quarter.
As far as graphics go, I think VR visors/helmets are just a matter of demand. They already have the technology to make lightweight VR visors, it's just a metter of waiting until the market becomes large enough to make them profitable. One big leap might occur with the next incarnation of Windows, Longhorn. It's supposed to sport a 3-D desktop envirnment, so I figure it'll be easier and faster to usewith a glove and visor combination as opposed to a monitor and mouse combination. The next generation of video cards from NVidia (NV40) and ATI (R420) are supposed to run at roughly twice the speed of the NV35, R350 generation of cards, meaning we'll get a large bump in the actual graphics come Oleg's next sim. As far as graphics go, some changes I'd love to see are
a) More realistic looking smoke, more like the dust kicked up by the aircraft while on the ground.
b)All trails in the game right now begin and end with edges, for example the tracer trails. I wann see these made to look nicer.
c)I want them to replace the annoying polygonal lens flare with a nice round lens flare, like the one in Photoshop.
d)I want them to put a nice thick ring of trees around the forests at the edges. The current forests look ugly. Oh! And I want a progressive weather system and also a progresssive daylight/night system. A year round weather system would also be really cool.

I guess I'm thinking short term, but in terms of what to expect in 10 years, I do expect photorealistic graphics, atleast on the large scale. Small features like grass etc... may still look computer generated to save processing power, but the terrain itself should look marvelous. Also, I want stones! I don't want to be able to put my bird down just anywhere! I also want to be able to shoot the trees down before landing, to clear myself a path, or collide with them and rip my wings off.

As far as damage modelling goes, look at Doom 3. They use a per-polygon damage modelling system already, so I guess we'll have that kind of DM inside of two years. What I'd really like is a cockpit in which everything works. I want to have to inspect the control surfaces prior to take off, and have to warm up my engine and follow the exact procedures listed in the original Finnish Bf109 G-2 manual. That seems to be it for now. I'll post again if I tink of something more.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:19 PM
Hope there's no bugs in future FS or others games.

Lt.Davis

http://www.angelfire.com/hero/apvg/tigerlogo01.jpg


**Speed is the KEY**

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:44 PM
PriK wrote:

- 2) Enhanced landscape geometry: better looking
- mountains, buildings variety, gulleys and canyons,
- etc.

I'm hoping the landscape will look atleast something like the shots below:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bianco/3D/Ter162.jpg

http://haunter.student.utwente.nl/Terrarevolution/contest/Terracon/tumbnails/2003/April/694-33.jpg

http://haunter.student.utwente.nl/Terrarevolution/contest/Terracon/tumbnails/2003/April/723-61.jpg

- 3) More dynamic objects: Who wouldn't want to strafe
- infantry, or a flock of sheep for that matter.

Yes! Exploding sheep hehehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Even cooler would be flocks of birds. Bird strikes when you're climbing out from a runway should be fun.


<center>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td>
http://matasoft.com/il2/propane.jpg
</td></tr>
<tr><td align=right>-=905 drones=- air_malik</td></tr></table>
</center></span></blockquote></font></td></tr>
</table></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:19 PM
well still be waiting for the first patch fix /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



http://mysite.freeserve.com/IL2_Skins/il2/Coming_Soon.jpg


Message Edited on 08/25/0306:20PM by Taylortony

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:51 PM
I hope for even better lighting (eg cockpit glint) and real time weather. Also hope for terrain good down low and high up.

Also more planes in the sky and fully functional cockpits and believable AI all the time.

However we will surely get more eye candy, but I´m not sure if other things, eg campaign engines, will get developed so strong.



@Greysaber14: In early 1945, south western germany my mom aged seven on the hand of her mum was chased by a fighter bomber with white stars on it...

This is not to say all ground attack pilots were that way.
But show me an army, any army, which has not it´s share of brutal aholes in it ...

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 08:15 PM
i dunno how the other sims will be like, but i hope the next FB patch will be out then. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:49 AM
soverien nation, yeah, that's why we keep the huge military base there and also in germany, and forbid the japanese anything more then a minor home defence force, let along a real military.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:54 AM
air_malik wrote:
- PriK wrote:
-
-- 2) Enhanced landscape geometry: better looking
-- mountains, buildings variety, gulleys and canyons,
-- etc.
-
- I'm hoping the landscape will look atleast something
- like the shots below:

Personally I would trade all that ground detail for a formation of 50+ (perfer 100+) B17s any day of the week!



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:00 AM
-- Small features like grass etc...
-- may still look computer generated to save processing power,...

Lawn Mower Sim. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am not interested in a 100+ formation of bombers, but a frontline air war environment that extends beyond what you can see out of your cockpit, or beyond the waypoints that are set for you. Reading that diary translated by crazyivan you get the impression by far most missions were about 6-12 aircraft sometimes with escorts, often not.

We can sim that now, but if you deviate from your waypoint--get *really* lost like 50km off course, you are out of the FB air war environment because the few aircraft FB can handle must be concentrated along your pre-planned route or you never see them. What I'd like to see is say...get lost 30km off course, and run into enemy fighters far from home. But that would assume an air war unfolding far beyond your route.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:18 AM
there will be no such thing as pixels, you will have infinite zoom till you see the individual parts of the atoms...mabye not :P

http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/griffon.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:22 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Lawn Mower Sim.

I wonder sometimes..

- I am not interested in a 100+ formation of bombers,
- but a frontline air war environment that extends
- beyond what you can see out of your cockpit, or
- beyond the waypoints that are set for you.

Actually you and I are on the same sheet of music. The ability to simulate 100 bombers in a formation.. OR 100 aircraft out and about.. That is what I want, and Ill take it over that photo reaistic stuff they have been posting ANY day.. It's a flight sim for god sake! If you want to bail out and have door knobs to turn on those buildings down there.. GO PLAY a first person shooter! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Reading that diary translated by crazyivan you get
- the impression by far most missions were about 6-12
- aircraft sometimes with escorts, often not.

On the russian front.. But large formations of bombers where very normal on the western front.. But that is realy NOT my point.. My POINT is that in 10 years I hope they use some of that processing power to put MORE aircraft up in the sky instead of more detail in the way it looks.. EAW was a good example of that.

- We can sim that now,

True.. but can you simulate 10 groups of 10 planes along the battle front? i.e. 100 aircraft up all at once? Can you say slide show? BUT.. if you took the graphics from just 2 years ago.. or 3, ie the likes of EAW imagine how many aircraft you could put into the sky with the new vid cards! Now the AI would still have to be done on the PC.. but in the last 3 years I think it could handle it? Not sure though... my GUESS is AI could/should take more PC power than the flight models!! Just a guess!

- but if you deviate from your waypoint--get *really*
- lost like 50km off course, you are out of the FB air
- war environment because the few aircraft FB can
- handle must be concentrated along your pre-planned
- route or you never see them.

There is a new setting in the ini file that you can set that will increase the random activity.

- What I'd like to see is say...get
- lost 30km off course, and run into enemy fighters
- far from home. But that would assume an air war
- unfolding far beyond your route.

Im for that! Ill take that over photo realistic ground detail too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Flight First.. Ground Second! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:32 AM
You might try Bob. (Battle of Britian) that came out awhile back. it had very large formations. I don't think it had a hunderd, but I think it had atleast 50.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 07:03 AM
Fluid dynamics for the flight model would be a waste of good processing time. Better to improve the flight characteristic tables with that power and then input those tables into the game so that the computer won't have to re-invent the FM on each flight. You don't want to be calculating the airflow over each part of the wing each time you fly....leave that for the NASA engineers. Just use the known effects of flight angle vs speed vs altitude, etc precalculated and inserted into the characterstics for each aircraft and leave the more important true variables to the computer.
Leave the processing power to making the computer managed planes smarter so they don't dive into the ground, fly through hills on clear days and some of the other things they do since they do not have a smart pilot determined to make it home safe like the user's plane does.
It would be much like the Computers that "play" chess against human opponents today. All they can do is use the same "table" technic the current FM uses. The computer calculates a move vs the current boards situation and does the same each and every time a change occurs on the board.
The best ones don't choose the same move even if the game is played by you in the same way each time. That is what the flight sim games need. (no I am not a chess player...sorry chess fans...)
In the future you won't even have to model the weather as the computer will simply input the current weather conditions in your home town downloaded from the local TV station's radar (the Local Live Weather option).
You can just input weather conditions from anywhere in the world and fly in truly unpredictable conditions!!


jba

The difficulty of making something fool proof is that fools are so da** creative. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 07:30 AM
GreySaber14 wrote:
- You might try Bob. (Battle of Britian) that came out
- awhile back. it had very large formations. I don't
- think it had a hunderd, but I think it had atleast
- 50.

Good Call! I forgot that one!! I loved the Jet sim they did... Mig Alley.. I bought BoB when it first came out.. But I cant remember what it was that kept me from playing it? I think I had a vid card problem, or my rig was not up to the task... Then I got into IL2 and forgot about it.. I should re-install it.. been seing that web sight that is doing new stuff with it... Thanks for the reminder! That is a better and more resent example than EAW



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 08:46 AM
Applying to the AI what has already been applied in many other real world applications:
learning routines.
Let the AI really start out as a rookie and learn to fly. Save different levels of the AI learning curve and have them be the AI SKill settings.
Then one day, an AI ace will really fly like an Ace pilot.


<img src=http://www.simops.com/graphics/wildcard.gif>

IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:25 AM
@tagert and any others:

Check out the unofficial patches as the BoB code was given to the community by Rowan. BoB today looks and feels wholly different to what was in the box in december 2000 and I´m sure all video card problems were overcome.

There´s a new exe called 0.96 and an art work pack called 1.3 to download. Work still continues and in the next new exe there will be a reworked weather engine.

www.bob-ma.org (http://www.bob-ma.org)


And it has SEVERAL hundred planes in the air if you choose one of the "hottest" days, eg Adlertag.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:35 PM
We'll have artificial reality directly switched on our heads, just like in Matrix. The Koreans will win all the combats, since the helmets will be all Made in Korea. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:24 PM
air_malik wrote:

- I'm hoping the landscape will look atleast something
- like the shots below:
-
- http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bianco/3D/Ter162.jpg
-
- <img
- src="http://haunter.student.utwente.nl/Terrarevolu
- tion/contest/Terracon/tumbnails/2003/April/694-33.
- jpg">
-
- <img
- src="http://haunter.student.utwente.nl/Terrarevolu
- tion/contest/Terracon/tumbnails/2003/April/723-61.
- jpg">
-

Do not tease. You are a cruel, cruel man.



<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:20 PM
Here's another short video done with a 3D graphics program.
It shows Stukas attacking Narvik and being jumped by a pair of Hurricanes. You can see some CGI artifacts, but it was made with a relatively inexpensive program called trueSpace (www.caligari.com) (http://www.caligari.com)). Just click on the winner for the May 2003 animation contest.

http://www.caligari.com/Gallery/Animations/2003/may03/default.asp?Cate=GAnimations


http://home.no.net/~benchrs/chase2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:21 PM
I think they'll be much like they are today, which is pretty much what they were like ten years ago...

First, there will be improvements to FM/DM's, based on calculations that set physical "rules" for the virtual world, tweaked by aircraft (as in FB - there are no tables as in the CFS series, but a different approach), but not very much different than it is now. It's only a matter of incremental improvements.

Second, "ultra realistic" aircraft are not good sellers. Sure, some would like to sit on an airstrip for fifteen or thirty minutes waiting on the oil to warm or working some manditory checklist, but the vast majority of folks out there don't. So what you'd have to do is make it a "realism" setting that few would use - a waste of time and money for developer.

Likewise for random mechanical failures. Yes, it's realistic to work through a checklist and engine warming routine for forty minutes only to have to return to the airfield immediately after takeoff due to a busted hose, but it makes for poor simming. Flight simulations are supposed to be entertainment first - who would think that was entertaining?

Third, graphics and interactives will improve, just as they have. In particular draw distance will get better, allowing you to see more at a further distance. The key to this won't involve the computer nearly as much as it will improvements in monitors. Right now it's still a finite number of pixels that can be displayed, which are difficult to split down. Imagine a monitor with pixels 1/8th of the size they are now on a screen - and the resolutions that can be used at that point. Indeed, it may wind up to where plasma technology comes into it's own and does away with the present concept of the pixel entirely.

Fourth, AI will become branched and more individual for the enemy we'll face. FB, for example, has one AI for all aircraft which is programmed to do different things in certain situations. That's why we have 190's turn fighting down low and bombers doing barrel rolls. In the future, with more computing power, we'll see a bomber AI, a BnZ plane AI, a TnB AI, tailored to side and based on doctrine historical for each side. Careful what you ask for, though, as you may see Germans simply refusing to engage your Yak below 3,000 meters, and giving you a miss. The AI won't get higher in skill, though, only better at letting you think it's better. Sims are designed to allow you to be the Great Ace of the Sky, not cannon fodder in a hyper-realistic war. We also ALWAYS encounter the enemy!

I also think we'll see fewer aircraft modeled in one sim. The computing power will be used to get one aircraft accurate to the Nth degree with what it fought against in a particular setting also modeled to that fidelity. The battles may involve more aircraft, but they'll be fewer in diversity.

FB is a perfect example of why putting so many aircraft in one sim is a mistake on the developer's part. With such a diversity of aircraft, they are bound to have some inaccuracies with some of them. The FW-190 wasn't originally going to be made a flyable in IL-2 - I'm sure Oleg regrets the decision to make it so, based on the amount of grief it's caused him, including personal insults.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:27 PM
Nearmiss beat me to it.

I think virtual 3D could be in the realm of possibilities. Something where your actually IN the plane, not just looking at the monitor. It may only be on a small scale in ten years, but just think what it will be like when we're all as old as BuZZ~!!!

Ba-dum-bump~!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



SURLYbirch <center>KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
This sig is under 30 K's
http://surlybirch.tripod.com/mudbar.txt </center>
<left>"Show me a hero and I'll prove he's a bum."
- Pappy Boyington</left>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:35 PM
Docjonel wrote:
- Here's another short video done with a 3D graphics
- program.
- It shows Stukas attacking Narvik and being jumped by
- a pair of Hurricanes. You can see some CGI
- artifacts, but it was made with a relatively
- inexpensive program called trueSpace
- (www.caligari.com) (http://www.caligari.com)). Just click on the winner for the
- May 2003 animation contest.

hmmmmm I dl the *.avi but.. my viewer didnt display it.. I can hear the sound, but no image.. Is there an add on req to view it?



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:01 PM
All very optimistic. But you are all assuming that the hardcore sim market still exists.

It is a niche market with some very difficult clients.

As computing power goes up exponentially, so does the development effort required to achieve photo-realism & dynamic FMs.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 07:06 PM
i dont like the idea of having to sit on the runway for 30 minutes for the engine to get ready for flight, but i would like a lil more complex engine start sequence instead of just pressing i. and about failures to the plane, i would also like this to a limited extent. maybe guns jam in high G turns, or planes that are known as having unreliable engines(ie he-162, early b-29s) could have an option for engine failure in the realism settings. the engine failure could happen to all planes just some more often than others. i know lockon will have a setting where u can make random failures to ur plane, so why not FB?

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 09:29 PM
- And now, what is your hope/wish/guess?

I think it will be better! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/787392.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 04:49 AM
fjuff79 wrote:
-
-
-- And now, what is your hope/wish/guess?
-
- I think it will be better!
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/787392.1.jpg </center>

Those night missions are the best, Nothing like fighting in the MOON light




<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:37 AM
Tagert,

No, no add-on should be necessary to view it. I see it fine using Windows Media Player 9 and DivX Player 2.1
Try downloading it again and see if you can get it to play properly.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:57 AM
jj 8325, FB DOES have this. The guns do jamm in hi-g turns from time to time. Especially the machine guns. And the Bf-109 G models, about one in five has a faulty engine on take off.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:00 AM
Tagert, Bob had a major issue with crashing due to resolution size. It could only display it's menu screens in one or two resolutions, and when you switched to the game from the menus and back, it would often crash if you desk top setting was incorrect.

Once you set you desktop to whatever size it was, it worked fine.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:44 AM
hi,
..interactive 3D systems in high resolution...

depends on supply and demand + pricing

either on 3D Desktops..or by 3Dbeamers ..or Vhelmets...to the consumer market

..dynamic motion systems are possible and payable to hardcore players...

modern combat sims with advanced speech control...

the basic desktop hardware system that we have today.. his time is up..

prospectively we will have modular systems combined to different multimedia applications...

laserbased 3D design is the basic to historic correct cockpit design and to different view coordination ..

the evolution of high advanced FM takes more time...because the natural background is more complex to calculate...

..we need a lot of terrabits

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:51 AM
VR helmet...yea baby. That would be the ultimate up grade.
Programers are at the mercy of hard ware developers really.
The technology is out there in regards to cpu and vid cards but my geusse is they are stalling its release to the general public.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 08:39 AM
hi.

correction..

we need 'terraflops' from the view of today !
-


re to..

-- the evolution of high advanced FM takes more
- time...because the natural background is more
- complex to calculate...
-
- ..we need a lot of terrabits

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 12:28 AM
tagert wrote:
- Actually it XPLANE is not the first to do it, a
- flight sim call *FLY* that came out about.. gosh.. 4
- or 5 years ago had them.. Now is was only one ac in
- the air.. and it was not a combat sim.. it was a
- acrobat flying sim.. But they did do it but back
- they only had enough processing power to do one ac
- at a time.

Heh, I remember messing around with Fly2 it was I think, and before I was really into flight sims. And even then it was just after 9/11 which gave me cold shivers when flying around NY city.

The manual was the biggest I've seen for any game/sim software since, although I haven't even bothered with the CFS series since that would be a bit redundant already owning the better of the two in FB. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg