Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Simulator FlightGear Releases v2.4
mikejuk writes "The latest version of FlightGear, 2.4, has just been released — and it has some significant improvements. Now it simulates weather so that you can ride the up draft from a range of hills and seek out thermals — but watch out for the simulated fog! For the future the implementation of an HLA interface means that you can build clusters of interacting simulators and perhaps even work with commercial flight simulators." The FlightGear website has gotten a long-deserved upgrade, too.
I thought Jack Thompson proved flight simulators caused 9/11.
How irresponsible!
I was watching the video full screen at 720p and noticed quite a lot of weird artifacts to do with the Harrier model. Displays from the HUD were bouncing around outside of the HUD extents, and at one point I thought I saw some huge gaps in the body. So I suppose I have to question where this was coming in. Is it the plane model, Flight Gear itself, or the hardware that created the render?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
watch out for the simulated fog
Wouldn't that just be "fog"...'cause the whole thing's a simulation...
As the years go on, FlightGear gets better and better. I remember when it resembled, graphically, FS95 / FS98 years ago, now it looks so much more realistic, etc... if only they'd fix the damned taxiway textures so turnoffs looked right. That's one thing that never changed in all these years.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Can I fly across Mars now? It'd be cool if they could integrate the NASA(?) maps...
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Flightgear's weak point was always its usability. Weird proprietary interfaces, be it menus, keyboard inputs, or control system, with little help or even information scent to help you take off or let you explore common options. For example it has always been easier to adjust HUD configuration than it has been to even change to a different aircraft. Lots of tempting screenshots and videos around the net, but very little in the way of guidance as to how to get there.
...what?
OK, I presume the slashdot editor that posted this ADDED the link to the actual website - for which we're grateful - but why even bother to include the original submitter's link to (presumably his own) blog?
-Styopa
What about collision detection? One of the most challenging things about flying is trying to land without killing yourself. Not having collision detection makes FlightGear only a partial simulator.
I hope they have this bug fixed. Realism is being able to fly into buildings (no matter how politically incorrect that now is).
at least in my opinion, way to go flight gear team. good job by curt and team :-)
How does it stack up against X-Plane or MS Flight Sim?
Does it support things like the Saitek Pro Flight Yoke, Pedals and switch panels?
The "features" page doesn't really cover stuff like that.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Microsoft doesn't even make Flight Simulator anymore.
It still is worth every penny you don't have to pay for it.
Also, when you can do better, I'm sure they appreciate the help.
Someone commented on the wrong article :P He's probably meaning to comment on the Apple-bike-run-whatever article.
-- Linux user #369862
I think that was meant to go to Apple (1up) :D
I have tried them all and except for IFR (and that is not even that good, but passable, barely ) practice they do a poor job.
And yes, I am a pilot.
I have yet to use one that accurately reflects the maneuvering and performance of a real airplane, not even a Cessna 152 much less a hi performance prop plane like a Mooney or a Bonanza.
I think the basic problem is they but way to much work into "pretty" and not enough work into actual flight dynamics. I will admit that it is hard work to accurately capture that data and for how far they have come they deserve a great deal of credit but they all end being way to much like a video game. Perhaps placing a 4 axis set of accelerometers, control position and rate of control input senors, and engine sensors and recording that data while a plane does maneuvers would help. If someone could come up with the equipment I would be happy to burn a few hours in the air doing all the basic stuff and a few things close to the edge of the envelope to help them work on that particular problem.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Uh, yes they do.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/
Uh, no they don't. The new "Flight" product is apparently written from scratch and doesn't use the add-ons of the old Flight Simulator.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Isn't MS Flight Sim less a flight sim and more of a flying game? From what I've read, they've dumbed down the physics and plane models, and put more effort into graphics. Is this not true? (If so, can you cite some unbiased sources? That'd be great. I'd rather have some accurate information than some crap on the internet.)
A bit off topic, but something that may have broad interest... I'm not at all a hard-core gamer, but gleefully recall being a little kid playing F/A-18 Interceptor and messing around: learning to land on the carrier, and going off-mission to shoot at buildings and do tricks like fly under and around the Golden Gate bridge.
I would love an Oblivion-style open world game where you fly various modern planes and fighter jets and can go off the primary mission to tackle side quests or just mess around. Even better if it's on Earth with some reasonable combination of 3D geometry and satellite imagery.
It would also be nice for the capabilities of the planes and fighter jets to resemble their real-world counterparts, but I care 0% about having the act of flying the plane itself be anything like the real world; simple game-like controls would be fine. Oh, and while I'm at it, ideally it's a modern game with good graphics.
Does anything like this exist? I've played various demos of flying-related games on my PC and XBox 360 and nothing has really clicked.
I can't figure out how to take off in fg. I've read all the docs and howtos and still can't do it
Are graphics of a real-life activity somehow not at all important for a computer simulation to fully, you know, simulate that activity?
You can have the most amazing physics and weather simulation capabilities around, but if the cars in a racing simulation sound like they're being generated by the PC speaker and the graphics look like Pole Position or something, I think that would be pretty damn pathetic now in 2011. IMO, while graphics are not absolutely critical in a simulation, better graphics can only improve the overall feel of the simulation.
To be fair, you also mentioned "dumbing down" the physics and plane models. I'm not exactly a pilot myself so I can't say how realistic it really is, but I do know that the game is totally full of assists and handicaps that are on by default, but can be turned off. I tend to leave many of them on myself, but I want to have fun and relax for a while--not get pissed off and quit in five minutes. So I guess there's the "game vs. simulation" aspect. I prefer game, so I don't turn every assist off (although in a racing game I most certainly do--except for the automatic transmission).
Also, it helps to have things to actually *do* in a simulation, so you don't get bored too easily. Adding objectives might make it more game-like in that you're trying to achieve something, but if you don't like the idea of them don't use them. I don't; I just choose a place to start and go on a peaceful flight wherever the hell I want for a half-hour or so.
I wonder if it's possible to get realistic ground mapping based on OpenStreetMap data.
Furries make the internet go.
Here's what's really needed: Wearable video glasses tied to the Kinect or the Wii positioning system so the pilot can "look out" of the plane just by moving his head.