Flight sims 10 years from now?

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

The arrival of Oculus Rift has made me start thinking about this again, I was wondering where you think flight sims will be in 10 years time?

 

looking back 10 years i dont think we have come that far, things have improved yes, but not as far as i thought they would have when i was playing IL2 back then and thinking of future flight sims.

 

I hope and think  in 10 years we will have a version of VR, i dont know if it will look or work like OR but i think that's the way things will go.

 

What are your thoughts?

Edited August 31, 2013 by Furbs

[Dieter_Schlueter]

The evolution can be very fast. I heard next generation tv ( ultra HD) will allow 3d effect thanks it high resolution without glasses. I think Occulus Rift could be out of mode in a relative short time.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

My only hope is that there will still be a market.

[flyingblind]

I have the feeling that even now, let alone in 10 years the limiting factor to a good sim is no longer the hardware but the cost of developing the code that can fully utilise it especially for more niche markets. I have seen it suggested that this will become a problem for the next generation of consoles as well.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

10 years ago I was flying, among other things,  Il2.

 

Now I am flying Il2-Cliffs of Dover and have pre ordered Il2-Battle of Stalingrad.

 

Hopefully in 10 years time I'll be flying Il2-?????

 

Technology changes all the time and there are some very interesting technologies on the horizon. Interesting times ahead!

 

Cheers

[=LD=Hethwill]

Computation power for home use is way more powerful than 10 years ago. Calculations of physics ( essential for simulation ) are way more ahead than they were 10 years ago, no ?

 

Of course the visuals are important and "make believe" eye candy must be supported by good physics engine.

 

10 years from now is hard to say, but won't change a lot. The VR things are fine but only and ONLY when you can be oblivious from your space and surroundings.

[whatnot]

With near photo-realistic graphics, HOTAS systems + rudders and HD VR goggles becoming just around the corner, I think the next quantum leap we'll see (or atleast I'd like to see) is 3dof cockpit (well basically a chair with 4-point belts). We have some systems in the market already, but they're quite clumsy and/or expensive. But with VR goggles like Oculus Rift giving the possibility of getting rid of the big screens it should enable making the thing smaller with more attractive price. There are already some prototypes that look quite promising but tough to find anything commercially available that wouldn't cost a billion.

 

These would probably not be mass market products, but hey.. a lot of us spend 600$ on controllers already so given the immersion this would bring to the game when combined with Oculus, I'd be quite ready to throw money on one!

[MackStones]

10 years ago I was flying, among other things,  Il2.

 

Same here.  I got it the first week it came out.  I started flying flight sims about 28 years ago, by my count.  

 

Technology is improving; I can now play a flight game on my phone that has 50-times better graphics and gameplay than the ones I flew the first 5 or so years (ha ha).  

[BeastyBaiter]

Graphics, sound and physics will improve. I don't expect anything incredibly different however. The biggest change will probably be the widespread use of 3d monitors and/or VR headsets. Both exist today and aren't freakishly expensive but they aren't part of standard gaming setups just yet. In regards to development costs, I expect the gaming industry as a whole will adopt some standardization to reduce costs. We already see this with things like the CRY engines being used for more than just the Far Cry series and I expect that model of using a standardized engine across many games will spread.

[TheBlackPenguin]

We'll be flying 1C/777 Korean War theatre, Sabre's, Mig 15's mixed in with an assortment of other jets and props, this may actually be within 5 years. Il2 series WW2 will still be flourishing, ROF will still be played, and still gets the occasional update. As long as something is played and still brings in money I see no reason why development would cease. You could start the morning on a day off flying WW1, WW2 by mid-day and then Korea in the afternoon. Yes I am being optimistic.

 

Occulus Rift and others of its type will be quite common place, much like TrackIR however this (TrackIR) is still in use for various reasons along with those who still use the hat switch on a joystick to pan around with. Perhaps even a 3D monitor, glasses and TrackIR for a potentially cheaper version of OR.

 

We'll see .

[Laser]

The "Battle of the Flight Models" will continue, that's a given i think.

[Finkeren]

I don't think the flight sim genre is that much different in terms of lack of significant progress. FPS' have IMHO ground down to a complete standstill in the last 5 - 6 years with only small improvements in graphics, size and complexity of maps/worlds and AI. That doesn't mean there aren't still good games being made out there, but the time of quantum leaps in quality and gameplay is over, and the genre has pretty much defined itself so well, that there is little room for significant innovation.

 

Flight sims, on the other hand, are just starting to move into a phase, where thechnological limitations aren't the biggest obstacle anymore. If we as a community can manage to keep the genre alive by paying a good deal more than you would for a more "casual" game (flight sims are after all extremely complicated to make, and hard to sell millions of copies of) then I think that flight sims still have the future ahead of them.

 

I honestly hope (and halfway expect) that the biggest improvements for the CFS-genre will be in AI. As good as modern flight sims look, and as realistically they behave physics-wise, the AI is lagging behind, and is not even close to being realistic, to the detriment of those of us, who enjoy an immersive career/campaign over an online dogfight with other human players.

[leitmotiv]

don't expect much, just hope will not go backwards

[FuriousMeow]

I hope the genre will still exist.

 

And not only titles like War Thunder.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think, if anything, flight sims will probably have taken a side step rather than a leap forward.

 

I think the next advance will be brought about by devices such as the Oculus, it may not be the Oculus, but devices like it. 

 

Two reasons for this;

 

1: I think scenery has become increasingly busy in the last few years and it's now starting to obscure rather than enhance. 

 

2:  I think 3D will resolve this by providing depth perception, the trouble with 3D is it only really works if it envelops your view, which is why, generally, it fails, because viewing it on a TV or monitor doesn't  work that well.  As initial reports have stated, devices such as the Oculus put you in the cockpit, rather than just looking through a window at it.   There is obviously a downside though and that is it needs a high frame rate to work effectively.  That is where the excess computing power will go in the next 10 years, so I don't expect to see any great advances to the games per say but at the same time I think the level of immersion will be revolutionized.

[Trooper117]

If OR is the 'second coming' as some kepp boosting it up to be in 10 yrs, I'll eat my flippin flight helmet (official)

[ACG_Kraut]

Here is an interview with one of the Rift devs, nothing confirmed, but he seems to hint that the consumer version may be higher res than 1080p.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs7-l728Y8M

 

This would be a godsend for us simmers, who need the highest res possible. Could you imagine any sim in a 4K resolution Rift??? Nerdgasm.

Edited September 1, 2013 by [AKA]Kraut

[JG27_Chivas]

After hearing that there is still  a screendoor effect with the HD prototype, I think the consumer version will have to be higher than 1080P.  Also the refresh rate of the screen will have to be very high.   The type of displays they will need are now being developed for the smartphone industry, etc. so there is a good chance they could find the right fit.   If not the demand for the Rift will be high enough to have the display built especially for the Rift.  Samsung is currently building curved OLED screens for the 2014 market, which could be any option for the Rift.

 

Flexible OLED Displays Set for Big Market Growth in 2014, Samsung Leading Charge

 

http://hothardware.com/News/Flexible-OLED-Displays-Set-for-Big-Market-Growth-in-2014-Samsung-Leading-Charge/

 

The development team has more than a few issues that will have to be addressed before the consumer release.  The display one of the most important. They have some of the best minds in the business on the development team, so I'm optimistic.   They seem to have already addressed the  latency issues for positional headtracking. 

 

VR has been tried unsuccessfully before, but now the smartphone industry has lead the way, providing the parts required for a decent VR system.  Now we just need a very talented developer to adust and fine tune those parts into a very immersive VR experience.   The Oculus Rift development team has the talent to do just that..

[JG27_Chivas]

If OR is the 'second coming' as some kepp boosting it up to be in 10 yrs, I'll eat my flippin flight helmet (official)

 

I hope you an the old leather helmet, it would be much easier to digest.

 

I do agree that the resolution will have be much higher than 1080P to be any good for completive combat flight simming.  Maybe 1080P per eye might work.   Otherwise we would never be able to spot the enemy dots.  Although it would probably just fine for civilian flight sims, race sims, etc.   I think possible demand by military/medical industries would require a high resolution model so it bodes well that they will be available, in the consumer version or multiple consumer versions.

[FuriousMeow]

You guys are missing the biggest factor: Income.

 

We've seen technology capabilities increase exponentially since 1990. We've also seen certain gaming genres explode. One that isn't even released has a 16mil budget, that's crazy.

 

And here this genre sits, falling apart, needing money and just trying to make ends meet. This isn't a money maker, that's why planes are sold individually for RoF - and that's why the highly detailed aircraft for DCS are $50 on release.

 

It takes a lot of energy, effort and research(!!!) to create these things and that is a lot of money - and "simmers" aren't easy going either on their demands, it isn't fantasy where they can just make crap up and bam! space "sim"! So when people sit here and complain about the cost and being "old school", I want to wonder if they don't have a mental disability. I'm "old school", I've been playing these types of games for over 20 years now but I understand that there has been an increase in workload to create the current looking flight sim and to perform like one. If you want EAW, or RBII, or even 1946 - they already exist. If you want something that has a high fidelity FM/amazing physics, DM and graphics engine, then you have to be willing to pay for it. It's not even $500 (not even the highest level of donation to that space "sim") but it's still more costly to create this (I have chartzess!) than anything else and yet no one is willing to pay for it.

 

So that's why I don't think "10 years from now" is realistic. I think a 2 or 3 years and this genre is dead.

[Trooper117]

Pants... this genre will still be going long after I'm pushing up the daisy's.

Flight sim games will always be a smaller market, purely because the bulk of gamer's don't want technical based high fidelity games that have a high learning curve, 

they just want to run around and shoot hell out of things, and that appeals to the younger generations more than flying. They want fun, and disturbingly, more gore, lol!

[FuriousMeow]

I'm sure it will be. It will just be the War Thunder version of this genre.

 

If you think this genre is going to last with the current mentality, I've got a great bridge that sits in a mud swamp to sell you.

[Trooper117]

No, I'm quite a balanced individual who has tried War Thunder and have enough brain cells to understand it's just filling another corner of the market.

It appeals to people who want a quick 'dogfight ' type mentality with good eye candy... that doesn't mean all things flight sim is going down the tubes though.

[Cybermat47]

You guys are missing the biggest factor: Income.

 

We've seen technology capabilities increase exponentially since 1990. We've also seen certain gaming genres explode. One that isn't even released has a 16mil budget, that's crazy.

 

And here this genre sits, falling apart, needing money and just trying to make ends meet. This isn't a money maker, that's why planes are sold individually for RoF - and that's why the highly detailed aircraft for DCS are $50 on release.

 

It takes a lot of energy, effort and research(!!!) to create these things and that is a lot of money - and "simmers" aren't easy going either on their demands, it isn't fantasy where they can just make crap up and bam! space "sim"! So when people sit here and complain about the cost and being "old school", I want to wonder if they don't have a mental disability. I'm "old school", I've been playing these types of games for over 20 years now but I understand that there has been an increase in workload to create the current looking flight sim and to perform like one. If you want EAW, or RBII, or even 1946 - they already exist. If you want something that has a high fidelity FM/amazing physics, DM and graphics engine, then you have to be willing to pay for it. It's not even $500 (not even the highest level of donation to that space "sim") but it's still more costly to create this (I have chartzess!) than anything else and yet no one is willing to pay for it.

 

So that's why I don't think "10 years from now" is realistic. I think a 2 or 3 years and this genre is dead.

I want flight sims to be around when I'm on my deathbed, which is why I'm getting the premium edition. Hell, I'd be willing to donate a million dollars if it meant flight sims lasted longer!

[FuriousMeow]

No, I'm quite a balanced individual who has tried War Thunder and have enough brain cells to understand it's just filling another corner of the market.

It appeals to people who want a quick 'dogfight ' type mentality with good eye candy... that doesn't mean all things flight sim is going down the tubes though.

BoS is fully funded through 1C, but the funds for pre-order were requested to show support for further funding of further projects. That's definitely a sign of a bulging mass of the market.

 

Apparently your brain cells and balance are a little lack luster, for you 2+2=chair.

[Trooper117]

It means, I'm a positive type of person who doesn't go off at the deep end over a non-existent problem based on supposition.

The current business model for some games is nothing new, plus it has shown it actually works, but then it won't suit all, but that is what real life is about, finding solutions to problems,

being able to think laterally and and come up with a way to continue the genre using a different perspective.

It's all about choice, you don't have to buy into it, suprisingly though, many do... 

[Cybermat47]

No, I'm quite a balanced individual who has tried War Thunder and have enough brain cells to understand it's just filling another corner of the market.

It appeals to people who want a quick 'dogfight ' type mentality with good eye candy... that doesn't mean all things flight sim is going down the tubes though.

I agree. War Thunder could bring many people into the more realistic sims.

[JG27_Chivas]

Dead?  We now have three WW2 sims  based on three different game engines.  I've left out WT until it starts adding enough features to call it sim.  DCS, IC/777, and the TF Mod Team.  I haven't seen this since the CFS, EAW, BOB/WOV days.  I also think the flight sims genre will get a huge immersion boost from the Oculus Rift hardware which is well suited for flight sims.

[TheBlackPenguin]

Funny how space sims were mentioned, before Star Citizen reached $17 million or even before last year people were saying the same thing, publishers said the same thing and I say they were and are wrong as do the results. ROF existed and defied, yet WW1 is generally acknowledged as being less popular than WW2.

 

No, what is dead is the old business model, not the interest in realistic WW2 simulations.

[steppenwolf]

In ten years I hope the people who are doing Spin Tires begin working on a fligiht sim.

[ACG_Kraut]

So that's why I don't think "10 years from now" is realistic. I think a 2 or 3 years and this genre is dead.

 

I don't think so at all. You have to remember, flight sims where one of the very first genres of games to ever come out when the PC was invented. While the market is small, it will always be here.

 

Pseudo-sim type games like WarThunder will only help the more "hardcore" sim market grow. I have at least ten friends who were not interested in flight games at all, that I got to play War Thunder arcade, and slowly moved them into FRBs. Now I have brought them into the world of DCS and IL2 and they are loving it. We just have to get people past that high entry barrier for "hi-fi" sims and teach people that if they are willing to put in the time to learn, sims are some of the most rewarding games around.

 

I think a lot of gamers also see sims as "boring" as well, mainly because they might not know everything involved in flying or aircombat. This is why I enjoy making my commentaries live while flying War Thunder FRBs. I try to explain everything I am doing with the aircraft and what is going through my mind in combat, it helps people see that there is much more going on than just sitting there staring at a HUD.

Edited September 2, 2013 by [AKA]Kraut

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Yeh teh market is small and will always be here but the cost of development is rising year on year and yet the cost of a sim barely moves. I suspect that Il2 was made possible because the developers were Russian and it was much cheaper to get programmers in 1999. These days the cost of Living in Moscow has gone through the roof and it is just as expensive (if not more) than many Western cities. So while the technology is getting more powerful and is able to do many more and greater things it doesn't necessarily mean flight sims will keep pace.

[VeryOldMan]

I have the feeling that even now, let alone in 10 years the limiting factor to a good sim is no longer the hardware but the cost of developing the code that can fully utilise it especially for more niche markets. I have seen it suggested that this will become a problem for the next generation of consoles as well.

 

 

The solution for that is increasing the price.   Its a refined hobby, so it can be more expensive. Normal games can be 50$.. if flight sims are to ccontinue.. they will need to charge more.. 100$ or even more. Or like they are goign to do here, charge for extra content.

[Jaws2002]

I think ten years from now, the sims will look the same, or just a bit better, but will cost a lot more.

 

I wish Sim developers start using the same models in multiple games. There are so many very high quality models out there, I don't know why they don't get some generally accepted modeling standard, and then game developers could just use the available models.

 Why do we have to pay expensive modeling cost for the same planes every new game.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Jaws2002

[Trooper117]

Because there is no such thing as cheap labour costs anymore.. these guys have a family and rent/mortgages to pay the same as anyone else.

[VeryOldMan]

Most models you find out there made by fans  do not meet    the game engine criteria. Engines are made and optimizaed to a certain  polygon density, certain type of  bump maps, work better or worse with certain type of tesselation etc...

 

When you try to put  models made   without these concerns in mind, you start to get  performance issues.

[Heywooood]

I think the best we can hope for is that we can keep the flight sims we have now - operating - on the future OS's

 

I don't think there will be much more to come that follow the prescription of these : RoF, BoS, FSX, DCS, etc - where 'realism' and accuracy / fidelity of flight model and combat specific effects accurately assigned to each type of aircraft, is the focus.

 

Rather I agree the future developers will maybe use history as a backdrop or prop for gamey games and these flight simulators will hold no value to a much younger, less knowledgeable fanbase. 

 

So our best hope is that we can continue to run these (even more wishful is that they will continue to be developed either first hand or by 3rd parties)  into our later years, if we still desire

[VeryOldMan]

We at least have  GTR Evolution, a reasonably realistic Sim in the market

[=LD=Hethwill]

Yes, sims were dead 5 years ago. Tabletop gaming was dead 10 years ago. Damn, even board wargames were dead 15 years ago. Still they didn't die at all and products get developed every year. Bad designs fade away. Good designs are tested by time.

Maybe they are not mainstream, similar to many music or literature genres, but they have an audience, as a genre.

Other less interesting "simulators" also have their audience, perhaps a bigger one given the learning curve demands, but comparison regarding game design towards an historical simulation ? There's no starting point.

 

Proven game design will be recycled and remade and new technologies will be assimilated to be used and immerse the player even more. After all we all want to be "there", fight and "die", and return to our lives happy for a good game.

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

Sims in general seem to be a small market, there are not that many good

WWII tank sims, the best in my opinion is still the old Red Orchestra, WWII sub sim

is pretty much only the Silent Hunter series. This is sort of like comparing

Art Nouveau furniture with modern stuff. On the one side beautifully crafted models

and on the other side the fast money with jump and run stuff for the millions.