The world in GTA V for PC & what it means to flight sims...

I originally posted at msflights.net [http://msflights.net/forum/showthread.php?3755-Grand-Theft-Auto-C-%28PC%29-amp-what-it-means-to-flight-simmers]

 

If you have any technical interest in seeing what the next flight sim might look like, I think that GTA V is worth a look. I've been exploring the GTA5 world. I think that it is an amazing virtual world. In short here's what stands out to me:

 

Much of the land geography scenery is comprised of textures that are either photoreal or close to it. They look good from altitude & from up close. Wind movements of grass and trees has a level of animation.

 

 

The textures of roadways, lighting, & buildings are repetitive in a very realistic manner. Many of the buildings and structures still have a drawing look vs photo. They're very high resolution. Either 90% of the structures are individual textures or there are so many textures that the repetition is not noticeable.

 

 

AI is generated by the server and displayed onto the client. AI exists in many forms

People & animals

Land vehicles

Air vehicles

Water vehicles.

I've not seen any AI water creatures.

 

 

I'm posting this because I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. I'm also curious to see what some of the more technically minded folks think about the likelihood is of seeing these features in a virtual world that encompasses the entire planet as opposed to a just small 400 square mile island.

Unfortunately there won't be a next sim... people around here made sure that the last one only sold 100,000 copies... while GTAV is going on 100,000,000. God knows what P3D is selling given the community is intent on burying that one too.

 

Besides that city is the work of thousands of people working over many years. You'll never see that type of commitment even if flight sim sales picked up :)

Unfortunately there won't be a next sim... people around here made sure that the last one only sold 100,000 copies...

 

Forgive me if I have totally misunderstood the above quote...

 

Who are the "people around here" who are deliberately and malevolently "making sure" that flight sims don't sell well? People near where you live? Or people here on Flightsim forums, the overwhelming majority of whom own one or more of the latest Microsoft/Dovetail/P3D flight simulators and therefore can't possibly be "making sure" that any flight sim doesn't sell well? What else can "people around here" do to show support for a flight simulator beyond buying one or several of them, flying them constantly, spending money on payware, making thousands of free addons & upgrades and providing free advice, support and camaraderie to the public and each other?

 

God knows what P3D is selling given the community is intent on burying that one too.

 

If P3D isn't selling well, do you suppose, rather than a "community intent on burying" it, it might be due to its restrictive licensing and because even the lowest-priced license costs 10 times the price (or more) of any of the other mainstream sims while offering far fewer addons, odd flight dynamics on some of the default aircraft and not much in the way of improvements over FSX, on which it is based? How is there a "vast no-wing conspiracy" :) intent on burying P3D?

 

I'm sorry, but what you're saying here is that there is some malevolent intent to harm or inhibit sales of flight sims, and I just don't see that at all. My glass is half-full: I see a vibrant, albeit small, community- all positive about flight-simming in general, most contributing in some positive way to the success of their chosen flight sim products, and all owning and regularly flying at least one more-or-less current flight sim.

 

People who fly ("pilots"), in real life or in sims, are a tiny minority on this planet- always have been, always will be- while people who like fast-paced, absurd, gratuitously violent video games that allow them to race and crash cars, trucks, tanks and all other manner of vehicles recklessly, shoot/stab/mug/carjack/run over prostitutes, policemen, drug dealers and innocent bystanders randomly and generally commit vehicular and other types of mayhem throughout a large area in hundreds of new and ridiculous ways are, sadly, legion. That's why GTA outsells flight sims 100 to 1 or more, not because anyone is "out to get" flight sims.

It looks like Mr. crab is blaming the failure of MS Flight on the flight sim community, which is very, very backwards. If a product does not meet the needs of users, there is no reason they should be expected to support it. Most, if not all, of the blame for Flight should be placed on the project managers and management at Microsoft.

 

As for P3D, it seems to be doing pretty well. Although we are really just along for the ride as Lockheed picked the ESP licence to support their commercial sim offerings, not to get into the consumer flight sim market.

 

As for GTA V, it is a great example of what you can do with $200+ million and a few years of development. Not sure they flight sim community will ever be able to support that level of financial commitment by a developer.

Forgive me if I have totally misunderstood the above quote...

 

Who are the "people around here" who are deliberately and malevolently "making sure" that flight sims don't sell well? People near where you live? Or people here on Flightsim forums, the overwhelming majority of whom own one or more of the latest Microsoft/Dovetail/P3D flight simulators and therefore can't possibly be "making sure" that any flight sim doesn't sell well? What else can "people around here" do to show support for a flight simulator beyond buying one or several of them, flying them constantly, spending money on payware, making thousands of free addons & upgrades and providing free advice, support and camaraderie to the public and each other?

 

 

 

If P3D isn't selling well, do you suppose, rather than a "community intent on burying" it, it might be due to its restrictive licensing and because even the lowest-priced license costs 10 times the price (or more) of any of the other mainstream sims while offering far fewer addons, odd flight dynamics on some of the default aircraft and not much in the way of improvements over FSX, on which it is based? How is there a "vast no-wing conspiracy" :) intent on burying P3D?

 

I'm sorry, but what you're saying here is that there is some malevolent intent to harm or inhibit sales of flight sims, and I just don't see that at all. My glass is half-full: I see a vibrant, albeit small, community- all positive about flight-simming in general, most contributing in some positive way to the success of their chosen flight sim products, and all owning and regularly flying at least one more-or-less current flight sim.

 

People who fly ("pilots"), in real life or in sims, are a tiny minority on this planet- always have been, always will be- while people who like fast-paced, absurd, gratuitously violent video games that allow them to race and crash cars, trucks, tanks and all other manner of vehicles recklessly, shoot/stab/mug/carjack/run over prostitutes, policemen, drug dealers and innocent bystanders randomly and generally commit vehicular and other types of mayhem throughout a large area in hundreds of new and ridiculous ways are, sadly, legion. That's why GTA outsells flight sims 100 to 1 or more, not because anyone is "out to get" flight sims.

 

What he said! Plus I've heard so many people say they were disappointed there are too many non-military aircraft.

 

I killed more than enough people! I don't need to play some game where I pretend to kill people. And I also don't live in my parent's basement.

Rupert, HoggyDog....you guys are right on...I bought FSX, Prepar3d and Steam and love all three and today took advantage of Quality Wings upgrade/patch for their 757 for all three sims...so I am good to go...and will pass this along to others I know....BTW, on my computer....nobody gets killed 'cept of course when I come in too stupid with the "Big Iron"!!! al v

What he said! Plus I've heard so many people say they were disappointed there are too many non-military aircraft.

 

I killed more than enough people! I don't need to play some game where I pretend to kill people. And I also don't live in my parent's basement.

 

The interest in GTA V isn't entirely about the violence. Many are interested in the level of detail in the game and the immersion this brings. After running or flying around in GTA V, flight sims can feel almost empty. And then of course there's the performance aspect too. Even with all of the detail present, GTA runs very well.

It looks like Mr. crab is blaming the failure of MS Flight on the flight sim community, which is very, very backwards. If a product does not meet the needs of users, there is no reason they should be expected to support it. Most, if not all, of the blame for Flight should be placed on the project managers and management at Microsoft.

 

Nah I'm pretty sure most of the community is delusional into thinking they are playing anything but a GAME. If I recall the comparisons mainly revolved around Flight not being a "true sim" whatever the heck that means and therefore didn't give it the time of day.

Flight can now be downloaded for free from fsdeveloper and a few other places. It's a great GA sim, and those who have never tried it should do so!

As for GTA V, it is a great example of what you can do with $200+ million and a few years of development.

 

Yeah, that was kinda the point I was trying to make in my 10,000-word dissertation on GTA V. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that was kinda the point I was trying to make in my 10,000-word dissertation on GTA V. :rolleyes:

 

I missed that part, you didn't mention graphics, or the engine. Instead you sounded like some puritan.

Nah I'm pretty sure most of the community is delusional into thinking they are playing anything but a GAME. If I recall the comparisons mainly revolved around Flight not being a "true sim" whatever the heck that means and therefore didn't give it the time of day.

 

No, most people wanted a better performing version of FSX, not the very limited sim Microsoft put out. Out of 9 aircraft, only 3 had full cockpits, there were no jets and only two scenery packages. Sure, it had a great flight model and performed well, but that doesn't matter if it doesn't do what users want. Again, Microsoft had no one else but themselves to blame for what happened to Flight.

No, most people wanted a better performing version of FSX, not the very limited sim Microsoft put out. Out of 9 aircraft, only 3 had full cockpits, there were no jets and only two scenery packages. Sure, it had a great flight model and performed well, but that doesn't matter if it doesn't do what users want. Again, Microsoft had no one else but themselves to blame for what happened to Flight.

 

Yeah.. cause we all know Microsoft just gives up easily, especially after Version 1.0....

:)

Because it takes less effort to smile then to frown.:)

il88pp

First I beg forgiveness from the community becuz I love FSX as I have stated previously and saying that I have the 3 popular sims already and I am retired so simming takes up most of my day....okay...I don't have time for anything else no matter what sim they come up with....I just finished a flight from MMMX to KTUS (my home airport) in P3D with Quality Wings using their patch/update for P3D..... and it worked perfectly...and I had to re introduce myself to the workings of the QW 757 as I have only flown the PMDG 777 for the past year....So, for just one person on this site....New sims are welcome by me...and I wish them well..but right now.......FSX and P3D and then Steam....are more than I can handle at my Medicare Age and trust me as they say.....I use them all...."Because I can" LOL....Happy Landings to all...Go FSX you have it all if people use you right...I am outta here....al v

Nah I'm pretty sure most of the community is delusional into thinking they are playing anything but a GAME. If I recall the comparisons mainly revolved around Flight not being a "true sim" whatever the heck that means and therefore didn't give it the time of day.

 

Myself, I've never treated flight sims as a game. I've always treated them as

lower cost versions of the flight simulators one would see at an airline or flight

training facility. And it's taken many years just to get to the level we are at now

to where the aircraft are finally starting to look and act much like the real thing.

That sure wasn't the case when I started with FS4. Of course at that time, which

was 1992 when I started, the accuracy level wasn't too awful high, and the cockpits

didn't really look or act much too like the real deal, so we had to use our imaginations

to help suspend that lack of accuracy. But I still never considered it a game.

 

If there was a game aspect, it was the constant tweaking to improve the realism.

I don't recall anyone ever saying Flight wasn't a real sim. Seems to me the gripe was

it was only a partially completed sim, that was overly simple as far as the aircraft

and scenery options. For me and the type of simulated flying I do, it was pretty

much useless. Only a small number of aircraft actually had cockpits, and those that

were available were not the type of aircraft I usually prefer to simulate.

And then there was the gross lack of flight area. Only a couple of areas, and only

a few airports. What good is that to someone who wants to simulate the usual

flying one would do in the real world? None of the airports I want to fly to and fro

were available. And no jets. :mad:

 

I guess to be accurate you could call Flight a simulator, but to me, it was actually

more of a flying game, than an actual flight simulator as I think of one.

So no, I did not use it, being it was useless to me as such.

 

And no one had it in for Microsoft. Only Microsoft had it in for Microsoft.

Or maybe to put it more accurately, Microsoft's bean counters and severely misguided

flunkies had it in for Microsoft.

It was the bean counters that fired the Aces studio, while FS 11 was still in the works,

and which they basically had to trash can, and it was their bean counters that

steered the fairly rudderless airship which became Flight.

 

Did flight have a 737 where almost every single knob, button, and system works as

in real life? No. It did not. Do I have one in FSX? Yes, I do.

Will that aircraft run under MS Flight? No.

 

In FSX, can I fly that accurately simulated plane to any airport I want to, and not be

restricted to just a couple of small areas on the planet? Yes, I can.

 

When it comes down to it, FSX is a flight simulator first, that has the option of

doing missions if one feels so compelled. I'm not into that myself, but different boats

for different folks..

 

When it comes down to it, Flight was a flight simulator *game* that let one "play" missions,

but very little else as one would expect from a flight simulator. Sure, I could "play" some

missions, but could I fly from Houston Hobby to Dallas Love field in an accurately simulated

artificial aircraft? No. Not even close as it was released to the public.

But I could "play" some missions in Hawaii and Alaska.. :rolleyes: Mercy..

Be still my palpitating artificial aircraft flying heart. :pilot: LOL..

Yeah.. cause we all know Microsoft just gives up easily, especially after Version 1.0....

 

Well they gave up this time, and it was entirely their choice. They were the ones that alienated the add-on developers, and then the flight sim community. Flight did have some good ideas, but in typical Microsoft fashion, they failed on the execution.

Instead you sounded like some puritan.

 

Wow. My apologies for my rash assumption that this was a discussion.

Flight seems like a modern day version of Flight Unlimited. Lol

 

One scenery area, limited planes, etc.

You are all wrong. This is neither a 'pretend' sim or a 'pretend' game. It is a FUN thing to do. You can't 'pretend' FUN. Even if you couldn't even take off with the Cessna 182 (because you did not know HOW yet) you could still have (clean?) FUN trying.

 

With FSX Accel you have access to every airport in the whole world, and even 'outer space', using every description of 'sim objects'. Planes, boats, vehicles, gliders, ballons, motorcycles, semi trucks, tanks, the Space Shuttle, UFO's, a broom, a Laz-Y-Boy recliner, a Jet Pac, a 'Ski Bum', etc. And developers made every airplane model known to (real) pilots since the 1920's (and made by various countries) up to the present day 'high performance' ac (Concorde, SR-71, etc).

 

We got our 'ground school' training 30 minutes at a time. With MSFS sims the learning curve was almost 'painful'. But FUN. FUN is the key word. Not graphics, resolution, maxed out sliders, refresh rate, or frames per second. The Sims are for learning to fly a complex aircraft that (if you did it right) was FUN. That's is what you get for your 'entertainment dollar'. Not (dead) body count, but 100% FUN. And your ($399+soft and hard ware) 'video game' CAN'T beat that!

Chuck B

Napamule

Wow. My apologies for my rash assumption that this was a discussion.

 

Yeah because your assessment as to why the game was popular had to do with and I'm paraphrasing "love of killing prostitutes and cops".

 

You never thought for one second perhaps the game has a more complicated story than any film, world leading graphics, and an open world filled with hundreds and to some thousands of hours of diverse gameplay..

wow. My apologies for my rash assumption that this was a discussion.

 

well said!

Yeah because your assessment as to why the game was popular had to do with and I'm paraphrasing "love of killing prostitutes and cops".

 

You never thought for one second perhaps the game has a more complicated story than any film, world leading graphics, and an open world filled with hundreds and to some thousands of hours of diverse gameplay..

 

A simulation by definition has no story and no gameplay. Every entertainment or fascination you find in a sim, you have to bring with you. An extremely high level of interest in the real thing is needed, to find any enjoyment at all using a sim. That is why enthusiasts enjoyed even the most basic sims, their imagination did the rest.

 

So what significance does GTA V have for flight simming? None whatsoever. It is a thing made for consumers, not enthusiasts, and it is designed to please and entertain the masses by and large. I think its success says something about the psychological disposition of the human race. But this sadly is evident in quite a lot of the entertainment products. Guess not so much has changed since 'panem et circensis'.

A simulation by definition has no story and no gameplay. Every entertainment or fascination you find in a sim, you have to bring with you. An extremely high level of interest in the real thing is needed, to find any enjoyment at all using a sim. That is why enthusiasts enjoyed even the most basic sims, their imagination did the rest.

 

That's your definition.. Everyone else thinks it's a game including the majority of non video game players. That's why people look at you weird when you take Flight SImulator the game too seriously. You know "game" as in "pretend".

I'm a Red Dead Redemption guy myself...