Flying with aerofly fs 2, and ... Google earth ?

In my absence from this forum, on the way back I discovered two really important news for IPACS and IPACS users, (and of course very important for me) the publication of:

1ª) .- "Flying with Google earth", and,
2ª) .- "ORBX LOWI for AF2 in June".

Respect to the first, I was surprised that no one supported it, no one suggested, encouraged IPACs, make the necessary transformations in the sim, to fly on those scenarios. This of course, assuming that those scenarios or 3-D images, are open. Are they open?. Or should Google be paid, "rights of ... "?

In the first case, they must immediately begin to perform these transformations in the sim. Flying those scenarios to VR would have to be mind-blowing, and immense technological and commercial achievement for the IPACs, since that would be a great satisfaction for its users.

If those scenarios are not open, will have to pay Google "rights of ..." but even so, IPACs would have to try to reach an agreement with them, since in the video that was shown (flight over Tampa), it was really amazing In its realism and definition. of course, I suppose it would be equally in any airport and city of the world. Getting the possibility to fly over scenarios like that anywhere in the world, IPACs could forget to plan and design more scenarios. After watching this video, it is demonstrated that any scenario desired by companies that design flight simulators, has Google, and that in principle, deserves a rapprochement and an attempt to negotiate.

Respect to the second news, I was also surprised that all users of Aerofly were very satisfied with that agreement, and commented on this forum with true hope, although in principle, it is only the LOWI airport and its corresponding city , With an area of 2,500 square kilometers, resulting in a square surface of 50 km on the side, or a circle of 28 km radius, which is a very small surface.

In addition, we have to take into account that both this airport, and any other that ... "put up for sale", we have to buy it, and I think it will be quite expensive. Therefore, what is coming to us, are "small DLCs" but also very expensive.

If we move this philosophy to U.S.A., Europe, etc. etc. and we have to buy every DLC, it seems to me that without any exaggeration, and covering a little the whole planet (but with very few DLCs), we are going to cost the party thousands of euros, dollars, etc. Orbx would have made a good deal!. Of course: the purchase is voluntary,... of course!

In synthesis: we are excited by the second news, when the really interesting, would be excited by the first (Google Earth and its scenarios).

NOTE: The first news item was initially published by jschall. I am grateful jschall, since for me is the best and most transcendent news since I belong to this forum. This news should have consequences for this forum (and for this company Ipacs).

If we managed to fly over the Google scenarios, we would have given ... "a leap forward too big" for the world of aerial simulation ("Fly those scenarios in VR").

Regards: Delfin

Obviously I have not explained correctly: My suggestion is in the direction of using Google scenarios that include airports, everything else should be reprogrammed in those scenarios, in order to fly over them. FSX / P3d / Xp11 already made their first test, we should take the next step really overflying those scenarios with our own aircraft. That would be a big leap into the future.

I observe in the forum that there is a great illusion to design airports and their corresponding areas (in addition to the rest of the land surface), but ...: I think this work is extraordinarily complex, with many hours of work, and at the end , the only something showy is the airports themselves, the tracks and, very, very little more; Everything else is flat, and terribly monotonous. As soon as we leave 4 or 5 km from the airport, ... all flat, no buildings, no monuments, or ... And if there were, that means a huge and extensive programming work. Is it worth losing that huge amount of time in doing something infinitely worse than Google's 3-D images to fly over them?

That I forgive you in that, Antoine?, Please: there are no differences between my point of view and yours, I have simply explained myself wrong. In general, we agree on everything we suggest or demand from IPAC.

I believe John, you see correctly, especially the future; The future for sims designer companies is this: "Take advantage of Google's extraordinary work as a stage, and designers spend their time on other aspects of the sim." Also, if I'm not wrong, the scenarios are the most expensive in programming. I'm wrong?

Regards: Delfin

After seeing in this forum that Microsoft Flight Simulator, riding on the Google scenarios ("Flying with Google Earth"), I was very pleasantly surprised. If it does Microsoft, or Prepar, ... Why not IPACS?.

Thinking about the complexity of the scenarios offered by Google, we would quantify these scenarios, not in gigabytes or terabytes, but in Petabytes

With great respect and consideration towards the creators of this sim, I think we have to stop scheduling scenarios. After seeing how we can ride on 3-D images of Google, it is extraordinarily obvious that the scenarios we need to continue flying, have Google.

To program scenarios that are infinitely simpler than those of Google, these would occupy in our devices, huge amounts of hard disk space. Also even once programmed, it would take an eternity to download them, and that is not achievable.

Currently, the IPACs team is recommending to users that currently have hard disks with little capacity, to buy discs of 4 terabytes. That is, they are admitting that this sim could get to occupy about 4 terabytes. Given that quite a few users have already had problems downloading the DLC Utah, and then with that replacement of old files by current files with better textures, etc. etc. Which led us to download approximately 120 gigabytes (excluding Switzerland). What will happen when we have to download 500 gigas, let alone higher quantities ?. Note that the biggest problem would not be the hard disk capacity, but the amount of time spent in downloading the extensions and updates.

If we think with realistic logic, especially in flight simulators, and bearing in mind that all that and much more, has already designed Google as a result of years of programming and photographed the entire planet, we have to admit that we have to use those extraordinary scenarios, for which we have to reach agreements with them to use some of that graphic information. Also, none of that graphical information we can and should not download, (it would be impossible), but we have to play on the network. In my opinion, we have to forget the design of scenarios since they are already designed. And we must dedicate our effort to other aspects of the sim.

In addition, how long would it take to plan and design all the scenarios we a priori admit as possible, and that would complete all this simulator around the world ?. How many hours of work? And ... how much money would all these scenarios cost ?. Difficult to quantify, but would be immense amounts, both in time and in euros.

By reaching an agreement with Google, we could also accelerate the end of this game extraordinarily, since all the stages are finished, and of an extraordinary quality.

NOTE: It is my wish that this writing NOT be interpreted as a negative criticism of those responsible for this sim. No, it's just an elemental exposition of how I see the development of this great FS 2 simulator and what could be achieved by flying over Google's VR scenarios.
Regards: Delfin

Hello Jan:
Thanks for your answer.

Please, clarify this to me (which I intended to ask, but I forgot myself day after day, and today you make me that reference:

What is the meaning of each letter of the company "IPACS"?

What is the meaning of each of the letters of the concept "HUD"? (Display where I see in the cockpit: Speed, altitude, heading, etc.)

in other words: what are the words of this acronym?

CHANGING THE SUBJECT: LITERALLY YOU SAY:

""So I second your idea, but in general I'd like to have even higher quality scenery. Currently there just isn't much detail at the airports for example, too few light posts, catering & pushback trucks, shuttle busses, taxiway signs, no grass. Maybe we'll get there some day. But I also know how much work goes into these airports already"".

I assure Jan that I am not that demanding, I am satisfied with what he is now, and I am satisfied because I suppose how complicated it is in programming to achieve those effects, and even more, if we give people movement, wheelbarrows, etc. etc.

I, in general, accept the situation of the airports and all their infrastructure. But once we get away from the airport, everything, absolutely everything, is flattened, everything is flat, two-dimensional. This aspect is one that I would like to improve.

Of course, even Google has not completely solved this problem, in many small towns and villages, buildings are also flat, but the difference with any sim is enormous. In short, that you know your much better than I, since your professional activity is developed in that discipline and mine is very far.

Regards: Delfin

Once again, many thanks to:

1º) .- To you, Jan. I already knew in detail, the function of the HUD, what I did not know is its acronym, now I know. And, what surprises me, is the name of IPACS, is not an acronym ?, is a name ?. If so, it is a strange name.

2º) .- Also to you, Rodeo. I'm pretty convinced (like you), that the commercial aspect with Google, will be the most difficult to achieve. You say literally: "The best business model for Google would be to charge each user by usage time". Well, no, I am not willing to pay "for the time of use", but if I would be willing to pay IPACS, certain amounts to be able to fly on those scenarios without flight time limitations. Currently, they are doing FSX / P3D /XP-11 . Can not we do it ourselves (Aerofly FS 2)?

3 º) .- And also to you, Antoine, that once again, you have made a special effort (and very extensive) in documenting your affirmations graphically. However this time, nothing you expose is unknown to me. Since I discovered that flying is possible over 3D images of Google, I have flown quite a bit in its own simulator, I think the oldest one, in which its HUD is digital. The others in which appear certain bodies of airplanes, is unbearable, since it does worse than bad. As a result of having flown a lot, I had already discovered its imperfections in many places (as I mentioned in my previous thread to Jan). But in any case, in Western Europe and America, the immense majority of the places their scenarios, are of an unquestionable quality.

One exception that has astonished me is, for example, Cuba: none of its cities are represented in 3D, not even the capital Havana. Moscow has also surprised me, "everything two-dimensional"!. However, my country, everything is wonderful, even really small towns are in a wonderful 3D. For all this, I can say that I am very pleasantly surprised. And ... my city? ... a marvel in 3D with astonishing precision and detail !.

4º).-Tell me, John,
Have you made this video? ; if so ,In which you have flown on the Google scenarios, to make that video in VR?. It's the first one I see in VR. And on those scenarios it is amazing the detail of the vision.

I consider it of great interest that you state in your communication, but I have not understood it correctly. Could you please express that in other terms to understand it correctly? .I have a great interest to see developed Google scenarios and be able to fly over them, but with the Aerofly aircraft, (or at least, one or two cockpits) of FS 2).

5).- Thanks also to you jschall, since you always bring to this forum really interesting topics that will make the flight a more complete activity every day, and consequently, we will enjoy more of the pleasure of flying.

I repeat, I do not know how difficult it would be to negotiate with Google to be able to fly on their scenarios, but also taking into account that they will continue to improve the entire planet, it is clear that the future of companies that design flight sims, will be flying over Google scenarios. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPETE WITH THOSE SCENARIOS !.

Regards: Delfin

Thanks John,
After viewing your video on Manhatttan, (and also on Google 3D images), I have no doubt that the designers of scenarios should pay close attention to the possibility of flying on these scenarios and may forget to program more scenarios with the current tools (although these improve every day). As I have repeatedly said, those scenarios that continue to design, have very little future. That is why I say once more: "ALL THE IMAGINABLE SCENARIOS, HAVE BEEN PERFORMED, AND IN ADDITION, OF AN UNSUPERABLE QUALITY, (AND ... THEY WILL CONTINUE IMPROVING!").

It only depends on how long it takes for some flight sim designers to establish agreements with Google. Will it be 5 years as you would have bet ?. What can we do in such circumstances?. In principle, just "wait and see".

Regards: Delfín

Hello John,
After reading your response regarding your video posted to the forum, I have another important question about Google and VR scenarios. It is this:

Keeping in mind that Google scenarios have not been filmed to be seen in VR; you and those who have and uses Oculus or another equivalent, do you see correctly the scenarios of Google in VR ?.

I suppose IPACS programmers will add some special feature to their programming to see it correctly with Oculus, Live, ... in VR. Is there a lot of difference between what is seen in Google scenarios and what is seen in FS 2? .

Logically, it will look better in VR, everything that has been programmed to be seen in VR.

Also for any other user who flies and sees in VR, do you notice notable differences in the question asked above?

Regards: Delfin