Wow.  I wonder how much worse she would have trashed XPX if it had been the 32 bit version instead.  Interesting that only 9 of 81 people found the review helpful.

 

There's really a wealth of information in that review... not for other gamers, but for anyone wanting to reach that market.  How would you have to change the flight sim to make it appeal to that reviewer, and by extension all her friends?  Has anyone ever tried to make such a sim?

 

According to her review, this is what I think she wants from a simulator:

 

1. Fast planes.

2. Multiplayer.

3. Easy controls.

4. Plenty of activities.

5. Lots of animations.

6. Great graphics.

 

It looks like Microsoft Flight would suit her perfectly, but I don't think any flight simulator out there would satisfy her. You can tell from her username and avatar what kind of person she is.

 

I'm glad most reviews are positive and there are many who defend the fact that this is a simulator and not a simple game, but when you distribute your game to Steam it reaches out to everyone.

maybe if there were rows of Space Invaders in front of gamergirls aircraft she would have been happier.the clue is in the name :smile:

 

   steve

I think most of the reviews for a while are going to be from simmers wanting to support the hobby and are going to be both supportive and defensive. Lets see what happens when people drawn in by the impressive video and what it seems to promise encounter the reality of, as the second poster said " A simulator designed to train real pilots and test custom aircraft"

 

I actually encouraged the release of XPX on steam, and divided into region packs just as they appear to be doing, but that support was prefaced in that they had to be ready to adapt to and accommodate some of the expectations of the new market they were entering. Instead it appears at this point that they are doing pretty much what they have always done. "Here we are, take us or leave us"

 

I know what I think will likely happen with that approach, but it will be interesting to see what the reality turns out to be.

 

One major problem is that modern gamer's are going to expect (especially at the AAA title price being asked) a level of polish and completeness that no civilian simulator has had for a long, long time. The interface and the stubborn unwillingness to make more than token concessions to user friendliness (I believe) is going to come back and bite.

 

Hard.

 

Edit: Oh, there was another section I deleted about some simmers and others possibly trouncing all who didn't like the sim, and just causing an angry backlash. I decided it would be seen as unfounded and inflammatory so I just left it alone and hoped I was wrong. Then there is the constant FSX vs XPX battle.

 

Unfortunately, I'm already seeing some signs of that on the steam forums, and I would really really suggest against it.

 

Really.

 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/292180/discussions/

Steam and the XP ethos seems like a match made in... well, not heaven.

 

Scott

This article has said a lot. It says they are going to release a "New game of  some sort" in 2015 along with re-releasing the FSX Gold on steam with a new host for online sessions as well as a "fix" for many bugs.  To me, it sounds like they are going to use FSX as a base platform and utilize what that engine is capable of to make a "new" sim under a new company. I'm not sure if this was already said...

 

Maybe I missed it, but so far, I have not seen a definitive statement as to exactly what DTG has licensed from Microsoft ..

 

MS FLIGHT

or

MS FSX

or

MS ESP   ( similar to what LM licensed)

or

The codebase to FSX1 and possibly MS Train SIM (ie  The FS "ENGINE") as it existed  when ACES closed.

 

 

Selling FSX GOLD under steam is one thing --- developing any of the existing products is a significant task, and a very different task, depending on what they actually licensed.

 

 

Maybe I missed it, but so far, I have not seen a definitive statement as to exactly what DTG has licensed from Microsoft ..

 

My bet is that they licensed the original subLOGIC code that Microsoft got from Bruce Artwick; this gives DoveTail Games an almost clean slate to work with.

No. 64 bit programs run a very slight amount faster than 32 bits. Perhaps about 10-25%, it varies from program to program

 

When it comes to the so-called "missing airports", do the airports in XP have accurate taxiways, or do they only have runways?

 

 

I have been a "lifelong" user of the MSFS franchise (since FS5) - and though I have no plans to completely abandon FSX, I have been very favorably impressed by the improvements in XP - specifically Version 10 (Beta 30) which I just installed about a week ago.

 

I last tried XP way back in version 8, (about 9 years ago), and my reaction then was "meh". Most airports were nowhere near correct in their layouts. The runways were "kind of" right, in terms of length and direction - but taxiways and ramps were generic, and bore no relation to the real world.

 

That has changed in XP10 - though I have only visited a handful of U.S. airports, I was pleasently surprised to discover that the r/w taxiway and ramp layouts are now present. I'm not quite sure how this was done - I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the data may have been (ahem) "borrowed" from a certain sim we all know and love. I can't say that "all" XP10 airports now have accurate taxiways, but all the ones I have checked so far do.

 

What is missing, of course, are buildings - although XP10 DOES come ("out of the box") with the full Aerosoft editions of about 20 major European airports (EGGL, EHAM etc) which do have all buildings.

 

There is, however, a growing community of free and payware  developers offering add-ons which do add buildings (terminals, hangars etc.) to the base XP10 airports. For example: I just found one freeware site last night - "Ted's X-Plane Scenery" that adds a full complement of terminal buidings at about 30 major U.S. airports. I have only explored Ted's Detroit (KDTW) package so far, as I am very familiar with this airport from the r/w. It looks great - certainly much better than the "stock" FSX KDTW.

 

One advantage of XP is that add-on airport scenery is very easy to install. Most add-ons come as a zip file with a single folder containing all relevant objects, mesh and sub-folders. One simply drags the folder and drops it into the XP "custom scenery" folder, and the installation is complete and ready to go.

 

Don't want to turn this into an FSX v. XP thread, but I am quite pleased with the advances in the new version of XP - and, or course, the 64-bit edition is immune to the type of OOM problems that are increasingly becoming a problem in FSX with high-end scenery and aircraft add-ons installed.

 

 

I'm not sweating DoveButt. This conversation went down just like it did for FLIGHT, so whatever DoveHumps does

 

This kind of stuff will get you banned from the topic. It does nothing more than encourage further polarization and won't be allowed.

 

 

I thought their name was DoveTail? Unless I am mistaken, you are acting like my nine year old boy does when he is angry or cannot get his own way - he resorts to name calling. Hopefully he will grow out of it in the next year or so.

Exactly. But he has far less than a year to "grow out of it".

 

 

Yes, just like we all had to do in MSFS for any enhancements that didn't come with the bare package. This is no different.

 

My bare FS package had 3D objects for 23,000 airports. This is different than XP. I did not have to search, download, and install airports for those. My home airport (KDTW) looks pretty darn good in FSX. In XPX it is an empty field with pretty green grass, even in January.

 

I really hope that DTG will continue in the MS scenery mode and not in the XPX mode of empty airports!

A shiver has just shot down my spine at the thought of how much money I have spent on FSX over the past few years. A small part of me is wondering whether I really want an excuse to spend even more money! :blink:

 

 

In XPX it is an empty field with pretty green grass, even in January.

 

So the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

When it comes to the so-called "missing airports", do the airports in XP have accurate taxiways, or do they only have runways?

 

It depends on the airport. Usually it's the bare minimum when it's there, and the accuracy is often not at the same level as the runways in the default scenery. I assume because it's easier to find published data on the runways?

 

But yeah... usually there is some kind of taxiway in the default scenery if the airport has a paved runway, and it's beyond a certain size (i.e. not a tiny paved strip, or grass/gravel strip). Even my local small GA field has a more-or-less accurate parallel taxiway in the default scenery, but it didn't extend over to the hangar and apron area. I filled that in myself, when I upgraded the airport with buildings.

I guess it's a good thing I have not invested money into a new system yet. I'll wait for this thing to happen before I do! I'm still staying positive about all this.

So the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

For sure! Just as it will be with DTG!!

My bare FS package had 3D objects for 23,000 airports. This is different than XP. I did not have to search, download, and install airports for those. My home airport (KDTW) looks pretty darn good in FSX. In XPX it is an empty field with pretty green grass, even in January.

 

I really hope that DTG will continue in the MS scenery mode and not in the XPX mode of empty airports!

 

I'm sure at one point KDTW might have been just grass (although odd if there weren't at least runways?), but here's what it looks like in the current version 10.30b7:

 

 

And here's an overhead view of what's there, along with the start positions:

 

 

A quick search didn't turn up any user-made 3D additions yet, but that will come eventually. Or you could do it yourself.  ^_^