FSX-SE DoveTail Games Buys Licensing Deal with Microsoft

[BeechPapa 32]

I think FSX is the perfect middle ground actually. You can fly anything from an Ultralight to a 747-400, you can fly missions that ranged from flour bombing to emergency procedures (I really love those), and in Free Flight you can either fly a plane and enjoy the scenery without having to care for an aircraft's operations, or fly hour-long IFR flights with complex weather. And you can do all that in default FSX.

I agree with this sentiment. I started FSX by doing missions like flying grandpa to the air show in a piper cub... if maybe that's a little corny, then get some modern and hip sounding missions, a better tutorial system, and meaningful rewards. But what exactly are people asking to be removed for the sake of a wider audience? Instruments? ATC? Stalls/Spins (which aren't even there in default)? Can we get specific about the sim instead of deferring to general attitudes?  

[Paraffin 2,197]

XPX is much closer to the current mood, which is to say little-to-no user friendliness, industrial interface, complexity coming out the ears.....

 

Heck it starts you out in Jet, staring in horror at a wall-o-controls Tm      

 

Its a simmers sim, which is to say, pretty much a newcomers nightmare.

 

P3D, with much of FSX's accessibility and friendliness removed, seems not that far behind.

 

Another fun thing about XPX is that it won't support mouse & keyboard flying, although with so many gamers now using gamepads as preferred controllers (which can be mapped, I think), that probably isn't the barrier it used to be.

 

It's also hampered by the developers refusing to "localize" the interface for each of the three supported platforms -- Win, Mac, and Linux. It's nice that it does support more OS's, but the way they're doing it now with a generic industrial interface can be frustrating for users accustomed to standard Windows UI conventions. I'm sure that's turned off some FSX/FS9 pilots who check it out. That probably won't change any time soon.

 

The first-time loading into the most complicated stock cockpit is also a mistake (IMO), unless they're intentionally trying to raise the bar of entry. The previous version at least started you in the Cirrus Jet, probably because Austin had one on order. It was still a jet, but a lot easier to just get in the air and zoom around in, for a newbie. Whatever that first experience is, it should be *fun*, and the CJ at least hit that mark. 

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Actually FSX was probably the last middle ground flight simulator. The problem is that it is now utterly dated, and the cost of bringing it up to something akin to modern standards makes DTG DLC look damn competitive. Worse, many of the things that make FSX friendly are disdained by the current community. The simple planes, tutorials and missions......

 

XPX is much closer to the current mood, which is to say little-to-no user friendliness, industrial interface, complexity coming out the ears.....

 

Heck it starts you out in Jet, staring in horror at a wall-o-controls Tm      

 

Its a simmers sim, which is to say, pretty much a newcomers nightmare.

 

P3D, with much of FSX's accessibility and friendliness removed, seems not that far behind.

 

I agree that X-Plane and Prepar3D have much less accessibility than FSX. Prepar3D is aimed mostly at the training market so it doesn't really need it (and the startup screen improved matters a lot), but X-Plane is even worse and I think that's hurting it quite a bit. I wouldn't mind if Dovetail's simulator aims to improve accessibility in the way Microsoft Flight did as long as features like AI, ATC and more complex systems are retained, but I think they key would be to aim for a quality simulator. If Dovetail decide that they want their simulator to be amazing and put lots of effort in it, it will show in the end product. If they're looking at it as their next cash cow, I think this is what will make it fail.

 

I agree with this sentiment. I started FSX by doing missions like flying grandpa to the air show in a piper cub... if maybe that's a little corny, then get some modern and hip sounding missions, a better tutorial system, and meaningful rewards. But what exactly are people asking to be removed for the sake of a wider audience? Instruments? ATC? Stalls/Spins (which aren't even there in default)? Can we get specific about the sim instead of deferring to general attitudes?  

 

I personally loved the missions in FSX, and I actually think the tutorial system is pretty good. The one in Microsoft Flight is much less thorough. As long as Dovetail don't feel the need to remove those features you mentioned while adding more fun missions and simpler planes, I think the result will be good and appeal to everyone. Of course, as long as they don't shove the DLC in your face.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

It's an enthusiast's community, Devon.  It's going to act that way, and react to changes from that point of view.  Expecting otherwise (and labeling it as "elitist" as a consequence) is silly, unfair and worst of all only serves to reinforce polarization.  That was my point.

 

And my point is that in the real world, if you dish it out, you get it back.

 

Sure some people react that way, but most don't.  Ignore those who do and move on, for heaven's sake.  You're cherry picking attitudes here to reinforce your argument.  "Serious simmers" come in a lot of different flavors.  Many of us (holds up hand) don't even fly the big tubes.  Also recognize that some get just as annoyed at this kind of dismissive characterization of what constitutes being a serious simmer (or whatever you chose to call it).

 

Then I would take my own advice. If you feel its not you i am speaking of, then move on. I'm not cherry picking attitudes, I am pointing them out because I object, and have a right to say so, just as you are doing now.

 

As for the "kiddie" and other condescending remarks nonsense - ignore them.  They're not universal and don't reflect everyone's point of view.  Don't tar the whole community with that brush.  I'm not sure why you choose to focus on them when many of us DON'T feel this way.  Again, you're painting enthusiasts into one convenient box for you to tear down.  This is classic strawman stuff.

 

I would point out that if you don't like words like "elitist' that you could likewise ignore them and move on. The fact that you have not points out a fundamental component of human nature. You say I am focusing on them, but it could easily be said that you are as well, from the opposite end. Again I would point out that those characterizations are not of my creation. they are in common usage possibly because of what you said earlier  "It's an enthusiast's community, Devon.  It's going to act that way, and react to changes from that point of view." so which is it? an understandable sentiment due to the nature of the community, or me "Painting enthusiasts into one convenient box for you to tear down" I fear it cant really be both. That's my definition of a straw man.

 

If we're not big enough to support a major product on our own (and we're not!), we're also not big enough to keep a mass-market product from succeeding.

 

That was never my argument and I refuse to own or defend it. What I did say was that like any protest, smaller numbers can have disproportionate results and that they endless campaign against flight was far from helpful.

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.  DTG is already a successful company, and it's very possible that they'll also be successful with wherever they take their Flight Sim product.  That doesn't mean it's going to be something that this community is interested in.  Again note - that's not a judgmental comment, or one intended to show that we're superior humans.  It's a simple fact.  Many of us care deeply about things the general public doesn't even know exist.  That's part and parcel of being an enthusiast.  DTG may make a wildly popular game, but that doesn't mean they're going to take the franchise in a direction that interests the bulk of users here.

 

And my point as that we seem to be already choosing sides when the game has not even started. read through the thread again and see how some of it is phrased and some of the comments. You say its not out of a sense of superiority, then tell me to ignore and move on from the comments that trend that way because that is cherry picking..... it seems you simply dislike either what I'm saying or the way I'm saying it and wish to express you opinion on that while simultaneously explaining why I should not express mine.......

 

Unless Tom or a mod objects, I feel as free to express my opinion as anyone.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Here's something else that I think MS Flight got wrong, if we're interested in expanding the flight sim audience for more newcomers: 

 

People like flying in their own neighborhood. It's fine to offer a theme park like Hawaii, but eventually people want to see what it's like to fly over their own local airports, towns, and cities.

 

What's one of the first things we've all done in FS? It's to find and then buzz over our own house, right? Or whatever is there, even if it's not fully modeled. MS Flight missed that whole aspect of newbie flying, unless you happen to live in Hawaii. 

 

If DTG follows a similar model to sell regional DLC instead of opening up the sim with the tools to create your own airports and scenery, then they won't hit that sweet spot for newbies either. People will have to wait years to see payware for their own locale, unless they happen to live in one of the more popular flying areas like the Pacific Northwest or Northern Europe/UK. 

 

[BeechPapa 32]

I personally loved the missions in FSX, and I actually think the tutorial system is pretty good. The one in Microsoft Flight is much less thorough. As long as Dovetail don't feel the need to remove those features you mentioned while adding more fun missions and simpler planes, I think the result will be good and appeal to everyone. Of course, as long as they don't shove the DLC in your face.

For the most part, I loved the missions too. Some of those missions created unforgettable moments for me - even the grandpa mission. And for alot of the missions, I updated them with addon planes in the mission cfgs and it added a whole new life to them. The tutorial system, or the lesson system specifically, could use a little work to make things easier to get. I found I needed to study things on google before getting in the cockpit with Machado barking commands at me. 

 

I agree with everything you said about DTG with the caveat that they need to leave the door open for 3rd party installs. While basic default planes/missions are necessary to get the attention of an audience, there needs to be something to keep their attention after months or years of playing. The addons do that by introducing more variables into FSX's infinite sandbox world, more dangerous weather, more demanding planes. If FSX was nothing but default, how many of us would still be here? There's money in keeping people along for the long haul too.   

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Here's something else that I think MS Flight got wrong, if we're interested in expanding the flight sim audience for more newcomers: 

 

People like flying in their own neighborhood. It's fine to offer a theme park like Hawaii, but eventually people want to see what it's like to fly over their own local airports, towns, and cities.

 

What's one of the first things we've all done in FS? It's to find and then buzz over our own house, right? Or whatever is there, even if it's not fully modeled. MS Flight missed that whole aspect of newbie flying, unless you happen to live in Hawaii. 

 

True. I thought about that a lot, but I wonder if that as big a deal for modern audiences as it is for those raised on the full world of FSX. Most games out there now offer very limited (but very detailed) worlds, and I don't think the expectation of a whole world in one package is a major concern nowadays for modern gamer's. I suspect a bigger miss-step for FLIGHT is that the areas it did provide were not really all that detailed, above those of FSX, which is pitiful by modern standards.

 

If DTG follows a similar model to sell regional DLC instead of opening up the sim with the tools to create your own airports and scenery, then they won't hit that sweet spot for newbies either. People will have to wait years to see payware for their own locale, unless they happen to live in one of the more popular flying areas like the Pacific Northwest or Northern Europe/UK.

 

I think they are smart enough to make creation tools available. Certainly they weren't fools enough to attempt to provide all the DLC for railsim themselves. The upside to that is that if somebody wants to make something super-detailed... whats to stop them? (besides possibly poor sales)

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

For the most part, I loved the missions too. Some of those missions created unforgettable moments for me - even the grandpa mission. And for alot of the missions, I updated them with addon planes in the mission cfgs and it added a whole new life to them. The tutorial system, or the lesson system specifically, could use a little work to make things easier to get. I found I needed to study things on google before getting in the cockpit with Machado barking commands at me. 

 

I agree with everything you said about DTG with the caveat that they need to leave the door open for 3rd party installs. While basic default planes/missions are necessary to get the attention of an audience, there needs to be something to keep their attention after months or years of playing. The addons do that by introducing more variables into FSX's infinite sandbox world, more dangerous weather, more demanding planes. If FSX was nothing but default, how many of us would still be here? There's money in keeping people along for the long haul too.   

 

Unfortunately I don't think they'll allow add-ons, and simply have them sold as DLC with their name on it, like with Train Simulator 2014. I'm hoping they'll change that with their next flight simulator, but I'm expecting the worst.

[styckx 1,871]

Unfortunately I don't think they'll allow add-ons, and simply have them sold as DLC with their name on it, like with Train Simulator 2014. I'm hoping they'll change that with their next flight simulator, but I'm expecting the worst.

Their Train Simulator allows addons. Anyone can make them and distribute them as they please. Nothing has to go through DTG if you don't want it to. Many 3PD do it this way.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Unfortunately I don't think they'll allow add-ons, and simply have them sold as DLC with their name on it, like with Train Simulator 2014. I'm hoping they'll change that with their next flight simulator, but I'm expecting the worst.

 

Now I'm confused. I have purchased stuff from independent websites that works fine with TS2014  :unsure:

 

The last one being a global lighting enhancement.

Their Train Simulator allows addons. Anyone can make them and distribute them as they please. Nothing has to go through DTG if you don't want it to. Many 3PD do it this way.

 

The Eula is very detailed about 3rd party and user generated content.

[brendan19 0]

Prepar3d here I come.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Prepar3d here I come.

Perfectly valid choice.

[styckx 1,871]

The Eula is very detailed about 3rd party and user generated content.

 

I know, remember. I was the one who pointed out their EULA early in this thread.

 

Most ignore it to be honest..

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Wait and see is the thing to do.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Their Train Simulator allows addons. Anyone can make them and distribute them as they please. Nothing has to go through DTG if you don't want it to. Many 3PD do it this way.

 

Now I'm confused. I have purchased stuff from independent websites that works fine with TS2014  :unsure:

 

The last one being a global lighting enhancement.

 

I wasn't aware of that. Seeing the fear of some in here that the Steam version of FSX won't allow add-ons, I thought that Train Simulator 2014 had a file structure to allow only official add-ons.