Wrong, the idea of the Partner Program is simply to give 3rd party creators access to the Steam distribution system. Also giving less financially viable routes access to a wider market.

The South African route is a welcome departure from the usual US, UK and German  Fare. Admittedly  the quality could be better, but often the people who make these routes are just gifted amatuers. 

 

Which is the way I understand it as well. http://www.engine-driver.com/article/show/15/the-railsimulator-com-partner-programme-work-with-us

 

If they placed too onerous a grip on partners, I'm certain we would be hearing about that as well. Darned if you do, darned if ya' don't.

That is another 3rd party route, nothing to do with DTG, as well you know.

The sound issues, the rubber band effect,  and various other issues that have been dogging the "Game" since Kuju are alive and kicking in routes like CMP.

Donners Pass sound  was fixed with user input And when DTG released Marias Pass and Stevens Pass, i thought finally, they are getting better. They are really two good routes, albeit with the same physic's that we all came to know and love.

Nothing to do with DTG, ? oh yes, has very much to do with DTG. The creator of CMP is the one I feel sorry for, as it is the broken simulator ( game ) that makes the 3rd party CMP play like space invaders.

Also, it is DTG who advertise there game as the most realistic ever. As a RW Engineerr, I find that  self praise from DTG is a bit over the top.

I meant wrong in sense  that 3PD are responsible for the visual quality of their  own products, which obviously in the case of Pietermaritzburg - Ladysmith, there is obviously room for improvement.

 

 

 

You say this yet their own literature says otherwise..  Funny how that works...

 

 

 

 

 

I meant wrong in sense  that 3PD are responsible for the visual quality of their  own products, which obviously in the case of Pietermaritzburg - Ladysmith, there is obviously room for improvement.

 

And that's all my original comment was stating.. The products range from great to garbage because their claimed "QA" is just that... A mythological claim. Every product should be held to the same standards and any long term user of their simulator knows without a doubt that is a fact not done.  They really have no standard set for quality. There is no uniformity at all. If I buy one engine for $20 from them and the VC is high quality textures, high quality mesh.. Then I buy another engine for $20 from them and the VC is using blurred LQ textures, the mesh is so bad you can actually count the straight lines in a circle etc.. Where is the standards?  It shouldn't be like that. That's why there is so much animosity towards DTG.   They talk a good game, full of buzzwords and business speak but their actions are louder than their own words.  Remember 3 years ago when they told us Multiplayer was in beta testing and even showed a cute video with a train with a child object floating above it showing  a players name? LOL how'd that turn out? That's right, it never did.

 

Always have been, and more than likely always will be all talk.

An interesting supposition. I wonder who takes the blame for any "bad" DLC coming through the various Flight simulator marketplaces currently.

 

I would guess that stores should test all products, and withhold anything they find less than perfect.

 

But...

 

Those DTG (and other) products apparently sell very well, so perhaps other people have different criteria for satisfaction?

 

I suspect there are many things you love that I wouldn't give the time of day. And Vice Versa.

 

Those are two different situations. If I go to the Steam storefront and check out DLC for Train Simulator 2014, every package is branded with the "TS" logo, making it an official product sold directly by the developer through Steam. It doesn't matter if it's developed by a third party when it's marketed that way. The fact that it carries the TS logo means it's passed whatever their QC standards are, and whatever is good or bad is a direct reflection on DTG. 

 

Flight sim product retailers don't operate that way. A similar situation would be if Microsoft had been selling Carenado planes and Orbx scenery through their Games for Windows Live storefront, with every product having a Microsoft brand label on it. That's a different level of expectations for quality (and support).

 

The fact that there is a wide variety of both good and so-so products out there on the open flight sim marketplace, is a direct result of the fact that 3rd party developer didn't have to go through any QC channels at Microsoft over the years.

 

 

If I go to the Steam storefront and check out DLC for Train Simulator 2014, every package is branded with the "TS" logo

I agree. If you take Aerosoft for example. They rejected three 3PD addons as they did not meet QC. One was a photo scenery package for Germany, another was YPAD airport, and thirdly, LIRF for FSX.

If you sell something with your brand on it, and it falls short on quality, who is the end user going to blame ? The developer, or the shop that sold it to you.

I agree. If you take Aerosoft for example. They rejected three 3PD addons as they did not meet QC. One was a photo scenery package for Germany, another was YPAD airport, and thirdly, LIRF for FSX.

If you sell something with your brand on it, and it falls short on quality, who is the end user going to blame ? The developer, or the shop that sold it to you.

 

We may decide that this should be the case, but I can't find a single thing anywhere that indicates that the DTG logo indicates responsibility for anything other than that the 3PD works with their software and has been tested to do so. Their EULA also seems to make no such promises, so I wonder where we believe this responsibility originates?

 

It seems a question Tom might keep in mind for an Interview.

 

Certainly if I purchase something from a Flightsim website and it fails to work entirely, then I might request a refund or assistance with the product, but if my complaint is primarily that it is lacking in the detail I desired, then I would think it was my responsibility for not researching my purchase thoroughly enough.

If this means that we will have nice precipitation fx at last I wouldn't say no! :ph34r:

(below image taken from Train Simulator 2014 add-on advertisement: http://www.justtrains.net/product/class-60-advanced-and-freight-wagons )

 

 

 

Although I stick to the theory that Mark Zuckerberg is behind all this financing a big deal in order to fulfill his dreams of a 3D-world using Oculus Rift...

Just for those who didn't read it:

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

It is just a guess...

Greetings,

Claus

 

If this means that we will have nice precipitation fx at last I wouldn't say no! :ph34r:

(below image taken from Train Simulator 2014 add-on advertisement: http://www.justtrains.net/product/class-60-advanced-and-freight-wagons )

 

 

Although I stick to the theory that Mark Zuckerberg is behind all this financing a big deal in order to fulfill his dreams of a 3D-world using Oculus Rift...

Just for those who didn't read it:

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

It is just a guess...

Greetings,

Claus

 

3PD have also learned how to apply rain to the exterior.

 

Link to pic (don't want to crowd the thread with pictures)

 

http://i.imgur.com/VQS7GsC.jpg

 

 

We may decide that this should be the case, but I can't find a single thing anywhere that indicates that the DTG logo indicates responsibility for anything other than that the 3PD works with their software and has been tested to do so. Their EULA also seems to make no such promises, so I wonder where we believe this responsibility originates?

Here is another scenario. I f you purchased a 737  like PMDG quality, and you paid a hefty price, and it was sold to you with all the advertising fan fare that it will work fine, as long as you don't install it into the simulator it was intended as it will fly like crap.

That is Railworks. It is not the 3PD that is the problem, it is the simulator that it is installed to. it devalues that 3P addon.

 

That 3P addon can not show it's full potential due to the bugs that are in the base product. Fix the base product, and the rest will shine.

Here is another scenario. I f you purchased a 737  like PMDG quality, and you paid a hefty price, and it was sold to you with all the advertising fan fare that it will work fine, as long as you don't install it into the simulator it was intended as it will fly like crap.

That is Railworks. It is not the 3PD that is the problem, it is the simulator that it is installed to. it devalues that 3P addon.

 

That 3P addon can not show it's full potential due to the bugs that are in the base product. Fix the base product, and the rest will shine.

 

I cannot claim that this may not be the experience for some, but Rail-works works rock solid for me. I research all purchases carefully, reading reviews and watching YouTube videos, and often wait for sales before finally purchasing. I've appreciated the Free updates to the next version, and enjoyed exploring the updated visual modes, especially after upgrading my Graphics card to something that could run them well.

 

The fact for me is that visiting the rail-works (and associated) websites shows me little that resembles the page after page after page of assistance with CTD's tweaks, fixes and other things that is a long accepted part and parcel of the daily flightsim experience.

 

Is the product perfect? Not hardly, but its much more reliable than what we use here everyday, and i'm not inclined to jump onto any witch-hunt type bandwagons the likes of which plagued FLIGHT, and which blow through the forums with depressing regularity.

So what do developers like PMDG, A2A, etc. pay to Microsoft for their "contributions" to the sim?  I don't know the procedures on this, but if anyone who writes code that works with FSX has to pay the owner of the sim, this could be the death knell of FSX.  Especially if a game developer has the reins.  There are a lot of people out there who think FSX is a game (I don't) and that everything should be like DCS, also a STEAM app.  While I think that stuff like VatSim is what makes FSX (and Flight and P3D) so realistic, I'd hate to see FSX turn into a game.

 

I guess that we'd be stuck with whatever we own now, and have to live with that. That would work for me. I've always wanted to see a developer do a true 64-bit sim so that we could use every gigabyte of memory and eke out all of our quad-core processors. Maybe P3D will get there someday, but right now, I'm in hog heaven with all of my PMDG,A2A CoolSky and other super-realistic aircraft, and apps like GSX, ASN, and photorealistic scenery. When another sim lets me enjoy all of that, I'll move.

 

But this deal doesn't sound too good to me.

Read interview with dovetail execs regarding how thier dlc trains hardcore users will scream if rivet is wrong on a train. They made a reference of how hardcore flight simmers are very similar. Figure dovetail screws up another will take its place. Not too worried got fs2004 as insurance.

That's why it makes no since they went the FSX route... FLIGHT is in prime condition for this mission right now. The whole way it's gui is created is perfect for a distribution system like Steam. FSX is a world sim geared for more serious simmers where FLIGHT is a more casual option that could be made into whatever various add-ons make of it. You have a sudo reginal sim and a world sim. Your going to get slack from an established product that has many detailed products built for it. FLIGHT never got off the ground, it's virgin territory. Until we see where this is headed it looks pretty hairbrained so far. You don't take a hardcored platform and then shut out it's current established user base for fly by night gamers, MS tried that and failed on both fronts. FLIGHT is an amazing platform in great condition 'NOW' for DT.

 

Anyone know how long it would take to download a sim like FSX? FLIGHT on Steam is an easy download and would be great as it was built to be marketed this way. This is why I feel the execution wasn't thought out for the money spent as DT has a MS platform for their Steam solution. FSX is old meaning a whole new gui needs to be created where FLIGHT has the gui built in already. Just replace the XBOX links for Steam. It's just more work to make FSX work on Steam versus FLIGHT plus all the bugs that need to be addressed. Did they go to Word Not Allowed or others to get the right tweaks so Steam users can install and use or are they going to do years of research themselves to produce what we already have? We all know the answere to that... They must feel they'll get this community to convert over to their way of thinking not understanding we want a new platform not a repackaged FSX. They didn't so much as ask this community who intimatly knows FSX but their going to be a success with it, that's crazy... Vanilla FSX is going to do nothing but ###### off new users and drive people further from our hobby because they think it's a joke. Forget hardcore let's try IT challenged people are going to have a problem. Another thing to consider is their going to try and make FSX work on Steam when FLIGHT didn't work which was written for a Steam typle solution. This is crazy. They spent allot of money without competative research. In research I mean contacting current users, websites for the hobby (Avsim), do research with poles on sites like Gamespot to see what gamers would want in a more serious sim. Nothing was done before hand to see how this would work. You can't succeed on assumptions, it's so easy to just ask and go with that. None of us including Tom heard anything from this group. Some of our own developers suffer from this and then wonder why their products don't sell. Because the initial aspect of DT's formula is so short sighting I don't believe they deserve the credit of common since your giving them. Some people throw money around foolishly then wonder why they fail. This smells of failure to me because the nieveness of the research when all the right players are there to help them make this a success for 'FREE' they didn't bother to ask. If your that stupid not to take free advice it doesn't take rocket science to know the outcome. Maybe they asked Microsoft the key to FS's success, you can just imagine the usefulness of that advice. FLIGHT's success can tell you what taking MS's advice will get you today. They can't even get Windows right...

A simulation is definitely a defined video game genre, that has been skewed a bit in the last few years. Generally a simluation is a game/software that the developers of said game/software clarify it as a simluation. After that the users really deterimine whether it's a true sim or not.

 

TS2014 is a simluation to me. They don't drive like hotwheels cars. They feel rather heavy. And the rail passenger scenarios are quite challenging.

 

Also I must point out the sound design is rather superb in some models. Better than FSX stock, and in some 3rd party addons for FSX.

 

A2A however is the best sound design in a flight sim I've heard.

That's why it makes no since they went the FSX route... FLIGHT is in prime condition for this mission right now.

 

I think it is almost guaranteed that they will do the absolute minimum to get FSX working on Steam (I doubt they will even fix bugs, other than ones that make it not work on modern OSes and Steam), and then just make money off it.  In the mean time they will be updating Flight, probably mostly getting the tools ready for 3rd parties to make content (won't take long), and then make money off all that DLC.  I think the main change they should make to the engine prior to release, if  anything, would be to update to D3D11, and replace the terrain engine with something that is more scaleable on modern hardware and easier to author content for, but I am guessing they won't bother.  All other features can be easily added on later.

 

The recipe for success with the Flight engine is the ability to make quick, cheap, but high quality DLC.  The other problem they will run into is licensing aircraft... a quarter million per plane per year will kill things quickly.  Maybe they work around it with 3rd parties, or just take the risk.