DTG: What would you like to see in a new Flight Simulator?

[HiFlyer 9,393]

Well anything is possible, but DTG would be wizards indeed, to be attempting all of that in the given timeframe.  :ph34r:

 

As for Microsoft re-entering the picture in any way, shape, or form......... 

 

Well, assuming we could take that out of the realm of fantasy (or nightmare) and make it a real possibility, would we really even want that?

 

In the end, what you are saying seems a firm argument for..... essentially maintaining the status quo.

 

FSX with yet another coat of paint.

[bonchie 2,305]

FSX with yet another coat of paint.

 

If you are expecting more then that, you might be disappointed. DTG is working with FSX's code for a reason. I'd be extremely surprised if they do a total 180, get a new engine, and dramatically change the direction of the franchise. 

 

And what's wrong with FSX with a better coat of paint? As a simulation platform, it's scope and breath of abilities are still mind-blowing today. It's that very scope that's sustained and seen FSX thrive for ten years when other games would of died long ago. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, still using a ten year old piece of software. Even past entertainment, I don't know an instrument student at my flight school who didn't use it to train for their IFR. It's got such far-reaching appeal. From flour bomb droppers, to combat lovers, to low and slow flyers, to airline jockeys, to the guy practicing approaches for his checkride, there's almost no niche FSX doesn't fill  in aviation.

 

The bigger issue with FSX is graphics, performance, and making the world more alive. All those things can be improved upon the already given base. More RPG elements, being able to get out of the plane, etc. could be added for more game play variation.

 

I could imagine a more vibrant "open-world" MP community, where people meet in virtual FBOs at airports, do virtual instruction together, accomplish various missions, etc. 

 

But the scope needs to remain. If you limit the scope too much you are going to cut hundreds of thousands of people out of the loop. Those are the people who will get you off the ground, help you crowd-source, etc. If you abandon the very large base of your niche to chase the masses, you'll probably end up with neither. 

 

IL2-BOS is learning this the hard way.

 

A developer needs to think big and get creative with crowd-funding. Look at Star Citizen. The Space simulation genre was totally dead a few years ago. Much worse then flight simulators. Now they've raked in hundreds of millions to build the game from a fan base that supposedly didn't exist. 

[HiFlyer 9,393]

And what's wrong with FSX with a better coat of paint?

 

Because we've already been there and done that, essentially. Repeatedly.

 

There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, still using a ten year old piece of software.

 

I suspect not. 

 

The bigger issue with FSX is graphics, performance, and making the world more alive.

 

I think an even bigger issue than that is making flight simulation relevant beyond a niche community, since I'm assuming that one of DTG's primary focuses is making money and healthy ROI

 

But the scope needs to remain. If you limit the scope you are going to cut hundreds of thousands of people out of the loop while chasing the mythical white whale of "mass appeal"

 

I think some may very much want  wider appeal to be a mythical white whale, because if it isn't, then that means some things would have to change to accommodate new people, and change can be hard. As for scope; right now there is an ongoing thread About Flight Unlimited, that as sim that had many people happily playing for years in a more limited world. Having the whole world at once is nice, but just because that's what MS offered does not mean that anything less is unacceptable. As I said before, the Microsoft offerings are actually anomalies. 

 

IL2-BOS is learning this the hard way.

 

And War Thunder, which probably has a budget just for advertising that probably approaches the profit of all the third parties combined, offers a different lesson entirely. We could also mention other sims coasting along nicely like Aerofly, Rise of Flight, etc. All in more limited worlds. Don't get me wrong, the whole world at one time instead of presented piecemeal is nice, and I will take it if offered. But its not nearly the end all and be all. Except to those who have now become accustomed to it, I suspect it will be largely a non-issue.

 

[Alphafoxsierra 166]

Hi everyone,

 

It's nice to see this thread has picked up here on AVSIM. Thank you for your continued feedback  

 

-Aimee

[bonchie 2,305]

Because we've already been there and done that, essentially. Repeatedly.

 

 

 

What does that even mean? Is FSX not different then FS2002? 

 

I suspect not. 

 

 

There are over a hundred thousand active users on this forum alone, and we are but a fraction of users. There are thousands of schools with tens of thousands of students who use it for non-logged training. There are 377k people who bought a ten year old game on Steam. There's a far wider usage base for FSX besides the people who buy Orbx addons and PMDG planes. It's well within reason to suggest hundreds of thousands of people still use FSX. 

 

 

I think an even bigger issue than that is making flight simulation relevant beyond a niche community, since I'm assuming that one of DTG's primary focuses is making money and healthy ROI

 

 

They make freaking train simulators. Do you really think DTG has grand illusions of making the next War Thunder or some Call of Duty level flight simulator? I don't and they've basically said that isn't their vision.

 

Besides, FSX was a large commercial success. You just made the argument that FLIGHT was as well. Would FLIGHT of been any less successful had it included ATC and world-wide vector scenery? Of course not. Honestly, if it's just about ROI, the best move for DTG would be to put some lipstick on FSX and make money off of DLC offerings even though I hope that's not all they do.

 

I think some people very much want  wider appeal to be a mythical white whale, because if it isn't, then that means some things would have to change to accommodate new people, and change can be hard.

 

 

I'd be interested in you just coming out and saying exactly what you want (something you may of done in this long thread). You clearly disagree with anyone who wants FSX to keep it's scope. Ok, so what do you want? Specifically? What magical features will give it mass appeal that no other developer has done yet? 

 

I've already said it would be cool to have a persistent MP universe, RPG elements, ability to get out of the plane and have virtual FBOs. What more do you want to accommodate new players? And why would I fear such additions?

[Glynn 405]

 

 

Because we've already been there and done that, essentially. Repeatedly.

 

Devon, most of us just want an improved version of FSX,

 

64bit is all we need then the Devs can push forward even more. The framework that FSX/P3D provides is fantastic in its breadth and scope, I very much doubt it could be done again today by any company, certainly not one as small as Dovetail.

 

You seem to want something that is moving away from a purely Aviation based simulator, towards something that is closer to a game environment.

 

For myself I am totally happy with what FSX/P3D provides, a global flight simulator with great third party content with more arriving all the time , whats not to like about that ?

[mabe54 17]

+1

 

But

 

 

The bigger issue with FSX is graphics, performance, and making the world more alive.

That will not happen without better CPU's (no OC) coming along. The clock has been frozen since 2006 which pulled the plug on FSXI in 2009.

 

 

Well anything is possible, but DTG would be wizards indeed, to be attempting all of that in the given timeframe.

 

That doesn't make sense, so no value added. They can set any time they want. Not much the rest of us can do about it except wait.

 

 

As for Microsoft re-entering the picture in any way, shape, or form.........

 

I mentioned MS as a resource like a book in a library but not a public one and I know DTG has an exclusive card access to it like Lockheed has another one. And for either one, MS hasn't been involved at all which was probably the main idea. :ph34r:

 

 

Well, assuming we could take that out of the realm of fantasy (or nightmare) and make it a real possibility, would we really even want that?

MS running FSX was not a fantasy and it is still a reality and for sure not a nightmare after SP1, SP2 and Acceleration came about. I don't have any problem with any of the players including MS, I just want the FS rolling full "steam" ahead again.

 

 

In the end, what you are saying seems a firm argument for..... essentially maintaining the status quo.

 

FSX with yet another coat of paint.

Evolution just make business sense and it is better than a gamble on something new from the ground up which would be a waste of valuable time for nothing. FSX is a lot different than FS2004 as this one was from FS2002, etc, etc. So I do not see your so called "essentially maintaining the status quo."  

 

Cheers,

[mabe54 17]

 

And War Thunder, which probably has a budget just for advertising that probably approaches the profit of all the third parties combined, offers a different lesson entirely. We could also mention other sims coasting along nicely like Aerofly, Rise of Flight, etc. All in more limited worlds. Don't get me wrong, the whole world at one time instead of presented piecemeal is nice, and I will take it if offered. But its not nearly the end all and be all. Except to those who have now become accustomed to it, I suspect it will be largely a non-issue.

Why War of Thunder (or any of the other GAMES you mentioned) doesn't cut it enough for you that you have the need for FS to change to that/those model/s? Why are you here, assuming, bore to death with FS old fashion ways? You like arcade type of games, sorry, this is not the place nor the choir. Or better yet, try Missions in FSX, you might be impressed and entertained too finally.

 

Cheers,

[HiFlyer 9,393]

What does that even mean? Is FSX not different then FS2002? 

 

Not really. There were some things added in (and i'm sure the engine changed internally) as well, and there are better textures etc, but as for play experience, all that really changed was the graphics. I can bop back and forth between the two (both still up and running on my machine) and the changes are just mildly evolutionary, which I suspect is why all these years later, FS9 still offers enough that a switch is not necessary for many users.

 

They make freaking train simulators. Do you really think DTG has grand illusions of making the next War Thunder or some Call of Duty level flight simulator? I don't and they've basically said that isn't their vision.

 

Besides, FSX was a large commercial success. You just made the argument that FLIGHT was as well.

 

I think they have grand illusions of making a profit. And I think from their past practices they will be interested in making a non-violent, somewhat realistic simulation that appeals to as wide an audience as possible. Since FSX and in fact all previous civilian sims have been shown to have a fairly limited (niche) audience unable to support the costs of continued development, they will have to try new things to attract that new, wider audience.

 

I made the argument that FLIGHT was not necessarily an utter failure, and that the basic Idea was probably sound.

 

I'd be interested in you just coming out and saying exactly what you want (something you may of done in this long thread)

 

Yes, I did.

 

64bit is all we need then the Devs can push forward even more. The framework that FSX/P3D provides is fantastic in its breadth and scope, I very much doubt it could be done again today by any company, certainly not one as small as Dovetail.

 

The framework of fsx/p3d is probably fine for this audience, but what about everyone else? Even in FLIGHT the mismatched jigsaw-puzzle landscape with the painted-on lights was just short of painful to a modern audience. The overall experience of FSX in this day in age is of a relic in almost every sense but the fidelity of the planes themselves. For advanced users, thats fine, but this market is already saturated with FS9 X-Plane, Flightgear, FSX, FSX-SE and P3D.

 

Why would DTG (Using Microsoft tech again, no less) try to nudge its way up to that same old feeding bin it's already got one horse tied to? If they're not going to bring something new and exciting to a wider audience, then what could conceivably be the point? If it's just essentially the same old, in a different box, then you'll have the same situation of people sticking with P3D, others continuing with X-plane etc.

 

Almost no matter what, the reaction in this community will be diluted for a long time.

 

What would be the big incentive to switch from the old and familiar to a new old and familiar, in a situation when even the blandishments of 64Bit can't convince a majority to switch to X-plane?

 

You seem to want something that is moving away from a purely Aviation based simulator, towards something that is closer to a game environment.

 

Guilty. I think the current genre has gotten rigid/inflexible with everything being increasingly concretized to consider only certain forms of simulation to be legitimate. Its non-inclusive, and I believe it can only lead to decline. Rigidly doing a checklist and flicking buttons for a half hour before takeoff is great for those who have over the years proudly scaled the heights of complexity mountain, but it's time to drop a ladder down to everyone else if the hobby intends to continue to grow.

 

Its time to start at the bottom again with a more entry-level simulator that the next generation of Simmers can grow with.

Why War of Thunder (or any of the other GAMES you mentioned) doesn't cut it enough for you that you have the need for FS to change to that/those model/s? Why are you here, assuming, bore to death with FS old fashion ways? You like arcade type of games, sorry, this is not the place nor the choir. Or better yet, try Missions in FSX, you might be impressed and entertained too finally.

 

Cheers,

 

War of thunder.........

 

Honestly I won't do the games vs sim thing. I've never seen it go anywhere good, it's extremely silly, and I just won't do it.

 

As for the missions, It was the missions in FLIGHT, many of which were variations of missions in FSX, which caused many to Dismiss flight as a "game" apparently forgetting that those same types of things were in FSX as well.

 

I hope DTG's new sim has many missions, and I stated that in my 1st wishlist.

 

As for this not being the place or the Choir, who decides that, exactly? The forum itself caters to all types of sims.

[Wobbie 938]

Remember, DTG makes games! So, in retrospect, we will probably get exactly that!

As far as the evolution from Fs2002 to FSX, we have to realise that that is where we fly planes, & we probably fly them exactly the same way no matter in which game.

So, we not going to get 64bit (yet), which target market is DTG going for? Gamers/ their existing market? Probably! NOT a bad thing.. it increases our hobby base!

There is a huge community that still use FS9 in various configs as well as P3D.

What is actually missing from that picture? The huge gaming community on Steam.

Not really. There were some things added in (and i'm sure the engine changed internally) as well, and there are better textures etc, but as for play experience, all that really changed was the graphics.
 

+1 & said so well! New blood is needed!

Edited June 30, 2015 by n4gix
Trimmed out the excessive quote. Again!

[bonchie 2,305]

Missions and better graphics are not going to grow this genre. It'll have to be bigger then that. The interest in aviation is simply not there among the general public for it to be that simple. We see this in real-world flying as well. 

 

Look at the games that were formally very niche markets that have become highly successful and what do they have in common?

 

ARMA3 has sold almost 2 million copies in less then two years. The military simulation genre was practically non-existent after Operation Flashpoint until Bohemia moved ahead with the ARMA series years later. 

The Space Sim genre was dead five years ago. Now Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are raking in hundreds of millions for development from a fan base that was said to be as niche as niche could get. 

 

Why has DayZ been such a success when other zombie games weren't for so many years? 

 

The thing these all have in common are a large unlimiting scope, immersive environments, challenging and complex game play, and developers who were willing to build a game that pleased their base while also inviting newcomers with exciting new ideas.

 

"But if it were profitable someone would of done it by now!!!" is not a valid proof of anything. People would of said the same thing about space sims five years ago until someone had the balls to come up with a big idea, present it properly, and appeal to their base for funding.

 

The knee-jerk assumption that in order to attract a large fan base you need your game to be simple, easy, and limited has been proven wrong many times. 

 

The path forward for flight simulation is crowd-sourcing. Yes, you won't get investors to put up enough money to truly do a next-gen title. That's true in most other genres as well outside of the mainstream. But with the right vision, presentation, and scope a developer could successfully crowd-source tens of millions toward development of a simulation that truly provides something for everyone.

 

And no, I'm not suggesting put lipstick on FSX and call it FSXI. I'm saying in order to be successful, you will need both sides of the coin. 

 

What flight simulation needs is a more persistent, living, interactive world with tasks and achievements to accomplish that aren't hokey or gimmicky (i.e. flying through hoops) but revolve around the subject matter at hand. Things need to be more organic then canned missions. That's what you see in the games I mentioned above. You can have fun game play that is still authentic to the subject matter.

 

You know how many people are flying around in Elite Dangerous right now simply delivering cargo? The reason it's so popular is the world which surrounds the activities, the authenticity and complexity of the game play, and the scope of the universe along with the feeling of achievement. Flight simulation can tap into those same things.

 

I think ultimately, flight simulation will have to move to an online, persistent universe with authentic content based activities and achievements just like the space games are doing in their genre. That's what will get people interested again. Games are becoming more and more about having a "2nd life" in the game (as creepy as that sounds) vs. firing up a game for a quick mission and some pretty graphics. 

[AndyPaul 11]

Missions and better graphics are not going to grow this genre.

 

 

Very well said!!

Edited June 30, 2015 by n4gix
Yes it was, but you DO NOT have to repeat it!

[bonchie 2,305]

And I'll say that I'm not totally against not having the entire world. 

 

But I do think any environment, in order to create the variation for exploration and to serve as a base to the swath of activities and different kind of flying people will want to do will have to at least be the size of the USA or Europe. 

[mabe54 17]

If there is something already up in the market why change this one?

 

I for one am totally against not having the entire world in a FS. It would be a mistake on top too.

 

Cheers,

 

As for this not being the place or the Choir, who decides that, exactly? The forum itself caters to all types of sims.

No, the Site does.

 

Cheers,

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

The interest in aviation is simply not there among the general public

 

Certainly true in terms of new pilot starts.  But the National Air and Space Museum in DC is the most visited museum in the world - has been for decades.  The VE-Day flyover here in DC filled up the Mall with spectators.  You'd think that a good flight sim (free form and versatile, like the one you're describing) could capture some of that energy.