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

[mabe54 17]

It is amazing how much a little salt, butter, sour cream and flakes of onion do for a baked potato. But we must never forget that is still  a potato. Too much fat.

 

Cheers,

[codechris 9]

HiFlyer, sorry but "can do" is not the same as "we should do" and quite frankly, what does that add to our existing market? The only way I can see it adding anything more, in terms of big gains, is a combat flight sim. Or one that can be both. Quite frankly, we already have those alternatives for combat. I see little gain here

[HiFlyer 9,360]

If the answer to either question is "no", then it would not make sense to add damage modeling. Of course it's hard to know the answer to either question.

 

Exactly.

 

You know, when I first saw that Dovetail was asking here for suggestions, I think my first post was that I would add other things than what many would ask for, because honestly, the nature of the community is such that what would be commonly asked for was largely predictable, and would essentially add up to FS11.

 

It was also obvious to me that DTG would have to inquire in other venues as well, to get a broader sample of potential users, and a wider range of requests than simply more of the same, and double down.

 

Theirs is the job of squaring the circle, and reconciling the diverse requests, not simply to build something to make simmers eyes glow, but to satisfy the needs of a diversity of users. In simple terms, its not all about us, and in fact, the Steam membership is the much more natural target for a company specializing in casual simulation.

 

Its not even remotely surprising that the Steam forum features a much wider variety of requests (including several requests for damage) being systematically knocked for apparently violating orthodoxy. Are we trying for a small exclusive club of true believers? (again?)

 

Well, we know how that movie ends, and hopefully Dovetail does too.

 

The fact is, I will be interested in whatever they produce. If its casual, or even arcade, it will join my library of aviation-themed programs, and I'll have fun. Likewise if its a study sim (not likely!) I will also buy it and explore it with just as much satisfaction.

 

I will not be the one tearing my hair (like when Flight came out) and tasting bitter ashes and declaring I will not buy the stinky poo, if Dovetail decides in their wisdom that their financial future resides in something other than what I alone deem worthy. Its not all about me, either. (if there is anybody its all about, that would be DTG. Its their money on the table!)

 

By the way, just back from the fireworks, so happy forth of July, everyone!

[mabe54 17]

 

I will not be the one tearing my hair (like when Flight came out) and tasting bitter ashes and declaring I will not buy the stinky poo,

 

Sorry but nobody did. Why? Two reasons. I'll give the little one for free: Flight was for free. Care to guess the second one? You won't like though.

 

if Dovetail decides in their wisdom that their financial future resides in something other than what I alone deem worthy. Its not all about me, either.

 

You're kidding us, right?

 

Long time ago now that DTG proved they know what they are doing by choosing FSX as the model, not the other one that f...d. (Being nice here)

 

 

The fact is, I will be interested in whatever they produce. If its casual, or even arcade, it will join my library of aviation-themed programs, and I'll have fun. Likewise if its a study sim (not likely!) I will also buy it and explore it with just as much satisfaction.

 

That would be your choice to which you are entitled. Just have the same courtesy for the millions of us "Simers" that won't follow you. (Don't count, now)

 

Cheers,

[HiFlyer 9,360]

Sorry but nobody did. Why? Two reasons. I'll give the little one for free: Flight was for free. Care to guess the second one? You won't like though.

 

As for "nobody did" can I see your sources for numbers please? Or are we still making them up as we go, to support our own preconceptions?

 

That would be your choice to which you are entitled. Just have the same courtesy for the millions of us "Simers" that won't follow you. (Don't count, now)

 

Look around. Do you see me countering any of your requests and saying please don't make it too realistic? Nope, I said I would enjoy whatever came out. (apparently a red flag) You've made your requests, and they stand. Its you and others that have been countering any requests that don't match your own orthodoxy. So have some courtesy yourself.

 

Do you see me typing anything all in caps? Using wildly inflated numbers repeatedly to make a point? Millions of Flight simmers? Where, exactly? How many people on this forum again, after years of accumulating users from all over the world? Do you see me challenging the swear filter like some have been recently? Courtesy?

 

Hmmmmmmm......

 

Apparently DTG is to provide this supersim out of the goodness of its heart, replicating FSX almost precisely, only better, with only the needs of hardcore simmers as their guide since apparently nobody else need apply for the adventure except maybe on sufferance. And of course, since there is an absolutely enormous market for such a sim, (this has been proven again and again by X-plane and P3Ds massive profits and gigantic development teams) they will of course make money hand over fist, just like Microsoft did before they inexplicably shut things down in the face of all those people eagerly waving cash.......

 

I wonder what DTG thinks of all of this.

 

DTG will have a budget for its development costs.

 

And you don't know how much that is, or what their priorities are, any more than I do.

 

Ford will not offer a Ferrari.

 

And I never asked them to, that was your analogy. I do find it interesting that we can eagerly discuss all the things we want added to up the "realism" of the sim, and that we can literally fill pages listing feature after feature, but mention crash damage, and suddenly there is concern for DTG's unknown budget. I'm simply making suggestions. I assume DTG knows what they can afford.

[mgh 89]

Ok. Just a few pages ago you were talking about the whole thread being speculation

Read my words. I wasn't speculating. I gave the facts

DTG will have a budget for its development costs.

Ford will not offer a Ferrari.

[LHookins 3,103]

Well, lessee...

 

First of all, Microsoft said they were forbidden by at least some of their license agreements with aircraft manufacturers to show damage to the aircraft. This is why there is no damage in MSFS.

 

I was showing a 16 year old nephew Microsoft Flight. He clipped a building with a wingtip, and crashed, and lamented that there was no debris. If you want a wide audience, there should be SOMETHING modeled there, if possible.

 

Second, Ford did make a 200 mph car: the Ford GT in 2005 and 2006. This was with a 500 HP supercharged engine. A quote from wiki: "Top speed: electronically limited to 205 mph". Retail price, about $150,000.

 

Third: Hello, my name is Larry and I'm a gamer. Oddly enough, almost every game I play is some kind of simulation. I prefer to play something that will give me a chance to learn something. When I was involved with Microsoft Flight, I generally flew it as realistically as possible. That doesn't mean I didn't have fun with it occasionally. If you want a wide audience, you can't squeeze all the fun out of it.

 

Hook

[frankielera 5]

 

 

If you crash an aircraft, along with losing your aircraft, if you 'die' in the sim, you also loose your platform licence.....permanently.

 

SMH here............That means I can't have a beer on my desk anymore? ....Oh man!!

 

I think what you just suggested(if you were serious about it)would be the worst decision ever in the history of flight simulation. 

[codechris 9]

I think DT are interested in the fun factor, since they re-released some mission packs, and Jane's new mission pack is exclusive to FSX:SE. Some may not consider these fun, depends on what you like, but they are challenges and achievements and I think there is a market for that

[TooWings 17]

I often try to out climb those mountain passes, as well as high density altitude takeoffs. Happily, it's only a simulation. I just don't expect some gory animation of the after effects.

 

But surely such 'gory' crash damage is a natural part of 'real'-world flying, as are bird strikes and wing and gear damage etc. 

Such damage modelling is now part of a number of modern sim/games including GTA-5, yet we've had cartoonish 'crash' animations happening in MSFSim for well over a decade, and even now in the 21st century.

 

Bird strike

https://youtu.be/sH_kNC-fzto?t=33

 

 

I was showing a 16 year old nephew Microsoft Flight. He clipped a building with a wingtip, and crashed, and lamented that there was no debris.  If you want a wide audience, there should be SOMETHING modeled there, if possible.

 

Agreed.  This, for example, is just embarrassing....

https://youtu.be/U8HQjTMeMqk

 

On a lighter note. I spotted this video shot at Edinburgh castle.  Birds obviously cant tell the time ;-)

https://youtu.be/J43d43m-ptk

[mgh 89]

Second, Ford did make a 200 mph car: the Ford GT in 2005 and 2006. This was with a 500 HP supercharged engine. A quote from wiki: "Top speed: electronically limited to 205 mph". Retail price, about $150,000.

 

I suggest that's the exception that proves the rule. The GT is priced at $150,000 and a Fusion at $22,000. On that basis the DTG's new flight simulator would sell at about $275! Assuming it would sell in sufficient numbers!

[n4gix 4,947]

But surely such 'gory' crash damage is a natural part of 'real'-world flying, as are bird strikes and wing and gear damage etc. 

Such damage modelling is now part of a number of modern sim/games including GTA-5, yet we've had cartoonish 'crash' animations happening in MSFSim for well over a decade, and even now in the 21st century.

What part of Microsoft was not permitted by the aircraft manufacturers to include "crash modeling" was unclear?

[HiFlyer 9,360]

What part of Microsoft was not permitted by the aircraft manufacturers to include "crash modeling" was unclear?

 

I have doubts. You believe the various plane companies now and forever forbid damage modeling, at a time when a much smaller company like Aerofly is successfully able to do so? BeamNG (they of the rubbery crashes I posted earlier) is a small kickstarter company with probably 5 employees, yet is allowed to crash Cessnas with no issue in their paid version, as is Aerofly......

 

Is it possible that some companies have become more flexible since FSX was released? Or that companies have varying policies?

[TooWings 17]

What part of Microsoft was not permitted by the aircraft manufacturers to include "crash modeling" was unclear?

 

What part of the LHookins comment that I posted wasn't clear? i.e.  ....

 

I was showing a 16 year old nephew Microsoft Flight. He clipped a building with a wingtip, and crashed, and lamented that there was no debris. If you want a wide audience, there should be SOMETHING modeled there, if possible.

[n4gix 4,947]

Devon, what was then au currant legally may no longer be the case. Or, perhaps Aerofly had better negotiators...

 

Nonetheless, this prohibition was explained to myself and other developers while attending a conference in Redmond back in 2005.

 

As for GTA-5, they are not using actual manufacturer's products in their game.