Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lorenzog89

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

Recommended Posts

 

I would perfectly accept a sim covering the whole World, but with only detailed areas for a few places, and additional detail coming in the form of DLCs. After all, thx to some talented devs, we can now fly MS FLIGHT Worldwide!

... and have the same result as MS FLIGHT at the end. No. So, I wouldn't.

 

The whole World just as before and always. Someone wants better? Pay for it. Let the freeware have it's saying and chance too.

 

No backward compatibility for me either. Fresh, better and new. No drawbacks.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

Mmmm, so, the general thoughts is that all we need is eye candy & decent scenery for our ideal 'holy grail' sim?

The planes, depending on the developers, fly reasonably OK, as they have in all the sims to date, so that's not the problem.


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Mmmm, so, the general thoughts is that all we need is eye candy & decent scenery for our ideal 'holy grail' sim?

 

I hope people are looking for a bit more than that.


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

Technically speaking - a new Flight Sim would be a piece of cake.  It's getting all the asset licenses that would kill the effort.

 

Cheers

jja


Jim Allen
support@skypilot.biz
SkyPilot Software home of FSXAssist / P3DAssist

LionheartVictoryBanner02s-369x97.png

Share this post


Link to post

To be nice, thanks to these guys for asking for suggestions. I just don't see how any of this makes sense at all. It took LM years just to clean up the old trashy code from esp/fsx to get Prepar3d to market. How on earth do you guys think that Dovetail is going to just somehow squeezzzz on a frogs head and he is going to poop out a flight sim. On top of all that many of you for some reason think that this is going to happen by 2016. I am not sure where that idea came from but it keep popping up. The only possible thing I can think of is they are going to try and sell that MS Flight thing again and we all remember what a big fireball and hole in the ground that made. Good luck with the new ATC and orbx like scenery and all the other dreams. I am staying with LM until Dovetail proves me wrong and if they do I will just mail them my credit card and buy all I can afford.


Sam

Prepar3D V5.3/12700K@5.1/EVGA 3080 TI/1000W PSU/Windows 10/40" 4K Samsung@3840x2160/ASP3D/ASCA/ORBX/
ChasePlane/General Aviation/Honeycomb Alpha+Bravo/MFG Rudder Pedals/

Share this post


Link to post

To be nice, thanks to these guys for asking for suggestions. I just don't see how any of this makes sense at all. It took LM years just to clean up the old trashy code from esp/fsx to get Prepar3d to market. How on earth do you guys think that Dovetail is going to just somehow squeezzzz on a frogs head and he is going to poop out a flight sim. On top of all that many of you for some reason think that this is going to happen by 2016. I am not sure where that idea came from but it keep popping up. The only possible thing I can think of is they are going to try and sell that MS Flight thing again and we all remember what a big fireball and hole in the ground that made. Good luck with the new ATC and orbx like scenery and all the other dreams. I am staying with LM until Dovetail proves me wrong and if they do I will just mail them my credit card and buy all I can afford.

Well the initial plan was for it to be released in 2015... http://www.dovetailgames.com/news/2014/jul/9/dovetail-games-licensing-deal-with-microsoft-takes-flight

 

I'm not aware that they've publicly contradicted that, though we're getting to the point that it's too late in the year to have not heard anything at all and to still reasonably expect a release before H2 2016...

 

Honestly, I fully expect them to keep to form and for this to be a complete crock, a low quality but exceptionally expensive DLC exercise, but I still hold a small sliver of hope that it won't be 'son of Flight'. I'm the optimistic sort you see.

 

I too suspect I will be a LM user for a good long while.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Flying Penguin. I also pretty much feel that that will probably come out is 'Son of Flight!', maybe with closed DLC's. Actually, not a bad thing at all.  Remember, it will be an entertainment product, distributed by probably the large st gaming distributor, & who probably have the largest network of gamers.. (their target market for sims?)

 

So, choices again.. another gaming product  :t4013: or  :p0502:??


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion remains that Flight was technically very much of an advance over FSX, with enormous potential. I also had no problem with smaller areas with greater detail, as long as the intent would have been to eventually cover the world. Why would I object, when I have sat quietly for years while Orbx is currently doing essentially the exact same thing, producing gig after gig of DLC in all but name. (to wide acclaim, I might add)

 

The difficulty in the community, to me, seems to go straight back to the same thing I mentioned before: FSX fixation, and the unwillingness to accept anything much short of a (suitably improved) 1 to 1 copy of that program, starting with all the world and its airports straight out of the gate.

 

It might be possible, but if DTG went a similar route as Flight instead, I really wouldn't have much problem with that, assuming that they were willing to devote the resources to the task that Microsoft never did.

 

I don't think they could ever make "microsoft flight technology" truly cutting edge, without pretty much starting over, but I do believe it would not be out of the question to surpass FSX in pretty much every single way eventually, with the application of serious work and dedication and a long term view, which I believe DTG is capable of bringing to the table.


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

MS Flight FAILED, MS FSX DIDN'T/HASN'T. Keep the evolution/revolution going, it has worked/lasted for these many years it will last forever, way after planes become a thing of the past. Sacrifice/Give up NOTHING!!!

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

But not owning an Orbx region doesn't prevent me flying there, if I fly between two Orbx regions, say San Francisco to Jackson, I don't suddenly find myself in blank terrain where Nevada is.  The comparison to Flight is tenuous at best,  even leaving aside the fact it's taken Orbx 4-5 years to cover Australia, a bit of the northern and Western fringe of Europe and part of the west coast of north America.  It doesn't have to all be Orbx quality (and I've no interest in splurging on high quality France if all I'm doing is flying over it at 30k feet on the way to Malta, for example), but some level of global coverage (even if only to support flying over somewhere) is pretty much a basic hygiene factor, just look at the comparative success of X-Plane/FSX vs small area sims which have either gone away or remain strictly niche products even by flight sim standards. 

 

The "fixation", as you call it, is because, if you accept it's going to be a flight simulator, and not some hypothetical omni-sim, making massive sacrifices in terms of completeness of vision is not a worthwhile trade off to gain what amounts to a bit of spit and polish on a world that, excluding areas around airports and a few scenic spots, would mostly only be seen from a great heigh by most people using it as a simulation of real world flight.  By all means stick whatever game structures and incentives on the front as are necessary to make a game that can be sold to the "unwashed masses", but if you call something a flight sim and aim to sell it as such to people who actually like flight sims (as opposed to just new consumers who may see it on Steam), it has to represent real progress as judged against the incumbents on what actually matters to them, and clearly "immersion" (in the sense of plausible worlds) is not as important to them as being able to credibly simulate the flights they want to do.  Flight could have been great, it wasn't, due in no small part to the fact that those that weren't interested in "serious" sims went "ok, and the point is?" whilst those that were went "why would I ever want to fly just in Hawaii?"

 

Just because the fashion now is for "early access, open world, MMO sandbox, crafting based survival games" (aka "class action suits in waiting"...  but that's another topic in itself), doesn't mean that the traditional flight sim model of being a flight toolbox has no place in the modern world.  Yes, more structure is needed to attract and keep the "modern" gamer, Train Sim does that well with career and missions, but even there you are completely free to ignore it and just do whatever you like, and if you want to carry the existing community (who are dropping hundreds if not thousands of dollars each on DLC even now) with you , you need to give them a reason to switch, other than "for the good of 'progress'" or because "the world has moved on".  Or you can build a small but perfectly formed sandbox and wonder, just like Flight did, why the community are not scaling the walls to get in.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


The difficulty in the community, to me, seems to go straight back to the same thing I mentioned before: FSX fixation, and the unwillingness to accept anything much short of a (suitably improved) 1 to 1 copy of that program, starting with all the world and its airports straight out of the gate.

 

It's precisely this that makes FSX heads to toe superior to Flight. In FSX you have an open architecture that allows developers, to improve it's capabilities far beyond the original program.  Flight was closed, and you only got what MS wanted to offer, which wasn't much. Now replace FSX with FSX-SE and it's no contest. It adds the best implementation of VAS management of any of the 32 bit sims, including P3D. 4K resolution scenery texture capability. Being recompiled, with the newer compiler Performance is vastly improved in terms of smoothness of the sim. Add Steve's DX10 Fixer, and you have a true DX10 implementation, including VC shadowing. Not to mention the weather options including ASN. I can go on!! FSX-SE is every bit superior in every dimension to Flight, and what FSX should have been from the start.


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post

MS Flight FAILED, MS FSX DIDN'T/HASN'T. Keep the evolution/revolution going, it has worked/lasted for these many years it will last forever, way after planes become a thing of the past. Sacrifice/Give up NOTHING!!!

 

Cheers,

 

Wow.

 

But not owning an Orbx region doesn't prevent me flying there

 

To most of your post I would simply point out that Fsx is an anomaly in flight simulation, only matched in any way by the very few programs driven to attempt to emulate that. (X-Plane and Flightgear)

 

Historically, almost every other sim created in all that time both before and after, were and are in relatively limited areas. Many here have fond memories of those perfectly functional sims. It's only in retrospect of FSX and FS9 etc that it became fashionable to disregard as being in some way incomplete any sim not offering all the world at once. I see that as indeed a fixation on a specific scenario of simulation brought into fashion by Microsoft.

 

It may be what we have become accustomed to, but it's not the norm by any means, and not seeing it as the only acceptable scenario of true simulation in no way reflects on the commitment to the simulation of real world flight of those to whom the course Microsoft charted is only one of several equally viable options.

 

It's precisely this that makes FSX heads to toe superior to Flight. In FSX you have an open architecture that allows developers, to improve it's capabilities far beyond the original program.  Flight was closed, and you only got what MS wanted to offer, which wasn't much.

 

But we are not talking about Flight specifically, we are talking about Flights technology and its ultimate potential if Microsoft had actually supported it. There is really no difference between Orbx and any other DLC except the means of distribution and who controls it. We are accustomed to things being done a certain way, but it doesn't follow that that is the only way to approach things successfully. To me, the failure of flight was less about the concept, and more about poor execution and lack of commitment. MS was unwilling to devote the time and resources to make their effort successful, and should it turn out that DTG has a similar concept in mind, I suspect they have the long term vision to do a more creditable job. If that means the world might be offered at a slower pace but in greater detail, I'm not philosophically opposed to the experiment and of seeing what happens.

 

As has been pointed out, FSX will be here "forever" so there's no reason to not experiment with different options that might help expand simulation into a wider community. My only real qualm is that the painstaking creation by hand of large areas is probably a thing of the past. Procedural would likely be a better, more flexible option, and the "Microsoft flight technology" in all its forms should probably just finally go away. That seems unlikely here, but I'm still hoping for the best.

 

I would note though, that this is all speculation because DTG has not shown their hand. Apparently the original concept of FLIGHT was much closer to something like people wanted FS11 to be, and then MS backed away. Maybe that's the ball DTG have picked up, and I would welcome that as well.

 

(I will give any option for growth a fair chance)


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

To most of your post I would simply point out that Fsx is an anomaly in flight simulation, only matched in any way by the very few programs driven to attempt to emulate that. (X-Plane and Flightgear)

 
Which is why FSX and X-Plane are the also rans and Aerofly and Flight Unlimited became the major genre defining sims.  Oh wait....
 
What we are talking about here boils down to "what makes a flightsim that we, the community, would buy", not "what is an acceptable form of flightsim".  I have closed-map flight sims, DCS, Il-2: CloD, Rise of Flight.  They are great, despite their small maps, because the conflicts (or in DCS, hypothetical conflict) they simulate were limited to distinct geographical areas.  It makes no sense to fight Messerschmits over the Rockies, or Camels over Bogota, "living the fantasy" is not dependent on that.  The problem for civil aviation is that there are just so many flavours of "fantasy", most mutually exclusive and very few true universal ones.  You may dream of flying over Hawaii in a Staggerwing, I might fancy the Staggerwing, but Hawaii doesn't do anything for me, conversely I might dream of doing the Mach Loop in a Hawk.  Neither of those last two options makes me likely to buy a sim that only does Hawaiian Staggerwings...
 
I believe the fundamental reason that FSX and X-Plane have demonstrated such staying power is that they are, out of the box, capable of simulating such a wide range of experiences that even if your particular fantasy isn't there, you can usually get close enough (I might have to do that Mach Loop in an F-18).  Flight failed not because of the DLC (we already buy that by the bucket load) but because it was too limited to attract a broad enough church of people and couldn't expand the content fast enough to attract people before it ran out of momentum and was pulled.
 

 

But we are not talking about Flight specifically, we are talking about Flights technology and its ultimate potential if Microsoft had actually supported it. There is really no difference between Orbx and any other DLC except the means of distribution and who controls it. We are accustomed to things being done a certain way, but it doesn't follow that that is the only way to approach things successfully. I am not philosophically opposed to the experiment of approaching Flight simulation from a new direction and seeing what happens.

 

As has been pointed out, FSX will be here "forever" so there's no reason to not experiment with different options that might help expand simulation into a wider community.

 

 

This is not about control of DLC (on a theoretical level at least), the engine or backwards compatibility.  It's about providing the capability to satisfy enough fantasies (and fantasy satisfaction, whether it be of being a bush pilot or a tubeliner captain, is what underpins flight sims) to give enough people a reason to buy the sim.  To put it simply, I'm not interested in buying a sim that only satisfies the fantasies picked by a marketing focus group, and judging by this thread I'm very far from alone.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong in trying new approaches, but DTG are not a charity and judging by this thread they will not receive many purchases from this community if their sim doesn't allow people to fulfil the fantasies that matter to them.  If full world comes at launch or later, included or as DLC, really it makes no difference (other than to purchase economics), but until it comes the community is unlikely to move to DTG FS in large numbers, at least as a primary (and hence DLC purchase driving) sim.

Share this post


Link to post

...but DTG are not a charity and judging by this thread they will not receive many purchases from this community if their sim doesn't allow people to fulfil the fantasies that matter to them....

But if DTG get enough purchases elsewhere then it may not be too worried about this community?

Share this post


Link to post

Which is why FSX and X-Plane are the also rans and Aerofly and Flight Unlimited became the major genre defining sims.  Oh wait..

 

FSX is a program whose existence is supported by the fact that there are simply no alternatives, and there are no alternatives because the community that keeps it alive is too small to support the creation of an alternative. Beyond that, we have X-plane that can only draw even a relatively small fraction of that remaining fraction, and X-plane manages to survive primarily by having other markets to draw on above and beyond this tiny community. This is not the greatest situation on earth.

 

What we are talking about here boils down to "what makes a flightsim that we, the community, would buy", not "what is an acceptable form of flightsim".

 

The world is larger than this community. Any sim that aimed only for us is pretty much doomed from the start, and the hard numbers, again, explain why there has been no alternative to FSX. As I mentioned before, if I was a shareholder in a company aiming even primarily, much less solely at this market, I would have many very pointed questions, and would probably be looking to start a revolt.

 

I believe the fundamental reason that FSX and X-Plane have demonstrated such staying power is that they are, out of the box, capable of simulating such a wide range of experiences that even if your particular fantasy isn't there, you can usually get close enough

 

FSX ultimately failed. Microsoft stopped support and disbanded Aces. The apparent life we see is the third parties that have evolved to survive off of the forsaken remains. They profit (in many cases just barely) but the company that created the sim in the first place found too small a market, apparently, to support further development. X-plane as fas as I can see makes as much money from Ipad sales as they do from us (probably more) and that goes back to what I said previously about no active civilian sims being able to survive with us as the sole and primary market.

 

The desires of this small segment cannot monopolize the future of civilian simulation! There are not enough of us to sustain it. We either try new things or we maintain our years (nearly a decade!) long holding pattern hoping somebody will take pity. Why on earth would anyone seeking a profit emulate a pattern that has repeatedly failed to draw enough numbers to support itself?

 

Flight failed not because of the DLC (we already buy that by the bucket load) but because it was too limited to attract a broad enough church of people and couldn't expand the content fast enough to attract people before it ran out of momentum and was pulled.

 

I actually used FLIGHT (still do) and heard the comments over time from the actual players. It was never a disappointment about the limited area that discouraged truly new people. (Except visitors from FSX) It was the extremely dated "Microsoft flight technology" graphics (mostly the years-old reused jigsaw puzzle ground textures) and severe lack of varied content (planes planes and nothing but planes) People liked the missions, and often did them together, but, in standard civilian Microsoft practice, the planes didn't explode when they hit things (BONK) and the warplanes were not allowed to do warplane stuff, which in many minds made no sense at all. FLIGHT tried to be new, with one foot still buried in the conventions of FSX.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong in trying new approaches, but DTG are not a charity and judging by this thread they will not receive many purchases from this community if their sim doesn't allow people to fulfil the fantasies that matter to them.

 

The fantasy that matters to DTG is making enough money to survive, and I suspect its very unlikely they can do that by focusing more than a bit on this community. I'm sure they would be absolutely ecstatic to have us, but making money would matter first, to me. I would rather build up a large, stable broad based following, and maybe get to us in time, rather than try the reverse. I don't think even FSX originally catered to what this market has become. It was simple and friendly, and only years of uninterrupted surgery has brought it to the state that many now seem to believe a new sim must start from.


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...