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.

 

Honestly, this is not a huge, burning issue for me. (few things are!!)

 

If DTG did it, it would be cool, and if they didn't, that would be cool as well.

 

What strikes me is that in almost every case where something has been suggested that was not simply an enhancement of something already a part of FSX, there has been a strong counter-reaction.  :unsure:

 

Are we truly expecting DTG to recreate FSX in every detail, with only a bit of a nip and tuck here and there? For our suggestions, is that the best we can come up with?

 

(By the way, its true that the Aerofly airbus simply bounces)

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

 

It's been mentioned numerous times that the vehicles and aircraft in GTA are not copies, but many are modelled on existing types, i.e. 747, Lear-Jet, Cessna, Extra etc)...and Eurocopter..

 

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/fullsize/17.jpg

 

The point I was making was: like LHookins said, at least give us 'some' sort of damage modelling, anything but the current static 'crash' screen! 

The GTA bird strike feature for example, could easily be modelled into a next gen flightsim/game, meaning that an engine could fail, or a wind shield could shatter - but hang on, maybe screen shatter is too gory for many simmers ;-)  

But at least give us scrapes on the paintwork if a plane should crash-land or clip a building etc, ;-)

 

https://youtu.be/Kf9eYM9rAhc?t=87

 

 

Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator

 

That could be another viable/valuable independent resurrection for DTG. Improved of course.

 

 

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

 

I understand what you are coming from in general but that almost last statement was too close to the fringes... Made me laugh and added some my own though.

 

 

We want realism. Please, please, please NO arcade. Please.

 

I am with you on that one.

 

 

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 think it was a sensitivity issue and an aftermath for 9/11 at the time still lingering after 5 years. I ended up accepting it since in reality for me, it is not a biggie. As I said before, there are a thousand+ ways for DTG to deal with it and it doesn have be a cumberson one. My answer after a crash message is always consistent, Ctrl + C then Yes and then: What ^&* was that? What's wrong with you? Etc, etc. 99.9999999999999999999999999% my fault always.

 

 

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

 

 

 

You mean the stuff that dreams are made off? Come on, get another one and hit the throttle(s).

 

Cheers,

BTW, Missions is the gamer factor (and serious business (P3D)) not missing in FSX if we must accept the point of partially gaming but it is also another valuable tool in its arsenal not to be squandered away any time soon either. Let's keep it and evolve it too along the way with FSX. And yes, it is also another money maker within the franchise if used correctly and wisely.

 

It is all about how DTG tackles the FS future. It is a Vision for the long haul, not just the immediate one.

 

Cheers,

This sounds essentially like the old argument that got us here in the first place. Leave the games for the gamers, and the sims for the simmers. So the gamers leave to play War Thunder, and we possibly end up (again) with not enough people to support robust development of a sim. Do we really expect DTG to follow the same path Microsoft did, and allow their product to wander into the path of an extremely limited market? Wasn't the entire idea of Flight to break out of that straightjacket?

 

 

I don't disagree completely with the base premise, but at the same time, if the simulator compromises so much that it no longer appeals to me, why should I care about supporting their development or if it continues? And what's War Thunder doing with that big budget? The same tiny maps and simple game play. Developers tend to be pretty rigid when something starts bringing in money. That's the fear people have with throwing everything to the wind and going massively simple or to consoles. 

 

Does anyone here really think FLIGHT was ever going to release an ATC, STARS/SIDS, or Real-Time weather DLC? Of course they weren't. The direction was clear (don't get me wrong, there were some delusional enough to think that was going to happen). 

 

This is why so many people are at odds with you in this thread. It's not that we are against missions, achievements, and living worlds. I'd have a lot of fun with that stuff. Make that stuff and include it

 

BUT there's a balance that has to be maintained where those things can exist while still being a simulator that is useful to all of us as well. Frankly, if DTG wants to go create some simplified, extremely limited game where people just chase each other around and crash into things, then go ahead. No one is stopping them. But that game would be useless to most here, so why in the world would we root for them to do that or support it initially?

 

And frankly, this oversimplification about "ROI and the bottom line" some posters keep beating others over the head with to discredit their wishes is silly. If it were just about the bottom line DTG would go make first/third person shooters because that's where the money is really at. There's always going to be compromise on investment vs. what a developer's passion and vision are. Few developers exist only in the vacuum of maximizing profit over the game they want to actually make. And those that do usually end up making crappy games. 

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!)

 

 

Is this a cult or something? Of course it's about you and what you want. If a game doesn't meet your needs, then it's not useful to you. And if it's not useful to you, then why would you buy it or hope someone makes it? You are certainly under no obligation to support it. 

 

The reason people aren't cheering for Flight part 2 around here is because the limits of that simulator made it useless to a very large contingent of the fan base. While some were un-reasonably rigid, un-accepting of any change, there were plenty of us that would of been cool with a more limited world and scope on some level. But Flight just went way to far off balance to remain useful to me and many others. It wasn't personal. I promise. 

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

 

I think that's great. No issue at all with mission packs or the like. 

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!

 

You are trying way to hard to speak definitively about something you know nothing about simply to be argumentative. 

 

You have no idea what their vision or budget is just like we don't. You don't know what their investments or returns would have to be to make a full-featured simulator or if it's possible. They may crowd-fund it for all we know and that may determine the scope. They asked for suggestions, so we are giving them. If you are that concerned about their financial well-being, shoot them a resume. Maybe they'll hire you.

Does anyone here really think FLIGHT was ever going to release an ATC, STARS/SIDS, or Real-Time weather DLC? Of course they weren't.

 

Yes, I believe they were. As was mentioned before (and repeatedly at the time) all the basics were there for something that could have left FSX in the dust. Flight was meant to be a core that could grow.

 

As someone who has worked with both the FSX and Flight tools, the Flight tools were LIGHT YEARS beyond what you could do with FSX.  Dev work in FSX takes a LONG LONG time during the "tweaking" phase.  You could not simply change something small.  You need to exit FSX, recompile it, load FSX, then load the asset to see the change.  In Flight, the tools were designed for "agile development".  I would have 3D Studio's Max open in 1 screen, Flight in another, and the moment I saved the file, Flight was updated.  Depending on the side of the project, the change happened almost before I could look over at the monitor.  This really helped in fine tuning things, like textures, animations, and even physics.  Things like oleo compression could be tweaked and tested almost instantly! 

 

The tools were designed from the ground up to help 3rd party dev's design add-on's faster then ever.  To help populate Flight with content!  There were a few big name 3rd party dev's already testing tools, and I even saw aircraft in Flight before it was released in FSX!!!  The 3rd party dev's LOVED these tools, and was chomping at the bit to get content into Flight and ready for sale.  Then something happened.  All communications with 3rd party dev's stopped cold, and they got a cold shoulder from MS.  This is when you started seeing a bunch of hate post's about Flight on many of those 3rd party dev forums.  What happened?  Lawyers happened.  Again, licensing issues cropped up.  If a 3rd party made a Boeing aircraft without Boeing's permission, MS could be on the hook for a lawsuit. 

 

The thing I don't understand is this issue has been worked out with app stores on Android, iOS, and even Windows Phone.  Nobody has sued any of those company's for an un-official app because the TOS clearly states that the DEVELOPER is liable for all licensing rights.  If Boeing has a problem with an iOS Boeing app that's not properly licensed, Apple takes it down.  This would of been a real threat that 3rd party's would need to deal with. 

 

All in all, its a sad sad story.  Lawyers come in scared of a lawsuit, then suddenly your sim gets transformed into a play thing full of warbirds with no cockpit. 

 

Flight had such amazing potential.  The engine was solid, robust, and made to be upgraded and modular.  The SDK and tools were amazingly good and efficient.  It could of been something so amazing... 

 

I wish I could start a Kickstarter, buy the Flight code, and turn it back into its original format.

 

If it were just about the bottom line DTG would go make first/third person shooters because that's where the money is really at.

 

They apparently wish to carve out a niche in casual simulation. Not very much competition there, either. They pretty much own the trainsim market for instance, and that works great for them. They have a highly successful casual trainsim, and the more hardcore sim (Run8) gets the remains.

 

Is this a cult or something? Of course it's about you and what you want. If a game doesn't meet your needs, then it's not useful to you.

 

My needs are very varied, which perhaps explains why there are so many sims on my computer. and every other type of thing as well.

 

And if it's not useful to you, then why would you buy it or hope someone makes it?

 

Curiosity. I purchased P3D having serious doubts that it was something I would be interested in (its just FSX all over again, really) but I couldn't make that determination fairly without giving it a shot to make its case. The same as with X-plane; I dug deep into both programs, even though they were not able to hold my attention long term as they were, and both still reside on my drive to be tested from time to time when there are updates. My decision on them is not final, because the programs themselves are not final, and with new additions, my opinion could change.

 

Unlike people who proudly proclaimed that they had deleted Flight after ten minutes, I saw my support as being to a long term project that had ample room to grow.

I suggest that's the exception that proves the rule. The GT is priced at $150,000...

Gerry, that's the most misused phrase I've ever heard. Read here what it really means:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

 

This is an archaic use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'.

Also, it may have only been Boeing that forbid showing damage to an aircraft. This is probably in their best interests, but basically it meant that there was no damage modelling at all. A2A shows interesting damage effects if you land with your gear up, but they do it by specifying that their aircraft are seaplanes.

 

Hook

 

 

Does anyone here really think FLIGHT was ever going to release an ATC, STARS/SIDS, or Real-Time weather DLC? Of course they weren't. The direction was clear (don't get me wrong, there were some delusional enough to think that was going to happen).

 

Of course they would have added it. Many elements were already in the game and disabled... with the intent to enable as needed for the DLC. Flight is setup to be very modular and flexible. Don't mistake the game elements and marketing for the capability of the engine. It is a next-generation FS engine, and most probably will be the basis for further Dovetail Games flight sims (and train sims... and perhaps other simulations as well).

 

And, of course Dovetail is going to use the 'technology" they bought from Microsoft. What they bought was Flight. They are only re-distributing FSX:SE, with enough minor fixes to keep the money coming in until they release the next flying game. They cannot overhaul FSX according to their contract with Microsoft. And who would want to, when Flight's technology is far better than FSX?

 

Dick

 

 

Gerry, that's the most misused phrase I've ever heard. Read here what it really means:

 

"...but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception"

I agree with you there dick, I guess a lot of people wonder if they are going to re-create the world in the new DFS. It's a very different ball game then Train Sim, since if you make the whole world in train sim you'd never release it. You can easily have a model that has DLC's for new routes, and with time, in England for example (which has a lot of DLC's) it's conceivable that in a few years we will have large sections of the UK with train lines that technically can be connected (there are issues around this but I won't go in to them, but it's technically possible).

 

I'm not sure how successful that model would be if it was the same as Flight. I.e you get a base pack for X area, and you download DLC's for new years. New countries or groups of countries etc. And I don't know if they would do that. I suspect not, and the base will be the world with DLC's for airports and high quality scenery just the same as we have now.

 

That being said though, they will have a fight on their hands with current FSX, XPlane and P3D users not wanting to have a sim with far less add-ons then they have currently. From reading lots of comments on this, I feel some will get it and install along side everything else they have, and others won't even look.

You are trying way to hard to speak definitively about something you know nothing about simply to be argumentative.

 

I know that DTG will have a limited development budget, unless you believe it has an unlimted budget?

 

I know that DTG will have a limited development budget, unless you believe it has an unlimted budget?

 

There is no such thing as unlimited budgets. And for money, there is always a limit.

 

Cheers,

it based on Microsoft flight if that true, I don't see reason for concern as dovetail knows where Microsoft messed up.

I feel some will get it and install along side everything else they have, and others won't even look.

 

There are always those who are quite happy where they are. Heck, there are still people having great fun with FS9, and good on them.

 

I'm not sure how successful that model would be if it was the same as Flight. I.e you get a base pack for X area, and you download DLC's for new years. New countries or groups of countries etc. And I don't know if they would do that. I suspect not, and the base will be the world with DLC's for airports and high quality scenery just the same as we have now.

 

If I were DTG, I might be quietly licensing FTX global, if I intended to (kind of) do the world all at once, but didn't really want to put in the work.

If I were DTG, I might be quietly licensing FTX global, if I intended to (kind of) do the world all at once, but didn't really want to put in the work.

 

Hm good point, that might be a lot easier, however you question how much the retail price will be if that was the case

Hm good point, that might be a lot easier, however you question how much the retail price will be if that was the case

 

I kinda hope they don't do anything that easy, and instead try to really innovate. I hate the idea of several more years of flat ribbon roads running across the top of football fields.  :(

 

If they did do such a (horrible) thing though, there's years of DLC right there, via Orbx regions...........

 

Bleah.