News on DTG Simulator is coming soon!

[Wobbie 938]

You remember a mission to fly over a field, painting it? Installing the sim from stiffy disks?.

My modem, in those days was a box with 2x cups into which I plugged a telephone handset.

We were very good in interpreting the sounds we heard.

 

Ahhhh, the good 'ol days.

Then I flew on my RadioShack TRS-80. Block graphics & monochrome.. either white, green or yellow on black, depending on the monitor, BUT we had fun!

[jcomm 5,919]

My disk is ready guys.... 

 

My simming time slots adapted... ( wiped a couple of code specimens that were taking way too much time out of my real life... )...

 

Space on disk ready too ( only FSX:SE and the PMDGs, A2As and RealAirs, and a couple of AEROSOFTs installed... )...

 

Counting down to the Glorious Day of DTG FS's first detailed announcement ....

[simmerhead 885]

Outerra has shown little yet. Proof of the engines effectiveness will show once you throw at it an accurate world database of streets, rivers, houses, landmarks, airports, navaids, climate zones, biotopes, seasons etc. Then add flight engines, AI traffic, weather etc. and we'll see how it runs.

 

As dated as the FSX/ESP simulator engine is, there still hasn't surfaced anything quite like it (X-Plane simply isn't up there with it's "plausible" environment). Even will all the modifications done by Lockheed Martin, the Prepar3D graphics look dated. It still isn't possible to get high graphics and high fidelity aircraft work together at much above 30 fps, which is fine if you only fly straight, but it is abysmal when turning.

 

But I'm not complaining. Until there is a comparable product in the market, why bother? I focus on enjoying what I have, and even if it isn't great, Prepar3D is the best desktop flight simulator in history.

 

I really don't expect DTG to come close to Prepar3D for serious simming, but what they might do is make something fun, and I'm all for fun!

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Outerra has shown little yet. Proof of the engines effectiveness will show once you throw at it an accurate world database of streets, rivers, houses, landmarks, airports, navaids, climate zones, biotopes, seasons etc. Then add flight engines, AI traffic, weather etc. and we'll see how it runs.

 

Not really a defense, since I agree that the proof will eventually have to be in the pudding, but if you happen to have the Outerra demo, take a close look at how the engine uses resources and you will find that it's running heavily on the GPU and much less on the CPU.

 

This means that the CPU resources are freed to do all of those fun things you mentioned. I actually did the experiment of downclocking my CPU from 4ghz to 3 ghz instead, with absolutely no change in Outerra frame rates, and more than that, it was distributing the (fairly low) load nearly evenly across all the available cores. Imagine the CPU finally free to do what it's good at, while the GPU handles the graphics.

 

Modern engines do that. Flight was heading that way, P3D is yearning in that direction, and we can only hope that DTGs offering will do at least as well.

 

My one worry is that too much legacy code at the core of DTG's offering might hold things back. Especially if they try something horrifying, like backwards compatibility.

[Wobbie 938]

 

 

Even will all the modifications done by Lockheed Martin, the Prepar3D graphics look dated. It still isn't possible to get high graphics and high fidelity aircraft work together at much above 30 fps, which is fine if you only fly straight, but it is abysmal when turning.

 

Remember, the P3D box says it's for training & not for entertainment, so, it's kinda difficult comparing, as, EULA speaking, most of us do not 'qualify' to use it, but of course we do, & we expect perfection, or something better from something that is primarily marketed as a training tool. Theoretically, speaking, their target market is not really us, but we've embraced it. I'm not making any excuses for LM, but the sim core is pretty old by now

 

.

 

But I'm not complaining. Until there is a comparable product in the market, why bother? I focus on enjoying what I have, and even if it isn't great, Prepar3D is the best desktop flight simulator in history.

 

 

Best of the bunch, so far!

[ErichB 3,642]

I really don't expect DTG to come close to Prepar3D for serious simming, but what they might do is make something fun, and I'm all for fun

What did DTG actually acquire the rights to? Was it the right to further develop the MS Flight platform? If so, then surely they are not starting from scratch and they have something reasonably good to work with,

 

Let's be honest, even P3D as a stock sim with no addons is pretty dull. It's what you can add to it, that really makes P3D what it is. That will be the same acid test for DTG's version. It will no doubt be fun initially - it'll be sparkly and twinkly and no- doubt look good. But it needs the current high-end addon-players to move it beyond the initial 'wowee' response. It needs to both draw new people in and sustain their interest, but also provide the capability for addon development from the best in the market, That is a non-negotiable point.

That is not what I want, it is what the industry needs.

As I have said before, somewhere above...

Ideally, there should be

1. A basic ' Bronze' sim for the newbie, to catch & keep them, with a DLC service pack to take it to..

2. An advanced ' Silver' sim for the weekend warrier, with a DLC service pack to take it to..

3. A 'Gold' Sim, for the hard-core simmer.

There is no reason why a DTG sim can't be all three.

3. A 'Gold' Sim, for the hard-core simmer

What does that actually mean? Even P3D without add-on capability isn't this. What you are in effect saying is that Bronze, Silver and Gold sims need open-ended addon capability. That's all there is to it. Those who don't want more from the stock DTG sim, just wont bother. Those who do, can opt to purchase from the aftermarket. No need for three sims.

[Wobbie 938]

I was just thinking about FSX. First we had the basic FSX, then came the 'optional' Acceleration add-on pack. I was just thinking about basic levels,all open ended, of course, targeted at different markets. No more, no less. You want more, you pay more. I'm sure not everyone will want all the bells initially, especially those that have no experience with simming, & just want to see what this flying thing is all about, (like comparing default with Carenado with PMDG, as an example )

[simmerhead 885]

For training realism is key, so it's knd of ironic that games (entertainment software) has the better graphics. The most immersive simulator always gives the best training as it is suspension of disbelief that gets your adrenaline pumping.

[Wobbie 938]

Immersion or realism, that is the key!

 

We have built this full size Avro Shackleton simulator, using real seats, yokes, quadrants, etc, using FS2004 & local freeware scenery (Aeroworx). & Shackleton Project model.

We get real pilots flying it, & when we see these pilots bracing themselves (in a static, fixed cockpit) for landing, we know that the immersion factor works 100%

 

So, do we need higher level graphics than FS2004 gives? Nah! just try an IFR letdown . Same story with our twin seater MB326 sim, known as ' Impala' here in South Africa, when real Impala pilots fly this static cockpit...immersion rules!!

[simmerhead 885]

Immersion = realisim.

 

Sure, old tech can be immersive, but that wasn't my point. My point is that newer tech can be even MORE immersive, and as such, more efficient as a training aid.

[ErichB 3,642]

For the armchair pilots like us, the visual cues are all we have, so the bigger your display and the more movie-like the outside visuals look, the more immersive/realistic it'll feel.

 

 (Off topic) The one thing that'll kill any warm fuzzy realism you might be experiencing though is poor quality controllers.    I spoke to a Thomson A330 captain a month ago and he said he just couldn't fly home simulators, because the controller inputs were overly sensitive. I asked him which controller he was using at the time and he said a Saitek.  Go figure....    Without any doubt one of the best investments I made for simming apart from the monitor and siftware itself was the PFC yoke.  

 

 

We get real pilots flying it, & when we see these pilots bracing themselves (in a static, fixed cockpit) for landing, we know that the immersion factor works 100%

 

That's only because they don't want to look stupid in-front of the hacks. lolz  

[Christopher Low 5,352]

 

For the armchair pilots like us, the visual cues are all we have, so the bigger your display and the more movie-like the outside visuals look, the more immersive/realistic it'll feel.

 

I have never understood this idea about the quality of the scenery being irrelevant as long as the flight model and systems are accurate. IMO, good quality "outside world" graphics are a massive part of simulation realism. Someone posted a screenshot elsewhere on these forums that showed the default version of EGPD Aberdeen airport, surrounded by default terrain textures, and it looked pathetic. If that level of graphical quality was the best I could get, then I wouldn't be flight simming at all!

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I have never understood this idea about the quality of the scenery being irrelevant as long as the flight model and systems are accurate. IMO, good quality "outside world" graphics are a massive part of simulation realism. Someone posted a screenshot elsewhere on these forums that showed the default version of EGPD Aberdeen airport, surrounded by default terrain textures, and it looked pathetic. If that level of graphical quality was the best I could get, then I wouldn't be flight simming at all!

 

Don't believe the hyperbole!  :wink:

 

If people really had no interest in gawking at their surroundings, third party scenery wouldn't have become almost a requirement, at this point.

[ErichB 3,642]

If that level of graphical quality was the best I could get, then I wouldn't be flight simming at all!

Neither would I - and flightsimming would be dead.

 

It's the excitement for more and better that sustains our interest and keeps us coming back. (well me anyway)

I was just thinking about FSX. First we had the basic FSX, then came the 'optional' Acceleration add-on pack

I think Acceleration was more of a patch with a helicopter and some additional plugin capability thrown in which they then cleverly charged people for. There is no sensible reason why this should have been a separate payware option.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I think Acceleration was more of a patch with a helicopter and some additional plugin capability thrown in which they then cleverly charged people for. There is no sensible reason why this should have been a separate payware option.

 

I think most people who buy third party add ons have easily paid as much (and got less) as they did for Acceleration. Just think of it as DLC!  :wink:

 

3 Aircraft

1) F/A-18 (military jet),

2) EH-1O1 (helo),

3) P-51 (racer variant)

 

4 Systems upgrades

1) Carriers (tailhook, arrestor, catapult, launch bar, meatball)

2) helos ( true multi-engine, hoist, sling loads )

3) Racing engines (ADI, failures)

4) Racing system (gates and laps, counters and timers)

 

30+ Missions,

5+ Sceneries.

1) Istanbul

2) Longleat

3) Tempelhof

4) Edwards

5) Reno (for the Reno air race)