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!

From an entertainment aesthetic point of view you are correct. Yet if you've seen professional Level-D simulator graphics, they are cave drawings next to what FSX/P3D or X-Plane is capable of. So your statement that  "good quality "outside world" graphics are a massive part of simulation realism" doesn't hold true in the professional simulation environment.

I am talking about home users, not people training for real world flight qualifications. You could argue that P3D is a "professional training simulation", but......let's face it.........most home users are using it for entertainment.

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.

 

Without backwards compatibility, from a consumer point of view you'd have to spend thousands of dollars to buy add-ons that are compatible with the new sim.

 

From a business point of view, they would have to spend millions to make their add-ons compatible.

 

Time will tell how things play out. I'm going to bet that there will be backwards compatibility.

Without backwards compatibility, from a consumer point of view you'd have to spend thousands of dollars to buy add-ons that are compatible with the new sim.

 

From a business point of view, they would have to spend millions to make their add-ons compatible.

 

Time will tell how things play out. I'm going to bet that there will be backwards compatibility.

 

I would have to think that DTG would want us to buy new stuff, not happily transfer our old stuff. And if they go 64bit, all bets are off.

Some LevelD simulators have much better World graphics than what we have in MSFS or X-plane. I can tell it from my own experience on a multi-million € Thales Airbus simulator I was able to ride.

 

Even taxiing from my gate at LPPT to rw 21 was a unique experience, with all of the slopes correctly modeled, vehicles and other aircraft all around me... simply ASTOUNDING!

 

In Aerowinx PSX, to give the opposite example, we barely have out-of -windshield scenery, just basic rw representations and airport lights, not even the PAPIs are PAPIs....

 

MS FLIGHT OTOH gave me a remarkable scenery, light, and effects experience.

 

DCS World and IL-2 BoS also have astunding graphics, and of course FSX / P3D and X-Plane, each on it's own, can also provide us with very good graphics...

If they don't have backwards compatibility, you won't be flying with add-ons for several months. 

From an entertainment aesthetic point of view you are correct. Yet if you've seen professional Level-D simulator graphics, they are cave drawings next to what FSX/P3D or X-Plane is capable of. So your statement that  "good quality "outside world" graphics are a massive part of simulation realism" doesn't hold true in the professional simulation environment.

I think we all understand your point about Level-D and poor graphics. The pro's spend time in the "Box" doing a lot of practice on things like emergency procedures and situations that would not be safe or practial with multi-million machines. Most of that "sim" time is not fun by any reach of the imagination. The difference is that tomorrow or very soon they will be in the real thing and able to take in the real world at perfect frame rates. For home simmers to really enjoy our "flights" we have to enjoy those views through the scenery that is produced by our computers. You are just kidding yourself if you think that visuals are not important.

 

All you need do is ask any pilot what they love about flying and I promise they want tell you that they loved the excitement of engine fires, Hyd failures, bird strikes,dead stick landings or any number of things that increase pucker. The sun rise and sunset, beautiful clouds, sky, mountains and flowing rivers are much more likely to come up.

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!

 

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) - toyed with it once

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)

 

That's a big list of aircraft and default scenery I got no benefit from. I basically paid to get other third party addons to work which i reasonably should have expected to work in a flightsim in the first instance.. I still think it was a cheek to charge for those things only to get the benefit of having some addons being able to work properly. They veneered it with a few more default planes, the ridiculous missions which restricted you to default aircraft and that awesome list of enhanced cities/airports to make it look like a great value add.  

 

I just wasn't impressed, but who am I

That's a big list of aircraft and default scenery I got no benefit from. I basically paid to get other third party addons to work which i reasonably should have expected to work in a flightsim in the first instance.. I still think it was a cheek to charge for those things only to get the benefit of having some addons being able to work properly. They veneered it with a few more default planes and that awesome list of enhanced cities/airports to make it look like a great value add.

 

Depends on what you're looking for/expecting. I think many people enjoyed the added variety brought on by the acceleration pack. I know I myself was pretty excited when it came out.

 

From looking at trainsim, don't think DTG will approach these things in a notably dissimilar manner........

 

If they don't have backwards compatibility, you won't be flying with add-ons for several months.

 

Maybe we won't need addons

 

I just wasn't impressed, but who am I

 

To be honest, I haven't been impressed by the default scenery in MSFS since FS4

I have to say I was mighty impressed with FSX. It was a real leap forward in terms of graphics, and the first time I really became into VFR flying. I was drooling all over my keyboard when I first saw this video:

 

 

The extras that came with FSXA was good value, and I liked most of the missions. The only thing really missing was some sort of story/career mode.

 

But who am I...?

If there's anything that this thread illustrates, it's that flight simulation is many different things to many different people.  The stuff that excites one person to no end isn't worth beans to the next. I've heard that it's extremely hard to make a sequel; well, making a current-day flight simulator (and trying to please even a small cross section of people) must be pure hell.

 

To be honest, it's many different things just to myself, depending on what day of week it is and what phase the moon is in! :wink:

 

And in celebration of that fact, I'm off to play a newly released, non-flight sim related, excellent looking game called Firewatch. Quite excited, it looks brilliant.

Exactly, it is a year old. Which is why I mentioned the fact that we missed it. It wasnt posted anywhere in the forums. 

Wow! The real deal looks just as "cartoony" as the F1 game to my ancient eyes...

 

Which is to say the F1 game looks pretty much the same as real life.

 

And in celebration of that fact, I'm off to play a newly released, non-flight sim related, excellent looking game called Firewatch. Quite excited, it looks brilliant.

 

Wow, that does look interesting. I have been looking for a unique first person game for a long time, and this looks like it could be worth a closer inspection...

 

 

From looking at trainsim, don't think DTG will approach these things in a notably dissimilar manner........

 

I suspect you are right.  But I am looking forward to their new TS