He read this.

 

I`m disappointed too.

They again just squeeze out a 10+ year old software. It will look almost the same and behave almost the same.

The Flight Engine really has so much potential. Anyone who used MSFlight can confirm that, regardless of the "missing" features at that time.

 

I think DTG is just a doing a Service Pack 3 (64Bit compatible) for FSX, sell all Add-On`s by themselves and call it DTGFS.

And that 64Bit thing is also a fraud to me: One thing is to do a 64 Bit software, but it`s another to make a 32Bit compatible to 64. Anyone who has basic programming skills knows that.

I'm amazed on how quickly they ported it to 64-bit. LM still haven't done this and they've had the code for years and some of the original FSX developers on their team.

It could be LM are more worried about keeping backwards compatibility, DTG might be more willing to make a clean break.  Having said that, i was disappointed LM didn't move v3 to 64-bit in my mind (along with the VAS saving technology) it was a missed opportunity, i think that they could have sown up the serious flight sim market with that.

Well,

 

I feel a lot better today - installed and uninstalled XP10 and FSX:SE twice, then DCS and finally IL2. Chose a random install from the backup disk, and it happened to be DCS, so I am keeping that one until lunch.... It may last until dinner, unless I see something promising at the IL2 BoS forums ... 

 

Well... I was sad to learn that they ( DTG ) really had a chance to get support for using MS FLIGHT, and although it's been a long time I last used MS FLIGHT, I really can't but remember the positive aspects about it, much more than the negative...

 

I even thought, the first time I used it, it was already DX11.... I even used Stonelance's tool to import my FSX default scenery to MS FLIGHT, and in a couple of minutes I was flying MS FLIGHT in Lisbon!

 

I don't think there is such a huge difference between MS FLIGHT and FSX in as far as the FDM goes. I did find some interesting differences, namely in terms of cross-moments of inertia that were never present in FSX or FS9 ( digging deep in the XML code... ), but other than that, most of the effects we see in MS FLIGHT ( like those of opening a door or canopy while airborne ) are easily reproducible in FSX as some authors have shown, and most of the bugs in FSX were also in MS FLIGHT, so... it is more the fact that things like for instance slopped runways and taxiways, and proper ground physics like we have in MS FLIGHT will probably not make it's way to DTG ?  But how can I tell, until I try it myself ?

 

Well, time to go uninstall DCS - heck, just read IL2's next update will probably fix the wobbling.....

 

 

And that 64Bit thing is also a fraud to me: One thing is to do a 64 Bit software, but it`s another to make a 32Bit compatible to 64. Anyone who has basic programming skills knows that.

 

Please explain to me why this is fraud? I'm a programmer but I don't work with Windows, but I've never been able to mix and match 64-bit and 32-bit libraries together. If I want to use a C library with my 64-bit application, I have to build and link with the 64bit library. I presume this is exactly the same with Windows. Most scenery should just work (as it's not code), but addons which have executable code won't and will need a recompile. This was the case with X-Plane 10, most scenery just continued to work, but some planes which used plugins had to be recompiled.

Well... I was sad to learn that they ( DTG ) really had a chance to get support for using MS FLIGHT, and although it's been a long time I last used MS FLIGHT, I really can't but remember the positive aspects about it, much more than the negative...

 

Don't lose hope, it's still too early to judge what they'll do with the engine. Yes, maybe it will just be a 64-bit FSX, but also they've said they are in this for the long-run, which likely means they will continue to develop it in a direction which we want. It's going to be a very interesting year for flight simming, with 2 new flight simulators coming out (AeroFlyFS 2 and DTG Flight School), we may also see something about X-Plane 11 which will have to play catchup.

Reading through these topics I'm struggling to understand what people actually want!

 

Before any sort of announcement everyone was terrified it was going to be another rehash of Flight. Now that we can be pretty certain that it's not, people are disappointed that it isn't?

 

I for one am quite happy to read that it will be based off of FSX, albeit improved and refined. Isn't that what P3D is anyway - why do people like that so much as to put up with the nudge nudge wink wink I'm not enjoying myself honest license that comes with it?

 

Flight was based off of FSX too, it wasn't really anything that new. I'm sure even starting from FSX, it won't take DTG long to enhance it to the level of Flight and beyond. They probably felt that it had a more solid foundation to build upon and was more tried and tested than Flight was, since the latter had such a short run. Even Train Simulator is based off of the old MSTS code, and that in its current form is almost unrecognisable from its roots now.

 

Just because a new product uses a legacy one as a foundation, doesn't mean it's not going to be much different or simply a rehash. There are obviously a lot of elements in the code for a Flight Simulation product which are always going to be transferable.

I for once, would never be disappointed if DTG had announced their upcoming simulators would be based on MS FLIGHT - how could I, having MS FLIGHT after all been the main reason for my return to flight simulation ?

 

OTOH, it's early for me, and I think for anyone out of the DTG FS beta team, to create this or that expectations or feed this or that disappointments with what it'll bring us - I have to wait and see.

 

Two positive aspects are now revealed, and IMO they're very important:

 

- It will be 64 bit

- It will not be DX9

 

I will most probably be a first day buyer of DTG Flight School, simply because I like the idea of building such a flight simulation. And I look forward for their flightsim too... After Flight School is released and running on my system I will have a lot more to think about what their flight simulator platform will probably be... By that time we will also probably have some feedback from third party FSX developers, so.... I'll be positive - again :-)

I actually quite like the idea of getting my virtual PPL in flight school. I hope they also include helicopter lessons

 

I wonder if they'll use Rod Machado again

Before any sort of announcement everyone was terrified it was going to be another r

I for one am quite happy to read that it will be based off of FSX, albeit improved and refined. Isn't that what P3D is anyway - why do people like that so much as to put up with the nudge nudge wink wink I'm not enjoying myself honest license that comes with it?

 

The point being that we don't need yet another FSX servicepack, which P3D pretty much is. Some of us fear that DTGFS is just another under the hood patch, where the overall experience will not differ much at all from FSX.

 

As for the license it has never been an issues, except for people who like to make their lives more complicated than it needs to be. Good luck to them. While some people have a hard time being entertained by training I clocked 1000 hrs in P3D.

It's the thought of finally being able to take lessons where I can understand exactly what is going on that attracts me to DTG Flight School.

It could be LM are more worried about keeping backwards compatibility, DTG might be more willing to make a clean break.  Having said that, i was disappointed LM didn't move v3 to 64-bit in my mind (along with the VAS saving technology) it was a missed opportunity, i think that they could have sown up the serious flight sim market with that.

 

Possibly. However from what I understand, the .bgl format, the .air files, the 3D models, the .cfg files and textures etc. are not bound to a specific architecture. It's like a .jpg file, you can open it in Linux, Windows, Mac, 32-bit, 64-bit, even a 16-bit system if there's a viewer available. It's only the add-ons that require external libraries etc. that will need to be updated, but they tend to break every time P3D is updated anyway. So stuff like A2A's AccuSim, OrbX's "Flow" etc. would break, but a basic Carenado aircraft with xml gauges and the built-in flight dynamics should work just fine.

 

IMO it's too early to judge the new DTG sims just yet. What matters is how it looks and runs on your particular system, and you won't know that until you've tried it.

Hopefully, some of us will get to see DTG Flight Simulator up and running at the Cosford 2016 Flightsim Show in October :smile:

 

 

This is one advantage of sticking with a single 24" widescreen monitor at 1920 x 1080 resolution

 

I would rather give up simming entirely than choose that option. 

I would gladly use any simulator that could teach me proper use of ATC, something I never really have mastered in flightsimming or real life...

 

I get all mixed up when having to talk with them IRL....

 

I have long been looking for the best ATC add-on for my sims....

 

Maybe DTG can bring, even starting with the "Flight School" some good ATC sillabus ?

 

I would rather give up simming entirely than choose that option.

 

I can understand that comment. Once you upgrade, there is generally no turning back. Which is why I try to resist the urge to upgrade :wink: