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 don't see where all this angst is coming from against FSX? if you ever flown a A2A or Realair model, you'll see FSX is just as capable of a realistic flight model as Flight is said to have. With the combination of VAS management improvements DTG FSX-SE, P3D and the more advanced hardware which is now capable of taking advantage of all it's capabilities the FSX/ESP engine has really come into it's own.Whether you accept it or not the engine used in FSX/ESP/P3D  is the most capable and proven of any available for a global flight simulator. Even Aerosoft themselves couldn't find any engine proven o handle everything the FSX/ESP engine is capable of, when they went looking for one for their then proposed Flight Sim of their own. Also had DTG gone with the MS FLIGHT engine, unless you want to wait 2,3 or more years for a 64bit replacement you would end up with a simulator, with minimal weather capability, no AI or ATC, limited 3rd party development capability, because all the hooks to do these things was removed in MS FLIGHT and would have to be coded back in, which would be no easy task. Meanwhile all these hooks remain in the FSX/ESP engine, which, even if DTG doesn't include a feature or 2 in their initial offering The hooks to do  so for a 3rd party to implement them will already be available to them. So for me I welcome a 64bit version of FSX, it's the best chance to keep the capabilities we already enjoy, and the ability to add more.

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

uh...the news release said this is for entertainment so I don't think it will get you a PPL although some of the simple stuff would be covered and may be of so help. Not a real selling point though.

uh...the news release said this is for entertainment so I don't think it will get you a PPL although some of the simple stuff would be covered and may be of so help. Not a real selling point though.

 

Virtual PPL, that's what Tony wrote...I'm after it too !

I don't see where all this angst is coming from against FSX?

 

I don't even know what people want on AVSIM anymore. It sounds like they wanted a 64-bit ESP engine, and they're finally getting it. But apparently that's disappointing now because too many things will remain from the ESP engine.

 

Oh well.

I don't even know what people want on AVSIM anymore. It sounds like they wanted a 64-bit ESP engine, and they're finally getting it. But apparently that's disappointing now because too many things will remain from the ESP engine.

 

Oh well.

It's not really a contradiction. Some people wanted 64 bit, but also hoped that with the switch to 64 bit, the opportunity would be taken to break from the past completely as much as possible, maybe to the point of an entirely new and modern engine.

 

At some point it will be asked, if this is indeed FSX with a new coat of paint (which has yet to be proven) then whats the point exactly in switching from P3D? (especially if at around that time, P3D goes 64bit as well)

 

I'm still curious to see more, but yes, some of my optimism is being tempered by what we have seen so far.

It's not really a contradiction. Some people wanted 64 bit, but also hoped that with the switch to 64 bit, the opportunity would be taken to break from the past completely as much as possible, maybe to the point of an entirely new and modern engine.

 

At some point it will be asked, if this is indeed FSX with a new coat of paint (which has yet to be proven) then whats the point exactly in switching from P3D? (especially if at around that time, P3D goes 64bit as well)

 

I'm still curious to see more, but yes, some of my optimism is being tempered by what we have seen so far.

 

Okay, I understand this thinking.

 

But from a business perspective, DTG probably does not have the resources to make a brand new engine. That would take years of work and loads of licensing of to rebuild the scenery and terrain databases that Microsoft had put together in their 20 years of MSFS development. It would be incredibly expensive. There's a reason Lockheed Martin has not done this either and money is probably the bottom line.

 

In the end, it makes more business sense to make incremental changes instead of reinventing the wheel. I think we'll see two year release cycles.

Point is, there was already MS FLIGHT's engine too as an alternative...

 

Of course that would probably bring problems for 3pds in the future, and an FSX derivative will probably make it easier / faster for add-on makers to convert their creations to the new platform ....

as i have no knowledge of or regarding the engine used in FSX ,could some one Kindly explain what is wrong with it,as JV on Orbx states this

 

"Don't make comparisons to MS Flight, these two sims are based on the FSX engine (which I have praised ad infinitum as the best far horizon high poly 3D engine ever made) and are different beasts entirely." posted on Orbx forums Thur  11.01.16

 

now completely confused,JV praises and other,s criticize,JV seems to imply FSX engine is better than Flight engine or am I barking up the wrong tree

Peter

Well it may well be better for him. Probably much less retooling, high rate of familiarity etc. Imagine if it was a totally new engine requiring them to start from scratch? I think Jv speaks for whats good for his business, and in this case status quo and the less rocking the boat, the better. I take these things with the caveat that's what good for any particular vendor is not necessarily what might be good for simulation as a whole.

 

Remember, some people out there have substantial money on the line, what can you expect them to say?

 

Also remember, there is not much love for any sim besides FSX over there, and never has been.

I got mixed feelings for it too initially. Didnt seem like much of a step forward but rather a big patch. Like renovating a house.

 

However, thinking about it, their statement that it will take advantage of all latest modern hardware is really what a new engine would accomplish for the most part.

So we have 64 bit , and an overhauled engine. Those 2 things are our biggest gripes with the current sims at hand. And while they are at it, will add some features and clean up some bugs. I think thats pretty good overall. About 3-4 years ago, the flight sim hobby future was pretty grim. Now we a few good things on the horizon.

The question is more about how the 3PDs will embrace it. They already got a full plate dealing with P3D point releases and making its adjustments taking them away from new projects

It's not really a contradiction. Some people wanted 64 bit, but also hoped that with the switch to 64 bit, the opportunity would be taken to break from the past completely as much as possible, maybe to the point of an entirely new and modern engine.

 

There may be an element of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" here. DTG will need product to sell as add-ons. This is the smoothest path to that goal, since it will probably require minimal changes to aircraft and scenery add-ons, and these can be re-sold to current FSX customers for the new sim. It will be like the Gold Mine days of the major music labels, when CD's came out and everyone bought the albums they already owned on vinyl and cassette. If DTG had developed a new engine from scratch, that couldn't happen.

 

When X-Plane made the transition to 64 bit, it kept the core engine intact and there was minimum fuss in moving existing add-ons into the new environment. Planes that used no plugins moved right over, and only the designers who were using plugins had to recompile them for a new 64-bit version of the model. The switch to 64 bits was so smooth that it was done within a current release cycle, not even held for a major version update. I think it caught a few of the 3rd party developers off-guard, because most of them could only charge for new versions when the version number was updated.

 

Also, a 64 bit environment in and of itself will probably only expand potential in areas other than the flight model, if X-Plane is any indication. It will allow loading massive scenery and terrain mesh files, and that's about it. Maybe a future update with something like weather improvements will take advantage of it, but it's not like the simulator suddenly became twice as amazing when it moved from 32 to 64 bits. It's a required evolutionary step for a modern flight sim, but not earth shaking.

 

 

There may be an element of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" here. DTG will need product to sell as add-ons. This is the smoothest path to that goal, since it will probably require minimal changes to aircraft and scenery add-ons, and these can be re-sold to current FSX customers for the new sim. It will be like the Gold Mine days of the major music labels, when CD's came out and everyone bought the albums they already owned on vinyl and cassette. If DTG had developed a new engine from scratch, that couldn't happen.

 

I hear you, and in retrospect it's an obvious, if conservative, move. But it's also reminiscent about the minimal changes they made once they purchased Railsim from kuju, spun it up into a DLC palace with minimal updates year to year then took a sharp right with the upcoming unreal engine.

 

I just wish they did the engine at the beginning so I wouldn't have to anticipate trashing anything I brought in a few years, when they finally get around to it! 

Point is, there was already MS FLIGHT's engine too as an alternative...

 

Of course that would probably bring problems for 3pds in the future, and an FSX derivative will probably make it easier / faster for add-on makers to convert their creations to the new platform ....

 

An engine yes but no scenery except for Hawaii. So that would require DTG to rebuild an entire world of terrain, water bodys, airports, airfields, dirt/grass strips, cities and etc

As already said, that would take years and it probably would result in a simulator that would be very very expensive to buy which would scare of the more casual simmers.

Personally I think this will be more of a FSX XI or XII rather then FSX SP3, in the same way FSX was different to FS9.Anyway it's too early to tell what it will be

like so I'll wait with my judgement until more info is available.

 

if this is indeed FSX with a new coat of paint (which has yet to be proven) then whats the point exactly in switching from P3D?

 

The armchair lawyers will feel safe, knowing that the NSA will not be calling in the middle of the night to arrest them for breaches of international security.

 

 

I don't even know what people want on AVSIM anymore.

 

Seriously, neither do I