Dovetail Games Direction

[HiFlyer 9,372]

Essentialy, its gimme' that old time religion.

[stonelance 136]

 

 

It's ok to have the "old legacy" content not look as good as "new" content

 

This is my personal opinion, but I think nothing breaks immersion more than having old or poor quality content next to new higher quality content.  It is important to keep a consistency across all the content so that one thing doesn't stand out from the rest.

 

Backwards compatibility is not as important as long as your product has enough compelling initial content, and is superior enough to the old product that a large number of people buy it.  If you want to play your old stuff, you hop on the old sim.  If you want new stuff, you get on the new one.  The main issue is if not enough people buy the new platform right off the bat, then developers have no reason to develop on the new platform because they can't get enough sales, and that in turn prevents even more people from wanting to buy it.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

The key to success for moving forward will be compatibility with existing 15 years of content (100's to 1000's of 3rd party devs over 15 years have produced A LOT of content that can't just be ignored) ... that's A LOT of content (it's the same challenge Laminar Research have been facing for many years).  Any company that wants to move forward WILL need to provide good/accurate conversion tools for existing content (just provide the tools). 

 

When your tools and development techniques, and rendering techniques (look at what Physically Based Rendering does for Unreal Engine 4) are over 10 years old, you can't move forward. The key to success moving forward is...to move forward - forget the past. Even Prepar3D is still holding developers back and has the same numerous, time consuming quirks that FSX has. Why? It has to support legacy addons.

 

Not having to worry about legacy content will let the platform expand significantly further than ever before. The improvements we'll see from this alone, in theory, should be enough to persuade developers and users to at least give it a try.

[scotchegg 4,240]

 

 

The key to success for moving forward will be compatibility with existing 15 years of content (100's to 1000's of 3rd party devs over 15 years have produced A LOT of content that can't just be ignored) ... that's A LOT of content (it's the same challenge Laminar Research have been facing for many years).  Any company that wants to move forward WILL need to provide good/accurate conversion tools for existing content (just provide the tools).

 

I'm not so sure. I've moved between many sims with absolutely no crossover and spent cash between them (FSX - XPlane - DCS). I fully expect (and hope) that DFS eventually provides a whole new eco-system full of brand-new content.

[Guest]

Most simmers just want the series to continue.

 

But if there is no backwards compatibility then the series isn't "continuing" ... it's a new product.  Agree with stonelance on why pick FSX SP2 as a base  engine if the product is essentially going to be a new product?

 

 

 

but I think nothing breaks immersion more than having old or poor quality content next to new higher quality content.

 

Depends on how different it looks and how good the conversion tools ... immersion is the "Catch all" phrase ... we all use a "blind eye" regardless of platform, just not enough computational power for real time rendering (regardless of engine choice) to obtain "movie" quality image rendering.  It's just a case of decide what you want to do with the blind spots (true for any platform).

 

 

 

Backwards compatibility is not as important as long as your product has enough compelling initial content, and is superior enough to the old product that a large number of people buy it.

 

I've been hoping this to be true for over decade ... so far I've been wrong and/or no one has been able to provide enough initial content AND cover all the features.  On the content front it's hard to go up against inevitable compares to content for FSX/P3D ... the content is staggering and development time invested in providing that content is staggering ... many many many 10,000's of work hours.  How much new fresh content did DTG release for FSX-SE?

 

 

 

The key to success moving forward is...to move forward - forget the past

 

This approach has been tried and it has failed to gain majority FS share?  I don't think repeating the same process but with more optimism is going to provide good results.

 

On a personal level, I'd love to move forward, but I know that moving forward visually doesn't come for free at a hardware level or at a software level ... I don't really have any issue with that, but I'm NOT the norm, nor the majority voice and cost isn't an issue for me (but it is a key issue for many).

 

If DTG is just another attempt at "well lets trying it again because we can do it better this time" and ignore the past, that will not succeed.  I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG, but because of experience with this very quirky world of Flight Simulation.  I post my opinion because I want to see long term success ... that success is hinged on conversion of the past.  I "wish" people would be willing to just drop the past and move forward, but that's not going to happen.

 

Conversion tools are going to be key to success for ANY platform.  You just can't ignore the existing content and have long term success ... history of FS over the past 15 years is the book to learn from.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Christopher Low 5,388]

I agree with Rob. Lack of backwards compatibility only has merit if the new flight simulator is entirely new technology. Using FSX as a base, and then not providing backwards compatibility with existing addons sounds like shooting yourself in both feet!

[HiFlyer 9,372]

I don't agree. This hobby is tied far too much to the past, and at this point its like an anchor around the neck of simulations future. In my eyes, DTG has already taken the simple way out by choosing to gussy up FSX (Again!!) rather than blaze its own path, and every concession we make to the past is yet more energy wasted on looking back rather than stepping forward.

 

To me, backwards compatibility is like trying at 45 to fit into the same clothes you were wearing at 15.

 

Time to buy some new clothes and donate that old stuff to the Salvation Army! 

[Ted Striker 338]

I agree with Rob, the most successful path forward would be to develop a flight sim based on state of the art technology but provide the tools for the developers to convert their existing work for use in it. Also the developers need to be brought in early to embrace it. One thing that concerns me is that DTG has stated that they are working with the developers but I have not heard anything from the developers about this. We had the same scenario with MS and Flight and we all know how that ended.

 

Ted

[HiFlyer 9,372]

I agree with Rob, the most successful path forward would be to develop a flight sim based on state of the art technology but provide the tools for the developers to convert their existing work for use in it.

 

Too much like asking to have your cake and eat it too. Successful? Yes, probably. But do that and you saddle yourself with the same headache that third parties have now with P3D; lots of impatient, frustrated and even angry people trying to get old stuff to work, or demanding that third parties modify it to work, while at the same time balking at having to pay for the extra effort and technical support.

 

Homegrown solutions everywhere, true innovation blunted in the name of backward compatibility, mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together out of wedlock......... 

 

How on the earth do you make something as complex as a PMDG product forward compatible with something truly new?

 

Bleah. Break it all and start fresh in an organized, orderly new ecosystem that learns from the success of the past and tries to avoid the mistakes.

[jcomm 5,984]

Please help me find my way across this thread, because I wasn't able to read it for a while, and now, when I returned, I got confused...

 

What exactly are the most "problematic" aspects that users are concerned about regarding DTG's upcoming tittles:

 

1) That they are still based in MSFS technology, even if updated to 64 bit code and DX11 ?

2) That they're not going to be backward compatible with MSFS add-ons ?

3) That there being yet no announced strategy for 3pds to create for DTG Flight School or Flight Sim, it looks like it's going to be a "club" like partnership between DTG and a selected group of 3pds, and probably freeware or comercial 3pds not "in the club" will be out of question ?

 

I'm just looking fwd for the release, and further statements about the two upcoming simulators from DTG. They've stated there is more to be announced in the upcoming times, until release, and probably after "Flight School" get's released.

 

My expectations, now that I know for sure nothing new will at least for their first tittle be offered in the Flight Dynamics or Systems modeling area, that being basically inherited fom the old MSFS technology, is that Flight School can be more than just a collection of missions like those we had in acceleration. 

 

For Flight School I really expect to have some kind of sturctured learning platform imitating as close to reality as possible what a student pilot will find when joining a flight school to get her/his PPL, IFR, CPL, ATPL...

 

The "Flight School" tittle could, so I think, continue to grow independently from "Fligh Sim", by adding further levels of licensing, like ULM, gliders, multi-engine, rotary wing, basic and advanced aerobatics, ..., up to ATPL. 

 

A user could have her/his  "virtual pilot training" in "Flight School" and then use "Flight Simulator" as her/his "virtual pilot career"... 

 

In the limit, "very irritating locks" like those I have in il-2 Battle of Stalingrad but end up appreciating, could be applied cross platforms, so that a user could chose to inhibit himself to use a given aircraft type, or fill a given flight plan, before the required rating was added to his "virtual pilot license", and see those beautifull / astounding airliners with their gorgeous clickable cockpits being offered by the PMDGs of DTG Flight Simulator, not being able to load them for a ride :-(, or a sexy helicopter that could be bought but would have to seat in the hangar before the homework was successfuly completed :-)

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

But if there is no backwards compatibility then the series isn't "continuing" ... it's a new product.  Agree with stonelance on why pick FSX SP2 as a base  engine if the product is essentially going to be a new product?

More like the series "re-imagined," which is exactly what it should be and what we need after 10 years of very little advancement.

 

Depends on how different it looks and how good the conversion tools ... immersion is the "Catch all" phrase ... we all use a "blind eye" regardless of platform, just not enough computational power for real time rendering (regardless of engine choice) to obtain "movie" quality image rendering.  It's just a case of decide what you want to do with the blind spots (true for any platform).

Automation is great, but it's unlikely that this would work so well due to the nature of addon complexity. There is so much custom work done that it's nearly impossible to account for all potential situations. It will likely yield better results if us developers go through and manually update our products.

 

I've been hoping this to be true for over decade ... so far I've been wrong and/or no one has been able to provide enough initial content AND cover all the features.  On the content front it's hard to go up against inevitable compares to content for FSX/P3D ... the content is staggering and development time invested in providing that content is staggering ... many many many 10,000's of work hours.  How much new fresh content did DTG release for FSX-SE?

 

Breaking backwards compatibility means better tools, better development methods, new technology, and a more efficient work-flow. As someone who has years of experience working with the development tools for FSX/P3D, those thousands of hours can be (somewhat) reduced if modern standards are followed and better tools created.

 

On a personal level, I'd love to move forward, but I know that moving forward visually doesn't come for free at a hardware level or at a software level ... I don't really have any issue with that, but I'm NOT the norm, nor the majority voice and cost isn't an issue for me (but it is a key issue for many).

 

If DTG is just another attempt at "well lets trying it again because we can do it better this time" and ignore the past, that will not succeed.  I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG, but because of experience with this very quirky world of Flight Simulation.  I post my opinion because I want to see long term success ... that success is hinged on conversion of the past.  I "wish" people would be willing to just drop the past and move forward, but that's not going to happen.

 

Conversion tools are going to be key to success for ANY platform.  You just can't ignore the existing content and have long term success ... history of FS over the past 15 years is the book to learn from.

 

Our hobby is so unique because because it is indeed stuck in the past. People don't like change as nothing much ever changes and when it does, it's usually not good and not enough. The gaming industry is booming around us with some seriously amazing innovations. We need a game company to give a fresh look at this hobby and bring it up to today's standards. Whether or not that will happen is yet to be seen, but it really needs to. The key to success will be providing developers the tools they need to make their products better than ever before. 3D models can have new materials applied, code can be linked to new libraries/APIs (assuming the code is well written and modular), and scenery object/texture references updated and recompiled. We don't need conversion tools to have great content. Sure, we'll have to redo some stuff, but that SHOULD be expected if we're heading in the right direction. In the end, we'll be able to product better content. That's what I (and hopefully other developers) want.

[Christopher Low 5,388]

I just hope that the improvements to the FSX core technology are advanced enough that backwards compatibility will not be a problem for Dovetail Games in the short term. I can't see a large number of current FSX/P3D owners "upgrading" to DTFS for a long time if there isn't sufficient reason to do so (and by this, I mean vastly improved graphics/ground textures/autogen/lighting etc in the base simulator).

[dtrjones 356]

Hi Rob, good answers as ususal! My 2 cent...
 

But if there is no backwards compatibility then the series isn't "continuing" ... it's a new product. Agree with stonelance on why pick FSX SP2 as a base engine if the product is essentially going to be a new product?

 
I think we need to be pragmatic here. There is no backwards compatibility, however with the skeleton of FSX there I'm sure a way can be found to reconstuct some add-ons which will not be too difficult for developers. I've discussed the merits for Flight or FSX as a base product before, so I don't want to go too much in that direction other than I favour Dovetails choice as they have worked with FSX, Flight would be a much more radical change.

 

For you're comment "product is essentially going to be a new product?" - Bringing up Flight to FSX fidelity would have been a poor business desicion even if it would have created a better simulator, the effort there is huge. Iterating on FSX was the only plausable solution and this allows the chance of some add-on at least to envolve through the Dovetail Flight Simulation creation experience...
 

Depends on how different it looks and how good the conversion tools ... immersion is the "Catch all" phrase ... we all use a "blind eye" regardless of platform, just not enough computational power for real time rendering (regardless of engine choice) to obtain "movie" quality image rendering. It's just a case of decide what you want to do with the blind spots (true for any platform).

 
Spot on there Rob. As you know Dovetail will begin the process of providing new content for Flight Simulator, be that navaids, textures. They will try and fill many blind spots I'm sure, but this will not be finished after the first release of Flight Simulator, far from it I imagine.
 

I've been hoping this to be true for over decade ... so far I've been wrong and/or no one has been able to provide enough initial content AND cover all the features. On the content front it's hard to go up against inevitable compares to content for FSX/P3D ... the content is staggering and development time invested in providing that content is staggering ... many many many 10,000's of work hours. How much new fresh content did DTG release for FSX-SE?

 
You say this yet you want Flight as the base product? - wow you really do want the whole cake LOL! Again I think we should cut some slack with DTG and not expect the world to change from the first release - this momentum to move Developers will take time. Remember we are facing a unique situation where a lot of investment has been thrown as one very old platform - in the history of gaming I'm not sure thats been done many times before and then have the series resurected. Unless anybody wants to release Falcon 5.0... 3PD will have a tough time and I would expect a trickle of titles for the new platform until the benfits are clearly seen by the community through the use of better tools and better realisation of products which will come eventually.
 

This approach has been tried and it has failed to gain majority FS share? I don't think repeating the same process but with more optimism is going to provide good results.

On a personal level, I'd love to move forward, but I know that moving forward visually doesn't come for free at a hardware level or at a software level ... I don't really have any issue with that, but I'm NOT the norm, nor the majority voice and cost isn't an issue for me (but it is a key issue for many).

If DTG is just another attempt at "well lets trying it again because we can do it better this time" and ignore the past, that will not succeed. I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG, but because of experience with this very quirky world of Flight Simulation. I post my opinion because I want to see long term success ... that success is hinged on conversion of the past. I "wish" people would be willing to just drop the past and move forward, but that's not going to happen.

Conversion tools are going to be key to success for ANY platform. You just can't ignore the existing content and have long term success ... history of FS over the past 15 years is the book to learn from.

 
It really is hard to argue convencingly eitherway right now. You're correct in what you are saying, but I think this is a slightly pesimistic and If I might say narrow view based on historical events. It would seem in your eyes the Wright Brothers would never have got off the ground! I think taking a step back and thinking about where we are and where we are going - if you don't see us at a crossroads now and just looking at the past then were really in trouble. The thread of FSX will not last forever, sooner or later we'll need emulators to run FSX LOL...
 
"I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG - Rob"
 
I'm afriad that's what it's sounding like. If DTG Flight Simulator doesn't take off, then may be another product will replace it, but more likely we'll lose Flight Simulator as we know it for the masses forever - it would be foolish to rely on P3D I think, the business plan for P3D shouldn't even let us partake but many simmers overlook the commercial arrangement to continue there past time - how long will that work? P3D doesn't sit comfortably with me and I would imagine many others let alone bring in a new fan base which lets not forget is whats really required here otherwise this hobby will definately wither and die.

 

So what I'm really saying is - I don't think it's a case of "repeating the same process but with more optimism is going to provide good results." I think for the sake of our industry as we know it - it HAS to work, so lets be a bit more positive in the knowlegde DTG, 3PD and the rest of the flight simulation community are in this together, so lets get behind them and see what happens.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

[Guest]

 

 

P3D doesn't sit comfortably with me and I would imagine many others let alone bring in a new fan base which lets not forget is whats really required here otherwise this hobby will definately wither and die.

 

Facts would be against you in this statement, you need to take a look at the rejuvenation of content releases since P3D's evolution from v2.0 to v3.2 and the growth of P3D ... I'm a moderator on Lockheed Martin's P3D forum and involved in their Beta and have managed to get LM connected to many 3rd party content providers, I do have a fairly solid idea of P3D's growth.

 

 

 

There is no backwards compatibility, however with the skeleton of FSX there I'm sure a way can be found to reconstuct some add-ons which will not be too difficult for developers.

 

I can assure you, most 3rd party content providers will take the best and easiest path that affords them the most revenue ... that path is one of compatibility.

 

 

 

Flight would be a much more radical change.

 

Based on some of the comments here, radical change is exactly what "some" folks want ... but are they just a vocal minority or representative of a "buying" majority?  And lets be realistic, it's the "buying" majority that matters.

 

 

 

You say this yet you want Flight as the base product?

 

Not what I wanted, I'll try anything FS related and if it provides more than what I have in other platforms then it'll become my main platform.  I'm not bound to cost, only time.

 

 

 

If DTG Flight Simulator doesn't take off, then may be another product will replace it, but more likely we'll lose Flight Simulator as we know it for the masses forever - it would be foolish to rely on P3D I think, the business plan for P3D shouldn't even let us partake but many simmers overlook the commercial arrangement to continue there past time - how long will that work?

 

Again, history is not on your side ... FSX and P3D have managed to survive and flourish (with devs coming and going) and other competing platforms had the luxury of zero development for almost a decade and still couldn't "catch up" and surpass the "feature for feature" test.  FS is never going to be the 8 Million sales in two weeks kinda platform even at $2 (or like DCS 2.0 base is free and it's the add-ons that cost).

 

What I see in DTG's efforts is a company trying to take a slice of the DLC pie, that's where the real money is at ... that was obvious when DTG sold FSX-SE for $7.  FSX-SE was to get a foot in the door (which did happen) ... it's a not a new marketing strategy.  It's evolution is fairly obvious, it's going to try to cut out online shops like Aerosoft, SimMarket, etc. and make DLC a one stop shop on Steam (just like other DTG products) ... this has obviously been a successful business plan for DTG.  I'm fairly indifferent to this plan as I'm on the consumer end and to be honest I'd love to see a one stop shop for all DLC content for my platform of choice ... Steam is a great solution to that, but with some 3rd party margins so so small it's a slice of the pie often too significant to just "give up".

 

It looks like DTG are going to use some existing 3rd party as a stepping stone to build an infrastructure (and there will be some fallout because of that).  It's no secret, DLC IS where the money is at and one hopes that drives the continuation of the base product (fair enough) ... but just like FSX, why would that not come full circle also?  FS is never going to be like the GTA V market no matter how many "new" consumers are brought into the FS market by using less feature rich flight environment that will evolve over time.

 

Since I'm on the consumer side, I'm indifferent ... like I said, I'm not bound to cost (and hence not bound to platform), I'm only bound to time.  I fly very simple to very complex aircraft ... it's all good as far as I'm concerned.  But being a long time software engineer, I know the limits of hardware/technology especially on a "global" scale environment and I know what it takes to make games like Crysis and GTA V and how extremely optimized they are and how inflexible they are and their limitations.

 

Since DTG isn't building a new "from scratch" platform and will be bound to some elements of FSX, I will still maintain that conversion tools and compatibility is what will win market share on the DLC side.  I had almost hoped DTG would have built an entirely "new platform", but I also know the kind of resources and challenge that would be so it's understandable they didn't go that route.

 

I'll be behind anyone that produces something better than what I already have as my main FS platform (P3D) ... but as you've confirmed, it's going to take DTG years to attempt to do that and in the mean time P3D will continue to evolve the platform also.  Competition drives innovation ... lets hope the market is big enough.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[dtrjones 356]

Thanks Rob, I think a lot of our sentences are saying the same thing but coming from a slightly different angle. I'm certainly with you on most of what you say!

 

The bit that makes me uncomfortable wasn't directly of growth or uptake, just fact the only legitimate license for P3D would be the Professional licence which is absolutely fine but that to me limits the use to enthusiasts and wouldn't bring in moderately skilled or new players. The Academic license is cheaper but does not seem to be viable to users who want to simply enjoy the product as a simulator.

 

Cheers,

Dave.