Heimi, do you even know about Train Sim on Steam and how successful it become?

DTG never claimed to implement a PMDG like plane. And it makes no sense.

First of all because not every guy out there want such a level of detail (especially since DTG is aiming at both simmers and less experienced players), and second because DTG task is to build a solid, stable and capable base on which 3rd party devs can release their addons.

Yes i know. But they aim of DTG is to broaden their customer base for Flight Simming. If they stay like it was in FSX times, they will just keep the so called "hardcore simmers", people like we here at AVSIM buying PMDG,ORBX stuff.

But they want to attract also newcomers and casual gamers, they won`t if they do like you all say.

So you think that to attract newcomers and casual gamers they need to introduce PMDG like planes?

Is that why you started playing flight simulator?

I started with flight sim 1998, then 2001 and i didn't consider addons but free ones (which as you might know were not exactly /that/ deeply simulated) until Flight sim 2004.

They just shall avoid releasing a minimum basic FlightSim Software. It needs some eye candy and features going beyond what was used to be standard 10 years ago.

Thats all i wanted to say.

Actually I think Flight is the best from the MS series, although I do like the lighting in the new Flight School. Of course, X-Plane is the visually most stunning in the screenshots posted here.

To get those X-Plane images the individual had to install enhanced scenery. Not a fair comparison.

 

 

It needs some eye candy and features going beyond what was used to be standard 10 years ago

 

Flight School doesn't need that.  It's purpose it to teach new users the fundamentals of operating a flightsim in a more user friendly environment.   If Flight School was to include the new scenery environment, what would differentiate if from the main sim?

Honestly I find the responses in this subject make me a bit wistful. DTG promises flight school as a simple enhancement of FSX with a limit of two planes, some tutorials and...... not really all that much, and we talk of patience, being willing to wait, starting small etc.

 

Such a shame that the graphically superior Ms Flight was drowned under such a weight of dismissal. Imagine what it might have become by now!

 

And I suspect it had as much to do with public relations as anything. Such a shame.

Honestly I find the responses in this subject make me a bit wistful. DTG promises flight school as a simple enhancement of FSX with a limit of two planes, some tutorials and...... not really all that much, and we talk of patience, being willing to wait, starting small etc.

 

Such a shame that the graphically superior Ms Flight was drowned under such a weight of dismissal. Imagine what it might have become by now!

 

And I suspect it had as much to do with public relations as anything. Such a shame.

I agree ... graphics-wise it was much better than FSX. I think it was a marketing disaster that killed it.

To get those X-Plane images the individual had to install enhanced scenery. Not a fair comparison.

 

Strictly speaking, yes. However IIRC it was just the higher-def terrain mesh and LOWI airport file, both of which are free downloads. The plane model, ambient lighting and sky are very representative of what stock X-Plane looks like. 

 

A relevant point here, I think, is that X-Plane isn't going to stand still. It's in continual development with constant upgrade patching. The current version 10 is getting a bit long in the tooth, so we're probably a year or two away from version 11, with who knows what additional features?

 

As the "other" flight sim available on Steam and under full development, it will inevitably be compared to whatever DTG brings to the table. I think it's reasonable to say that the DTG sim had better be at least as good as what X-Plane has to offer, because X-Plane is also targeting the "casual" or entry-level market. There is even an app that runs on mobile devices, to get people interested.

 

DTG isn't going to be alone in this market, although some of the conversation here seems to assume that. If they can release a sim that's competitive with X-Plane, or even better (which I would hope for personally, to light a fire under Laminar), it will be good for everyone.

Comparisons are supposed to be done on a level field... not add enhancements to compare against default.

 

If that's fair game, give me a bit of time and I can make Prepar3D v3 look much, much better than the images being offered here. Some photoreal with full blown autogen forests and buildings. Yeah... I can make it look a lot better than the default.

 

The default X-Plane of that area is extremely non-descript. It looks more like the DTG image than what has been presented.

 

Anyway... only time will tell what will be the 'best'.

Comparisons are supposed to be done on a level field... not add enhancements to compare against default.

 

If that's fair game, give me a bit of time and I can make Prepar3D v3 look much, much better than the images being offered here. Some photoreal with full blown autogen forests and buildings. Yeah... I can make it look a lot better than the default.

 

The default X-Plane of that area is extremely non-descript. It looks more like the DTG image than what has been presented.

 

Anyway... only time will tell what will be the 'best'.

 

As I previously said, I thought the intent of the comparison was mainly about the general appearence of the simulators, the textures, etc., so not having default scenery installed, I just used the (freeware) one that I had installed. After all, I think the Piper Cub in MS Flight is an add-on as well?

 

I remember, when FSX or X-Plane 10 just came out and comparisons were made with FS9 or FSX, most people here were maintaning that "what counts is what the simulator can currently achieve, so it's legit to compare using the available add-ons."

 

However, fair enough, here's a screenshot with the default scenery:

 

 

LOWI has default 3D scenery, but I haven't it installed.

 

If that's fair game, give me a bit of time and I can make Prepar3D v3 look much, much better than the images being offered here. Some photoreal with full blown autogen forests and buildings. Yeah... I can make it look a lot better than the default.

 

Everyone's welcome to do that!

Comparisons are supposed to be done on a level field... not add enhancements to compare against default.

 

This is a philosophy I totally disagree with. I always compare a new flightsim to what I currently have, not what it was like 10 years ago. If I am going to move to a new platform, I want to know that it's either an advancement to what I currently have, or at least that it has the capability to bring it up to that level or exceed it. This is why I haven't adopted X-Plane 10, because it still lacks major functionality that FSX does much better. Namely  it's AI and ATC systems, as well as it's weather system. Why would I want something that is less than I currently have available to me. This is the same methodology I use anytime I move to a new FS version.

 

 

Such a shame that the graphically superior Ms Flight was drowned under such a weight of dismissal. Imagine what it might have become by now!

 

I agree that graphically MS Flight was (and is) very good out of the box, and performing very well even on average systems with a "slick" and "smooth" interface. As was discussed elsewhere already, it was probably a pragmatic decision for Dovetail to build on FSX rather than Flight, particularly as they were already familiar with the FSX code from working on the SE release. Considering that even with a few freeware addons, graphics of the standard FSX can be vastly improved, it should be possible for Dovetail to produce a good upgrade on that 10 year old standard, even if the scenery and mesh are mostly based on the FSX standard, with a few updates.

+HughesMDflyer4

Looking at the wonderful .gif you made, I noticed that (while I agree the lighting in DTG Flight school seems exaggerated) the scenery in DTG's simulator looks a lot crisper in terms of resolution. The ground looks much less blurry all around, which is promising.  :wink: