DTG Flight Simulator expectations: let's face reality

[bonchie 2,305]

Just a heads up....JV said the changes to FTX Global that are in DTGFS are also going to be released as a patch for current users. 

So I wouldn't expect anything groundbreaking. It looks like a straight copy and use of Orbx's textures. 

[Christopher Low 5,414]

So, what exactly is going to make DTGFS stand out from FSX and P3D if the same terrain textures will effectively be used in all of them? Will fancy light scattering make enough of a difference, or are the default airports/water/ATC/clouds etc. going to be massively improved when compared to the other two? :huh:

[Guest]

So, what exactly is going to make DTGFS stand out from FSX and P3D if the same terrain textures will effectively be used in all of them? Will fancy light scattering make enough of a difference, or are the default airports/water/ATC/clouds etc. going to be massively improved when compared to the other two? :huh:

 

Yes, well, it's becoming more and more clear to me that no matter what DTG is saying, their sim is a pimped up version of FSX. If FTX Global can be used 'just like that' it means the underlying system of it all is the same old FSX system. Nothing new. Ok, hopefully newer more up to date data for the entire world (airports, navigation, vector) but still: is simply is NOT a totally NEW sim. Graphic enhancements don't make it a totally new sim. If it was a totally new sim nothing of what is available now would work in it. I still remain hopeful that it might become something good btw. But I would have loved a totally new sim more, I think. Specially if I have to rebuy all addons anyway.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

So, what exactly is going to make DTGFS stand out from FSX and P3D if the same terrain textures will effectively be used in all of them?

 

64BIT so more headroom for even better addons in the future,  atmospheric scattering, maybe updated navdata,

 

Basically the stuff we have been wanting for a long time and even better it's a consumer licensed platform ie affordable

[pmb 5,138]

Yes, well, it's becoming more and more clear to me that no matter what DTG is saying, their sim is a pimped up version of FSX. If FTX Global can be used 'just like that' it means the underlying system of it all is the 

What did you expect? DT stated in the first Press Release in July 2014 they would provide a new simulator based on "Microsoft’s genre-defining flight technology". This is just what they are going to deliver. And I find nothing odd with an opportunity to reuse proven technology, even more, as it might give us a chance to use part of our addons, maybe for an upgrade fee. 

 

No one forbids ventures into a completely new simulator. However, all the approaches I've seen so far outside of the FSX or XP world during the last 25 years either failed or are developing with a crawling speed.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[Heimi 91]

No groundbreaking news here.

We will get a recycled FSX including some former add-ons with a frankenstein-like updated engine that still looks worse than MSFlight.

They may improve that a little in the future.

But if you take a 70year old lady to the plastic surgeon she will look better in the first time, but she`s still 70years old and the lifting won`t last long enough. You know what I mean?

That may not only apply to the graphics...

I`m disappointed so far.

[Paraffin 2,197]

So, what exactly is going to make DTGFS stand out from FSX and P3D if the same terrain textures will effectively be used in all of them? Will fancy light scattering make enough of a difference, or are the default airports/water/ATC/clouds etc. going to be massively improved when compared to the other two? :huh:

 

A relevant comparison might be when X-Plane went from 32 to 64 bit. There was no sudden massive change in the overall look of the sim, but there were many incremental improvements with access to vastly more RAM address space. For example:

 

1) The potential to render terrain at much higher 3D mesh and landclass resolution. With optional (and free) HD terrain mesh, mountains have far more detail, instead of having large areas of flat texture. Ultra-high def terrain is available in some specific areas like the Grand Canyon. It really makes a difference in mountain scenery.

 

2) Improvement for distant scenery loading, so you don't get that sudden "pop in" for distant scenery.

 

3) Potential to load huge amounts of either Open Street Map or hand-placed scenery, although this is still limited by the CPU/GPU ability to render all those objects at high enough frame rates.

 

So, moving to 64 bits is potentially a big deal. The main complication with high def terrain is the file size. Each area for X-Plane is up to 3.6 gb per tiled area. To cover just the UK and Europe with HD terrain you'd need close to 60 gigs downloaded. Or about 125 gigs for the USA and Canada. Most folks just download the areas they fly over, not the whole world. The base mesh is good enough otherwise.

 

I don't know how this will translate to the new DTG sim, but you can see the implications. There is a potential to get high resolution scenery through free user-made data, or having Orbx provide it as a paid add-on. With data sizes like this, I wouldn't expect it in the base sim. It's just too big to download. 

[tf51d 284]

64BIT so more headroom for even better addons in the future, atmospheric scattering, maybe updated navdata,

 

 

I'm trying to figure out why people keep saying FSX today (at least with DX10/Fixer) doesn't do atmospheric scattering? It sure looks like it does to me! What am I missing?

 

 

[jcomm 6,049]

I really can't understand any arguments against DTG's Flight Schol or Flight Sim?

 

Even less can I understand when most of them come from users who have long hoped for a 64 bit version of MSFS...

 

It's going to take some time before major developers catch the train and start porting their products to the new platform. I'd expect the first PMDG add-on by the last quarter of 2017, maybe even Majestic, A2A, Flight1, Carenado, ...

 

The main advantages will come from the use of a 64 bit platform, DX11 graphics, but also a re-designed, maybe cleaned "home" for new content to be released during the next years. What can possibly be so negative or not appealing about this ?

 

Or... are there better  (not combat-flight oriented) alternatives  at the moment ? ( * )

 

( * ) For hard core  simmers, yes, maybe PSX, ELITE, FlightDeck A32X, but that's other league....

[usairways56 43]

I read some of this topic but didn't have enough time to go through all 9 pages. I can understand why people are so demanding and critical of this new sim, but I don't feel that way.

 

My personal opinion is that I would pay $100+ for a recycled FSX if it were to be better optimized and able to run at a dead-solid 30 fps 100% of the time with addons (my computer is near close right now with all my addons like REX, PMDG, Flytampa/Flightbeam Airports, ASN). That would mean I wouldn't have to spend $500 to upgrade to a Skylake CPU and Z170 motherboard, which I'm currently contemplating.

 

I consider any extra features that are included with DTG Flight Sim to be a bonus, and I don't feel like I can demand them from DTG. I'm thankful that they even decided to pick up the franchise after Microsoft abandoned it. Honestly, I've spent years as a kid and teenager (the majority of my life actually) with a limited amount of money chasing FSX's thirst for hardware, spending hundreds of $ on computer upgrades. I've accumulated over 4000 hours in FS9 and FSX, tweaking and flying for virtual airlines. I love the series so much and it's been such a big part of my life that I feel bad when I read negative comments here on avsim towards current and future sims. I realize a lot of the posts in this topic are just sharing information with a realistic view, but many people sound too cynical to me.

[AviatorMoser 353]

I really can't understand any arguments against DTG's Flight Schol or Flight Sim?

 

Even less can I understand when most of them come from users who have long hoped for a 64 bit version of MSFS...

 

If P3D offered FTX Global textures out of the box and was a 64-bit application, then I think people would be praising Lockheed Martin.

[Wobbie 938]

Just a concern, never mind the new eye candy, what about add-ons? What can we expect? Same old stuff recompiled for 64bit?

And how will we be able to get them? It has been said that the 2x sims will be released on Steam as well as through the Windows Store, & if you purchase the sim from either, you will be stuck to getting your add-ons from there.

So, will add-ons be released at the same time? Will the developers be obliged to market through both outlets, or will they have to sell to DTG who will then distribute through the 2 outlets?

 

Then, what about freeware? Normally, from what I gather, downloads via the Windows Store are pretty much locked for add-ons?

 

Mmmmmm, These are actually important questions to ask. Sure, it's great having Orbyx onboard as a texture supplier, but the sim needs more!

[ErichB 3,672]

People honestly need to make a cup of tea, eat some custard creams and chill.   Yesterdays announcement was quite significant, and the sim is still in development.  We don't know about other features yet because they haven't been announced yet

 

We already knew that DTGFS is being built on FSX tech, but suddenly yesterday everyone starts to erupt like that news has just broken.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Just a concern, never mind the new eye candy, what about add-ons? What can we expect? Same old stuff recompiled for 64bit?

And how will we be able to get them? It has been said that the 2x sims will be released on Steam as well as through the Windows Store, & if you purchase the sim from either, you will be stuck to getting your add-ons from there.

So, will add-ons be released at the same time? Will the developers be obliged to market through both outlets, or will they have to sell to DTG who will then distribute through the 2 outlets?

 

Then, what about freeware? Normally, from what I gather, downloads via the Windows Store are pretty much locked for add-ons?

 

Mmmmmm, These are actually important questions to ask. Sure, it's great having Orbyx onboard as a texture supplier, but the sim needs more!

 

 

FSX-SE and Train Sim are both on Steam, and yet you can install stuff outside of Steam. I assume it will work the same way here, and on Windows Store too.

 

 

What leaves me a little disappointed from some of the posts above is how a good chunk just wants their previous addons on this new sim.

I say, is that all you want? Addons you already have, can still use and enjoyed in the past? Woudn't you rather have PMDG and the others actually work on something new instead of giving you something you previously experienced and that most likely won't offer you nothing new simulation wise (just think of the PMDG 777 going from FSX to P3D, the only thing changing was the ground camera was it not? )

It might use old technology, but they are working to improve it. But we shoudn't consider it as a fixed FSX. In the same way the whole FSX addon mentality imho shoudn't take place. I spent money on FSX, i was  happy to spend money on it and i have my fun with the addons i bought. AND I ALWAYS WILL because fsx is not going anywhere. But asking for the same thing on DFS means also never moving out of the comfort zone, never leaving them a certain margin to improve. is FSX and its addons the perfection? Or do you think that with time and official support developers might be able to give us something actually new?

[pmb 5,138]

What leaves me a little disappointed from some of the posts above is how a good chunk just wants their previous addons on this new sim.

 

There's a good hint on what to expect in a recent posting by ORBX' John Venema: "What we have now with DTG's new sims is virtually unlimited land classes defined and engineered by Orbx so that a decade's worth of R&D is now boiled into a new sim as part of its core. That gives us a fantastic foundation to build upon without the previous restrictions we always had to code around."

 

According to another one of his posts they will be transferring more of their legacy products over to DFS, while on the other hand certainly will develop a new range of products beyond those possible in FSX/P3D today. (BTW, if memory serves me right he once hinted having been in talks with LM about a new landclass system who were reluctant to implement it).

 

Thus, I'd expect a certain percentage of my present addons (which are tons indeed) to transfer to DFS - where I'd even accepat a *limited* upgrade fee - while in parallel new products will appear.beyond what's possible today.

 

We'll have to see if/how this will materialize, of course. And, this is JV's point of view, it will be interesting how others (Aerosoft, PMDG...) will respond.

 

Kind regards, Michael