DTG Flight School - Approach & Landing Lesson

[ca_metal 2,025]

Is it hard to understand there´s no engine capable of doing all that?! ESP is still the best for that. 

They already said, they took it as the base, they improved and they will keep improving it years to come. 

What makes me happy is not the product i´m seeing now, but the product they are looking for in the future, all the improvements they want to reach, always keeping in touch with the community. I guess this community feedback is a new and very  positive aspect.

[JLSeagull 191]

Then go fly Outerra. Problem solved. Good luck getting the rest of those features though! 

 

The fact is that FSX/P3D is, to this day, the most capable and comprehensive flight simulator for multi purpose needs. To abandon that platform and just move on to some high fidelity visual simulation would be a tragedy for all of us. 

 

:Applause:

If you want new people to get into flight, then it's best you don't throw too many things at them all at once. Approach and Landing could be the second or maybe third lesson? If you read between the lines of what the instructor is saying, he is very much in tune with how the player is performing and he is providing plenty of feedback. Who's to know flight awareness principles could be another lesson.

 

There are lots to look forward with Flight School and the full simulator. If you can't see this then maybe it's difficult to fill a glass which is half empty.

 

Still not impressed... then maybe you should buy the game and give it as a gift to a family member or friend - that way you're supporting DTG for the future and providing somebody else with the opportunity to get into our wonderful hobby and just maybe you might start to feel better about things...

 

:Applause:

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

That's a very dim answer. You know as well as I do that that is not the solution.

It is sad to see how complacent some of you are with the current state of the flightsims around.

 

No, what I am is realistic. I want a flight simulator, not a tree simulator, not a water simulator, not a cloud simulator. Those things are nice to add to the immersion and are welcome, but first and foremost I want a stable platform on which to enjoy simulation. New users need a elementary understanding of what a stick/yoke and rudder does and how a plane flies, not a full CFI led tutorial on FAA parts and FAR's. So please dont impose your desires on the rest of us. Like I said, if you want Outerra, go use Outerra, because thats not the sim we are here to discuss nor the forum. 

 

I also see you are new to Avsim, welcome. 

[AnkH 2,267]

I want a flight simulator, not a tree simulator, not a water simulator, not a cloud simulator.

 

Funny enough that ESP (aka FSX, FSX:SE, Prepar3d etc.) is exactly the WORST engine for this purpose. You guys praising DTG for this FSX v234 forget that in fact, the idea behind ESP was exactly what Outerra and other engines are today: a platform capable of displaying huge areas without loading pauses, basically streaming a full world. You want a flight simulator, we want a flight simulator and what would really qualify a flight simulator is a proper physics engine. In ESP, you can basically make a brick flying, no physics, nothing. And yet you argue exactly with this, rather inconsequent, no? If you would really want a flight simulator, you would be flying X-Plane already. Or DCS. Or something else, where there are physics in the engine.

 

Then, it is rather ridiculous to talk about "flight simulator" with making fun of "tree simulator", "water simulator" and "cloud simulator". Why? Because one of the most important aspects of flying in a simulator is the immersion. And exactly the graphics and physics engine would be the main hallmarks delivering immersion, be it via excellent graphics that give you the impression of really being up in the air, be it the correct simulation of the weather that gives you the impression that your plane is really surrounded by a medium called air and not basically just hovering around.

 

Funny enough, that those people insisting on things like you said usually turn all settings down and perform IFR flights from A to B in a 2D cockpit with some nice panels, looking for a plane modelled technically as close to the real deal as possible (like PMDG). But then my question is: why do YOU GUYS actually look for a new sim? FSX and P3D already perfectly offer this, turn all settings down and fly. Simply fly. With the lowest settings possible, no addon airports and no weather engine, you will already never run into an OOM in FSX. So, why do you praise DTG for delivering a new simulator? Maybe even for you guys insisting on the fact that you do not want a "tree, water or cloud simulator" it is important that your eye-candy addons all over the world do not result in an OOM? Strange, no? So you probably want and "addon simulator"? Or an "airport scenery simulator"?

 

Please, if you were consequent with your "I want a flight simulator, no tree, water or cloud simulator", you would not need anything new at all. Because any new simulator based on the same old ESP engine will NOT(!) offer you something new compared to FSX or P3D, why is it so difficult to understand that THIS is the reason me and others are not so enthusiastic about what we SEE here? And no, 64bit will not solve those issues. 64bit will eliminate OOMs, but then again, why do you have troubles with OOM? As I said, because although you make a story here about flight simulator and tree, water and cloud simulator, it is basically all those addons only enhancing exactly what you pretend not to be important leading to OOMs. Think about it.

[OMGBBQ32 12]

The purpose of Flight School is to teach people to fly.

What I would expect DTG to be focusing on are flight dynamics, instruction, and possibly airports themselves.

You cannot tell if they are fulfilling that goal by watching the video itself.

Once they are done with those three major aspects of the Flight School, you can expect them to start fooling around with the weather, shadows, other scenery, AI, etc.
This is what I hope they are doing right now after pushing the release date back nearly a full month.

 

The video doesn't look that bad, but according to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (may be different for others), you should not be descending until established on base, while normal circuit height is 1000' Above Ground Level.

I'm not expecting them to fix it because it is probably different in other countries, where you may be allowed to descend on downwind.

 

As for DTG Flight Simulator, I am going to keep an open eye out until at least a month before release before I make any decisions or opinions on how it looks.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

Then, it is rather ridiculous to talk about "flight simulator" with making fun of "tree simulator", "water simulator" and "cloud simulator". Why? Because one of the most important aspects of flying in a simulator is the immersion. And exactly the graphics and physics engine would be the main hallmarks delivering immersion, be it via excellent graphics that give you the impression of really being up in the air, be it the correct simulation of the weather that gives you the impression that your plane is really surrounded by a medium called air and not basically just hovering around.

 

 

That is the most important part of some games, but not of flight simulation. Flight sinulations most important feature is interaction with the plane and the cockpit,the avionics, the procedural and conceptual elements of flight, and the theory of aviation. Furthermore, to address your "fly around with a pmdg plane with the sliders turned down" comment, look at why pmdg is releasing the DC 6 on X-Plane first. Because the fsx and p3d platforms cannot support the avionic complexity or modeled circuit breakers etc because they are 32bit. So no, it is not just about the scenery.

 

While eye candy is welcomed and encouraged, I would fly Aerofly FS if I was in it for the visuals more than the competency of the platform. . Because nothing in a seat at a desk could ever replicate the sway on the runway or the feeling of torque on a go around in real life.

[AnkH 2,267]

That is the most important part of some games, but not of flight simulation. Flight sinulations most important feature is interaction with the plane and the cockpit,the avionics, the procedural and conceptual elements of flight, and the theory of aviation.

 

Well, as I said, then I wonder why you are looking forward to DTG Flight Simulator? As it is basically just a 64bit version of ESP, it will be the same as FSX, FSX:SE and P3D. In all those simulators, you already get what you want. Or, is it maybe although you are not capable of admitting it, still the eye-candy issue? Again, I ask you: what does DTG Flight Simulator offer you what the old sims not already have? 64bit? Why do you need 64bit, if the "most important feature is interaction with the plane and the cockpit,the avionics, the procedural and conceptual elements of flight, and the theory of aviation"? You get all this already in the current sims, no?

[Novation 534]

For me it looks as expected, which is FSX with some changes to the lighting and not much else. Whatever benefits 64bit can bring, its not going to have any relevance to what's on show in this presentation and will only come in to play with the full blown simulator, with more complex scenarios. There does not seem to be any additional visual improvements to the engine, as far as you can tell from that video, other than the haze and HDR effects. I do notice some significant stuttering and surging, along with the good old autogen pop up, which is not encouraging and I wonder what hardware config they are using for this? Texture filtering seems very poor as well, which is very noticeable on the ground, with the textures turning to mush a few feet in front of the AC.
 

It would be nice to see a screen of the UI and the options available. I hope it has not been stripped back to make things simple and easy for the novice and if so it necessitates the more advanced user to mess with cfg's or driver profiles in order to customise it to their taste.

 

I'm still looking forward to having a play with this, out of curiosity, but I'm not expecting a great deal from it. I just hope some strides can be made for the full sim, or interest will be low, especially for those of us who have moved to P3D.

[tonywob 4,769]

Please stop with the personal attacks and keep the discussion on-topic. Thank You

[turner112 52]

The purpose of Flight School is to teach people to fly.

What I would expect DTG to be focusing on are flight dynamics, instruction, and possibly airports themselves.

You cannot tell if they are fulfilling that goal by watching the video itself.

Once they are done with those three major aspects of the Flight School, you can expect them to start fooling around with the weather, shadows, other scenery, AI, etc.

This is what I hope they are doing right now after pushing the release date back nearly a full month.

 

The video doesn't look that bad, but according to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (may be different for others), you should not be descending until established on base, while normal circuit height is 1000' Above Ground Level.

I'm not expecting them to fix it because it is probably different in other countries, where you may be allowed to descend on downwind.

 

As for DTG Flight Simulator, I am going to keep an open eye out until at least a month before release before I make any decisions or opinions on how it looks.

 

"The purpose of Flight School is to teach people to fly."

 

Base on some quotes I've seen, its primary purpose is entertainment, which bring me to point #2:

 

"The video doesn't look that bad, but according to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (may be different for others), you should not be descending until established on base, while normal circuit height is 1000' Above Ground Level."

 

Here in the US, descent (for GA, anyway) typically begins abeam the numbers, from (approximately) 850-1000 AGL, 700 at downwind to base, 500 base to final.

 

The video, as I've mentioned in my other thread, shows the aircraft at about 250 AGL base to final, apparently with no concern on behalf of the instructor. 

 

I may be missing something (and this certainly may be corrected) but that's arguably one of the most critical positions and critical maneuvers to be off altitude.

[DTG Martin 213]

"The purpose of Flight School is to teach people to fly."

 

Base on some quotes I've seen, its primary purpose is entertainment, which bring me to point #2

 

Just to jump in, Flight School is designed to teach players the basics of flight simulation in a compelling and accessible way. Yes it is entertainment, all video games are designed to be entertaining are they not? Not only do we want to teach people the basics of virtual flying, but we very much hope that they have fun and enjoy themselves while doing so. 

 

- Martin 

[Glynn 405]

 

 

look at why pmdg is releasing the DC 6 on X-Plane first. Because the fsx and p3d platforms cannot support the avionic complexity or modeled circuit breakers etc because they are 32bit. So no, it is not just about the scenery.

 

Can't have Avionics complexity on 32bit ?

Have you had a look at the NGX, 777, Majestic Dash8.

PMDG stated they are making a DC6 for X-Plane simply because it is an easy introduction to X-Plane coding i.e less complex than attempting to port the NGX over

[turner112 52]

Just to jump in, Flight School is designed to teach players the basics of flight simulation in a compelling and accessible way. Yes it is entertainment, all video games are designed to be entertaining are they not? Not only do we want to teach people the basics of virtual flying, but we very much hope that they have fun and enjoy themselves while doing so. 

 

- Martin 

Hi Martin - thanks for the response. 

 

Do you mean the basics of flight, or flight simulation? I assume, of course, a little bit of both; but the are obviously drastically different, which again brings me to the 2nd point -

 

While it very well may be addressed, teaching someone the basics of flying and having them enjoy themselves shouldn't be different if they have to hold a rough altitude just like they do a heading. Arguably, doing so correctly will enhance their enjoyment later.

 

For the record, I think it looks great so far. It's hard to be objective for people (and pilots) who've been simming (and possibly flying) for a long time, but the point regarding holding altitude is fundamental.

 

cheers

Andrew

[DTG Martin 213]

Do you mean the basics of flight, or flight simulation? I assume, of course, a little bit of both; but the are obviously drastically different, which again brings me to the 2nd point -

 

While it very well may be addressed, teaching someone the basics of flying and having them enjoy themselves shouldn't be different if they have to hold a rough altitude just like they do a heading. Arguably, doing so correctly will enhance their enjoyment later.

 

Both, just as you say. We have spent the last two years listening to existing and would-be simmers alike. We have been intent on discovering what keeps you all simming, and what stops those who would like to get into flight simulation from doing so. We have learned that flight simulation appeals to an incredible amount of people, but a lot of them find it too hard to get started with. It is our aim to reclaim and attract those would-be simmers, but in order to do so, we need to present flight simulation in a way that doesn't initially overwhelm them.

 

That is where Flight School comes in. We wanted to create an experience which makes flight simming accessible to anyone who wants to try it. Doing this as a standalone release allows us to focus on tailoring the experience more at these players.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand the point you were making about having to "hold a rough altitude." Holding your altitude is part of DTG Flight School. For example, in the landing lesson shown in our recent video if you drift too high or low you will fail the lesson. Is that what you mean?

 

- Martin

[Wobbie 938]

Guys, just remember, it's only a game, with Flight School targeting newbies that have not dipped their toes into simming as yet.

All this colour of the sky, etc that is going on here is pretty much irrelevant to the newbies, who will be able to jump into a plane, learn a bit, & fly wherever they want to, very cheaply, while being entertained, & maybe hooked to move on to better sims. Remember, there could be amazing budding add-on developers out there. Dont scare them off!