Hi Nancy   Actually, although it isn't graphically optimal, the sky can look like that! An inversion layer looks like a very sharp border between the hazy grey below and the clear blue skies above. I concur it looks weird and unnatural. The first time I saw it during one of my real world flights I was stunned!

I'm a real pilot. You and I both know such atmospherics are rare and shouldn't be the default presentation. I've also seen such in north Africa coming out of dust layers. But 99% of the time horizons don't look like that.

 

The clouds seemingly having no interaction with the haze layer in the distance is also an issue.

 

 

You and I both know such atmospherics are rare and shouldn't be the default presentation.

 

If they were presenting such an atmospheric condition it would be fine, but I think we all know they are not, and its simply very poor implementation of general atmospheric effects. We'll see in a few days I guess. At least DT do seem quite responsive to feedback, so they will hopefully improve the situation for this release and the future sim.

<picture removed>

 

Ok 3green you've made your point.

 

It was clear from day 1 that DTG had bought the rights to FSX from Microsoft and it has also become clear about the scope and intended audiance of Flight School. The Dovetail engine and it's content will evolve over time and become it's own product. 

 

My best advice to you would be to watch Novawings #5 preview of Flight School and to please stop submitting these images, thanks.

 

DTG should strive to reproduce their own splash screen. that should be the goal imo. or at least a marker.

My best advice to you would be to watch Novawings #5 preview of Flight School and to please stop submitting these images, thanks.

Yes I agree. Funny they are not.

 

DTG should strive to reproduce their own splash screen. that should be the goal imo. or at least a marker.

 

Absolutley! there is quite a disconnect between the spash and what then appears on the screen when the flight loads.

I'm a real pilot. You and I both know such atmospherics are rare and shouldn't be the default presentation. I've also seen such in north Africa coming out of dust layers. But 99% of the time horizons don't look like that.

 

The clouds seemingly having no interaction with the haze layer in the distance is also an issue.

 

You're right, for these conditions it could look better. But is this really the default presentation?

DTG should strive to reproduce their own splash screen. that should be the goal imo. or at least a marker.

 

That would be impossible to do real time on current and future hardware on any platform, that's why it's pre-rendered.  If that is the expectation of the next flight sim, then one will have at least a decade or more to wait for hardware to be capable enough and also open one's wallet up for some high end hardware.

 

I've said this a few dozen times before, but many seem to think because they have a 3D shooter that looks good it therefore means they should be able to have a flight sim that looks the same.  When that is not this case they fall back to blaiming it on "poor coding" -- avoid anything that points to the reality that computing hardware just isn't good enough.  The reason 3D shooters work is because of draw distances ... in some shooters it's just a few 100 feet, in others it's maybe best case 5 mi, in a global flight sim it can be over 200mi and there is no wait for the next level to load.  As you increase view distance, accuracy is reduced and calculations increase exponentially.

 

64bit will do NOTHING to alleviate this issue, in fact it's likely to make matters worse as there is more data to operate on with the larger address space.

 

There are always some optimizations that can be done, some come with visual compromise some don't, but there is no magic code or hardware  that will get anywhere close to those pre-rendered scenes from DTG.  That's just marketing, many many games do pre-rendered sequences ... this isn't unusual for this market.

 

Cheers, Rob.

That would be impossible

 

 

Err.. I think Sightseer and myself were just talking about some of the lighting aspects, between the fairly realistic (lighting of) composite splash screen, and the very unrealistic rendering in sim. The odd lighting and haze, and over dark clouds etc.

 

P3D already does all this much better than what we are seeing in DT-FS. I would say even FSX does too, and there are a few miss steps in this release, unless some of these aspects have been corrected.

 

Certainly not comparing it to other game titles.

The reason 3D shooters work is because of draw distances ... in some shooters it's just a few 100 feet, in others it's maybe best case 5 mi, in a global flight sim it can be over 200mi and there is no wait for the next level to load.  As you increase view distance, accuracy is reduced and calculations increase exponentially.

 

64bit will do NOTHING to alleviate this issue, in fact it's likely to make matters worse as there is more data to operate on with the larger address space.

 

With respect, that's just not true. :smile:

 

When X-Plane went from 32-bit to 64-bit, they were able to add an "extended DSF" feature, which meant they could load more of the higher res terrain tiles before transitioning to the low-res whole planet render in the far distance.

 

With extended DSF enabled, instead of 3×2 tiles (each 1×1 degree in latitude and longitude), you now get 4×3 tiles at higher resolution. It makes a noticeable difference. Suddenly Mt. Rainier looks highly detailed even when seen from 60-70 miles away in the Seattle area, instead of a gray lump on the horizon.

 

Here's some info and screen shots for anyone interested: http://developer.x-plane.com/2015/03/extended-dsfs-in-x-plane-10-40/

 

Now, this was a planned feature for an evolving code base. Whether DTG will be able to do something like this with FSX code ported to 64-bits remains to be seen. Maybe there are limitations with the legacy code. But when at least one other flight sim is showing what's possible with a 64-bit address space to improve draw distance at high resolutions, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect DTG to up their game and give us something similar in a modern flight sim. 

 

I really don't want to sound like a negative nancy, but what in the heck is going on with the horizon/haze and visibility in that video? 15:13 for example.

 

Yes, the horizon looks very strange in that video. As for the ORBx FTX Global scenery.......I guess it's OK for Flight School, but it really needs to be a LOT better than that for the main DTG Flight Simulator. Otherwise, it will be cannon fodder for the "it's just FSX all over again" brigade.

In a week I believe overall opinion will change, and the 64 bit will start to show it's.... power ...

 

It happened with DCS World when it went 64 bit, and very recently with my preferred ww2 combat flight simulator - il-2 Battle of Stalingrad.

 

Overall stability / smoothness were the main outcomes in both platforms - why not in an FSS / ESP - derived one ?

Definitely looks "dirty" polluted area and overly done. But I doubt very much DTG would leave things as they are. There has to be improvements. This kind of venture is not cheap, so listening to feedback is paramount and implementing changes needed as best they can. I bought it as a demo and to support flight simming moving forward. While constructive criticism is beneficial to making things better, if everything is simply negative, it will snowball into reviews and be a detriment further down the line. What we see in regards to shadows, atmosphere, clouds is mostly insignificant to that young person who just wants to learn all about flying from scratch. Pretty sure they dont want to be concerned with a bunch of switches, mixtures, etc.

 

What seems to be missing is lesson explanations and the WHY you are taking an action. What do numbers mean on the heading indicator, VSI, the VOR needles. Cant take it for granted they just know. If they get easily frustrated it, it will be a quick uninstall. Heck do newbies even know what the numbers on a runway are for and how to be sure you select the correct runway based on wind direction? Those are the things that are paramount to learn and setup as the foundation for the much larger sim down the road.

Selling the same sim image

 

Very good, but its based on the FSX code, they've said that.

Why do Lockheed Martin not get the same criticism?

Froogle in his review was (as I remember it) pretty enthusiastic about P3Dv3,.despite the the main selling point of v3 seeming to be a major bug fix which made better use of memory.

Well, Flight School shouldn't suffer from OOM either, and it doesn't cost $200.

A new simulator (Microsoft Flight) has been sold to us before and has since been discontinued.

 

Sold? I thought most of us downloaded MS Flight for free. Must be Alzheimer, then.

 

Still hoping for the "Holy Grail", or is this one it?

 

Some look for the Holy Grail. Others believe they found it already and dont't want others to find a new one. 

 

If you've been sold a product under false pretenses, I understand why one may be bitter, angry, upset and not laughing.

 

If there is anything DTG can't be accused of is selling their new flight sim under false pretenses. Maybe you did not bother to take the time to read, but there have been not less than 30 or more threads here about the new DTG products. Martin (DTG) patiently answered all our questions and explained in detail what we could and what we could not expect.

 

Technically, this is what your whole post is built upon.

Try to calm down and have a civil conversion.  When people start insulting others, it may time to re-read the ToS.

 

 

Insulting? When? Where? Whom?

My friend, if you show up here using sarcasm and sarcastic pictures, you should be ready to accept some friendly sarcastic replies. You can't change the rules you set yourself.

 

Your whole argument is based on false premises. That's my point.