The next topic that we are sure to read about would concern people that are dealing with Steam for the first time.  That should be interesting....

Steam is piece of cake to deal with...

Agreed. Steam ia really intuitive.

Which is a good point. 

 

While Flight School may not be "for us," the Flight Simulator (which will be an evolution of this very same technology) is. So I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to start commenting on what's wrong and what needs to change. 

 

DTG proved so far to be very reactive to feedback. Whether they will be able to implement our (long) wishlist or not, only time will tell. Until then, constructive criticism is the only way I know of achieving continued improvement.

Moreover, I am afraid that any new flight simulator will be inevitably incomplete and flawed when released. This applies not only to DTG, also to Aerofly FS 2, P3D v4, NextGen, whatever. Patience will be required. Comparing a new flight simulator to our current ultra optimized platforms, after 10 years development, addons, tests, studies etc. is unfair at the very least.

 

Well I'm going to give DTG every chance, but so far the preview graphics are...... Fugly.

 

Its actually hard to believe I'm looking at Orbx textures.

 

Steam unlocks it in less than an hour, so here's hoping..........

I really can't wait for the reviews to come pouring in for this. I have the popcorn on standby mode, so feel free to entertain me when it is released :smile:

Well I'm going to give DTG every chance, but so far the preview graphics are...... Fugly.

 

Its actually hard to believe I'm looking at Orbx textures.

 

Steam unlocks it in less than an hour, so here's hoping..........

 

 

I think it has to do with the global color palette going on. Definitely needs a lot of work. 

 

It's atrocious! The unpacking of the files is WAAAAAAY uglier than Rea6Y ! I'll uninstall immediately! And it doesn't even have a motion platform like my Level-D-sim next door!

DTG proved so far to be very reactive to feedback. Whether they will be able to implement our (long) wishlist or not, only time will tell. Until then, constructive criticism is the only way I know of achieving continued improvement.

 

Amen to that. There is no guarantee with any developer that the concerns of an interest group will be addressed, or that some things are even possible in a given platform. All we can do is continue providing feedback and hope for the best.

 

Many of us have available funds to spend (still) on this hobby, and are just itching to spend it on things that move the hobby forward.

 

Moreover, I am afraid that any new flight simulator will be inevitably incomplete and flawed when released. This applies not only to DTG, also to Aerofly FS 2, P3D v4, NextGen, whatever. Patience will be required. Comparing a new flight simulator to our current ultra optimized platforms, after 10 years development, addons, tests, studies etc. is unfair at the very least.

 

That part I disagree with. The code base of most current flight sims was developed for computers with far less processing and graphics power than we have today. Some of them have managed to move things forward (like X-Plane's 64-bit version), but I think we have every right to expect a "new" flight sim released in the year 2016, and selling for (presumably) a hefty price, to look and fly like there has been significant improvement in the state of the art. 

 

I don't mean a hangar full of payware-quality planes, but the base sim -- the terrain, sky, clouds, and flight model should look and fly at least as good as what's out there now, and preferably better if they want us to spend time away from sims we're already flying. Otherwise why would we be interested?

 

 

Otherwise why would we be interested?

 

Cause' were desperate? (and possibly drunk, so anything looks good) 

I sure hope so!

Even if I suppose this will put me onto the black list of a moderator: I take liberty to disagree.

 

I glanced through all of Avidean's contributions and I don't see them to violate any of the forum rules. You can accuse him for being over-critical about a product he hasn't seen yet, but there were enough over-enthusiastic contributors to give more than a balance without knowing the product as well at this point. I find it hard to accept seeing someone pushed out just for a critical point of view. Just my 2c.

 

And on the thing as such: I sure have to collect more experience for a profound review. However, my first impression on FlightSchool is underwhelmed, at least, even more in comparison to AeroflyFS2. With both being kind of a promise for the future, my first impression finds the latter much more promising, although it will lack the backup of the FSX-centered industry.

 

Kind regards, Michael

Agree or not as you wish, however trolling (aka "stirring the pot") is not something to be encouraged. Useful criticism is one thing, pointless posts are another thing entirely. Or, putting it another way...

 

"Insightful posts are welcomed; inciteful posts are not..."

 

BTW, I'm curious to learn how you went through the posts that were "hidden"? The only ones that were hidden were the repetitive posts containing a non-viewable video.