New preview shots

[oldbear 33]

What a rough bunch of negative posts.  This is flight school which needs to be simplified and not extravagant as most would know it with weather, AI, ATC, etc. The target market, those new to flight simming or just want to fly dont want to be bothered with that stuff right now.

 

I think its pretty good deal to have orbx FTX global as default. FSX or P3D or XPX neither had it to that extent. And we have 64 bit. This generation using these sims will ask what are OOMs?

It is taking advantage of modern hardware equipment. Weve been griping about this for years in all current sims.

 

I cant remember any one current sim that we use that was outstanding or even great on first release. FSX? P3D? XPX? But they were all gradually received and built up. To expect the same parameters from DTG on first release be it the flight school or the full sim, is unrealisitc IMO. It will take at least a few years to tweak, redo, enhance everything that we now currently use and have been accustomed to.

 

The clouds dont look so good at all. So what. This is alpha. or beta. You know darn well this will be enhanced at some point whether from DTG themselves or from REX or whatever 3PD. Same with weather and AI, ATC. Otherwise this is all for nought. The engine that keeps this hobby going are the enhancements from the community and 3PDs themselves. But to judge flight school so harshly doesnt make sense. Be happy we have something revamped and will continue to be worked on in coming years. Build the strong foundation and the rest will take shape in due time.

 

What was everyone expecting anyway? As soon as the full flight sim gets released we will all abandon our current sims and jump over? LOL We will use it , but the addons and enhancements will take time. Kudos to DTG for putting up with all the negativity and keep pluggin along. In a few years it could very well be the main sim. Who really knows how it all plays out.

 

Good post. But you're wasting your time. The naysayers will huff and puff about why they don't like it, or keep asking the same questions that have been answered hundreds of times by DTG. Many have missed the point of Flight School entirely.

 

It's not that this lot can't see the wood for the trees. They're peering at the bark...

[pmb 5,142]

I doubt it's that simple, oldbear. I think I got the idea of FlightSchool, I actually preordered it (and another copy for my aspiring nephew). I will reserve final judgement until it's been released.

 

However, I feel the concern of many experienced simmers isn't actually about FlightSchool but Dovetail Flight Simulator. There was quite some hope about something really revolutionary to emerge. Given there's just half a year time and there are tasks like adding jets (I hope so), SDK, 3rd party support, more detailed regions etc, it's hard to imagine the basic engine - having been worked upon for > 2 yrs by Dovetail now - to see ground-breaking improvements within that time. In other words, FlightSchool will be judged in this respect. Missing SDK, detailed regions in Flightschool are no issues, however, it's hard to imagine a basically new base scenery model or aircraft modelling engine to emerge within this half of a year. Brutally stated: Roads cutting through houses, should they be seen in Flightschool, will remain with us.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[ca_metal 2,332]

Well, we all should wait for the infos concerning the full sim. Then, we can sort out conclusions.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

I doubt it's that simple, oldbear. I think I got the idea of FlightSchool, I actually preordered it (and another copy for my aspiring nephew). I will reserve final judgement until it's been released.

 

However, I feel the concern of many experienced simmers isn't actually about FlightSchool but Dovetail Flight Simulator. There was quite some hope about something really revolutionary to emerge. Given there's just half a year time and there are tasks like adding jets (I hope so), SDK, 3rd party support, more detailed regions etc, it's hard to imagine the basic engine - having been worked upon for > 2 yrs by Dovetail now - to see ground-breaking improvements within that time. In other words, FlightSchool will be judged in this respect. Missing SDK, detailed regions in Flightschool are no issues, however, it's hard to imagine a basically new base scenery model or aircraft modelling engine to emerge within this half of a year. Brutally stated: Roads cutting through houses, should they be seen in Flightschool, will remain with us.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

Exactly Mike - doesnt get any clearer than that

[WR269 367]

Fact is, the product you are seeing is an early ALPHA....the caveats could not be clearer, NOTHING is finished....not one thing. ALL these so called experts calling out flaws, etc...you are wasting your time.

 

The only thing to take out of the ALPHA is the different GUI and interface, that is it!  The flight model is not finished, the texturing and rendering are nowhere near complete, the weather system doesn't work properly, yet people are very quick to their self proclaimed flightsim expert soapboxes. 

 

I had a look at it, and yes, it does have a core that works just like FSX and P3D...the initialisation of scenery file indexes, etc....is that bad?  no, not really...we see it today.

 

The sim is 64 Bit but doesnt quite have the finished polish to test it out yet....more will come, but like I said, don't waste your time with all the videos you are seeing of people trying to review an incomplete product....is like being sent a prototype scooter with only one wheel because the developer hasn't made up their mind as to what the final product will be....and reviewers panning it because "it doesn't drive very well".

[Guest]

That's all very well but then why make the mistake of showing it to US in its current state? Like WE are not going to be picky.

 

If what you say is true I'll believe it when I see it. That said what I have seen up till now is lame!

[Paraffin 2,197]

Fact is, the product you are seeing is an early ALPHA....the caveats could not be clearer, NOTHING is finished....not one thing. ALL these so called experts calling out flaws, etc...you are wasting your time.

 

The only thing to take out of the ALPHA is the different GUI and interface, that is it!  The flight model is not finished, the texturing and rendering are nowhere near complete, the weather system doesn't work properly, yet people are very quick to their self proclaimed flightsim expert soapboxes. 

 

Steam is still showing a release date of May 24. That's 15 days from now. I have never heard of a product being unfinished and "in Alpha"... at least what the term used to mean... this close to release. Game development just doesn't work that way. So I think concerns being voiced here are valid. 

 

Look, we know we're not the target market for Flight School on a forum like Avsim. But if DTG wants to sell a full-blown flight simulator later this year, then we *are* the market. And they must know that we're looking at Flight School as a preview of their competence in bringing FSX code forward into the year 2016.

 

In that light, I personally don't see anything wrong with constructive criticism of what they're showing in the Flight School previews. I think almost all the criticism has in fact been constructive, aimed at making both Flight School and the later DTG flight sim a better product for everyone. Just my $.02.

[WR269 367]

Steam is still showing a release date of May 24. That's 15 days from now. I have never heard of a product being unfinished and "in Alpha"... at least what the term used to mean... this close to release. Game development just doesn't work that way. So I think concerns being voiced here are valid. 

 

Look, we know we're not the target market for Flight School on a forum like Avsim. But if DTG wants to sell a full-blown flight simulator later this year, then we *are* the market. And they must know that we're looking at Flight School as a preview of their competence in bringing FSX code forward into the year 2016.

 

In that light, I personally don't see anything wrong with constructive criticism of what they're showing in the Flight School previews. I think almost all the criticism has in fact been constructive, aimed at making both Flight School and the later DTG flight sim a better product for everyone. Just my $.02.

 

Well I think the point is being missed. They sent the copies to several people with a huge amount of caveats. 

 

Regardless of what Steam says about release date, the fact is, this is an ALPHA version...and it states so everywhere.

 

It also goes on to state the items that are not finished, etc. etc.   so even if release was tomorrow, if they send you an ALPHA version, you truly have to be dillusional to believe your ALPHA will have all the release stuff.

 

Besides....would it be really shocking to see a developer send out a release date and not meet the date?  

 

If they do meet it, great, it will be with a version different to the one being banded, but as far as getting all worked up about an ALPHA version, I really still fail to see the point. 

[fs4fun 366]

I read earlier in this thread the alpha preview released to youtubers is about a month old. Haven't seen anything that confirms it though (like an About... screen with a build date). In any case those people making preview vids don't seem to be beta testers.

[Guest]

well see soon enough. The truth always comes out in the end :-)

[Paraffin 2,197]

Regardless of what Steam says about release date, the fact is, this is an ALPHA version...and it states so everywhere.

 

Welcome to the new paradigm of software publishing, where "Alpha" means "You don't get to criticize anything we show until final release day."  :smile:

 

Okay, that's a little harsh. But Alpha and Beta versions used to mean something, and those terms have been increasingly used as just marketing tools in recent years. If it's truly Alpha, that would mean there are features yet to be added or modified, and I can't believe that's going to happen two weeks from release day.

 

In Ye Olden Times, a "Beta" version would mean "feature complete and now we're just thrashing out bugs." The normal sequence is that you don't use the final release and the customers who buy it as Beta testers. 

 

Besides....would it be really shocking to see a developer send out a release date and not meet the date?  

 

 

Steam releases can slip, yes. But they've already slipped this release once. I would prefer they keep it in the oven for another few months, collecting more feedback from the flight sim community. But they've taken this odd tactic of saying "this one isn't for you," so we're probably out of the loop and I'll bet this releases on the 24th.

[WR269 367]

Regardless.

 

The game may well release on the 24th.

 

The version doing the rounds is an incomplete version which has been clarified by the customer as stating is not even the Beta candidate.

 

So whether a version releases on the 24th or not is totally irrelevant. The reviews will be done on that version, not the current ALPHA one which was released to certain people to show what the interface is like and what School will be about...nothing else.

 

Surely not that hard to understand? You can certainly criticize the content of an ALPHA product.....those clever enough to recognise what it is, will not bother.

[Guest]

Please give us all a brake with the pseudo-intellectual superiority!

[WR269 367]

Please give us all a brake with the pseudo-intellectual superiority!

Not my intention to make you feel inferior. 

 

I just wanted to have people use some common sense and not panic about nothing...apparently harder to do than it appears.

[ca_metal 2,332]

Welcome to the new paradigm of software publishing, where "Alpha" means "You don't get to criticize anything we show until final release day."  :smile:

 

Okay, that's a little harsh. But Alpha and Beta versions used to mean something, and those terms have been increasingly used as just marketing tools in recent years. If it's truly Alpha, that would mean there are features yet to be added or modified, and I can't believe that's going to happen two weeks from release day.

 

In Ye Olden Times, a "Beta" version would mean "feature complete and now we're just thrashing out bugs." The normal sequence is that you don't use the final release and the customers who buy it as Beta testers. 

 

 

Steam releases can slip, yes. But they've already slipped this release once. I would prefer they keep it in the oven for another few months, collecting more feedback from the flight sim community. But they've taken this odd tactic of saying "this one isn't for you," so we're probably out of the loop and I'll bet this releases on the 24th.

 

You're ritght in terms. But who said this version is a month old? Martin once said they were working with several builds simultaneously. This alpha version can be really old.

 

You should watch last froogle's video. It says he talked to dovetail about a lot of flaws he found on this alpha version, they were very supportive and said they fixed all the flaws he pointed, and they were sending new and improved versions to every testers.

 

This alpha version seems to be focused in showing some new features, not the final product.

 

Froogle talking about the alpha version: