4

 

In aaaaaalll this talk and ramble you forget the most important thing:



1) It's a flight sim

2) It's only $15

3) There is absolutely no reason why I wouldn't spend that to try it out and or have fun..... Just like I spend more on that to maybe go see a movie, so I think this i being blow waaaay over proportion needlesly.



But hey, whatever makes you happy...

You forgot...

4. It's only a game! (as Martin said)

Why didn't DTG just continue to develop FSX-SE? They could have made Flight School as an add-on for it instead.

As said earlier, most serious simmers have moved over to P3D already, and contrary to what DTG have said, they do need to look at the competition and surpass it it every way,

otherwise I can't see how third party developers and users will shift focus over to their "new" platform.

64bit is the future, but not if the bulk of the code is still >10 years old.

 

No, this will fail... hard

 

Most of what you said is simply inaccurate.  First, as the OP pointed-out, the success of DTG is NOT predicated on hard core simmers desire to purchase their software.  It will be based on their ability to attract new consumers to the market.  Next, your assertion that most hard core simmers have moved onto P3D is nothing more than an annotate.  Every available metric (including the AVSIM/Flightsim.com surveys) shows FSX outpaces P3D by 4 to 1.  BA and DVA, two very large VAs show FSX use at 73%, P3D less then 20%.  Finally, this quote was really odd:"but not if the bulk of the code is still >10 years old."  You realize the bulk of P3D code is based on ESP, which is also >10 years old.  

 

As for 3rd party developers, DTG has unique advantage over P3D and that's the Steam distribution platform, which literally has millions of potential customers.  That potential market share alone will attract developers beyond Orbx...   

 

 

MS Flight was a complete failure

 

MS Flight was really only a failure because of their marketing scheme.

You can't just go out and give out parts of the world at relatively high prices, then go out giving aircraft without cockpits for relatively high prices as well.

 

Really if all we wanted to do was get into a plane and fly, MS Flight would suit our needs because it gives the best all round experience.

All you need to do is add in DTG Flight School's lessons located at airports in Hawaii or Alaska and you're set to go. You also have a wider range of aircraft than DTG Flight School.

 

I'm taking a wild guess, but if MS Flight had provided the whole world at the same detail as Hawaii and Alaska before its "death" (You can fly in the whole world now because of a great community), DTG might've bought it instead.

 

In terms of today's Flight School, I'm not going to say anything because it's unfair to judge a book by its cover, given alpha footage gameplay or not. All I'm saying is that they've done a wonderful job for first time flight simulator programmers, albeit with a little help.

Most of what you said is simply inaccurate.  First, as the OP pointed-out, the success of DTG is NOT predicated on hard core simmers desire to purchase their software.  It will be based on their ability to attract new consumers to the market.  Next, your assertion that most hard core simmers have moved onto P3D is nothing more than an annotate.  Every available metric (including the AVSIM/Flightsim.com surveys) shows FSX outpaces P3D by 4 to 1.  BA and DVA, two very large VAs show FSX use at 73%, P3D less then 20%.  Finally, this quote was really odd:"but not if the bulk of the code is still >10 years old."  You realize the bulk of P3D code is based on ESP, which is also >10 years old.  

 

As for 3rd party developers, DTG has unique advantage over P3D and that's the Steam distribution platform, which literally has millions of potential customers.  That potential market share alone will attract developers beyond Orbx...   

While your metrics are not being called into question from me, I will ask why it is that FSX outpaces P3D.  The simple answer: money.  Many people believe that spending less on FSX to achieve the same results as P3D is the answer.  Also, licensing (but we won't get into that).  Another answer is convenience.  I am sure a great percentage of FSX users are also Steam users so it makes sense that people will take the path of least resistance, not to mention if their sim get screwed up due to an add-on or otherwise, it is much quicker reinstalling through Steam than through dvd.  We also cannot forget about legacy content, which ties in with my first answer of money.

 

In closing, you forgot that with DTG Flight School, there won't be any add-on content.

Good points Josh

While your metrics are not being called into question from me, I will ask why it is that FSX outpaces P3D.  The simple answer: money.  Many people believe that spending less on FSX to achieve the same results as P3D is the answer.  Also, licensing (but we won't get into that).  Another answer is convenience.  I am sure a great percentage of FSX users are also Steam users so it makes sense that people will take the path of least resistance, not to mention if their sim get screwed up due to an add-on or otherwise, it is much quicker reinstalling through Steam than through dvd.  We also cannot forget about legacy content, which ties in with my first answer of money.

 

In closing, you forgot that with DTG Flight School, there won't be any add-on content.

I don't disagree with any of your points!  BTW, I don't believe many of the hardcore simmers will immediately switch to DTG; instead, as you suggested, we'll wait until the content exceeds whats  available on our current platforms (e.g. P3D/FSX).  However, that's precisely the point the OP is making; we're inconsequential to the success of DTG new flight simulator.  Initially, they're not trying to attract us; instead, they're trying to draw new consumers into the market.  I think they've been pretty honest with their intentions.  Ironically, its the new entry into the segment that will probably decide what platform us old timers migrate to.  If DTG new flight sim is as, or more successful, the nFSX SE, third party add-on developers will probably devote the vast majority of their resources to this market.  And we (hard core simmers) go where they go....

My impression is that Flight failed because it was too dumbed down. It's a flight simulator with all of the interesting aviation stuff stripped out. People who want to get into flight simming at least want to see that there's some potential to learn something about aviation.

 

There are a couple of reasons why having the entire earth modeled is important. One is that people like to fly where they live. Oddly, Microsoft knew this fact very well, but all Flight had was Alaska and Hawaii. That means that the vast majority of people can't fly where they want to. The other reason is that it's hard to do any interesting flight planning if you only have a small area to work with.

 

Flight also closed the door on 3PD's. We don't yet know yet what DTG's FS will offer in the way of SDK and support for commercial devs or hobbyists, but they do know that all those people have other places they can go so they will need to make it an attractive addon platform.

 

The problem with FSX and other flight sims is that many people buy the product, but then get overwhelmed and intimidated with all the concepts, jargon and acronyms, so they give up. Sales figure don't reflect that. The point of Flight School is to help people get up to speed and then want more. They can go on to buy FSX:SE if they want to have a End-of-life platform, or they can move to DTFS if they want a platform that is actually being maintained and updated. The point is that instead of making Flight School dumbed down, DTG is trying to make it easier for people to learn what they need to know to be happy and successful flight simmers.

 

Lots of people here have been simming so long they don't even remember how hard it is to get on board and up to speed. They look at Flight School and say "What's in it for me? Nothing, FAIL!!". I think that's missing the big picture.

Just saw this new preview, I for one find alot of promise in these new platforms if this is a sign of things to come

 

4

You forgot...

4. It's only a game! (as Martin said)

Uh.. No.. The only relevant point is:

 

3) There is absolutely no reason why I wouldn't spend that to try it out and or have fun..... Just like I spend more on that to maybe go see a movie, so I think this i being blow waaaay over proportion needlesly.

 

No matter what some bitter needlessly-bashing-a-product-guy says...

 

 

"OUR" sim is still some ways off

 

Join me on the Flight Sim Picket Line...

 

What do we want - THE BEST EVER FLIGHT SIMULATOR

How long will it be last - AS LONG AS WE WANT

When do we want it - NOW

What hardware will we need - NONE AT ALL

 

Cheers Brian :>)

We don't yet know yet what DTG's FS will offer in the way of SDK and support for commercial devs or hobbyists, but they do know that all those people have other places they can go so they will need to make it an attractive addon platform.

 

In think Martin has been quite clear:

 

 

Just like FSX and P3D, DTG Flight Simulator will act as a core for people to expand upon as they wish. Like any core sim there will be a world with a set of rules which sets out how the game is played and how things interact in that world. For example, weather, physics, the ATC and so forth.

 

The platform will be open to third party developers, and they are free to use the technology and produce whatever add-on content they wish. Again, just like FSX and other flight simulators. 

 

- Martin

 

 

In think Martin has been quite clear:

 

Sorry, I was trying to say that we don't know the details. We know the intent is to have 3PD's and an SDK, but we don't yet know the content of the SDK, the API's, what parts will be extensible/replaceable, will there be a gamepack for some affordable 3D modeling tool, will there be migration tools for existing addons, documentation, tutorials, developer workshops, engagement over at fsdeveloper.com etc.

Please don't kid yourselves. The target market is us. :smile:

Please don't kid yourselves. The target market is us. :smile:

 

Yup. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, lets go with this. I'm game.

we are the target audience. or at least we will be.

 

I agree that Flight was a failure because it was dumbed down and it seemed marketed to people who didn't care to fly in the first place. No pilot wants planes without nav radios and apparently some planes had no cockpit at all (don't know - didn't buy any planes).

 

DTG will be successful if they create a good flight sim that appeals to those who actually want to and enjoy flying. I asked my brother just yesterday what it was about flight simming that he didn't care for (hes bought things like FSX and Ive tried to get him into my world of flying before) but he says he'd rather be out doing something real instead of sitting around at a computer. of course he does sit at a computer most days for a living so that may matter here.

 

I just don't think any flight sim should be written towards attracting people who aren't into it in the first place. Maybe I misunderstand the intentions stated to attract 'newbies'. Who are these 'newbies' if they aren't people like us in the first place? People who tend to go early for a flight just so we can hang out at the airport and look at planes or just enjoy the environment. People who look for places around airports where we can just go sit and watch the planes. people who get oddly turned on by the look of an old school 727 or something. people who absolutely love that feeling of power in an MD-80 (I think it is) People who spend most of the flight staring out the window examining the sky and clouds and ground and how it looks from every level. people who really like lots of buttons and controls in a cockpit and to have every switch and button do something.