Theres no big WOW factor but it is very smooth, and has alot of potential. My lessons flights were using 5.7GB of VAS lol.

 

Lots of things need improvement, including the instructor. But hey P3D V1 sucked and so did FSX in its infant stages. I wouldnt say it sucks, but the teething process ha begun.

 

They seem to be on the right track, but they have a lot of work ahead of them.

 

Remember that Prepar3D v1 came out in 2010 and it was just FSX with a few minor tweaks and fixes. It wasn't until P3D v2 came out in late 2013 that major changes were made to the graphics engine, such as DX11, real-time shadows, HDR etc. Even then, it took almost another year before they had sorted out all the glitches and bugs they introduced with that new graphics engine. So it basically took them 3-4 years to implement a fully featured DX11 engine, and it's still 32-bit. DTG have not worked on their sim for 3-4 years, so it's not entirely reasonable to expect them to match P3D v3 yet.

We tend to compare DTG FS to Prepar3D, but we need to remember that they're building upon FSX, not P3D. They have to re-invent the wheel in many cases since they can't use the code LM implemented.

I like it too...somehow.

The feeling is good, although flight physics are a step back since MS Flight also the graphics look even more oudated.

Sound is great and preformance good. I also like the "career" and achievements.

But as most you already said: Good base but a loong way to go. But for now i bet on DTG.

Tell me what you like - but before going 64 bit with a (buggy code)  the 32 bit should have been sort out - and only than go 64 bit

 

you have to ask yourself who is doing the right thing here:

 

Lockheed Martin  -  or  -  DTG ?

 

i know the answer.

why shudn't I post Glynn. I said what "I always wanted". anyway let it rest.

 

 

Because expressing a view then making a statement like "NO DEBATES PLEASE ANYONE." says to everyone here "you are going to hear my views but I have no interest in hearing yours"

 

It's a discussion forum, saying "NO DEBATES PLEASE ANYONE." is not really how we keep the conversation flowing around here.

So you are going to fly around in what is essentially stock FSX with Orbx Global for the next 6-12 months with three moderately modeled airplanes, no real weather, no add-on airports, etc.?

 

Call me skeptical, but I think you'll have it uninstalled by next month. 

leave him alone, he's drunk     :Just Kidding:

 

Remember that Prepar3D v1 came out in 2010 and it was just FSX with a few minor tweaks and fixes. It wasn't until P3D v2 came out in late 2013 that major changes were made to the graphics engine, such as DX11, real-time shadows, HDR etc. Even then, it took almost another year before they had sorted out all the glitches and bugs they introduced with that new graphics engine. So it basically took them 3-4 years to implement a fully featured DX11 engine, and it's still 32-bit. DTG have not worked on their sim for 3-4 years, so it's not entirely reasonable to expect them to match P3D v3 yet.

 

On the other hand......how many times are we going to accept taking steps backwards with a "new" flight simulator, just because the developer is "new to the game"?

I´m glad I purchased it even though I´ve been FS-ing for years. I think it looks very promising. Sure, there are lots of graphical glitches (dark moon in bright sky, cockpit shadows disconnected from struts, the sharp horizon, ugly clouds) but there´s plenty of time to sort these out for the full sim. This version is already much smoother than the alpha that was released only a few weeks ago, they've made huge strides on that! 

 

The big thing is 64-bit, of course. They've got their priorities right I think: now they can start expanding and improving the graphics engine with a lot more resource headroom.

 

It's a lot of simulator for the price if you're new to flight simming-the target audience.

On the other hand......how many times are we going to accept taking steps backwards with a "new" flight simulator, just because the developer is "new to the game"?

 

Frankly I think MS Flight looks better and the flight physics are better and it's free. 

I have never used STEAM before... But I feel claustrophobic with this "Steam" and adding "games" to it. I do not know what is going on.

 

It says "performing first time task"

 

installing MS VC Redist Package 2 of 3 and I see a spinning cursor

 

IS it stuck or is it installing? Any ideas?

 

its been like that for a while now...

 

Edited to Add: OK It completed.

 

So I have to go to steam and then "play game' .... no exe file for Flight school...k..

 

 

Because expressing a view then making a statement like "NO DEBATES PLEASE ANYONE." says to everyone here "you are going to hear my views but I have no interest in hearing yours"

 

It's a discussion forum, saying "NO DEBATES PLEASE ANYONE." is not really how we keep the conversation flowing around here.

 

Ok . 

 

but there´s plenty of time to sort these out for the full sim.

 

There's really not plenty of time to sort everything out if they truly plan to release at the end of the year.

 

How much of a work in progress it'll be at release is yet to be seen, but the idea that they'll just fix these 1000 problems/wishes everyone is listing in the next 6 months isn't very realistic.

 

I'm much rather them take another two years and really get things right, but it seems more likely that we will see a long progression from humble beginnings with the first release assuming the funds materialize to keep the project going.

I don't think the release date for the full sim is set in stone. They postponed the release of Flight School too, and I think that's a good sign.

 

I do agree that it is likely there will be 'a long progression' after that, as in all sims.

The task of simulating all the world, weather and all the different aircraft from microlights to airliners and helicopters is so monumental, that a single company cannot do it all.

 

That is likely to be the big question: how add-on/plug-in/mod friendly will the new sim be?

Maybe we'll need this:

 

Tell me what you like - but before going 64 bit with a (buggy code)  the 32 bit should have been sort out - and only than go 64 bit

 

you have to ask yourself who is doing the right thing here:

 

Lockheed Martin  -  or  -  DTG ?

 

i know the answer.

 

32 bit applications are not transferrable to 64 bits.  Most assets will be, but not the core engine.  So to me, DTG have got it right.  They're starting with 64 bit as their base, rather than constantly investing in, and developing a 32 bit system.

 

The more LM add to P3D, the more of a headache the project of "moving" it to a 64 bit platform will be.

 

So I intuitively feel DTG's approach may lead to faster results, in terms of a fully featured 64 bit platform.

Flight school idea is very good... Provided they keep at it and add IFR training etc... IFR-VOR approaches, I:LS, NDB, GPS, VOR Tracking... ADF Tracking.. DP and STARs etc.... It needs  to be solid..

 

And There should be Check rides ...with  rankings,,

 

It's less important  for addon sceneries and types of aircrafts  etc... Primary objective should be flight school and training.

 

END OF DISCUSSION!  PERIOD!

 

just kidding.. BTW That was Rhetorical.. It really doesn't mean that you cannot discuss any further, It is just "emphasis".