Agree, BUT the target market is, as said before, NOT primarily for those that have P3D.

Dunno why those with P3D would still want to play a FlightSchool game/sim that is targeted to the newbies.

Is it to learm the lessons? But we have that already in P3D, FSX & FS2004?

And we can improve & add scenery & planes there anyway.

 

 

how much further can DTG go to create something other than a simple FSX clone

 

I am very sure they don't want to completely abandon their FSX heritage - for the simple reason that the closer they stay to FSX code, the easier it will be for 3PDs to port over their addons. And more addons sold through steam will most certainly mean more money for DTG (which means more development for the sim).

I know you want something completely different than FSX, but my bet is you won't find it here in the foreseeable future - it's gonna be an evolution of FSX just like P3D is. Going 64bit isn't a revolution per se, it's just the necessary step to have some room for the sim to grow, because with 32bit the ceiling is just too close.

Dunno why those with P3D would still want to play a FlightSchool game/sim that is targeted to the newbies.

In my case at least its exactly as stated: as an insight into DTG's capabilities in developing the FSX code further. Plus, the whole only "for newbies only" thing was never likely to be the whole story, because as a for profit entity, DTG would be irresponsible in not pursuing this market segment as well, hence why post here in detail? (Though I always thought of that as at least partially an exercise in managing expectations.)

I know you want something completely different than FSX, but my bet is you won't find it here in the foreseeable future - it's gonna be an evolution of FSX just like P3D is. Going 64bit isn't a revolution per se, it's just the necessary step to have some room for the sim to grow, because with 32bit the ceiling is just too close.

Simple evolution has problems if there are essentially three semi-identical products on the market at the same time. P3D has a considerable head start in developing the ESP code, and FSX has a decade long lead.

 

At that point, facing an entrenched and established market, what is DTG's killer selling point to get people to choose their product, especially when it would entail the virtual abandonment of years of previous purchases? Is 64bit enough?

 

For me, I would have to say there needs to be more on the table if DTG expects immediate buy-in from other than developers looking to re-sell us their wares a second time.

 

Is there better weather depiction? Nicer clouds? More realistic land-class/ground textures? Smoother framerates? More detailed instrumentation? Better shadows?

 

What about DTG sim will scream: BUY ME NOW!!!!!

 

At the moment, Flight school is interesting but not spectacular in any way. Even MSFlight wouldn't cut it as a new release today. I'd like to believe DTG has some nice surprises up its sleeve, and I'll wait to see them, but right now, looking at the state of Flight School and the remaining development time if they're to reach their stated release period, it seems they're shaving things very close indeed to come up with something notably more spectacular than Flight School, and Flight School is not spectacular enough to cause a switch. (for me)

 

Looks like it might be a long, long haul to get DTG sim up to snuff, (which Martin has already mentioned himself) and I doubt either P3D or X-plane (well, maybe X-plane) will remain stagnant in that time.

 

And then of course there's the new dark horse, Aerofly 2.........

 

What is the DTG flight school "killer app?"

 

Right now, we have Steam content delivery (nice!) 64bit (Lets see) and the possible death of Oom's.

 

Is that enough to get us to start over nearly from scratch?

(...)

 

And then of course there's the new dark horse, Aerofly 2.........

 

(...)

 

Oooh wow...I remember reading about Aerofly (1) back in 2012, but I was occupied sufficiently with MS Flight and X-Plane 10 (in fact, X-Plane 10 was brand new for me at the time as I really wanted just to try it). Perhaps I will just try Aerofly 2. OK, I don't know, but it looks impressive visually. Anyway, I'll keep further thought and discussion of that to another, more relevant topic - but thank you for the heads-up HiFlyer.

Oooh wow...I remember reading about Aerofly (1) back in 2012, but I was occupied sufficiently with MS Flight and X-Plane 10 (in fact, X-Plane 10 was brand new for me at the time as I really wanted just to try it). Perhaps I will just try Aerofly 2. OK, I don't know, but it looks impressive visually. Anyway, I'll keep further thought and discussion of that to another, more relevant topic - but thank you for the heads-up HiFlyer.

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/489006-my-video-review-of-aerofly-2/

Thank you HiFlyer, I'm keeping a keen eye on Aerofly 2.

Purely from a graphical point of view (I don't own it yet, so I cannot comment on any other aspect really), it looks great! It has most/all of those much-desired GTA5 graphical qualities in a simulator environment, and I really like that on Steam they said that they are "explicitly" welcoming third-party addons. Refreshingly honest, simple and ultimately good for flight simulation.

That sounds similar to myself and Flight Unlimited 3. I used this exclusively between 1999 and 2008, because I was fed up with the same old crap that Microsoft was peddling. For the record, I thought that every version of MSFS from FS5 to FS2002 was rubbish (and like an idiot with the memory of a goldfish, I purchased all of them).

 

Same here. I was a huge FU3 fan. It made MS FS look like a silly cartoon. MS Flight gave me that same feeling of flying FU3 did when I first tried it.

 

My main sim these days is XP10, but I still fire up MS Flight every now and then.

 

As for DTG Flight School - they made the wrong choice with FSX IMHO, but that's their mistake. 

 

BTW, the three second memory of a goldfish is probably a myth   http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/goldfish-memory-minimyth/