Update From the Dovetail Games Flight Team

[BuboBubo 35]

If DTG deliver a flight simulator next year, or any time for that matter, which is not backwards compatible with FSX aircraft and scenery then I fear it will die quickly for lack of demand.

 

DTG is basing the core simulation on the FSX and Flight engines, so I'm hopeful that current FSX aircraft and scenery will indeed be compatible, or at least easily

made compatible with some sort of conversion patch.

 

I'm pleased to see that the developers have decided to hold off on release. This tells me that they took the community's feature requests and bug fix suggestions

seriously and need more time to integrate them into the new sim.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Dave

 

I disagree with that, If you want something that is new and fresh and modern, then you cannot keep making everything backwards compatible

because then it might suffer from too many restrictions/constrains of what it possibly could do.

 

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and pull the plug on the comparability to be able to move forward.

[harrry 322]

I disagree with that, If you want something that is new and fresh and modern, then you cannot keep making everything backwards compatible

because then it might suffer from too many restrictions/constrains of what it possibly could do.

 

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and pull the plug on the comparability to be able to move forward.

But it seems from Flight school they may not have done that.  In that they still used the same outdated database for airport locations as fsx and tried to stop adding aircraft etc.  Not a forward move.

[Christopher Low 5,325]

I am fairly sure that DTG have stated that the new flight simulator will not be backwards compatible with existing FSX addons.

[Paraffin 2,197]

I am fairly sure that DTG have stated that the new flight simulator will not be backwards compatible with existing FSX addons.

 

Right, Martin stated that numerous times.

 

With a move to a 64-bit engine, every plane model using a plugin and many add-on utilities would need a new version written for a 64-bit environment anyway. This happened with X-Plane's move from 32 to 64 bits.

 

The scenery engine in FSX also needs to be revamped to take advantage of 64 bit address space, so there can be far better detail in the distance, higher resolution terrain mesh, and no pop-in for terrain loading. Otherwise it's going to look just like FSX and that's not going to sell this program.

[Johan_Dees 84]

64 bit != fps !

[dave2013 1,123]

Making the new DTG flight sim a 64 bit application would not require a total revamp of 32 bit FSX aircraft and scenery. As I said, I'm sure a low cost conversion patch could be developed so that current FSX aircraft and scenery could be used, the key word here being "low cost".

 

Otherwise, not only are we going to have to wait a long time for completely new aircraft, scenery, utilities, sounds, etc. to be developed, but we'll have to purchase them all over again.

 

I can only speak for myself, but if the new DTG sim can't use addons that I've spent hundreds of dollars on, which also means I'll have to wait years before the same types of addons are available again, then I won't be buying it.

 

Dave

[simmerhead 885]

Gimme something new any day! Please don't make this into yet another pig with lipstic on! 

[eelis 42]

Wake up people, just let it go, who needs an old mummy of a sim aka FSX. DTG, just create something new and fresh and bug free and fast, you got the code and it comes from the same people (hint, hint) you bought the mummy.

 

-eelis-

[dave2013 1,123]

Why reinvent the wheel?  FSX already has an excellent core simulation platform. There's no need to create something new just for the sake of having something "new".

 

If DTG goes with many of the "please give us something completely new" suggestions in this thread, then not only will it be another 2 years before release but then we'll have to wait several more years before decent addons become available.

 

There's "pie in the sky", and then there's actually being realistic about things.

 

Dave

[eelis 42]

 

 

If DTG goes with many of the "please give us something completely new" suggestions in this thread, then not only will it be another 2 years before release but then we'll have to wait several more years before decent addons become available.

 

2 years should pass quickly, you can use your favorite sim FSX meanwhile, can you?

 

-eelis-

[chelmo 42]

 

There's "pie in the sky", and then there's actually being realistic about things.

 

Dave

 

To imagine that Dovetail will spend all this time and money on a sim that you can port your add ons over to at "low cost" is pretty much "pie in the sky" in itself.

[HighTowers 1,434]

I certainly hope its not compatible with addons. As much as I hate the thought of costs to get addons again, it should mean that things are fresh and new. Who wants compatibility at this stage of the game? Then we will always be in this internal loop forever bounds by all the limitations and bugs that seems to forever chain us to the current ESP sims. Time to move on to something modern.

 

But they have a very very big obstacles to come. Gain developers, gain users interest, and related, show that it is better than past , current /newly released sims (xp11) or future ones like p3d v4. Thats a very tall order. I hope they can do it, but I will remain cautiously optimistic.

[Paraffin 2,197]

As I said, I'm sure a low cost conversion patch could be developed so that current FSX aircraft and scenery could be used, the key word here being "low cost".

 

Our only recent experience with a major flight sim moving from 32 to 64 bits is X-Plane, and that did require a re-compile of existing plugins. Some utilities were never updated because they didn't work in 64 bits, like the RealityXP Garmin GPS. Every plane with a 32-bit plugin had to be re-compiled by the plane's author. It wasn't a "low cost conversion patch."

 

It's unlikely that it would be any different trying to move the most desired FSX payware planes into a 64-bit version of the FSX code. Besides, developers have a clear incentive to simply release a new version and charge money for it, rather than back-port for free. 

 

One more thing: There may be legal and marketing reasons for not making a DTG sim backwards compatible. From all the marketing material and hype they've published so far, it sounds like they're looking for a clean break as a new IP and brand name, Backwards compatibility with FSX would muddy that situation, making it harder to establish this as a new flight sim in the market.

 

I can only speak for myself, but if the new DTG sim can't use addons that I've spent hundreds of dollars on, which also means I'll have to wait years before the same types of addons are available again, then I won't be buying it

 

I expect you're not alone. I won't be buying it either unless it offers me something I can't get in another sim. I'm hoping they can pull that off. Competition is good for the market.

[simmerhead 885]

Why reinvent the wheel?  FSX already has an excellent core simulation platform. There's no need to create something new just for the sake of having something "new".

 

Because the FSX core isn't excellent. A lot has happened since FSX was in developed between 2004 and 2007. It has survived despite, rather than because of it's excellence. It has survived because third party developers have gone out of their way to invent technology to work around the limitations of the core, and the fact that there has been no serious competition.

 

In 2008 we lost ACES and their $10-15 million a year budget to make a new flight simulator every two years. Look at how the FS engine developed between 1996-2006 compared to how it has developed during the last ten years. Few major things have happened in terms of features and core graphics. Preapr3D has been all about optimization - not invention. We're still plonking along at an abysmal 30 fps with texture popping, blurries, OOM issues, CTDs, outdated mesh, land class and vector data, low res, discolored and stretched land class textures, inefficient ATC and AI traffic, no sloped runways, spinning clouds, outdated wave, snow and rain effects, a need for countless third party utilities, workarounds, tweaks and fixers, no native support for Saitek peripherals, terrible unuserfriendly SDK, no new playability features (missions, careers, rewards, economy etc.) to mention a few... 

 

Don't get me wrong. We have seen great things happening, and some development is by far better than no development, but computer software and graphics have come a long way since 2006 and FSX and P3D are really showing their age at this point in time. 

[Johan_Dees 84]

+1 simmerhead, its standing still for 10 years.

Even XP iteration 11 still has a lot missing.

The rest DTG and P3d are bandages.