Update From the Dovetail Games Flight Team

[littleterry 3]

its coming out soon .....soon... soon  i dont even know what to believe anymore  february 2019?

[BuboBubo 35]

FWIW, Mathijs Kok at Aerosoft have been "spilling his beans" the last couple of days about a new 64-simulator that is "around the corner".

No name of devs or the sim have been given out of course (NDA and etc) but if you 1+1 together (Mathijs' and Martin's comments) then
I'd say that the sim Mathijs have mentioned is the new DTG sim.

[pmb 5,137]

Prepar3d4?

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/129935-will-orbx-products-work-if-p3d-goes-dx12-64-bit/#comment-1156851

 

Kind regards, Michael

[chelmo 42]

Prepar3d4?

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/129935-will-orbx-products-work-if-p3d-goes-dx12-64-bit/#comment-1156851

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

When I saw that comment by JV earlier today I read it exactly the same way as you, Michael!

[bonchie 2,305]

Well, now if you are talking about comparing the base sims, P3d has serviceable AI traffic and ATC. XP11 has neither. Just read the forums at .org. Those two items are the subject of the largest number of complaints from XP11 users, except possibly for the base XP11 not having dynamic seasons.

Contrary to outdated beliefs, XP11 does now have a revamped IFR ATC that can handle a full flight. What it lacks is any VFR ATC, which is frustrating in its own right. Very frustrating.

 

But XP has something very important and that's updated navaids and a real default GPS that can handle approaches. When I want to practice approaches or a route for a real flight, I use XP. It's maddening to try to fly an approach in P3D only to find out that it uses a VOR that was decommissioned ten years ago. And of course the default 430 is useless in P3D.

 

So it's extremely short sighted to declare default P3D clearly superior for IFR. Yeah, it's got better AI traffic, but that's far down my list of requirements to simulate IFR flight properly.

 

That leads me back to DTG. It's time to change the processes for navaids so they can be easily updated and we need a default GPS that can actually be useful for something besides going direct.

 

If DTG ignores that stuff, it'll tell me all I need to know about whether they are worth supporting.

 

The fact remains that DTG promised information by now and has since delayed. That would make anyone wonder exactly what is going on. I don't think they gain anything by not addressing the delays in greater detail and it can only hurt them.

 

FWIW, Mathijs Kok at Aerosoft have been "spilling his beans" the last couple of days about a new 64-simulator that is "around the corner".

No name of devs or the sim have been given out of course (NDA and etc) but if you 1+1 together (Mathijs' and Martin's comments) then

I'd say that the sim Mathijs have mentioned is the new DTG sim.

I'd think it's almost certainly P3D4, not DTG.

 

The rumors of it coming soon have been heating up the last few months.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

According to the man himself at ORBX P3d V4 is in beta but he didn't say anything about it being 64 bit for fear of violating confidentiality.

 

As to P3d nav data, it's very easy to upgrade all navaids, approaches, departures, arrivals and waypoints to the current AIRAC with fsAerodata. And reasonably priced also. But my point was that it's the ATC and AI traffic that hold XP back. It will eventually get there though. DTG FS seems more like a passing cloud at the moment. And a 64 bit P3d will turn the whole market upside-down.

[pmb 5,137]

As to P3d nav data, it's very easy to upgrade all navaids, approaches, departures, arrivals and waypoints to the current AIRAC with fsAerodata. .

Yes, but what about fitting runways, not to speak of taxiways?

 

Kind regards, Michael

[sloppysmusic 242]

Noticed that my FTX Central downloaded update today to (amongst other fixes) make it compatible with "future flight simulators".

[rototom 198]

Noticed that my FTX Central downloaded update today to (amongst other fixes) make it compatible with "future flight simulators".

 

Probably A..eroFly FS 2

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Uh, check out John V's other recent post on the ORBX official forum about P3d V4. According to him, FTX Central is already set up for it, but he didn't elaborate on exactly what that meant.

[rototom 198]

Uh, check out John V's other recent post on the ORBX official forum about P3d V4. According to him, FTX Central is already set up for it, but he didn't elaborate on exactly what that meant.

 

Of course it's already set up for it. P3D doesn't change.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Uh huh.

[dtrjones 356]

According to the man himself at ORBX P3d V4 is in beta but he didn't say anything about it being 64 bit for fear of violating confidentiality.

 

As to P3d nav data, it's very easy to upgrade all navaids, approaches, departures, arrivals and waypoints to the current AIRAC with fsAerodata. And reasonably priced also. But my point was that it's the ATC and AI traffic that hold XP back. It will eventually get there though. DTG FS seems more like a passing cloud at the moment. And a 64 bit P3d will turn the whole market upside-down.

 

Wow too many people put too much emphasis on 64bit.

 

"P3d will turn the whole market upside-down"

 

Highly unlikely - you'll get the capability to run more detailed scenery with more stability - I don't think thats been P3D's biggest weakness so I very much doubt it will change anybody who hasn't purchased P3D already.

 

Dovetail I hope will offer something new and fresh. I think they need too as another Flight School ok looking but limited simulator will look out of place amongst the more established feature rich and graphically superier P3D and X-Plane 11 which they'll be in direct comparison whether DTG like it or not.

 

It's certainly too early to say Dovetail are a passing cloud and I can't help but feel you're basing this on a $10 dollar Flight School title when if you actually look at there games in development they are pretty impressive.

[dtrjones 356]

Martin, I won't pretend to be happy about the reference to "months" but I realise there's no point in shooting the messenger. After the blackout in terms of any communications from DTG of the last few months I hope you and your successor will move to more regular updates even if it's just to tell us the status is still alpha or beta.

 

Not happy fine - but you should have expected it otherwise they would have said something different in November. Personally I'm very happy because the more time they make it better, the better it will be, wow words are so simple - nailed it LOL!

[TurboKen 221]

I dunno about you guys, but I know that my trust in the piloting abilities of at least some airline pilots (who of course fly IFR all the time in their big jetliners, often on autopilot), was severely dented when I learned that the moment the AP disengaged and he had to do some proper flying, the PF in AF447 had the stick all the way back whilst in a stall as that Airbus dropped from cruise altitude all the way down to the ocean.

 

Throughout that plunge, the audio was blaring: 'bleep, bleep, bleep, Stall, Stall'. The CVR reveals that all the while the PF was saying that he 'didn't understand what the f*** was happening' whilst his hand kept that sidestick back on the rear stop; at one point the Airbus went into a 7,000 fpm climb rate while at nearly 38,000 feet because of his control inputs; you don't need to be Chuck Yeager to know how that's gonna turn out. And that guy had an IFR rating, which is scary to say the least. There are probably kids who bought Dovetail's Flight School on Steam who, having done some of the lessons, could have done a better job of flying that particular Airbus, because at least they'd know to shove the power on and stick the nose down when you get a stall warning. That's one of the problems with IFR it seems; you are taught to trust your instruments, but that should never be to the point where you do so when it's obvious that they are givving you false readings.

 

I said it years ago, and in fact wrote letters to many aviation sources too, complaining about it being an ill advised choice when they took stall and spin training off the JAR PPL syllabus and replaced it with 'stall avoidance'. I knew it was a big mistake. IFR ratings are one thing, but they should shove a copy of Wolfgang Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder in your hand when you get a job at an airline and tell you there'll be a test on Monday lol. I'm sure many real-world Airbus pilots will be using FSL's A320 to brush up on things, but it's worrying to think one or two of them might better spend that time on Dovetail's Flight School.

 

I know it's easy to be a 'Monday morning quarterback' when you read NTSB, BEA, and AAIB etc reports in the comfort of an armchair, but sometimes it is staggering how bad some decisions are from highly rated, high hours pilots who you'd like to think would have done a bit better under the circumstances.

Just watched a documentary on that a few months ago, cant believe they never figured it out. Kinda like the C-5 that crashed several years back when the pilots said they didnt have any power. Not one of the three pilots noticed that 3 of the 4 power levers were on idle???