Dovetail, quote:

 

"There really is no big mystery with what we are using to build the sim. We have a partnership with Microsoft. A part of that partnership is that we have access to their source code and the development tools they used to make the original FSX. These are often referred to as a game engine.

 

So that is it, Microsoft gave us the tools, we have updated many of them.

 

Anyway, we acquired these tools from Microsoft and because they are software (code) we are able to update them. For example there is a tool, or code, that tells the game how to place an object on the screen. Like a house, a tree or a mountain. That tool has certain key features, things like the draw distance and refresh rate. We don't need to build another tool to put things on the screen. The tool does that brilliantly already. We can updated that tool to optimise it though, improve it so that is can draw greater distances and refresh at a quicker rate . We can even add completely new functions and features into that tool. Extending what it is capable of. Often there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Gravity still works in the same way as it did 10 years ago, the same tools and code that applied those rules is just as valid today. 

 

That said there are also brand new tools that we have written ourselves from scratch or has come from other sources.

We are not really using one particular graphics engine. The base engine is same as FSX, but we have heavily modified it, and we are using other plugins and software too. It is really a mixture of systems.

 

 

The Vulkan API is only applicable to certain GPU, as such it is only of benefit to a very small subsection of flight simmers. Because we want to provide new features to all players and not just a small percentage, we will not be using it. 

 

Likewise DX12 is only supported by Windows 10. We want to support players who are using other OS systems too, and again not limit it to just one group of players. Therefore we are using DX11 which is much more widely supported. 

 

As developers we want to focus on features that everyone can use. We believe it is important to keep system specs broad, in order to encourage as many people as possible to give this hobby we all love a try."

 

 

 

I think you're putting too much weight on DX12 as a major, must-have factor in a new flight sim.

 

You could be very well right. Im just going by what Im reading in the computer articles and blogs so it seems like less CPU overhead via DX12 can only be a positive thing, and we all know we need all the help we can get with regards to CPU bottlenecks.

DX11 games today are generally great looking and perform well, but they are in a very limited world. Just saying.

I get bombarded by Dovetail Games adverts in YouTube.  Having looked into, I couldn't discern any particular reason to get me interested.

 

When I looked into X Plane there were clear reasons to be interested - it is sufficiently different to P3D to generate excitement.

 

Maybe I'm just missing the point with DTGFS?  Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

 

TSW looks pretty amazing! DTGFS isn't using UE4.0... So no news here, sorry!

I think Dovetail will come out with well enhanced and improved FSX. That being said it may not be much different than Prepared. So again we must wait and see. I think it looks very promising for Dovetail.

i wonder how development is going, last update from martin was a few month ago. Looks like this simulator is going to be delayed a lot.

Seems that the feedback DTG received on Flight School, plus the advancements of XP11 and AF2 lead DTG to rethink their product goals and that's resulted in a longer development cycle than they originally planned. That's fine with me, it suggests DTG will try to make a competitive product and I hope they succeed.

 

It would be great to see some more communication, but maybe they are becoming cautious not to raise expectations too high and then discovering they can't deliver everything promised.

 

 

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

 

Backward compatibility just holds us back. Do you want another 32 bit sim and a flood of more VAS issue threads on here?

Yup, it was backward compatibility which held MS back from really pushing what was new in each iteration of FS. Most of us recall e days when a new version of FS came out every couple of years or so; sometimes it was difficult to see what had changed in the newest version apart from the default planes being different, and it was largely because they were trying to please people by making it work with older add-ons all the time. Personally, I'm not exactly outraged that an FS95 Concorde won't work in FSX lol

Backward compatibility just holds us back. Do you want another 32 bit sim and a flood of more VAS issue threads on here?

When I say "backwards compatibility", I mean that most of the current aircraft for FSX and P3D can be upgraded/modified to work in the new sim. Moreover, I would insist that the new simulator be a 64 bit application, which I'm confident it will be.

 

DTG have made it clear that they are using the FSX and Microsoft Flight core engine. I know many of you are not happy about that but that's just the way it is.  My hope is that existing FSX/P3D aircraft and scenery can be modified to work in the new sim considering that the core engine will be the same. It is understood that any 32 bit applications will have to be recompiled and modified to become 64 bit ones.

 

There is no need, in my opinion, to reinvent the wheel and create a totally new flight simulator. If a developer wants to do this then that's great and I'll support the effort, but what DTG is going to give us, I believe, will be like another iteration of the original Microsoft Flight Simulator series. Whereas FSX was FS10, I think this new simulator will likely skip a generation and be more like FS12.

 

Right now we're all just speculating, which is why I invite DTG to give us all an update and answer some of our questions regarding the new simulator.

 

Dave

Why would I wand all my old stuff, even it has been modified, to run in a new (?) sim?

I'd far rather keep my old stuff for my old sims, & load up a new sim with new add-ons that are written, NOT modified for it!

 

DTG, will, in good time reveal all. We all know what it's like... They will tell us about their new sim, some of us will love it, some of us will hate it, & others will say that they will only buy it if .......... (fill in the blanks)

 

Personally, I'm just happy playing/flying with what I've got.

 

Yes, any new sim, from DTG & P3D, will have the Microsoft core engine, obviously!

Like FS12? You cannot compare something to something that never was, nor ever will be, as that franchise's horse has long bolted, & DTG & P3D's offerings stand upon their own feet.

(Just saying!) ;-)

More references to the Microsoft "core engine" without any real concept of what that actually means. It could mean that the various ESP file formats (BGL, MDL, AIR, etc.) would remain more or less intact and available. Or it could mean that the computer code in the new sim is for the most part, identical to the original ACES code. Only DTG and LM know the scope of the latter. Anyone who believes that the graphics code in P3d is identical to that in FSX hasn't been listening to the LM tech people too carefully. It's still Windows and DirectX based, but saying that it's essentially unchanged is like saying that a 2017 Ford is essentially a Model T.

Right now we're all just speculating, which is why I invite DTG to give us all an update and answer some of our questions regarding the new simulator.

 

The one thing we don't have to speculate on, is the fact that the DTG FS will *not* be backwards compatible at all, with current FSX/P3D add-ons. Martin was very clear about that in earlier posts.

 

Frankly, I don't know how they could make enough money releasing a new FS platform without starting from a blank slate, so they can sell DTG's own scenery and plane add-ons. And also interest enough 3rd party developers to get on board. Developers like Orbx, Carenado, PMDG etc. aren't going to be interested in supporting this product, if users can just port their old FSX add-ons into the new sim.

More references to the Microsoft "core engine" without any real concept of what that actually means. It could mean that the various ESP file formats (BGL, MDL, AIR, etc.) would remain more or less intact and available. Or it could mean that the computer code in the new sim is for the most part, identical to the original ACES code. Only DTG and LM know the scope of the latter. Anyone who believes that the graphics code in P3d is identical to that in FSX hasn't been listening to the LM tech people too carefully. It's still Windows and DirectX based, but saying that it's essentially unchanged is like saying that a 2017 Ford is essentially a Model T.

 

Remember way back when MS was sued by IBM? On the surface both OS's looked identical but MS won the suit  because the code was written using different syntaxes and wording,to make it simple. The judge could make no sense of it. To his eyes the code was completely different in all respects and stated so. No copy there said he. I have written apps that would come crashing down without a certain function or argument, then during optimization that function argument or whatever was never used. At that point you could get rid of it?

Best

BaldyB

  because the code was written using different syntaxes and wording,to make it simple. The judge could make no sense of it. To his eyes the code was completely different in all respects and stated so. No copy there said he. I have written apps that would come crashing down without a certain function or argument, then during optimization that function argument or whatever was never used. At that point you could get rid of it?

Best

BaldyB

BaldyB

 

>> Remember way back when MS was sued by IBM? On the surface both OS's looked identical but MS won the suit

 

What suit Microsoft won against IBM?????

 

Bob

Bob, which lawsuit might be a better question to ask. In any case, don't be lazy. Google using the keywords "ibm lawsuit against Microsoft" and find just a bit over 1,000,000 hits!