Something I wrote to Martin about some time ago is that flight sim is not so much a game as it is a hobby. Thinking about it in this way might explain why a closed, dumbed-down product such as Flight or Flight School is not going hold a flight simmer's attention for long.

Maybe there's a way to create an "entry-level" product but it would need to be more analogous to a beginner robotics kit or other starter hobby kit, that includes the ability to create and share content, flying scenarios etc but not with all the complexity of a full sim. Not easy to do, it's not always clear whether something is a helpful simplification or if it's dumbing-down the product to the point of insulting the intelligence of your customers. There's also the risk of creating a platform that cannibalizes sales of a more advanced product. I'd guess that creating a successful "beginner" product would be much more difficult than people think.

When I've heard Stephen Hood talk about the DTG flight sim, he's said all the right things to make me feel much more enthusiastic about its prospects. I'm looking forward to seeing if it actually materializes. In the meantime we have some great flight sim platforms offering plenty of satisfaction to users and content creators, so the last thing I want DTG to do is rush another half-baked product to market.

You mean, you all don't want a persistent world flight sim.  Where you log in to a server somewhere, have integrated voice-chat, built in flight planning and a working ATC AI/Player, all flying in the same airspace?

I bought Flight School only to try it out. With $15 on the line, I had nothing to lose.

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:32 PM, pmb said:

I agree to Paul, including the prospective fate of "Ready for Takeoff". 

 

Ready for takeoff was released at around 1:00Z this morning - about 14 hours later and a whopping 35 sales - It may even not compete with "take a shower with you dad" simulator. 

ROFL 

DTG Flight School operated very nicely with the new 64 bit format.  Gave an idea what a better format could accomplish. P3D is an old 32 bit framework with VAS problems, fps problems and I've been very anxious to move on. To fly without issues, I have to remove ORBX stuff and make numerous other compromises and then it looks pretty poor. Can't wait to move on. If our flightsim community pushed the envelope we wouldn't have to be stuck in a time warp of FSX with lipstick. Hopefully DTG can move this thing forward.

36 minutes ago, Lenny777 said:

DTG Flight School operated very nicely with the new 64 bit format.  Gave an idea what a better format could accomplish.

Well, they demonstrated that they could update the code to work in 64-bits, but I wouldn't say it operated "very nicely."

Flight School still showed legacy FSX issues like low-res textures, poor LOD at the horizon, and scenery pop-in. All of that can be eliminated in the vastly larger 64-bit memory space. There is no excuse for it in a modern flight sim engine.

Quote

Hopefully DTG can move this thing forward.

I hope so too, because solid competition is good for everyone!