I have many questions. Some are general, some are ATC based, some are features in airports, and some are graphical that has been discussed. I might be asking a lot but I'm just wondering.

Have the time zones been updated to match the real world as well as daylight saving dates?

While we are speaking about time, if one selects use sim time with current time, will the UTC Time of the computer be used as the UTC Time of the Flight Simulator? I feel this would be convenient for people who fly in real time. Also, if that option's selected, the UTC Time of the Flight Simulator should be synced with the UTC Time of the computer.

I know this is mostly for commercial aircraft but has the Jetway system been rectified? By that, I mean lowering the Jetway without sinking wheels, support multiple jetways in a single gate, etc, similar to the jetways used by SODE.

Also, will there be more ground services? FSX introduced Fuel Trucks, Push-back Trucks, and baggage handlers, but I feel this can be taken an extra step further. Have stairways, catering services, and cargo handlers. Also like GSX, will there be an Interface for Ground Services, including fuel trucks and push-back trucks? As for push-back trucks, will push-back be based on airport data and be on the taxiway line?

Will runways be sloped and have AI traffic use them? I remember this being discussed months ago.

Are there cloud shadows? Speaking of clouds, will real world weather be supported?

As for measurements, will "Hybrid" be based on some factors, such as Altimeter being in in-Hg in the US (and maybe Canada?), with QNH everywhere else; altitudes in metric in some Asian countries, with feet used everywhere else; and other units (KGS vs LBS and in rare occasions, °C vs °F) can be used together (but is dependent on airliners)?

And finally, to expand on Altimeter, will Transition altitudes be dependent on location (in the US and Canada, transition altitudes are always at 18000ft, while in other countries, it varies)?

 

 

1 hour ago, DTG_Aimee said:

Not necessarily. We will be working with developers and publishers to enhance their existing add-ons, taking full advantage of the upgrades we have made to the engine. 

There are only a finite number of aircraft they can develop after all!

There are plenty of aicrafts which can be developed. It's a matter of cost in doing so. Surely, developer point of view wise, it's more beneficial to update their previous creations for yet another improved version of FSX.

But for me, as an user, well, no thank you. I was hoping this would offer something new beyond what P3D offered more or less and what addon developers already released for FSX/P3D. I am sorry but so far i stand by this. I will be very happy to see something new and unique for it, but if this is just another way to make FSX developers distribute their old addons it's not a deal i am interested in

Name an aircraft worth developing that hasn't already been developed for FSX/P3D!  Name one!  

That's just about the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say about any new flight sim. The idea that anyone would create a new flight sim but insist on NOT using any aircraft or airports already developed for the other flight sims that have been around for decades and so have basically developed every worthwhile and iconic craft and place to fly....absurd!

Don't get me wrong, we will definitely be pushing for new add-ons for FSW, however in order to bring the platform up to speed, we need variety. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect 3PP developers to crank out loads of new add-ons in such a short amount of time exclusively for the platform. 

On the other hand, we don't advocate straight FSX ports either. We intend to work with developers to enhance their add-ons and take full advantage of the improvements we have made to the core sim. 

30 minutes ago, Griphos said:

Name an aircraft worth developing that hasn't already been developed for FSX/P3D!  Name one!  

That's just about the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say about any new flight sim. The idea that anyone would create a new flight sim but insist on NOT using any aircraft or airports already developed for the other flight sims that have been around for decades and so have basically developed every worthwhile and iconic craft and place to fly....absurd!

I just feel that a new simulator needs to bring something that wasn't available before, both base sim feature wise and plane/helicopter wise. If the main focus turns out on making the old addons work with some new things like PBR well, i'll just use them in the old sim without the new eye candy, you see what i mean now?

A new ATR 72 plane would be nice, there is no Airbus A350 as far as i remember, tons of helicopters (provided they actually fly like they are supposed to), Epic companies planes, tons of business jets, Embraers of all kinds, Saab 2000, Bombardier's new jets. Plenty of things.

As negative as my messages have been, i have been (hopefully) respectful, i expect the same.

 

@DTG_Aimee thank you for your reply

2 minutes ago, france89 said:

I just feel that a new simulator needs to bring something that wasn't available before, both base sim feature wise and plane/helicopter wise.

A new ATR 72 plane would be nice, there is no Airbus A350 as far as i remember, tons of helicopters (provided they actually fly like they are supposed to), Epic companies planes, tons of business jets, Embraers of all kinds, Saab 2000, Bombardier's new jets. Plenty of things.

@DTG_Aimee thank you for your reply

You are welcome :)

You are right, however the issue with focusing lots of time and resources on a singular type of aircraft is that everyone flies something different. The reason we stuck with GA for the initial release is so we could set a quality benchmark for 3PPs to aim for (and surpass) in a reasonable amount of time. 

Had we invested the time and resource into making an A350, for example, it would have taken twice as long and it still would have only appealed to people who are interested in A350s. There is so much 3PP talent out there. FSW is designed as a platform for people to customize their flight experience with the help of add-ons from new and existing developers like FSX was. Trying to be all things to all people right out of the box wouldn't work for us. 

17 minutes ago, france89 said:

I just feel that a new simulator needs to bring something that wasn't available before, both base sim feature wise and plane/helicopter wise.

A new ATR 72 plane would be nice, there is no Airbus A350 as far as i remember, tons of helicopters (provided they actually fly like they are supposed to), Epic companies planes, tons of business jets, Embraers of all kinds, Saab 2000, Bombardier's new jets. Plenty of things.

Well, apparently it won't be hard to convince you that addons are new to this sim, then, since the ones you mention have indeed been developed already for FSX.

So, be happy in your ignorance. Clearly the sim will bring something new to you, and that seems to be what you want. 

I get consumer culture, trust me, but novelty for novelty's sake really just doesn't make sense to me. Nothing is ever "new" for long. 

Dismissing the new sim as merely offering "eye candy" before any access to it isn't respectful. 

3 minutes ago, Griphos said:

Well, apparently it won't be hard to convince you that addons are new to this sim, then, since the ones you mention have indeed been developed already for FSX.

So, be happy in your ignorance. Clearly the sim will bring something new to you, and that seems to be what you want. 

I get consumer culture, trust me, but novelty for novelty's sake really just doesn't make sense to me. Nothing is ever "new" for long. 

Sorry?
The ATR was developed by Aerosoft back then, to my knowledge still is imcompatible in some parts with P3D so to speak. A350, where did you see that? I only saw it on XP. Feelthere products on Embraers are also quite old. Bombardiers? Haven't seen that. Saab 2000? No idea. For the Epic ones i didn't count the lionheartcreations ones, that is true.

Care to elaborate on the others too?

 

@DTG_Aimee : Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear. I didn't expect DTG to release an A350, woudn't make sense indeed. But i think the "ideal" release would have planes beyond GA ones to appeal different kind of users indeed :) You got time for that, so who knows. Both FSX/P3D/XP/Aerofly FS 2 offers different kind of planes exactly for that purpose.

9 minutes ago, france89 said:

I just feel that a new simulator needs to bring something that wasn't available before

It seems you and some others are wanting a brand new sim while others want complete backwards compatibility right off the bat.  It seems to me at the forefront that FSW is trying to strike a balance. On the one hand , keeping compatibility means there hasnt been a whole lot of progress, and in turn unlikely users and devs would bother with the small upgrade. On the flip side, having a brand new sim with all new features , all new code, completely new everything, would cost an absolute fortune, would take many many more years to develop, thus making the whole business a whole lot more risky as well. 

So going 64bit, and incorporating some new features, taking advantage of modern hardware, and not having compatibility without some heavier modifications would seem a reasonable mix to start off. If the core foundation is strong, with a really good SDK, then it will attract the 3PDs, hopefully the main ones to start, and in turn attract more new users to the platform to invest in .   I think its a step in the right direction to go with a early access in order to find more bugs, and streamline according to the communities preferences. Hard to see why there is so much negativity  just from a few snippets of video, not to mention early beta. We clamored for something better than FSX for years, now we have a few promising platforms.  Be happy and try not to judge until its a final release. A lot will be dependent on what is fixed according to community bug reports and requests. 

20 hours ago, domae001 said:

As they are using FSX code, it is safe to assume that the only major changes to the flight model will be the implementation of accu-feel. Rewriting the flight model for instance to include blade-element theory would probably take years to get right. An advanced native flight model will therefore be one of the major advantages of XP for the foreseeable future. Addon devs have proven that you can circumvent the native FSX flight model and let your own one run outside of the sim though. 

The myth regarding 'blade' being any better than lookup tables was debunked years ago. Talented flight model developers like the guys at Realair, PMDG etc have shown quite clearly that as long as its done correctly, the FS method works just fine.

2 hours ago, france89 said:

There are plenty of aicrafts which can be developed. ...But for me, as an user, well, no thank you. I was hoping this would offer something new beyond what P3D offered more or less and what addon developers already released for FSX/P3D. I am sorry but so far i stand by this. I will be very happy to see something new and unique for it, but if this is just another way to make FSX developers distribute their old addons it's not a deal i am interested in

26 minutes ago, france89 said:

The ATR was developed by Aerosoft back then, to my knowledge still is imcompatible in some parts with P3D so to speak. A350, where did you see that? I only saw it on XP. Feelthere products on Embraers are also quite old. Bombardiers? Haven't seen that. Saab 2000? No idea. For the Epic ones i didn't count the lionheartcreations ones, that is true.

Well, which is it, what you said above or what you say below?  You asked for things not yet developed, not for things already developed but which don't feel new anymore or aren't compatible with P3D.  (I'm not going to do your homework for you on the ones you are unaware of).  

My point is that you're griping just to gripe, and change your argument when you need to in order to remain negative.  And your argument is a bit ridiculous on its face.  

My larger point is that these threads about new products can be helpful to ask questions, clarify features, and, as in this case, hear useful information from developers.  But some will always use them as a venue for passing summary (and often silly) judgments in advance of any real experience or asking for quite silly features or approaches, such as complete backwards compatibility or complete novelty.  

All the "do it as I want or I won't buy it" posts just seem ridiculous to me.  Sure, ask for features you'd like to see.  Let the developer know what at least some part of the community would like to see.  But pronouncing your decision to buy or not based on speculation ahead of time....right, that's a good idea.  And one you're likely to stick to as well, I imagine....

19 minutes ago, france89 said:

T. But i think the "ideal" release would have planes beyond GA ones to appeal different kind of users indeed :)

 

Come on.  You have been here long enough to know that default aircraft do not create appeal for a new sim. Platform functionality and third party content does.   Default, shiny aircraft are lures to be placed on advertisement banners and boxes for newcomers.  But any seasoned fligthsimmer would know that a default aircraft, especially of the more complex type - is a cheap trinket of deceit.  

 

I would rather have them invest the resource in platform preparation rather than 1 week wonder default aircraft - however amazing the new ones may be.

 

 

at fsdeveloper they are already scanning and analyse the images:    comparing :

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flight-sim-world.439996/

3 hours ago, DTG_Aimee said:

That's the point. We haven't left it untouched. Where do you think 64 bit came from? 

We have done a lot of tinkering under the hood which prevents add-ons from being backwards compatible.  

Thank you for replying!

Whilst a 64 bit base is great, performance wise, it still doesn't change the inner workings of the engine such as lighting/shaders and physics, for example. To change elements such as this, the whole engine would need an overhaul. If we use the analogy of a car engine, what Dovetail Games are doing, is taking a V6 engine, changing the oil and air filter, installing some flashy new spark plugs, and reselling the whole thing as a V8. Whilst the engine may run slightly better, it still lacks 2 cylinders and nothing has been done to the core.

My point is - if you want to really make a change, then you need to go deeper than just skating on the surface. If you want to see what I mean, take a look at Aerofly FS 2.

 

Also, take a look at this:

On 13/02/2016 at 7:39 PM, stonelance said:

Yeah, I've known about this for a while, but couldn't really say anything.  It sounded like they didn't really bother to look at the MS Flight code, and since they had to do a bunch of work to get FSX onto steam, and had become familiar with that code base they were just going to continue with it.  By the time I talked to them they seemed pretty resolved to use FSX as a base as they had already converted it to 64 bit.  They seemed to think they could just take some of the improvements from Flight and move them over, but I told them that was close to impossible without major rework.  They may have done some of it, but I doubt it.  The impression I got seemed to be that they thought it would be too much work to convert Flight to 64 bits since they had already done it for FSX.  They also thought the perf of FSX was as good as Flight once they converted it to compile with VS 2013, which made me laugh.  Do they have any screenshots or other info about either of the products?

....

I still have access to the Flight code at work, and in order to learn D3D12, I ported the code from D3D9 to D3D12.  Took 1 week of refactoring, 1-2 weeks to get it running in D3D12 at the same visual parity and another 2-3 to optimize.  In the end the rendering code is 3 times faster than it was on D3D9, even without multi-threading anything.  I'm guessing the results for the FSX engine will not be as good without a lot of extra work.

 

That was posted last year in February. So in a year, Dovetail managed to persuade a bunch of third party developers to give up some of their content so that you could release it as part of the base game. Are you purposely not investing in innovating a new brand because you think that the risk will set you back (in terms of revenue)? I ask this, because every time the community asks for something new, your answer has always been FSX....

I'm sorry, but a repackaged 64-bit FSX with 3rd party addons, is not a worthwhile investment.

 

2 minutes ago, KavindaJD said:

Thank you for replying!

Whilst a 64 bit base is great, performance wise, it still doesn't change the inner workings of the engine such as lighting/shaders and physics, for example. To change elements such as this, the whole engine would need an overhaul. If we use the analogy of a car engine, what Dovetail Games are doing, is taking a V6 engine, changing the oil and air filter, installing some flashy new spark plugs, and reselling the whole thing as a V8. Whilst the engine may run slightly better, it still lacks 2 cylinders and nothing has been done to the core.

My point is - if you want to really make a change, then you need to go deeper than just skating on the surface. If you want to see what I mean, take a look at Aerofly FS 2.

 

Also, take a look at this:

 

That was posted last year in February. So in a year, Dovetail managed to persuade a bunch of third party developers to give up some of their content so that you could release it as part of the base game. Are you purposely not investing in innovating a new brand because you think that the risk will set you back (in terms of revenue)? I ask this, because every time the community asks for something new, your answer has always been FSX....

I'm sorry, but a repackaged 64-bit FSX with 3rd party addons, is not a worthwhile investment.

 

As The Who, so eloquently put it: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".