Graphics

[bonchie 2,305]

12 minutes ago, fta2017 said:

Well I earned two reputation points for my comment, it must have struck a chord (and clearly a few nerves).

So an honest question then: is it reasonable for "seasoned flight simmers" with thousands of AVSIM posts to add links to competing flight sims in a topic discussing a new entrant to the market? Does this not seem a case of oneupmanship or elitism?

Why is there a need to extol the virtues of another sim in this context? Don't you think it's disrespectful?

No, because the default assumption shouldn't be that anyone who posts on this forum is a defensive follower of just one platform. If I'm on the XP forum and someone wants to point me to something cool in P3D that relates to my question/complaint, I want the link.

[jason99vmi 157]

21 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Can we keep discussions to FS World and not X-Plane (there is a separate forum for that).

I think the screenshots look good, especially for a vanilla-default install. It's still early days and there will be more added and improved. If it can make better use of my hardware and looks decent then I'll be happy. 

 

But do we know that the screenshots and video are the vanilla default install?  Scenery looks very Orbx-ish. 

Looks underwhelming but hey i'm willing to wait and let them impress me. 

graphics aside the gorilla in the room will still be the 3rd party development and how they handle that.  So far sounds they are handling it very poorly. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

14 minutes ago, fta2017 said:

So an honest question then: is it reasonable for "seasoned flight simmers" with thousands of AVSIM posts to add links to competing flight sims in a topic discussing a new entrant to the market? Does this not seem a case of oneupmanship or elitism?

Why is there a need to extol the virtues of another sim in this context? Don't you think it's disrespectful?

It's not disrespectful to compare features and visuals to other products on the market. This new flight sim will inevitably be compared to FSX, P3D, XP11, and Aerofly FS 2, and the last two are the only ones on the market in a 64-bit format. 

I agree the conversation shouldn't be derailed too far with discussion of other sims, and I might have done that with a reply to a question asked, by posting links. I'll refrain from doing that.

But I don't know how to talk about a new sim coming on the market except in context with the rest of what's out there. Should we only discuss what we see in FSW and not compare it to anything else? Or Is it only allowed to compare it with FSX? 

[bonchie 2,305]

6 minutes ago, jason99vmi said:

But do we know that the screenshots and video are the vanilla default install?  Scenery looks very Orbx-ish. 

Looks underwhelming but hey i'm willing to wait and let them impress me. 

graphics aside the gorilla in the room will still be the 3rd party development and how they handle that.  So far sounds they are handling it very poorly. 

Default will have FTX Global textures. That's what you are seeing.
 

[Pugilist2 880]

Honestly, FSW still looks like FSX/P3D with FTX global, VC rain effects, and PBR!  It does not look like a next generation simulation and was hoping for more realistic looking terrain similar to Outerra or a mix of photoscenery and newer looking autogen.  Will have to wait and see I guess.  It's always good to have more sims on the market.

[tonywob 4,770]

1 minute ago, pugilist2 said:

Honestly, FSW still looks like FSX/P3D with FTX global

It does from the screenshots (but because it is FTX global). P3D v3 also looks mostly the same as FSX. I'm also guessing P3D v4 will still look like FSX, albeit it with new lighting, 64-bit etc.  The DTG sim is based off FSX so it's likely to start out with that platform's quirks, scenery system and look-and-feel, but it will take a different direction than P3D in the long run. It's the start of a new platform for them and will evolve (or die trying).

Will be great to see how this all plays out, but it's never a bad thing having lots of choice

 

[Griphos 138]

I don't know why some developer doesn't use this engine for a new flight sim?!

https://unigine.com/en/industries/simulation/flight#a-header

[Pilot53 544]

19 minutes ago, Griphos said:

I don't know why some developer doesn't use this engine for a new flight sim?!

https://unigine.com/en/industries/simulation/flight#a-header

I'm wondering the same thing.  Why not use something new, modern, and efficient that can provide the framework for realistic lighting, atmosphere, weather and scenery.  Instead we are still based on ancient software technology and rendering capabilities.  If you are going to start from square one, do it right and use the best of what is available!

[pmb 5,138]

The Nexgen flightsim project tried it

http://nexgenflightsim.com/

but failed, as far as I understand because Unigine was not able or willing to provide support for whole world scenery.

Otherwise I agree. Someone aiming to make a fresh start in 2017 should provide something amazing not just a 3rd rehash of something we already have - just with added restrictions for add-on developers.

Kind regards, Michael

 

[jcomm 5,950]

While probably ideal, such a drastic change would have a remarkable impact on 3pds, and their potential capacity to adapt to the new requisites.

A good example is Aerofly FS 2, which is an optimization of AEFS1, and while both together have already more than 4 yrs existence, the adherence from 3pds is minimal, with the remarkable exception of ORBX recently announcing their first project for AEFS2.

While I would really like to see a new scenery system allowing for sloped ways at airfields, other than that and since I use this sims primarily for procedural flight and not for site seeing, I am ok with the quality of scenery in X-Plane, FSX / P3D and now DTG FSW. For a more scenic view in some aspects AEFS2 is great indeed, but it lacks seasonal textures, proper night lighting, etc... 

OTOH I admire the quality of, for instance IL.2 BoX and DCS v2 scenery, with a quality that is, IMO, on pair with the best available for both X-Plane and FSX and derived platforms, and extremely optimized for even a low spec machine like mine.

I honestly would rather prefer to see in DTG FSW an integrated ATC system that provided much more features than what we have, without buying add-ons, better AI and less impact of both ATC and AI on the performance of the simulator.

Weather is another area where I always place big expectations. So far the available screenshots look very nice too me.

 

[Heimi 91]

Why are you alll relying so much on 3rd parties?

If you have great planes, great scenery and functionality out of the box there is not much need for 3rd parties....

I believe the problem is that many of you gave DTG the impression that you just want to have a (bad) base and let your money (3rd party developer) do the rest.

[bonchie 2,305]

The lack of interest in AF2 has little to do with it being a new platform and everything to do with it's limitations and direction. 

If DTG had gone to a new engine and it was actually a viable base, developers would flock to it. 

[sightseer 895]

 

 

28 minutes ago, bonchie said:

If DTG had gone to a new engine and it was actually a viable base, developers would flock to it. 

 

P3D is still my favorite sim and its based on FSX/ESP just like Dovetail's new sim is.  It wasn't Microsoft who made FSX so enjoyable but they did provide the platform and that's what I believe DTG is doing.  They want to provide an updated platform to allow the 3rd party people to build on a platform capable of using todays modern computers. Lets hope they do.

I do question the "must sell on Steam" requirement.  Time will tell if it hurts.  I really think that holdout companies will be forced onto Steam rather than the new platform with new possibilities dying for lack of those holdouts.  Some of the bigger 3rd party players are already on board.

[SmokeDiddy 262]

I hope the 3rd party developers create a consortium to collectively negotiate a deal that can work for everyone. Having only a few representative persons speak on behalf of all the content providers is hog wash. The small guys need representation too; otherwise, I do not see FSW as a serious long term flight sim embraced by the flight simming community.

[Longranger 148]

1 hour ago, pmb said:

The Nexgen flightsim project tried it

http://nexgenflightsim.com/

but failed, as far as I understand because Unigine was not able or willing to provide support for whole world scenery.

Well the engine was never build for such a purpose . You can in some cases switch between different methods. But a freely configureable engine that has to simulate "objects" with a speed range between 0 to multiple times the speed of sound and heights between 0 to 100 kilometers, where you can´t redefine the surface of the planet or its cloud cover has to drop many of the normal tricks in todays game engines. That´s the core problem.

Therse systems make it easy to use these tricks in an easy manner but if you can´t use these tricks, they are in a bind. Sure they could optimize uin this direction but they won´t do it for free.