Flight Sim World is Now Live!

[Elvensmith 165]

1 hour ago, paulc111 said:

Also complaints re no jets - there are jets in FSX by default which are utterly unrealistic. Modelling a modern jet well is a serious enterprise and expecting them to be included in a £20 early access sim seems a little unrealistic to me, when you consider how much PMDG, Aerosoft et al charge for just a single add-on aircraft. 

As I commented earlier, not expecting PMDG or Level D standards in default but would be nice to have something that moves a bit faster, if only as proof of concept. And £20 is a privilege price in return for a bit of trust - one assumes this will increase as the early access period advances and the final asking price could be double that! Don't get me wrong, what we got is okay (subject to further evaluation) but not a single jet type arouses nasty suspicions in my mind that they don't know how to implement the tech - even to FS9/FSX default/freeware standard. Perhaps someone from DTG could confirm the reality of this? 

[flyforever 267]

22 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

From what I have seen PMDG are right to give FSW a miss. And they succeed in both 32 and 64bit.

Again, Volo, you're missing the point. PMDG specializes only in a limited number of aircrafts, and have been doing it for many years. Think of the fact that one aircraft takes them years before it becomes beta.

As an old timer, my fear is that the need for  "immediate gratification" for practically no money will make this hobby disappear.

tc

[jcomm 5,939]

8 minutes ago, flyforever said:

Again, Volo, you're missing the point. PMDG specializes only in a limited number of aircrafts, and have been doing it for many years. Think of the fact that one aircraft takes them years before it becomes beta.

As an old timer, my fear is that the need for  "immediate gratification" for practically no money will make this hobby disappear.

tc

There's for sure a wide range in between.

A good example are the A2A offers, which I strongly believe will probably joing DTG's FSW Steam store, Aerosoft from thei line of GA aircraft with very good products to their Airbus series which were one of my preferred add-ons for FSX, and other offers like, possibly, those by Milviz, Just Flight, etc....and only to talk about aircraft add-ons...

AI Traffic, ATC, Weather, Scenery are other areas where plenty of 3pds will probably show interest in joining the ride.

DTG FSW is a very accessible platform, and even in EA is already showing it has potential.

 

[keithb77 308]

Milviz are commercially dubious but getting a toe ready, Aerosoft also posted technical misgivings on their forum. Wouldn't expect anything soon.

Just Flight on the other hand are already 'selling' FSW and many of their lite products would be an easy port so expect them.

Cheers
Keith

[Raven9000 272]

10 hours ago, DavidP said:

Something from the old days - like a DVD offer? Even if it is slightly greater expense. Unfortunately I can't fix my internet issues as I don't have the resources to install cable down my street from wherever it starts from.

Download it elsewhere?

[Arwen 289]

For an early release, I found Flight Sim World to be quite good.  I lost power early last night, due to a storm here, so I wasn't able to fully test it out, but everything worked fine for me and it ran great on my PC.

There's a LOT of things that still need tweaking and a bunch of stuff is not yet in the sim, but this is already way better than Flight School.  I only had a chance to fly two of the aircraft, but the flight model felt good (tried a couple of stalls), and the immersion factor was there for me. It sort of reminds me of MS Flight!

Guys, give this one a chance.  Too many of you are comparing it to heavily modded FSX and P3D 3 or X-Plane 11, and whining that it doesn't meet your expectations (which were obviously way too high for a sim which is still in development)..  Remember, this is FSW pre-version 1.0, while all these other sims have been out for like a decade or more.

[Glynn 405]

33 minutes ago, jcomm said:

 

DTG FSW is a very accessible platform, and even in EA is already showing it has potential.

 

Have you seen the SDK , Simconnect documentation etc ?

Don't worry neither has Aerosoft,

[t1270 8]

I think it is important that we give DTG a chance. I have played and enjoyed it as an early release product. It is important to not only give constructive criticism about things that might need some improvement but also to praise the positive things. I always see certain people on these forums that do nothing but complain about everything. Try to use constructive criticism, and make helpful and positive suggestions instead of being negative and hateful.

Edited May 19, 2017 by t1270
Jeff

[Paraffin 2,197]

3 hours ago, keithb77 said:

Use the Weather - Details button (in instant flight) to set visibility to around 10-20 miles (more usual for Europe anyway :) )  and it fits together better 

LOD in the distance is a function of how the sim models scenery. It shouldn't be linked to a weather slider (if that's what it's doing, I haven't tried FSW yet). Visibility is a weather and atmospheric haze function, reported in the METAR.

We should be able to set visibility very high on a clear weather day, and see detail on a distinctive feature like Mt. Rainier, or a big city skyline 100 miles away. And then change the visibility due to haze, rain, etc. Two independent things: the LOD in the scenery, and visibility due to weather/haze as a layer over that detail.

Anyway, this is one of the big things I'm concerned about. It was identified as a problem in Flight School and they still don't seem to have a handle on it. Maybe improvements will come before release, and they've just been focusing on the aircraft modeling. But we're talking about a core rendering feature here. A 64-bit simulation engine should be able to handle this.

[Barfly 10]

Any other comments on the FDE - they seem to be well developed for the stock aircraft -  and there may have been some additional code enhancements from the Flight effort.    I have many hours in FS9, FSX, P3D, and never recall having to use proper cross wind controls on landing in those sims - but it actually helps here - reminds me of "Flight" ground control improvements.   And it's possible there has been some enhancement to the airfiles - noticeable in aircraft movement in turbulent air.   That could just be an effect of what seems to be an enhanced version of Accufeel, I havent done any extensive back to back testing with the other sims but it feels/looks subjectively better.    

[Guest]

After reading all posts here I think you shouldn't call this Early access. It is Too early access. And I mean that seriously. Although I wish Steam would stop with the early access option I can understand it is a nice idea for some developers, however, their should at least be some sort of solid base and in this case FSW should AT LEAST have the possibilities that FSX has out of the box (!). But as it is now it has less options than FSX and for a follow up of FSX that is meant to be the future 'far less' doesn't cut it. I think it would have been better if Dovetail spend a few more months on FSW to at least offer what FSX offers at release. 

I also think that releasing FSW now as EA in order to get feedback from the users is utter nonsense: we have been giving 'feedback' for some 11 years already and someone with the slightest interest in flight sims can find out what we all want from a sim by just looking through a few forums for one day. And Dovetail should have known all 'feedback' already from their FSX:SE years. If you release an incomplete sim that is more incomplete than the previous version you should be able to guess what the feedback will be. And if you can't, what the heck have you been doing the last few years? If Dovetail doesn't know what we want by now, they will never know. 

Of course someone will say "Dovetail also simply wants feedback on the things they have done so far and not just on what we want in a sim" but then again I would say that Dovetail should have known we wanted FSX functionality at least. No need for EA to figure that out. They also had feedback on Flight School already and it seems to me some of the feedback on that one hasn't been listened too (for instance concerning for instance the colors, brightness, etc.).

I am very curious what the future will bring but I can't say I expect much from it. This EA was a bad idea and a bad start, even though some here like FSW. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Anyway, this is one of the big things I'm concerned about. It was identified as a problem in Flight School and they still don't seem to have a handle on it. 

Ah, thanks for confirming what I just typed when you posted.  

[barrel_owl 304]

4 minutes ago, J van E said:

After reading all posts here I think you shouldn't call this Early access. It is Too early access. And I mean that seriously. Although I wish Steam would stop with the early access option I can understand it is a nice idea for some developers, however, their should at least be some sort of solid base and in this case FSW should AT LEAST have the possibilities that FSX has out of the box (!).

It has a lot of things more than FSX out of the box even now. Several features are intentionally blocked yet, but if you try the simulator in a serious and fairly way, you can only come to one possible conclusion, which is that DTG FSW is miles away from FSX vanilla. Now, whether this is enough or not to attract new and old users and developers, this is a completely different issue and only time will tell.

One friendly question: did you try it yourself or are you simply basing your arguments on Matt Davies' stream and a bunch of negative posts?

[torium 207]

36 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Maybe improvements will come before release, and they've just been focusing on the aircraft modeling. But we're talking about a core rendering feature here.

Dovetail confirms: "Improving how things look outside the cockpit are things we have on our to do list (a pretty extensive one at that). 

Jumping into Early Access, we put most of our emphasis on the plane models (since they're a core part of the sim experience) and I think (IMO, not company jargon) that they're some of the most delicious default models available in a sim. 

In the future, we'd like the world outside the plane to be as gorgeous as the environments within it."

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, barrel_owl said:

One friendly question: did you try it yourself or are you simply basing your arguments on Matt Davies' stream and a bunch of negative posts?

Right now I am basing my arguments on various video's (not just Matt's one which was worse than it could and should have been), posts on various forums and the "credible and sane" review that was linked on this forum. I have to add, come to think of it, that I left FSX years ago already for P3D and after that XP11 and Aerofly FS 2 so maybe I am comparing FSW more with P3D than vanilla FSX. But still, FSW offers too less improvements and too many options aren't available. These are simple FACTS and have nothing to do with liking the sim or not or with having played the sim or not.