VERY Bad Reviews so far on Steam

[alpha12125 213]

11 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yes, and God forbid, don't tell people your honest opinion of XP because that is not tolerated by some. Their defence is to call you a troll, because they can't discuss anything in an intelligent manner with hurling insults. 

Coming from you that is pretty rich :D

I cant even count the times you show up in the X-P forum throw around some reason why this is the worst thing since the inquisition and why everyone is wrong. Everytime people ask you to clarify it more specific, explain something or even try to discuss it, you disappear until the next time.

You basically run into a room, insult everyone with shouting and then run out again. And then you wonder why people call you a troll after the 5th time. 

[simbio 56]

The funny thing, I was able to import a scenery made for FSX just to add some line on the scenery.cfg file, of course, many objects like afcad ground poly and fsx library don't show up but custom building yes.

The structure of folder and logic are the old same way.

[barrel_owl 304]

Made another test with the same settings as above at PAJN with moderate rain and wind and visibility 40mi, all graphics to max. Same performance, steadily above 30 FPS and absolutely not one single stutter.

I am not discussing opinions, but I would really like to understand where such stuttering, low frame rate and lack of fluidity reports come from. To say that it is only FSX at 64-bit with some addons is untrue at the very least, if not dishonest. I will not say that lighting is at the same level as X-Plane11 nor I will say that is currently comparable to other mature sims with a lot of addons on the top of it. I have myself a list of concerns and inputs, but the level of immersion and sounds (well beyond rain, which was absolutely superb in my test) compared to FSX vanilla is several miles away. And it is refreshing to see that veterans like @Bert Pieke and @Ron Attwood appear to be on the same wavelenght as I.

The real point here, in my opinion, are addons. I see a good potential here, nothing sensational and nothing groundbreaking, but certainly a more than decent base to build a solid sim in the future with continuous improvements. However, such future will depend mostly on whether and to which extent third party developers will decide to embrace this platform. I am pretty worried after reading some comments from PMDG and Aerosoft and I really think the DTG team should make an extra effort here to try to come up to a positive conclusion. I hope for the best and try to be positive myself.

[bonchie 2,305]

7 hours ago, Wobbie said:

For those that thought FSW is/was the Holy Grail...

What did you expect from an early incomplete beta game, from a gaming studio? Did you really expect something to replace well established sims?

So far, the launch has been as expected, no more, no less. Also, the comparisons between XP & P3D are totally irrelevant. Neither wants or expects the community to help with debugging, both are ongoing, & neither are targeted to gamers.

Actually, I don't think it was as expected at all.

We don't even have scenery or cloud shadows. They didn't even fix autogen popup or the LOD issues people have been complaining about for a decade. Many are still getting blurries.

No one was expecting a tricked out simulator with super amazing everything to beat a $2k P3D setup, but I don't think most expected the steps back or total lack of addressing of some very basic, long term issues.

DTG needs to come out with an actual roadmap now if they want to save any goodwill. Say what they are working on and what to reasonably expect. That's standard for early access releases and the fact that DTG hasn't released one is a mistake. A couple of people saying "well, it's not that bad, just wait" in this forum aren't going to be enough. The masses are on steam and they aren't being kind to this game right now.

[bonchie 2,305]

And just to further the point (since the edit function won't let me edit my post for some reason), I don't think I've ever seen a legit (i.e. reputable) early access title released without an accompanying road map for what features to expect in the future. That's basically required to garner to the goodwill to purchase your game in it's early, incomplete form.

All this blind faith is silly and shouldn't be necessary. They should tell us what they are planning, point blank. Otherwise, keep your game until it's complete.

[Elvensmith 165]

Interesting points Bonchie, exactly how early access is "early access". DTG should at a minimum have set out where they regard this on the Alpha - Beta - Gold - Release Candidate trail. They should have defined what, in terms of the tech, is pretty much cast and stone and unable to change without a major recoding exercise. They also need to be collating the feedback so far here and possibly adding to the FAQ (or possibly a new FAQ) where they are on the various issues raised (and where the Jets are, oh sorry my bad :) :)  ).

[Bobsk8 12,489]

I think  the work that DTG has to do to get this sim ready for prime time in it's final form is massive. Just reading the reviews, it seems there us unfinished aspects of it in all major areas, scenery, lighting, weather, aircraft, etc. Each time they fix a couple of issues it would have to be beta tested to see if the fixes broke something else. I have been on several beta testing teams over the years and it can take months just to work out a few kinks or add improvements in an established program and test it sufficiently. I have a feeling that many months are going to go by, and they will still be fixing issues. I truly believe that the EA was to stifle the negative reactions that they got when they closed down Flight School after just a few months.  They had to show that they had something in progress. 

[G-RFRY 1,705]

We have all been here before, (thank god I've still got FS2400 till they sort out FSX) and that was not early access.

Ray Fry.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

38 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think  the work that DTG has to do to get this sim ready for prime time in it's final form is massive. Just reading the reviews, it seems there us unfinished aspects of it in all major areas, scenery, lighting, weather, aircraft, etc. Each time they fix a couple of issues it would have to be beta tested to see if the fixes broke something else. I have been on several beta testing teams over the years and it can take months just to work out a few kinks or add improvements in an established program and test it sufficiently. I have a feeling that many months are going to go by, and they will still be fixing issues. I truly believe that the EA was to stifle the negative reactions that they got when they closed down Flight School after just a few months.  They had to show that they had something in progress. 

If you listen to their stream, it seems that they already have the things they need and want to implement, but are waiting on "business stuff" to subside before revealing it. If that is the case, the improvements may roll out faster than we expect. 

[Bunkers 52]

5 hours ago, barrel_owl said:

and absolutely not one single stutter.

This is my experience so far too. And it's probably the single most important issue I have with P3D. I think FSW has great potential. 

[fenelis 1]

I have already submitted for a refund and decided to change my direction towards XPlane 11, no matter FSW is still for early access. If you don't provide rooms for development and offer at least a nice compilation to make users satisfied then one shall ask what an early access for. Almost no update on nav data or airports, no new airfields or changed ICAO codes are added, no information about any sort of compatibility or SDK, quite bright sceneries, squared landclasses for airports as in FSX...

Edited May 19, 2017 by fenelis
Spelling

[jcomm 5,882]

8 minutes ago, fenelis said:

I have already submitted for a refund and decided to change my direction towards XPlane 11, no matter FSW is still for early access. If you don't provide rooms for development and offer at least a nice compilation to make users satisfied then one shall ask what an early access for. Almost no update on nav data or airports, no new airfields or changed ICAO codes are added, no information about any sort of compatibility or SDK, quite bright sceneries, squared landclasses for airports as in FSX...

Yeah, XP11 it's also a good choice, just different... but I do prefer to adopt FSW though after being a long time X-Plane user, and even if I recognize their efforts with XP11 and it's new GUI... and even if I recognize it also has a lot of potential. 

[fenelis 1]

Just now, jcomm said:

Yeah, XP11 it's also a good choice, just different... but I do prefer to adopt FSW though after being a long time X-Plane user, and even if I recognize their efforts with XP11 and it's new GUI... and even if I recognize it also has a lot of potential. 

For now the only thing I will be doing is to wait for a beta release to have an idea what kind of a road map will have been followed. Indeed I am keen on purchasing P3D v4, XPlane 11 and FSW (when it is available for a proper use)

[anden145 2,273]

+1

[Silicus 845]

Many of the positive posts here and elsewhere say. "FSW has potential".

Very few say: ''It is awesome" or "Wow".

Shouldn't the NEXT GEN FLIGHTSIM, wow us at least in some aspects? Sure 'Early Access' can have bugs, but it should not be incomplete like it is.

Instead of fixing 10+years of issues with the FSX code (blurries, popping autogen etc etc) they focused on cool raindrops, 64 bit conversion and GA aircraft. Sure they updated the UI, but in the meantime took away many settings that simply should be there, maybe in an 'advanced' tab.

I am a 'veteran simmer' as well and I just think that DTG lacks passion. Just watch the TWITCH 'presentation' from last week. 

At the same time they are burning bridges with major 3rd party developers (PMDG, Aerosoft for example).

I said it before: A closed flight sim, is a dead flight sim.

But maybe I am just an old fart, who can not see the potential of FSW as it is right now.