VERY Bad Reviews so far on Steam

[WotanUK 289]

12 minutes ago, barrel_owl said:

Define today's standards. AeroFly FS2 is certainly several notches above of everything in terms of graphics, at least in the civilian segment, yet it was heavily criticized when it was released because of the lack of features. If you do not believe me, do an archive search. DCS is good, but it only has military aircraft, AeroFly FS2 is good, but is an early access and still lacks lot of features, X-Plane is good, but still has no PMDG-level airliners. Whatever is released, there is always a good reason to attack it.

I think you have answered your own question, AeroFly FS2 and DCS i would say, they set the standards for graphics within the Simming world.

X-Plane 11 looks absolutely outstanding at night, way ahead of anything else i have seen, in fact some times it can actually look real.  Compare that with FSW at night...frankly it's embarrassing.  As for airliners, X-Plane has the IXEG stuff, very close to PMDG and of course the PMDG DC-6.

[barrel_owl 304]

Just now, uhntissbaby111 said:

And the FSX is seriously starting to show it's age. Just look at what XP can do with OSM and Tony's wonderful world2xp!! Flying around Europe I feel like I am flying over Europe. The cities and towns aren't just approximations like in FSX, they see actually how they look! I flew over my grandmas tiny town in the middle of Poland and found her house in XP!!! If you saw where she lived, you would understand how crazy that is! Even with orbx global and open LC, FSX doesn't hold a candle. The towns are just placeholders, with roads going right through the middle of houses and stuff, it looks terrible 

I absolutely like X-Plane, but there is very nice photoreal for FSX/P3D as well. Bear in mind, you are talking about addons, no matter whether freeware, payware or OSM data, not about the vanilla simulator. I encourage you to see other screenshots or videos of FSW vanilla. While I agree that X-Plane 11 is way ahead in terms of lighting and colours, FSW is not "that bad". Sometimes truth is in the middle.

[tonywob 4,770]

1 minute ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

But is that it then, because we have so much invested in it, just keep fsx forever?

I would hope not, but as a developer, I have put a lot of time and effort into X-Plane 10, but when I see something like this:

it makes me realise just how bad our current batch of flight simulators are in general and maybe I'm seeing my chosen platform through a thick pair of beer-goggles. 

8 minutes ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

my grandmas tiny town in the middle of Poland and found her house in XP!!!

Wait till you see Poland Pro, we have very good GIS data ;-)

[WotanUK 289]

4 minutes ago, tonywob said:

it makes me realise just how bad our current batch of flight simulators are in general and maybe I'm seeing my chosen platform through a thick pair of beer-goggles. 

Yeah unfortunately i agree.  It does make me wonder how things would have been if Microsoft were still in the game.

[barrel_owl 304]

1 minute ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

XP has ruined night flying for me in FSX. I can't stand the fake lights with baked textures on the ground. I pull up to the gate with all the bright "lights" and my aircraft is still dark. Yet, in XP, the lights actually illuminate the aircraft, and cockpit, and ground. It's fantastic looking! And adds so much to the immersion 

I concur. In terms of lighting, XP is unquestionably the benchmark today. Period. Yet, you can't compare apples to oranges. No matter how those data are free or well done, they are addons, not the vanilla . Also, XP is a mature sim today.

9 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

I think you have answered your own question, AeroFly FS2 and DCS i would say, they set the standards for graphics within the Simming world.

X-Plane 11 looks absolutely outstanding at night, way ahead of anything else i have seen, in fact some times it can actually look real.  Compare that with FSW at night...frankly it's embarrassing.  As for airliners, X-Plane has the IXEG stuff, very close to PMDG and of course the PMDG DC-6.

Ian, if AeroflyFS2 is "today's standard", why did only a bunch of idiots like me buy it so far and why the community is mostly complaining about its lack of features?
Guys, when are we going to understand that we can't ask for the best of the best, unless we are ready to support it and invest on it with our own money?

[WotanUK 289]

Just now, barrel_owl said:

Ian, if AeroflyFS2 is "today's standard", why did only a bunch of idiots like me buy it so far and why the community is mostly complaining about its lack of features?
Guys, when are we going to understand that we can't ask for the best of the best, unless we are ready to support it and invest on it with our own money?

Well Mr.Owl, i would say graphically Aerofly is the best.  To answer your question "because of it's lack of features"?  I haven't bought Aerofly personally because they appear to be too slow with updates.  Like my endless frustration with the almost geological timescales DCS takes to release new scenery areas, i fear we will see the heat death of the universe before DCS releases a single country worth of areas, let alone the entire world.

I so far only support DCS and P3D, but i have no platform loyalty, if DTG starts to look like the sim to use, i'll support it, if not i'll remove it from my hard drive and forget it exists.

[tonywob 4,770]

3 minutes ago, barrel_owl said:

if AeroflyFS2 is "today's standard", why did only a bunch of idiots like me buy it so far and why the community is mostly complaining about its lack of features?

I picked this sim up the day it was released, but overall, I have spent around 1hr with it. It has nice frame-rates, but I'm not surprised at all by that, it lacks roads, water, moving cars, detailed autogen and really it has a very long way to go. If I disable all the autogen and weather in XP and just use photoscenery I get similar performance. The sim looks nice, but it has some way to go. FSW is more feature-rich, more detailed and I think in the long run will move the FSX platform forward, or die trying. 

 

[uhntissbaby111 58]

23 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Wait till you see Poland Pro, we have very good GIS data ;-)

I can't wait for this!!!

[anden145 2,285]

31 minutes ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

XP has ruined night flying for me in FSX. I can't stand the fake lights with baked textures on the ground. I pull up to the gate with all the bright "lights" and my aircraft is still dark. Yet, in XP, the lights actually illuminate the aircraft, and cockpit, and ground. It's fantastic looking! And adds so much to the immersion 

Exactly! That's what I'm really hoping for with Prepar3D v4 would be amazing.

[uhntissbaby111 58]

8 minutes ago, Anders Gron said:

Exactly! That's what I'm really hoping for with Prepar3D v4 would be amazing.

That's one of my biggest desires with p3d v4. True light sources! And one day, although I know how taxing on systems, volumetric clouds 

[FlyBaby 659]

52 minutes ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

XP has ruined night flying for me in FSX. I can't stand the fake lights with baked textures on the ground. I pull up to the gate with all the bright "lights" and my aircraft is still dark. Yet, in XP, the lights actually illuminate the aircraft, and cockpit, and ground. It's fantastic looking! And adds so much to the immersion 

I agree.

Even when I ran P3D and FSX...it was only in the daytime. After flying XP at night nothing else compares. On the flip side, P3D etc. had better cloud/weather and other daytime effects.

 

[JDWalley 354]

4 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

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. 

I didn't hear their stream. When you say "the things they need and want to implement," are you talking about the aforementioned roadmap?  How do resources for third-party aircraft development fit into that?  As I've said before, the most worrisome sign I've seen was Mathijas reporting on how the capability for developing complex airliners was, as of yet, completely removed from FSW. He mentioned that the DTG team only reached out to Aerosoft to ask "what will you need?" a couple of weeks ago, when the question should have been asked a year back, so that the necessary capability could have been built into FSW from the get-go. The impression I got from his account was that retrofitting that capability into the current product would involve a major rewrite taking a lot of time…and that DTG was not yet ready to commit to doing it at all. 

[Buziel-411 4]

20 hours ago, vc10man said:

I suggest you read the post carefully.

DTG have it on their website and they were selling it in a sale. Who said anything about it being made by DTG? Just Flight are selling FSW, so does it imply they make it too?.

I suggest you read what websites you are buying stuff from carefully. https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/509465-digital-combat-simulator-though-steam/

You bought the DCS software from the Steam Store, which is run by Valve Corporation which is not Dovetail Games or Eagle Dynamics. Your customer service problems you had with the Steam Store had nothing to do with Dovetail Games... Dovetail Games has nothing on "their website" related to DCS, and in fact they don't even sell their own products on their own website!

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Buziel-411

[Bobsk8 12,835]

4 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

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. 

Great deal of experience with DTG and their promises to fix things. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

But we are such a niche market (but one that is willing to spend quite a bit of money) that as it stands we aren't at the level to be that interesting for big game studios (Yes, I used the word game ;-)). Progress is progress, no matter how small. I keep thinking that if I could go back into the past and show myself how simulators now look compared to 18 years ago, my jaw would have dropped and I wouldn't believe people are complaining as they are now.

With respect, I don't think it works that way. For street cred... I've been flying flight sims since they were monochrome graphics, and I used to be one of the SysOps on the old Compuserve FS boards back in the pre-Web days. I know what they used to look like.

If you took my former self from those days in a time machine to the year 2017, and showed me only FSW, then I would be thrilled to see it.

Probably just the sheer resolution we're using now would be the major knockout factor, because frankly not that much has changed in the base mechanics. But we do have far more detail now in both the planes and the scenery at crazy high resolutions. I remember when we used to argue about whether it was even possible to show something like a forest with individual trees. And now we have all that high detail at a flyable frame rate. That would knock me out, for sure. 

But here's the point... if you also showed me every other civilian sim that's available now, along with the current state of air combat sims, and maybe throw in a few AAA games for good measure, then I would no longer be looking at FSW in isolation. Which seems to be what a lot of folks are doing.