Please stop with the Early Access excuse it's gotten real old real fast. If you had half a brain you'd realise that Early Access is an excuse of Indie Developers to get Money in so that they can continue working on their software / game. It's gone far from the original intent of being truly "early access" or a BETA for that matter...

So far FSW is a massive let down in terms of performance and pretty much everything else. The menus are annoying, the sound gives me ear cancer, the performance is outrageous (15-20 min loading screens on average)... I'd have wished for them to work longer on it and get it into a much better state, to me right now it looks and feels like they tried to beat P3D v4 which is well under way, and rushed it too quick.

Does it have potential? Sure but without proper dedication this isn't a title that is going anywhere, but hey shouldn't complain competition is good right? Right?! Well it's no competitor right now.

All I have to add to this is if the target audience is the same as what FSX had in their commercials back in the day , they missed the mark. Kids instantly skip GA and are looking for an Airbus or Boeing. Just saying...know your audience.

50 minutes ago, strider1 said:

Thank god for Steam refunds ! The rain effect was kind of cool, but the rain drops moved way to slow to make it believable. 

This was noticed in the rain/windscreen/wiper effect for the first video of the FF A320 in progress for X-Plane.

Cool effect, but if you're going to do it, it has to vary with airspeed. Everything from fat drops when parked or slow taxi, to rapid streaks at cruise speeds. 

5 hours ago, angeli662 said:

Here we go again,  3 hours into launch already comparing with FSX/P3D,  just look into the future or we will end up with FSX/P3D 32 bit for another 16 years.

What? Where did I mention fsx or p3d?

1) the fps and fluidity is non existent

2) the lod radius even on ultra settings is abysmal

3) there is currently zero options for add on devs. No sdk and no sim connect. Just read the post by Mathis over at aerosoft. Dovetail visited them 2 weeks ago and aerosoft told them they should have been there 12 months ago. Currently no way to develop anything for it except stock type aircraft. Also everything that gets modelled from the real world has to licensed in the game to be used. Good luck with that........

Seeing as you brought it up.......it looks like fsx but with worse performance and a nice rain effect. What good is 64 bit when the thing chews up 6gb on its own in stock format? 

Honestly, you couldn't make it up. It's exactly what most folk with experience of DTG expected and it's also heading towards a closed shop for The steam crowd.

it looks like the same marketing mistakes as MS flight and also DTG's own flight school. 

Everyobody wants a slice of the DLC pie these days it seems.......

 

 

20 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

1) the fps and fluidity is non existent

2) the lod radius even on ultra settings is abysmal

May I ask you which settings did you use to get such a bad performance? I tried a couple of tests now over LIRQ and SBRJ with all settings to max except traffic and LOD manually changed to 6.5 and had a steady 34-35 FPS with absolutely no stutters. The terrain is a huge leap forward towards FSX, although of course I am missing vector data and many other things. Colors, well, optimazable, although I noticed a great leap forward compared to Flight School.

All in all, I will not say that I am impressed, but my first evaluation is at least decent, if not positive, and I think it shows room for optimization. Maybe because I had no big expectations from a new FSX release at 64-bit and I am aware it is an early access.

1 hour ago, petkez said:

i didn't hurl insults. someone who only tried the XP demo for a limited number of hours doesn't know a thing about XP. its a simple fact. just like if someone purchased P3D or FSX and tried a limited trial version for a few hours! Would they know anything about that platform? No. 

I have actually used xp9 and XPX for years and don't like either...xp11 seems no better to me either for simulating commercial flying.

7 hours ago, angeli662 said:

Here we go again,  3 hours into launch already comparing with FSX/P3D,  just look into the future or we will end up with FSX/P3D 32 bit for another 16 years.

I just saw someone in a Steam review griping that FSUIPC didn't work and neither do any addon aircraft. I had to remind him that FSUIPC didn't work when FSX came out either.

Really? I should have to remind people of this? Ridiculous. If the thing fails it fails...but nobody knows anything after 3 hours in an alpha test. Amazed at the vitriol I see, particularly in the Steam reviews.

All the default planes are beautiful inside and out. Better than previous incarnations of FSX/P3D. Thankfully I can port the G1000 or 430 to a second monitor. Maxed out the settings with bad weather getting about 35 fps. Can't wait for ORBX to start porting their other stuff over and now I can install it all and not worry about OOMs!. Moving forward with 64 bit and anxious to grow with FSW.

Looks like the "VERY Bad" reviews are more like "VERY moderate". Sad to see such a "Pro" bunch consist of such dramatic responses. 

 

I cannot recommend FSW at this time.  It is honestly as good as FSX out of the box.  Let's remove the addons they've incorporated and you've got FSX with raindrops.  Now... put the addons back and you've got a 64-bit application that should be running far, far better than it's original 32-bit version... and it honestly isn't.  Now.. it's not the final product... so in that regard, I'll not say you shouldn't purchase FSW as a final product... but as an Early Release... meh, it's just really not "all that" at all.  

Guys, please stick to the topic of FSW and not X-Plane.

TSW and FSW, both in EA release. Which one will topple first ? Roll up and place your bets....

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.

13 hours ago, GHarrall said:

Seriously? Its been slated on the streams I have seen. Check out Matt Davies....... its effin awful.

 

 

I'm a big fan of Matt's, but I think he was way off on this one. He basically admitted, before even starting FSW for the first time, that he was expecting it to be terrible, and let's just say there was a more than a little bit of confirmation bias at work in his coverage. Now, I'm not saying I disagree that FSW has some serious shortcomings at this point in its development (see my own review in this forum), but it seemed to me that Matt was just looking for reasons to lambast it and write it off for good, whereas I think it's way too soon to do that; let's first see how DTG responds to the criticism from the user and developer communities in upcoming releases. I got FSM for free because of Flight School; if I had to shell out my own money, I'd probably hold off for the moment, but keep an eye on the project going forward.  It may yet turn into a worthy product. 

FSW is tons better than FSX and P3D were on release day. It's much faster, it's 64-bit and it's an early access product (AKA it's not finished for people who can't read).

It's not perfect, but FSX and P3D are not perfect. Now it's on DTG's hands to make it work. Don't lock it out, let people fiddle with stuff if they want to, give us configuration options and make it as open to the community as possible and it might succeed.

Make it a closed world, game-like or similar and you've lost it.

My $.02