VERY Bad Reviews so far on Steam

[WotanUK 289]

6 minutes ago, Silicus said:

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?

This ^^^

I think you have really struck upon the crux of the matter here and perhaps it's something the community has ignored.  Even if the sim can be described as technically proficient it doesn't set the world on fire.  

I find myself a little conflicted to be honest.  I don't have the hate some people have shown, i do think it's a step ahead of FSX, but, as you say, it has no wow factor.

Have some rep! 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Silicus said:

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.

This indeed.

 

47 minutes ago, fenelis said:

Indeed I am keen on purchasing P3D v4, XPlane 11 and FSW (when it is available for a proper use)

Why does everyone seem to forget about Aerofly FS2?

[anden145 2,302]

16 minutes ago, Silicus said:

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.

Agreed 110%!! 
Absolutely true. And the above points, is kinda what I fear will be stationary in development. I don't see a reason of shrinking out options - only to put them back in? 

P.s - you're not 'and old fart'! Well, maybe you are  - but you definately hit the nail on the head, IMO.

[Guest]

Just now, Anders Gron said:

I don't see a reason of shrinking out options - only to put them back in?

This too! I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the early access period all they did was add what was left out. Because of user feedback. "Yes, we listen!"

 

[anden145 2,302]

Just now, J van E said:

This too! I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the early access period all they did was add what was left out. Because of user feedback. "Yes, we listen!"

 

LOL! 

[Guest]

I gave it a try coming in with low expectations ... sadly it's not for me in it's current state.

Positives:

1.  Rain effects on aircraft windows
2.  Background music
3.  Cockpits look very nice
4.  64bit

Negatives:

1.  Poor performance considering low quality visuals
2.  No Vsync option (lots of screen tearing)
3.  No PBR adjustments, too bright
4.  Tiny mouse cursor at 4K res (like 5 x 5 pixels)
5.  Graphics options/setting VERY limited (no specific AA or AF setting, either On or Off)
6.  LOD is the same as FSX.
7.  Terrain clarity is poor (low resolution).
8.  AG doesn't render very far out.
9.  Trees, Terrain, Buildings all look like stock FSX (I thought Orbx was onboard?)
10.  UI is clunky and confusing, prompted to "Start" twice?
11.  A flight plan seems to be required for free flight?
12.  Flight planner continues drawing a path when you're done (back to bad UI layout, wrong place for confirmation).
13.  PBR implementation seems limited and not as visually impressive as say DCS Normandy.
14.  No dynamic weather option, pick a single weather theme only.
15.  I couldn't create an DTG account so had to skip.
16.  Policy/Restrictions for 3rd party content providers

This is perhaps a little "too early" for end user access, I realize why DTG are doing this timing wise relative to current and future competition.  But I'm not sure if this early release is hurting or helping their efforts.  But relative to Steam, I've used many other "early access" products that come with similar levels of missing functionality, bugs, and performance problems, so from that perspective it's not "unusual" to see an "early access" in this state on Steam.

The DTG development team (12 members as I recall) seem to "have the right stuff" and I want them to succeed.  But, the "audience" DTG are aiming at are used to visuals similar to GTA/Skyrim/COD 3D shooter "grade" of graphics, that's just not gonna happen without some drastic changes and a lot of development time/money.  I think DTG selected the wrong engine to accomplish their goals ... iPACS or DCS would fit their entry level simulator audience and provide the necessary visuals to capture that audience.  In addition, other less complex engines have a code base that is probably less daunting than FSX SP2.  The FSX SP2 code base can do much more than AF2 and DCS in terms of overall flight simulation features and supporting SDK/PDK, but DTG aren't really leveraging that aspect what the FSX SP2 code base does well and the restrictions on 3rd party isn't helping.

Don't get me wrong, A LOT can be done with the FSX SP2 and/or ESP code base ;) ... but it'll take more than a few months.  FSW is a start, but has a long road ahead of it and I hope they have time to "catchup".

Cheers, Rob.

[anden145 2,302]

Hi Rob! Great to see you (back?) - as always!

Good points. Very true... 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

 I think DTG selected the wrong engine to accomplish their goals ... iPACS or DCS would fit their entry level simulator audience and provide the necessary visuals to capture that audience.

+1

 

4 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

9.  Trees, Terrain, Buildings all look like stock FSX (I thought Orbx was onboard?)

The default scenery actually is FTX Global! But it seems the new lighting system and default graphic settings (the ones you can't change) are making it look like FSX again. Way too bright (or too dark), odd colors. (I wonder what Orbx it thinking off what Dovetail did to their FSX hit addon.)

[uhntissbaby111 58]

I don't understand the flight sim community sometimes, and their acceptance of what is good. If any other game came out today looking like this, it would be laughed at! Fantasy games, racing games, shooters, take a look at what is coming out, and what those communities expect. Yet, it seems like the flight sim community, specifically those that refuse to go to XP, are ok with the way FSW looks like! It's 2017, and you think this looks good by today's standards?!? Not a chance! It's that mentality that is holding this genre back! By accepting mediocracy, it's stagnating progress. Maybe it's that the community is so desperate for something new, that they just accept whatever it is that comes out? We should demand better

[Guest]

1 minute ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

I don't understand the flight sim community sometimes, and their acceptance of what is good. If any other game came out today looking like this, it would be laughed at! Fantasy games, racing games, shooters, take a look at what is coming out, and what those communities expect. Yet, it seems like the flight sim community, specifically those that refuse to go to XP, are ok with the way FSW looks like! It's 2017, and you think this looks good by today's standards?!? Not a chance! It's that mentality that is holding this genre back! By accepting mediocracy, it's stagnating progress. Maybe it's that the community is so desperate for something new, that they just accept whatever it is that comes out? We should demand better

As I posted elsewhere: imho those who have been using FSX-based sims for too long have lost sight on reality. They think that having to tweak cfg's is normal, that an fps around 30 is great and that immersion killing popup scenery is normal. Just to name a few. It seems they just don't know any better. They have accepted mediocracy indeed.

[tonywob 4,836]

1 minute ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

We should demand better

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.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tonywob said:

Progress is progress, no matter how small.

True, but why settle for small progress when bigger progress is available already?

[tonywob 4,836]

3 minutes ago, J van E said:

They have accepted mediocracy indeed.

I think having a lot invested in a platform makes a difference. If I had $5000 worth of addons purchased for a platform, I'd feel reluctant to accept another platform that maybe much better. Other games and simulators (with exception to things like DTG's train sim), don't have this problem, people will happily throw it away for the latest and greatest. 

Just look at the cities inside Google Earth compared to FSW or X-Plane, it's sad to think what we could have if the fanbase and money was there.

 

[barrel_owl 304]

7 minutes ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

It's 2017, and you think this looks good by today's standards?!?

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.

[uhntissbaby111 58]

4 minutes ago, tonywob said:

I think having a lot invested in a platform makes a difference. If I had $5000 worth of addons purchased for a platform, I'd feel reluctant to accept another platform that maybe much better.

I fully agree that this is a huge factor, and an issue. I too have LOTS of money invested in FSX/P3D. But is that it then, because we have so much invested in it, just keep fsx forever? I think that's a terrible excuse, but because a big part of the community feels that, I'm afraid that we may be stuck with the FSX for a very long time. I invest a lot of money in my golf clubs, but every couple of seasons I buy something new, because technology progresses and better products come out. 

 

7 minutes ago, barrel_owl said:

Define today's standards.

I would consider Aerofly FS 2, XP11, and DCS to be today's standards. I understand that the chsllenge of a flight sim is that it has to simulate the entire world. So can't possibly have detail like GTA, or BF, or something that only needs to design a single city or smaller map. But the above mentioned sims show what is possible today. 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