I know opinions vary, but having messed about with it a bit, I think FSW is quite good. Sure it needs some tweaks, colours are a bit iffy, and it could certainly do with more tweaking options via the graphics menu settings; it needs a jet and a chopper desperately too, but I suspect these things will come to pass.

Hopefully there'll be some third party ATC and Weather soon. Like AeroFly, the possible addition of these things mean it has potential. Right now it is fun to blast around in some of the default aeroplanes, which look like Carenado models to me if I'm not mistaken. Frame rates are okay on my fairly old system and it looks pretty good even on fairly reduced settings. So all in all I think it's not a bad opening shot.

Same feelings and expectations here Alan. 

It's really Fresh Air in the civil flight simulation world, even if still tied to the core good-old MSFS... Good add-ons can make any flight simulator shine, and IMO, DTG's FSW is starting, even in Early Access as a very promissing 64 bit platform.

I'm with both of you on this one.

Sure it has its flaws, but I do see great potential in this sim. Hopefully they will adress the colour issue and add the option of real world weather soon.

I also agree.  My first few hours with FSW were void of any major issues.  I do believe this sim has a lot of potential.

I concur with all above.  I was actually surprised given the out of the gate negatives expressed here.  My only issue has been the download - 3Mbps (took 24 hours and 5 mins)...dreadful internet service where I'm at, but it completed without a which is good.

*without a hitch...

2 hours ago, Chock said:

I know opinions vary, but having messed about with it a bit, I think FSW is quite good. Sure it needs some tweaks, colours are a bit iffy, and it could certainly do with more tweaking options via the graphics menu settings; it needs a jet and a chopper desperately too, but I suspect these things will come to pass.

Hopefully there'll be some third party ATC and Weather soon. Like AeroFly, the possible addition of these things mean it has potential. Right now it is fun to blast around in some of the default aeroplanes, which look like Carenado models to me if I'm not mistaken. Frame rates are okay on my fairly old system and it looks pretty good even on fairly reduced settings. So all in all I think it's not a bad opening shot.

Alan, i don't see how you can come to that conclusion, you start by saying it's quite good, following oh but it needs some tweaks etc...  Then start the appeal to 3rd party communities to fix the various missing parts of the sim...parts that have been missing for 11 years since the release of FSX.  

This is how i see it (being generous), It's 64-bit, a big plus, straight out of the box the ground textures look slightly better than FSX (thanks to ORBX not DTG).  The weather system looks a little better than FSX stock (still worse than ASN), the rain effects look pretty good but windshield only and no wipers!

The rest is just FSX.  

They have even managed to make certain things worse.  The rain sound is horrendous, they could use it to torture (it might also be stock FSX, i don't remember).  Night time is really really bad, it's just a flat surface with candle lights.  Personally i think the UI is too game like, things aren't easy to find at all (time and date for example).  They have hidden numerous options FSX had, like the LOD radius, set to 4.5, but hooray, they have left the ability to edit txt files....just like we have had to do with FSX for 11 years!!!!  How many times have i had to edit a text file in P3Dv3 or for that matter in DCS???  The answer is never!  

But, to be honest it's not even the above that annoys me about DTG, it's the 'meh' factor.  We have just had a newly released sim, can you honestly say that your jaw dropped open when you loaded your first flight, did you get excited to be exploring the new world, or did you (like me) just say 'meh'...

In truth it's not bad, but that's because FSX isn't bad and FSW is just FSX, i am not discounting the 64-bit move i think it will be a game changer, but only if 3rd parties make it so, I think DTG have been lazy, it's a lazy sim and that doesn't bode well for the future.

1 minute ago, WotanUK said:

Alan, i don't see how you can come to that conclusion, you start by saying it's quite good, following oh but it needs some tweaks etc...  Then start the appeal to 3rd party communities to fix the various missing parts of the sim...parts that have been missing for 11 years since the release of FSX.

It's simple, I do indeed think it's a good start, but being early access,  they clearly need to see how it responds on numerous systems. Unlike knocking something out for a PS3 or Xbox, with PC (and Mac emulation) applications, there are millions of permutations for hardware, and especially with GPUs which this thing (unlike FSX) is now utilising, so it's inevitable that some will see graphics looking too bright, or too dim or whatever. That's why it is early access and that's why we need to report what we think needs tweaking - it doesn't mean it's bad, I'm just giving feedback on things to the developers.

Similarly, everyone knows that for P3D, FS2004, FSX, FSX-SE, X-PLANE etc, they all do best when being a good simple platform which is then enhanced by third party specialist developers. Yes, give it some default ATC and Weather so it is basically usable, but don't waste time trying to re-invent the weather wheel when the likes of Active Sky and REX's developers have far more expertise in these areas, similarly, ProATCX, Radar Contact, FS2Crew, MultiCrew Experience, Pro Flight etc etc can all fill in the gaps for that other stuff which is their forte. 

That's what I mean.

7 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

Alan, i don't see how you can come to that conclusion, you start by saying it's quite good, following oh but it needs some tweaks etc...  Then start the appeal to 3rd party communities to fix the various missing parts of the sim...parts that have been missing for 11 years since the release of FSX.  

Yes, I also wonder about this. Those who like FSW often end up saying, indirectly, it isn't as good as what they've got with FSX. So... why the heck do they like FSW then? I don't really get it. A regular reaction to this is that you can't compare FSX with tons of addons with a vanilla FSW but... you have FSX with tons of addons so why bother with FSW if it isn't nearly as complete as FSX? Is it only the idea that it may become something in the future? Just asking. I just don't understand why people like a stripped down FSX with a few graphical enhancements when they have a full fledged FSX on their hard disk.

Just now, J van E said:

Yes, I also wonder about this. Those who like FSW often end up saying, indirectly, it isn't as good as what they've got with FSX. So... why the heck do they like FSW then? I don't really get it. A regular reaction to this is that you can't compare FSX with tons of addons with a vanilla FSW but... you have FSX with tons of addons so why bother with FSW if it isn't nearly as complete as FSX? Is it only the idea that it may become something in the future? Just asking. I just don't understand why people like a stripped down FSX with a few graphical enhancements when they have a full fledged FSX on their hard disk.

See above reply, but basically, we are talking about moving things on. Are we going to keep flying around in FSX 32 bit forever when it clearly has reached its limit in regards, to VMA? Or are we going to have a serious go at supporting an effort which is addressing that physical limitation and which allows developers to stop having to keep one eye on VAS every time they try to add some innovative feature and end up deciding, 'well it would be nice, but we can't make it work because of that VAS'?

1 minute ago, Chock said:

That's what I mean.

OK...so in your mind the only thing DTG bring to the table is making the sim 64-bit, the rest can be safely left to the community...who will now have to pay DTG to fix the sim DTG have released?  To be fair, i actually think that is Dovetails strategy, release the sim and hope that they can get enough people on board to fix the missing bits and pay them in the process.

I know it's early access, that changes nothing, we can only judge the sim based on what it is right now, not changes we hope to see in future.  I am a long term Train Sim fan, and have had experience of DTG's updates through the year, usually the amount too a UI change each year.

OK, let me as you a question Alan, why are people say that FSW can't look as good as an FSX installation that has been modded?  11 years have passed since the release of FSX, in my mind FSW, should actually look better than a modded FSX; i come back to my first statement, DTG have been lazy.

5 minutes ago, Chock said:

See above reply, but basically, we are talking about moving things on. Are we going to keep flying around in FSX 32 bit forever when it clearly has reached its limit in regards, to VMA? Or are we going to have a serious go at supporting an effort which is addressing that physical limitation and which allows developers to stop having to keep one eye on VAS every time they try to add some innovative feature and end up deciding, 'well it would be nice, but we can't make it work because of that VAS'?

So it's all about 64 bit? You would be happy if everything would stay as it is in FSX but with 64 bit? You don't care about the outdated ways of doing things? I sometimes think (more and more) that people who have been using FSX a long time have lost sight on how outdated it really is, how limited, how not next gen and how not the future. They really do think that having to tweak cfg's is normal. That popping up scenery around you (autogen, textures, mesh) is normal. That an fps between 20 to 30 is good. And so on. I am sure this will lead to reactions about 30 fps being good enough indeed but that would only prove my point that a lot of flight simmers have lost sight on reality and have no clue they are living in the past. Sounds a bit harsh, probably, and I don't want to offend anyone but really...

12 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

OK...so in your mind the only thing DTG bring to the table is making the sim 64-bit, the rest can be safely left to the community...who will now have to pay DTG to fix the sim DTG have released?  To be fair, i actually think that is Dovetails strategy, release the sim and hope that they can get enough people on board to fix the missing bits and pay them in the process.

I know it's early access, that changes nothing, we can only judge the sim based on what it is right now, not changes we hope to see in future.  I am a long term Train Sim fan, and have had experience of DTG's updates through the year, usually the amount too a UI change each year.

OK, let me as you a question Alan, why are people say that FSW can't look as good as an FSX installation that has been modded?  11 years have passed since the release of FSX, in my mind FSW, should actually look better than a modded FSX; i come back to my first statement, DTG have been lazy.

Yes, well sort of. Because the sim is the base platform. This concept is nothing new, ever since MSFS had a plane designer application way back in 1990 and the likes of BAO and Abacus made scenery and aircraft add on utilities, there's been a grand tradition of tweaking in sims, The third party payer developer trend was borne of this. It's a natural and smart evolution of those who are inclined/best at making this or that feature, to enhance a stable base sim.

BTW This has been said before but 64 bit isn't all good. You said "which allows developers to stop having to keep one eye on VAS every time they try to add some innovative feature and end up deciding, 'well it would be nice, but we can't make it work because of that VAS'?" But what happens if they stop minding VAS? And addons get bigger and bigger and larger and larger? Do you think performance will stay the same? The limited VAS may turn out to be a good thing because it kept developers on their toes. I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or so FSW has lots of extremely detailed addons that won't lead to an OOM anymore but that will bring fps down to below 10 or so.

Switching to 64 bit won't do you any good if you don't use a completely new core system.

1 minute ago, Chock said:

Yes, well sort of. Because the sim is the base platform. This concept is nothing new, ever since MSFS had a plane designer application way back in 1990 and the likes of BAO and Abacus made scenery and aircraft add on utilities, there's been a grand tradition of tweaking in sims, The third party payer developer trend was borne of this. It's a natural and smart evolution of those who are inclined/best at making this or that feature, to enhance a stable base sim.

I get what you are saying Alan, i don't expect PMDG quality planes in the base sim.  I have been simming for many years, i go back to Sublogic FS2 on the C64, i have spend probably as long tweaking the sims as i have flying in the sims.  Right now technology has moved on, i don't have to edit config files in P3Dv3, i don't have to edit config files in DCS, why do i have to edit config files in FSW? 

...and again, why are people saying that you can't expect this to look as good as a modded FSX, i am not talking about add on planes but the sim.  FSX is 11 years old yet FSW looks no different to FSX, save the FTX textures...that really look out of place in built up areas in Manchester for example.

You know, i would be on here entirely agreeing with you if this was a new sim like Aerofly but it's not it's FSX SP3, it's got ALL the faults of FSX with the exception of the VAS related OOMs, my fear from using the base sim and seeing memory figures north of 7Gb is we will actually start seeing physical OOMs when 3rd parties get involved.

Come on Alan, i know you are trying to be upbeat; even i left a positive view on Steam, pretty much saying what you have said, but i am disappointed in the sims current state and based upon previous DTG sims i have little confidence moving forward.