Well, I quite like it...

[dtrjones 356]

48 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. 

It hasn't been 11 years for Dovetail...

[WotanUK 289]

3 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

It hasn't been 11 years for Dovetail...

Of course and that would be a superb argument if this was a brand new sim but it's still the same stock FSX.

I am not against the sim, really i aren't, i have written positively about it, i am simple disappointed, there is no point in pretending that the sim is anything other than FSX.  DTG have a lot of work going forward, i hope that they make a great sim..i have my copy and i am ready to support them further with DLC.  Even on this score they have managed to confuse or outright ignore serious 3rd party players who could help them achieve the very thing we (and i hope DTG) want.

[dtrjones 356]

3 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.

Jordan King commented on the future plans for FSW weather and you could tell in the dev diary stream that they were itching to show more of there work. I do seem to remember them saying similar things about Flight School through and that was like meh but I think this time there are genuine changes coming regarding the weather system so it should be an interesting next couple of months.

The iffy colours look much better than the iffy colours when DTF FS was first released and as you can see below the current overcast weather isn't to shabby.

[HighTowers 1,434]

The argument that devs wont respect the VAS anymore because its essentially limitless therefore being careless about it and having extremely high detail , enough that it kills performance doesnt hold water for me. Sorry. Cant buy that argument. Why?   For the same reason that the community wont buy or put much support behind an addon that uses a ton of VAS right now in a 32 bit sim. So if an addon is carelessly done and renders the sim to a slideshow, who is going to buy it?  We have some devs now who have that reputation that are regarded with poor performance. Its well known, and its buyer beware. Its a two way street. They cant go all out just because its 64bit.  Just because we have a VAS ceiling thats way above our heads now doesnt mean max sliders right. Its all been dependant on what the rule has always been and probably will always be bound by, and thats your own computer system.  It happens in X-plane even though that is 64 bit, you still must reduce settings to what is acceptable to your computer. The only fly in the ointment is if the addon, bug in the core,  causes poor performance for all including ones with super computers out there, then that is on the developer. 

We have become so used to heavily modded sims with all kinds of addons that we just cannot accept default. Its like we are programmed that way now.  I am guilty of it too.  I flew FSW and while some things are nice, its just missing alot but only because I am so used to having my utilitlies and the aircraft I am used to flying.  I am willing to bet that if ASN16 was in, with my PMDG or FSL aircraft, along with our usual sceneries, our opinions would be shifting to a little more positive. But hey, breaking compatibility is good. Its moving on, otherwise we would be complaining about why our Beta max/VHS video player cant play streaming movies from the internet. 

[WotanUK 289]

1 minute ago, HighTowers said:

Sorry. Cant buy that argument. Why?   For the same reason that the community wont buy or put much support behind an addon that uses a ton of VAS right now in a 32 bit sim.

 

You make a good point except that isn't true.

The community flocks to complex addons regardless of the VAS use, look at the FSL A320, the PMDG 777, if you leave EGLL xtreme v3 on an overcast day with ASN and traffic you'll OOM (not to mention the 7FPS you'll be enjoying) before you get to the threshold (please note slightly joking)  The advice is always the same, you need to turn off add in airports, ORBX vector etc...

[tonywob 4,769]

Anyone who has tried to run UHD Mesh and OSM scenery together on X-Plane will know that whilst 64-bit might stop a CTD, it won't give users better performance. Stutters are a common occurrence when the system starts to run of RAM or VRAM. 

[HighTowers 1,434]

6 minutes ago, WotanUK said:

You make a good point except that isn't true.

The community flocks to complex addons regardless of the VAS use, look at the FSL A320, the PMDG 777, if you leave EGLL xtreme v3 on an overcast day with ASN and traffic you'll OOM (not to mention the 7FPS you'll be enjoying) before you get to the threshold (please note slightly joking)  The advice is always the same, you need to turn off add in airports, ORBX vector etc...

True. Which is why its bloody annoying I can never fly into a major hub unless I turn settings waaay down, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of a good looking sim. Doesnt this just make the case for 64 bit all that much more valid?  The pivotal point will be if performance can keep up. 

[WotanUK 289]

1 minute ago, HighTowers said:

True. Which is why its bloody annoying I can never fly into a major hub unless I turn settings waaay down, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of a good looking sim. Doesnt this just make the case for 64 bit all that much more valid?  The pivotal point will be if performance can keep up. 

Absolutely, to be fair it's actually more annoying when you are completing a 4 hour flight in the NGX and you OOM on approach...

Again, not against the sim, i think 64-bit is a game changer.  I welcome that. 

[Raven9000 272]

2 hours 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.

So if a dev came out with an add-on that transformed your fsx into 64 bit and eleiminated OOMs for $25 you would not buy it? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

So if a dev came out with an add-on that transformed your fsx into 64 bit and eleiminated OOMs for $25 you would not buy it? 

Haha, that's actually a good one. You could indeed look at it that way. But I still rather have a sim that offers more than just 64 bit. 64 bit is only a small part of the package. Important to some (I never had OOMs in my FSX days) but still a small part. 64 bit won't do anything about the outdated structure of FSX/FSW. But hey, we have seen what addon developers can do with outdated structures so... who knows!

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, Raven9000 said:

So if a dev came out with an add-on that transformed your fsx into 64 bit and eleiminated OOMs for $25 you would not buy it?

I probably would. Not the least because it would probably run my current add-ons. But I wouldn't buy it if it removed features and options that exist by default in my current version of FSX.

I fly mainly GA (no airliners) and, perhaps unusually, have never had an OOM error in FSX. So to make me want to make the jump to FSW, the release version (months/years away?) would have to be at least as good as my current FSX installation is with all its add-ons. Why would I want to have to wait for FSW to be developed AND then buy DLC for it just to get it to where FSX is for me now? As I've said in other posts, it needs some killer features, in addition to the base functionality, that make it more attractive than what we have now. It's one thing to have potential, it's quite another actually reaching that potential.

[vc10man 732]

I have been following the various threads that are springing up all over, and, Ian(WotanUK), have followed your posts with interest, as you were one of the early 'tester/users, and a great deal of what you say sounds absolutely well-thought out, and logical too. Great read.

Likewise, you too, Alan, raise and lower some points. Again, a good read.

Both posters make for a good read before committing or rejecting to this latest flightsim offering.

 

[Chock 17,769]

Far be it from me to come across as some kind of non-critical evangelist for FSW. As I originally stated on this thread, opinions vary, and in my opinion, whilst I think it needs some tweaks, I believe it shows some good points.

I do genuinely think FSW has the potential to be a way forward for flight sims on newer hardware, just as I think AeroFly FS2 and X-Plane have that potential too. Like FSW, neither X-Plane nor AeroFly FS2 are completely great as they stand and could do with some serious third party love to make them good, particularly for weather, ATC and flight planning, but what FSW does have when one looks at the file structure, is a very similar architecture to the previous ESP-based platforms before it, and that almost certainly means that there wouldn't be a significant learning curve in order to develop for it for those used to making stuff for previous versions of MSFS.

Having put up with FSX being the main game in town for an expandable sim for so long, we've all got used to being able to buy an add-on airliner or fancy GA aeroplane, and still have it work on our base sim platform ten years later. It's a comfortable state of affairs of course, but one which also stagnates what can be done. We've seen in more recent times that problem manifest itself in a situation where we pay over a hundred quid for our superbly advanced and accurate simulations of aeroplanes which replicate almost every system of the real craft, but which can't fly from one fancy add-on airport to another one without the risk of the sim falling over.

Something has to change that, and the new sims which have come out this year have the potential to do so. It's not written in stone that only one can be the winner, but to suggest that any of them is already the loser before they're even out as a main release, not to mention before even a few add-ons improving them have even appeared, is not conducive with the kind of enthusiasm I have for aviation and its simulation. So as with AeroFly and X-Plane, I've bought FSW and look forward to seeing where it all goes.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

It's not just 64 bit which people make too big a deal about. My understanding is they are trying to shift workload from the CPU to the GPU. That can dramatically improve performance. Also improving UI is important as higher resolutions are becoming more common.

I am sticking with FSX for now but I hope FSW succeeds. I would switch once the most popular addons are available. Isn't FSX still the most popular sim? I would be happy with an incremental improvement.

I think the goal is to be a consumer version of P3D which is not supposed to be used by most of the people who are currently using it (read using the academic license when most people aren't students).

And arcade games don't have radio navigation and transponders. It's no more an arcade game than FSX is.

 

 

 

[WotanUK 289]

11 hours ago, Raven9000 said:

So if a dev came out with an add-on that transformed your fsx into 64 bit and eleiminated OOMs for $25 you would not buy it? 

...you don't see it do you?  What you have written is exactly what we got, a £20 add-on that converted FSX to 64-bit.  Of course i would buy it, i did buy it at that asking price it's a steal.  But i standby my statement that DTG have been lazy they have given us the minimum they thought they would get away with; if you takeaway the 64-bit element you are left with FSX with a new (and i would say awful) UI.