What does FSW do that other sims don't?

[WarpD 824]

1 - Flight Sim World is FSX.  That means it wasn't started from scratch.  The items it is missing is intentional and has nothing to do with whether it exists or not.  They have intentionally removed a large portion of FSX functionality.

2 - Flight Sim World is 64bit,  That means it won't work with any current 32bit addons (scenery by default isn't 32/64bit).

3 - Flight Sim World as default right now, has a worse appearance than my default FSX.  It honestly does.

4 - Flight Sim World aircraft may look better, but they aren't any more complex than what FSX shipped with.

5 - Flight Sim World is an "Early Access", but it's early access isn't an improvement on FSX and that is the crux of it all.  There is no indication of improvement of the core sim.

 

I get better frame rates with base FSX, all sliders to the right than I do with FSW all sliders to the right.  A 64bit, DX11 application should perform better given all other things are the same.  The fact that many features/functionality are actually missing in FSW means the performance should be even better.  However, it's not.

I do grasp they're calling it "Early Access", and I'm well aware of the meaning of that.  However, I do expect better of a 32bit application rewritten for 64bit, using a higher performing DirectX and eliminating features.  It should perform better.  There is no rational reason for it not to have.

Hopefully there's some mistake in the code where someone left a performance reducing delay loop in... because if they can't do a simple convert like this and see improvement, that doesn't bode well for the future.

I will wait and see what the final release is like... but at this point in time, I am not certain DTG can pull this off.

[CFIJose 5,485]

1 hour ago, Raven9000 said:

And yet you said "vanilala fsx is so far ahead"... something that besides simply not being true, you now being in the 3rd party devs...

I don't understand what you mean.

If I say it, it's true to me. Maybe FSW (in your opinion) is better than stock FSX. We just have 2 different views.

[arsenal82 120]

What does FSW do that other sims don't?

show you a very restrictive eula when you install it.

 

[ZKOKQ 984]

6 hours ago, WarpD said:

1 - Flight Sim World is FSX.  That means it wasn't started from scratch.  The items it is missing is intentional and has nothing to do with whether it exists or not.  They have intentionally removed a large portion of FSX functionality.

2 - Flight Sim World is 64bit,  That means it won't work with any current 32bit addons (scenery by default isn't 32/64bit).

3 - Flight Sim World as default right now, has a worse appearance than my default FSX.  It honestly does.

4 - Flight Sim World aircraft may look better, but they aren't any more complex than what FSX shipped with.

5 - Flight Sim World is an "Early Access", but it's early access isn't an improvement on FSX and that is the crux of it all.  There is no indication of improvement of the core sim.

 

I get better frame rates with base FSX, all sliders to the right than I do with FSW all sliders to the right.  A 64bit, DX11 application should perform better given all other things are the same.  The fact that many features/functionality are actually missing in FSW means the performance should be even better.  However, it's not.

I do grasp they're calling it "Early Access", and I'm well aware of the meaning of that.  However, I do expect better of a 32bit application rewritten for 64bit, using a higher performing DirectX and eliminating features.  It should perform better.  There is no rational reason for it not to have.

Hopefully there's some mistake in the code where someone left a performance reducing delay loop in... because if they can't do a simple convert like this and see improvement, that doesn't bode well for the future.

I will wait and see what the final release is like... but at this point in time, I am not certain DTG can pull this off.

Your post should be pinned. Spot on.

[strider1 575]

11 hours ago, KavindaJD said:

We are all allowed to share our opinions, and that's the beauty of this forum. Could we please keep it that way?

If you're upset about what someone has said, then keep it to yourself and suck it up - there's no need to insult each other. It just makes it worse for everyone.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Not if you compare XP-11 to FSW, the trolls will attack and the moderator will delete your post ! But it's ok to compare FSW to any of the other sims.  

Just saying.........

[hypercide 97]

In response to the original post, what has made FSW worth it for me, is that

i) as a "base" sim it takes no time to load,

ii) has a fast and intuitive GUI,

iii) has aircraft built into it that, until last week, would have cost a good deal more $100 to get into FSX or P3D or X-plane,

iv) with ORBX Global Base built in gives decent default terrain,

v) autogen in large urban areas is breathtaking

vi) because it's based on FSX, is very open (I've tweaked cfg files to add a GPS to the Super Cub; some community members have already figured out how to do port-overs of aircraft and scenery-- maybe they don't know how poorly FS2004 port-overs to FSX worked out all those years ago)

vii) it will be in continuous community-backed development for months to come

viii) it suggests there is a vibrant community of flight sim enthusiasts who are happy with change

ix) it's fun.

My apologies if my likes identify me as a casual gamer, but in my defense, I have done my time learning how to get the PMDG 737 (NG and NGX) around a few continents, and I can fiddle around under the old FSX hood with the best of them. Perhaps that's the main reason I am making a full switch to FSW: FSX stopped being "casual" some time ago, and probably not just for me. Instead, it became like P3D and X-plane, something almost deadly serious (the very names of those two programs suggest impenetrable esoterica). This deadly seriousness was, and is, communicated by not simply flight simming's increasing hyper-augmented complexity, but this deadly seriousness is communicated through what has become an intractable set of beliefs about the unquestionable authenticity of that complexity ("as real as it gets" in my spare room). In the end, for someone who's been simming for many years and has been longing for an easy to use platform that provides some entertaining immersion a few times a week, making the switch to FSW has been an incredibly easy decision.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

10 hours ago, WarpD said:

I get better frame rates with base FSX, all sliders to the right than I do with FSW all sliders to the right.  A 64bit, DX11 application should perform better given all other things are the same.  The fact that many features/functionality are actually missing in FSW means the performance should be even better.  However, it's not.

So by that logic, Call of Duty 2017 should perform better than Call of Duty 2007? Think about how ridiculous that sounds. How can a sim with a slew of features that its predecessor did not, be compared in terms of performance? 

[WarpD 824]

Mr. Daniels-Johannson,

What new features are hiding inside FSW while flying that aren't in FSX?  AccuFeel?  I have that in MY FSX and it doesn't slow the sim down.  What else... scenery from OrbX?  That too doesn't slow down FSX if you purchase and install it.  So... what features in FSW during flying don't exist in FSX and also can legitimately increase the workload?

The LOD in FSW is the same as it was in FSX.  The update rate of moving the LOD "circle" in flight is greatly reduced compared to FSX.

They transitioned a bit of work from the CPU to the GPU, which in a CPU-bound application should once again increase framerates, not decrease them.  They eliminated a ton of scenery (I'm finding empty airports all over the place).

What is the "slew of features" that you speak of?  I could go on and on comparing the technical changes that should have shown an improvement but did exactly the opposite... but all you've offered is a non-specific phrase of claim with nothing stated to actually back it up.

[Sagoland 22]

15 minutes ago, WarpD said:

They eliminated a ton of scenery (I'm finding empty airports all over the place).

Really? Every small Airport I've been to so far who are empty in FSX now has buildings in FSW.

[WarpD 824]

Would that be outside the US mainland?

[vololiberista 205]

The problem is, is it not, that of huge expectations followed by huge hype by DTG. The "early access" doesn't come up to either. I'm always wary of hugly hyped products. It usually means that thery are not so good after all. It would actually have been better if they had released a fully functioning FSX 64bit. Yes it's a lot of hard work making the conversion but then to cut out so much and release in effect what is a very basic simulator that is not anywhere near as good as FSX with add-ons or P3D with add-ons. This was in my view a marketing mistake. Whether DTG have the capability or not remains to be seen but they should have been aware that even in early access their sim needed to have been obviously superior than the current offerings. And to have a certain amount of "wow" factor which unfortunately it does not.

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by vololiberista

[rtodepart 761]

In 2068 ther will be post like this in existence if some continue to act like they know it all .

[costamesa 88]

11 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

The problem is, is it not, that of huge expectations followed by huge hype by DTG. The "early access" doesn't come up to either. I'm always wary of hugly hyped products. It usually means that thery are not so good after all. It would actually have been better if they had released a fully functioning FSX 64bit. Yes it's a lot of hard work making the conversion but then to cut out so much and release in effect what is a very basic simulator that is not anywhere near as good as FSX with add-ons or P3D with add-ons. This was in my view a marketing mistake. Whether DTG have the capability or not remains to be seen but they should have been aware that even in early access their sim needed to have been obviously superior than the current offerings. And to have a certain amount of "wow" factor which unfortunately it does not.

 

I think they felt like they had to release it before LM releases p3dv4, otherwise it would be so late for them?

[vololiberista 205]

17 minutes ago, costamesa said:

I think they felt like they had to release it before LM releases p3dv4, otherwise it would be so late for them?

The problem is though that a P3D 64bit release is going to be a much much better and more polished product. As a "professional" sim it has to be.

[JRBarrett 3,070]

2 hours ago, Sagoland said:

Really? Every small Airport I've been to so far who are empty in FSX now has buildings in FSW.

Several airports I am familiar with have indeed been updated. I always start in a new sim at my home airport - KELM. Since the 2006 release of FSX, the main runway 6/24 was lengthened by 1000 feet, and several new hangars and other buildings were constructed. All of those changes are correctly depicted in FSW.

Likewise the nearby G.A. airport 7N1, which for over 50 years had only a grass runway, and is shown that way in FSX and P3D. Since 2006, the runway has been paved, with adjacent taxiways, new lighting, and several new hangars. Again, these updates are depicted in FSW.

However, as WarpD pointed out, these updates may not apply outside of the US.