People are expecting to get from an Early Access Game what they built for years, and sometimes spending a good deal of money, I not in add-ons in the for of hardware to run more detailed scenery like with XP10 and Ortho4XP... 

DTG's FSW offers a revised World airfield database where I can find pretty much all "legal" airfield in Portugal, and also some updated navaids! What can ask more for a base civil sim in Early Release ?

5 hours ago, Chock said:

Well, having just checked it out, not that I'd be completely happy about flying over it in a single engined Cherokee as I did in the sim lol, I will grant you that, whilst I've never flown over it in real life, I of course know what it looks like from photos and such, and it seems a bit less grand than I should imagine it is in real life, but nevertheless, it's there. To be honest, the terrain around where I live and the scenery for it, where I have been flying in FSW a fair bit, looks not much like when I fly over it for real either and is more of a 'close-ish' representaion, but that's true in all flight sims I have and why I've bought VFR photoscenery and autogen for it in FSX etc. And I expect I'll end up doing the same for FSW.

Somebody needs to repeat the exercise in P3Dv4. Or FS9 EVO Now that will add the drama!

9 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

Somebody needs to repeat the exercise in P3Dv4. Or FS9 EVO Now that will add the drama!

Better repeat it in Aerofly FS 2....

Okay, here's the Grand Canyon in X-Plane 11, this is the default full Steam download of XP11 with no visual tweaks to the program at all.

As you can see it is undeniably a bit better and more 'Grand' than that of FSW, but then again I'd expect it to be considering one is a finished product which cost me 60 quid and took a long time to download owing to all the terrain files, the other was free (or will cost you 20 quid if you don't qualify for the freebie Flight School upgrade), is in early access and came down the pipe in about an hour or so to end up being 45Gb in total as opposed to XP11'S 62Gb.

So it is probably worth pointing out here that, as noted on another post in the Avsim DTG forum, you could actually install similar photo terrain in FSW if you wanted to, since in the US (unlike with a lot of countries, including the penny-pinching mean-spirited UK), aerial mapping and terrain elevation data collected by the Govt, is quite rightly regarded as having been funded by the citizens from their taxes, so is freely available as DEMs, imagery and so on.

And the winner of the default Grand Canyon terrain in a sim competition is... AeroFly FS2.

Ten quid dearer than FSW (or 30 quid dearer if you got FSW as a freebie) and 30 cheaper than XP11, it might not have detailed terrain for the entire world, but AeroFly FS2 does, by default, include the Grand Canyon, which does indeed look very grand and is probably the kind of thing Elvensmith was on about in terms of appearance, although as noted, you could probably get either FSW or XP11 looking like that too with a bit of effort.

See? I told you I buy all those sims lol.

System burp? Last few posts are repeated......

3 hours ago, Chock said:

And the winner of the default Grand Canyon terrain in a sim competition is... AeroFly FS2.

Oh now that is most definitely the dog's dangly bits. XP11 looks pretty good too.

Both are on my shopping list as and when I can persuade SWMBO that I really want to buy another flight sim(s)! :)

Here are my comparison screens, taken on today's date, at mid day:

Above is X-Plane 11 default

Above is FSW

Currently, FSW has some major issues with shading, besides the lower mesh and poor representation of any steep terrain.

What is not visible is that ground control (taxing) is MUCH better with FSW aircraft, X=Plane's Cessna was a major pain for me to just get to the runway with my pedals. Also note the square shadows in the X-Plane screen. So both sims still need some major work at this point.
 

 

34 minutes ago, Arwen said:

Currently, FSW has some major issues with shading, besides the lower mesh and poor representation of any steep terrain.

Also that lavender tinge in the sky color at mid-day needs fixing, which has been there in this DTG engine since Flight School.

Hello guys n girls,

I know this statement is a criticism but nobody seems to be stating what I think is the obvious.

I can remember reading reams of comments when DTG asked the community what WE wanted in the next generation light Simulation platform.  Lots and lots of comments and/or suggestions came out. DTG vowed and declared that they were listening and would produce a platform for the next generation.

However, I can find no suggestion or comment or even a mention that WE, or in fact,  any individual , wanted a next gen simulator  that provided 64bit oh, and rain on the windscreen, and runways which previously had detailed textures as standard but we wanted fluro white ones and oher bugs. 

I am aware that this is Early Access, but DTG have reduced a great platform (albeit ancient) to a GA simulation with bugs and includes an allegedly onerous restriction on third party developers,  

This is/has been considered by DTG as a great marketing plan but it is very hard not to compare it with the recently announced P3Dv4. 

P3Dv4 has been announced (released today?) with very little fanfare from LM ... very little input from the community and no promises.  From first looks they have done what appears to be a very good and complete 64bit version of V3 and, one assumes they will build on and improve on this. The good thing however, is that they appear to have a majority of third party developers on board and most appear ready to adopt the new platform.

My point is that I think most of the comments from the community which were requested by DTG, asked for precisely that.  Where is it???  Look at what we got. Again. early access and lots more promises and a further lack of communication. 

I STILL hold out hope for this platform and please, DTG, regard all these comments as constructive criticism. WE still want an improved version of FSX in lieu of a retrograde one. Most of us want DTG to succeed which will give us, the community and DTG, a win win situation. There is much work to be done here and I for one, wait patiently for it.  

In summary, competition is good for simmers and the world ... DTG, please give us that.

Regards to all

Tony Chilcott  

Arggggg....AF 2 really looks good, but is really not an option for me because of the download size of the sim and ortho tile sceneries.  Haha...it took me over 24 hours just to download FSW - because I'm old and at that rate, I'll be dead before I see the 100% complete for AF 2 download.  I did download XP-11 demo and I really like it so far.  It would take a week to download the full version I suppose.  I think the orthos I've seen on the x-plane forums are yuge as well.  TBH the only scenery I care about is where I fly and for now it's around the Caribbean, but I do fly the east coast of the US also.  I think it is better for me if the sim itself is done correctly out of the box and only a few detailed airports by default standards, then I would buy only the scenery packages I want and that keeps my download requirements in check somewhat.  I mean this is pretty much what I have with my current set-up with FSX-SE.

I suppose I am a little fickle in that I want my cake and eat it too.  I just don't know if I have the patience to wait on FSW to grow into what we want.  I know many promises have been made and I can always hope they will be kept.  My FSX-SE is running awfully sweet at the moment tho, but P3Dv4 looks very good from what I've seen so far and it will be the most "complete" sim going.  Not saying I'm going to buy it tomorrow, but it really looks nice.

oh...lastly, I don't care that the Grand Canyon isn't grand out of the box for the main reasons stated in the previous paragraph.  Thanks for listening.

9 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

 

I am aware that this is Early Access, but DTG have reduced a great platform (albeit ancient) to a GA simulation with bugs and includes an allegedly onerous restriction on third party developers,  

 

What "onerous restrictions" are you referring to?  It has been clearly stated numerous times in these forums that their participation requirements for 3rd party developers allow them to sell from their own storefronts as well as Steam. How is that "onerous".

19 minutes ago, 188AHC said:

What "onerous restrictions" are you referring to?  It has been clearly stated numerous times in these forums that their participation requirements for 3rd party developers allow them to sell from their own storefronts as well as Steam. How is that "onerous".

Onerous refers to the expected cut taken by both DTG and Steam. With P3D v4 there is a seamless transition from the developer point of view. You won't be getting FSUIPC in FSW. And I seriously doubt than many of the devs that rely on that will be happy to have to do the extra work required by DTG. Especially if they face a cut in any profit.

How they market is none of our business. They have their arrangements and according to DTG you may purchase through Steam or if the vendor has a storefront you may purchase there. This is business and is in no way "onerous" regardless what we may think.

Hey guys,

 

I really did not want to be controversial with my comments.

Onerous was a reference to the approximate 60 percent take (revenue stream) from the developers (not all DTG). Leaving the actual people who have developed the product with 40 percent to cover profit, costs and research.  I know everyone involved has to earn a dollar and there has been stated elsewhere that there is a way around this.  However,  the fact remains that people who have nothing do with a product actually take more profit than the manufacturer. This is in itself not unusual.

My comments however, were meant to be constructive and were directed at DTG.  

All I want is for DTG to start being proactive, provide a product that they promised, start actually listening to what the majority of people are requesting,  increase their communications with their potential users/customers and be more competitive with their product.

I apologize if I have upset anyone as this was never my intention.  I simply wanted to express a point of view and hope that DTG take it on board. My view is never, ever going to be everyones' view.

Regards

 

Tony