I only dip in and out to see the progress, I spend most of my time in FSX:SE as my add-on aircraft wide body are there and scenery, but that`s no deferent than when I had FSX on release and that was the full deluxe finished version, I still ran FS2004 for some time almost two years some still do, but I still think FSW will be the main stay platform for the market in two years , only time will tell.

Ray Fry. 

Well said Ray. It's no hardship to keep an eye on progress from time to time (do a mission or a lesson or two) and if you spot a bug or error, or have a question, put it on the DTG forum and contribute to the improvement of the sim.

It's no good saying "I'm not touching it till it gets better" and then saying "they need to get the usage into the 1000's before it'll get better" - how does "not touching it" help to increase the usage? If you're not involved at this stage, you can hardly complain later when the features and aircraft you wanted aren't there.

I do see progress with every update.

Prior to the last one, there was an issue with crashes when flying towards NYC from LaGuardia.  They asked for a video and flight plan, because the crash was 100% reproducible.  Provided the info.  It was fixed in the V5 update.

Pro Mission Editor - couldn't use multi-airport flight plans.   They asked for flight plans used and errors the PME generated. Provided the info.  Fixed in the V5 update.

Both of these requests from them were after V4 and before V5.

They are being very responsive to certain fixes while trying to stick to their roadmap with a very small team.  This is a significant challenge to balance what to fix and when while following the plan mapped out before Early Access was released.

Demands for non-GA aircraft are going to fall on deaf ears.  This was marketed as a GA simulator.  Asking for jets likely won't happen from the core team with their stated focus of being GA aircraft.  Jets will likely be 3rd party Add-Ons after Early Access when the base is stable.

While some are disappointed with what seem like pointless updates (adding passengers in the next update), I'm very pleased with the overall progress seen each update (almost weekly which is surprising again given the size of their team) and the very open communication with the community to enhance and improve their simulation.

16 hours ago, rjfry said:

.....but I still think FSW will be the main stay platform for the market in two years , only time will tell.

Ray Fry. 

That is a big "IF"...

With P3DV4 off to a strong start and XPlane11 doing not badly,  FSW has a lot of ground to make up..  It would be nice to have another contender, but right now, I would not bet on it.. FSW to me has MS-Flight written all over it..

8 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

 FSW to me has MS-Flight written all over it..

That would be better than it is now. MS Flight was way better than FSW is now in the actual state.

I still don`t know if DTG will surprise us or if they ar just naive.

10 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

FSW to me has MS-Flight written all over it..

Don't even dare to compare them, MS Flight was and is a great simulation and that can't be said of FSW.

-eelis-

15 hours ago, theohall65 said:

Demands for non-GA aircraft are going to fall on deaf ears.  This was marketed as a GA simulator.  Asking for jets likely won't happen from the core team with their stated focus of being GA aircraft.  Jets will likely be 3rd party Add-Ons after Early Access when the base is stable.

I think it's reasonable that FSW doesn't have a modern jet airliner in the initial release for the obvious reasons -- big project, high expectations relative to what else is available, etc. That can come later, if FSW is a success in the long-term. 

However, I'm still surprised that the current default lineup is so sparse and one-dimensional. Just a handful of piston props. No fast movers like warbirds or military jets. No vintage radials, no gliders, no helicopters.

There is no sex appeal in this sim, and I think that's critical when the outside world doesn't look that different from FSX.

It's not for nothing that other sims like FSX and X-Plane have always included default planes that are just fun to fly at the edge of performance, even if the models were fairly basic. Especially if this is aimed at newcomers. It's just easier to get exited about a P-51 or F-22, even a very basic model, than a Piper trainer. It's fine if the main orientation is flight training, but all work and no play makes for a dull flight simulation.

Maybe DTG has something up their sleeves other than GA trainers to release when the sim goes final. I sure hope so, because it's not enough to say that "DLC will come later." For newcomers who don't have a bunch of FSX models to import, the sim has to stand on its own in the initial release. It has to survive long enough for a market to be established that's worth producing DLC for. 

The fact that there is an airliner tailfin icon on the aircraft selection menu (greyed out for now) ought to give a hint...

Even if an airliner was available at Early Access stage, the whingers would be whingeing about no way to create a realistic flightplan yet, no moving jetways or pushback trucks at airports yet, why doesn't ATC recognise my V.A. callsign etc., and the sensible suggestions and bug reports would all be drowned out.

DTG stated, again, plenty of times, that the reason they've not put any fancier complex aeroplanes in Flight Sim World, such as choppers or airliners, is because it is not in their area of expertise to develop them. As noted by A32xx, even if such aeroplanes were in there by default at this early stage, they would tend to muddy the waters a bit for bug reporting of more basic functions in the sim at present. But since DTG have also said they want to involve us all in steering the sim, it remains a possibility that they could (and probably will) put something fancier in there if required to test increasing functionality when that expanded functionality is part of the base simulation.

DTG are on good terms with a number of developers, and so the addition of other more complex aeroplanes is merely something to be worked out. Actually, even if they were not on good terms, they could still simply do a deal on getting one in there and let the financial aspect put them on good terms lol. This is pretty much what Lockheed Martin have done with P3D, in that they've got a couple of older Just Flight/Aeroplane Heaven add-on airliners and stuck those in it as default aeroplanes, something they've also done with Carenado and Virtavia too, and since DTG have also done a similar deal with Carenado, that would lead us to believe there is nothing stopping a similar airliner or chopper deal being brokered by DTG at some point.

So whilst it is early access with basic functionality, there really isn't much need for anything fancier than the aeroplanes which feature in the lessons and missions to be in there, this is not to say that you cannot do all that yourself if you are inclined to. Like a lot of people, I've stuck a few larger and fancier aeroplanes into FSW out of curiosity, which only requires the addition of a few lines of code into the aeroplane's config file - Virtavia UH-60 Blackhawk, FSW Bell 47 Sioux, AH B17F, FR Northstar/Argonaut, Virtualcol Shorts S360 etc - and they work (some better than others, since it is not entirely the same structure-wise as FSX, so clickable functions of gauges in a VC tend not to function). So I have made some long flights in a B17G in FSW without problems. Thus as noted, there is no good reason to suspect that DTG do not have similar plans in mind, nor anything which will prevent a suitably modified FSX add-on from working in FSW.

It is true that P3D and XP-11 are up and running and in a position to be gaining traction, but to be brutally honest, being in a position to do so, and actually doing so are not the same thing, and we know this from past history. In the years when there was no current 'serious' ESP-based simulator product in ongoing development, e.g. from the point when MS announced that FSX would the last of the line of MS Flight Simulator products (Jan 2009), to before P3D got going when Lockheed Martin released it (April 2011), this was a period of just over two years. That lengthy hiatus of ESP-based flight sims presented Laminar Research TWO FULL YEARS to pick up the main flight sim platform ball and start to run with it, with no mainstream flight simulator competition opposing them. Frankly, LR p*ss*d away that golden opportunity to become the king of the 'serious' sims. If they couldn't do it when there was no opposition, and they had the field all to themselves, how likely are they to do it when there are three or four other flight sims in contention? So yup, XP11 is out and available, but we are still waiting to see the built in complex weather, decent AI, decent ATC, decent flight planning, seasonal terrain etc. These are things which even FS 2002 had, and that's getting on for nearly twenty years ago. Even the most ardent XP11 fan would have to admit that FSX and P3D are far and away better choices if you want to fly complex airliner flights, owing to the vast array of functionality in these areas one either has by default, or can add with little or no additional cost.

At that time, the only other thing was MS Flight, which was a joke to the serious flight sim enthusiasts, and one in very poor taste for them, in that it tried to attract new flight sim enthusiasts but basically said 'f*** you' to all the already existing ones, many of whom had even taken the trouble to fill out the survey by MS about where they wanted flight sims to go, the results of which MS roundly ignored. So it was hardly a surprise when it went from birth to death in a period of less than six months. So yup, absolutely don't compare FSW to Flight, because you'll be insulting the aims of FSW beyond measure, since as noted, unlike MS, DTG have openly welcomed comments and contributions from the flight sim community at large to help them create a product which features what those customers want, even to the extent of releasing it as it progresses, and if that isn't sticking your head up above the parapet and letting everyone take their best shot, then I don't know what is.

P3D is great and it's gaining a lot of love, particularly from 'serious simmers', which is no surprise because it is most definitely not marketed as a game and certainly does not have a game price tag (and most certainly not when it first came out, priced at 499 Dollars, which it fortunately is not priced at any longer). This is one of the reasons we don't (and won't) see it on Steam, whereas all the other contenders are indeed on Steam, thus P3D has a different focus to FSX-SE, AeroFly FS2, XPlane and ( at some point in the future) FSW.

So in spite of the field now being occupied by several contenders, it remains open to any developer who gets the mix right, and ever was it so.

 

3 hours ago, A32xx said:

Even if an airliner was available at Early Access stage, the whingers would be whingeing about no way to create a realistic flightplan yet, no moving jetways or pushback trucks at airports yet, why doesn't ATC recognise my V.A. callsign etc., and the sensible suggestions and bug reports would all be drowned out.

Spot on!  

Steven hood has posted on FSW steam forum that they are planning some major updates later this months.

Ray Fry.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

DTG stated, again, plenty of times, that the reason they've not put any fancier complex aeroplanes in Flight Sim World, such as choppers or airliners, is because it is not in their area of expertise to develop them. As noted by A32xx, even if such aeroplanes were in there by default at this early stage, they would tend to muddy the waters a bit for bug reporting of more basic functions in the sim at present. But since DTG have also said they want to involve us all in steering the sim, it remains a possibility that they could (and probably will) put something fancier in there if required to test increasing functionality when that expanded functionality is part of the base simulation.

Well, it does raise questions about how well anyone can help them develop their engine modeling for turboprops, fan jets and turbojets, if those engines aren't actually in the default planes?

I guess it's a question of intended market (and marketing). Is this supposed to be a "wink, wink, you can bring over all your FSX planes" sim, as a tacit 64-bit follow-on to FSX?

Or is it intended to get newcomers into flight sims? Because unless you're only interested in real-world flight training, the default planes are not exactly the kind of thing that gets anyone's blood pumping as a newcomer to flight sims.

Ignoring P3D for the usual reasons, compare what they're offering here to the default planes in Aerofly FS2 or XP11, the other "consumer" 64-bit sims. Plenty of fast-movers, warbirds, gliders, and other fun planes there, even ignoring the basic tubeliners. That's the current competition. I don't think DTG can wait a year or two to fill out their hanger of default planes, if newbies are the intended market.

30 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

I guess it's a question of intended market (and marketing). Is this supposed to be a "wink, wink, you can bring over all your FSX planes" sim, as a tacit 64-bit follow-on to FSX?

Or is it intended to get newcomers into flight sims? Because unless you're only interested in real-world flight training, the default planes are not exactly the kind of thing that gets anyone's blood pumping as a newcomer to flight sims.

 

DTG has been quite explicit in saying that they do not support ANY import of FSX planes into FSW,  and that they have been surprised at the ways users have found to do exactly that regardless..

Strictly speaking, there is no 'current competition' for FSW until it is released in its final form, so at the moment it isn't really aimed at anyone other than those who are interested in flight sims who want to steer it in the direction which will please them as it progresses. True competition will come when they have it in final form and announce 'here is our new finished sim platform version 1.0' and start advertising it as such. And you can bet from day one there will be shiny add-ons ready to rock, since that is DTG's reason for doing all that.

So right now we are in the fortunate position of being able to say what we want; this does not mean we'll see it straight away of course, or that we'll get it, but since DTG are not aiming to repeat history and end up with a hangar queen like MS Flight, the opportunity to say so is there. I am sure that - being a business and wanting FSW to succeed as a product - DTG will be well aware of how MS dropped the ball with that one when they ignored what all the flight simmers who had their credit cards at the ready, and instead knocked out the utter P.O.S. which was Super Mario Flight Sim, erm, I mean Flight.

As it stands, the base simulation's LUT text config file method of flight modeling will already support choppers, jets etc and all their engine types, since that is the ESP platform's way of doing things, so there is really no need to help them to develop that part of it, since it is already developed, and that's a good thing because it is what most developers are happy to use.

But we can and should be saying what we do want. So it is up to us to be vocal about wanting: decent built-in real weather, seasons, decent runway and ground friction, usable ATC, good flight planning, updated nav aids, shared cockpit functions, stuff to suit cockpit builders, good support for hardware controllers, easy file management for add-ons, good SDKs for developers etc, etc. In short, whatever matters to you and I in a flight sim. With all of that in place in product which gives simmers what they really desire, that in itself will make it something which companies actually want to develop stuff for, because the market will be there to support such efforts.

The ball is up in the air, it's up to us to ensure DTG don't drop it, by telling them what we want.

39 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

DTG has been quite explicit in saying that they do not support ANY import of FSX planes into FSW,  and that they have been surprised at the ways users have found to do exactly that regardless..

Maybe that's the official position, and this is just my opinion, but I don't believe that for a second. It would be trivial to block import of legacy FSX aircraft and scenery files in the core sim engine.

If they're not doing this, then it's either incompetent programming (unlikely), or they really do want to make this a tacit successor to FSX, where users can import much of their content. At least the files that don't depend on an SDK for more advanced features.