Top 10 Reasons FSW will be the next "Flight Simulator 2017"

[pracines 823]

13 hours ago, AOB said:

Pracines, did your VR experience blow ALL your other sims away? Is that the future of FS do you think?

Aside from the lack of strong G forces, you really feel like you are there, there is a sense of motion. The world huge, the clouds are gigantic, and the plane itself is life sized. One does not need an enclosed hydraulic setup, now that VR is available. I was saving up for a Redbird, but even that will not come close to VR when one has a well tuned power PC and a good set of flight controls that they are familiar with. So yes, to me the experience in VR is better than conventional monitors/track IR. 

I do VR in AeroFly 2, XPlane11, and P3Dv4. All are great using VR for me (AF2 for me is currently best/most stable/smooth), and I look forward to added possibilities with all three. When or if FSW has VR availability I intend to do that too.

For serious scheduled flights I revert to my multi monitor setup as I use many utilities that I glance at often, to do them, but I intend to get a "new mother(ship) of all" :-) PC's soon just for VR use.

Is VR the future of FS?....

Well if AF2 can vastly increase the features, stay stable, and smooth at 90+ FPS then I would say VR will catch on and become favored.

If P3D can get to 90+FPS with high settings, and HQ add-ons, using VR then it will catch on.

If XP11 gets very good native VR support with again great performance and high settings then yes VR will knock Track IR and standard conventional monitor use out of the picture.

Lots of if's, but because this is pretty new to the flight sim community and a VR setup is quite expensive ( well worth the $399 sale price I paid - but I was not going to do $799) there has not been any reviews. But when I'm in the FSW or other forums, now I understand the topics with the title "NO VR SUPPORT I NO BUY". They are appalled at the fact the DTG will not support VR now and they base everything on this. Now I understand why and I agree, VR support in a flight sim is like water to humans.

I hope many flight simmers were able to take advantage of the Oculus sale, and if they did, I hope they are enjoying it as much or more than me.

As most technologies do get better and eventually cost less with time, it may take some time for VR as well, but I think VR is here to stay and improve until we have holodecks.

Getting back to the heart of the OP though, there is 1 reason why DTG will lag behind the rest, and that is the VR curve which may prove to be too much to overcome.  

[Humpty 751]

3 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

"Oh Stewardess, more popcorn please....and some of that bitter orange juice in a can too please."

:)

popcorn time is over 

 

[Chock 17,769]

DTG said the reason they were not yet concentrating on VR inclusion was that it was still early days for it in terms of hardware and software with no one simple go to solution. That is undeniably true when there are several solutions in flux and no clear winner yet. Right now, VR is akin to the advent of home VCRs, i.e. with several expensive first generation solutions, some of which will undeniably fall out of favour.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least four or five VR options you could probably buy right now in a big high street PC/Electrical store - Occulus Rift, HTC's Vive, Samsung's Gear VR, Sony's VR, Goji's GVRBK - and of those, you've got the additionally in-flux VR hand movement trackers such as Occulus Touch, then you've got to have Fly Inside too for your flight sim usage. So it's not quite at the inexpensive 'home users just plug it in' stage yet (i.e. like VHS managed to win out as in those VCR wars) which it needs to be in order to make development a priority. Yes it is cool, but it's in no way a settled hardware war at this point and certainly not where Steam is concerned, who are also flirting with their own hardware solutions for that stuff as well.

When things such as the Goji are more the kind of price one has to pay to get the experience (i.e. 25 quid) as opposed to the 800 quid one is looking at for a VR headset with motion tracking (i.e. that's the kind of price tag Occulus Rift and HTC Vive are with that capability), you can see why DTG are not falling over themselves to implement it right now because as enthusiastic as VR users are, they are a very small early adopter minority at this point. DTG will do support for that stuff at some point, but it will be when you don't need a second mortgage to buy the hardware and then find it is out of date for having been an early adopter mark one version of what the mainstream ends up using at a price which will make it mainstream.

[sightseer 895]

3 hours ago, tonywob said:

I'm the same. I'm not as excited with X-Plane 11 as I used to be, it's not going in a direction that I really care for, but I still think it's the best current nextgen sim we have. X-Plane seems gloomy, dark, and depressing and the weather representation is really not very good. ...

 

 

 

Tony - I've heard you say this before and it surprises me.  XP11 is my current goto sim for a feel good flight with warm sunshine and nice cloud shadows.  Do you fly with real weather or do you set up a simple environment with good visibility and a nice layer of clouds?  I do the latter and I love it.

[pracines 823]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

. Or in other words, the reason there ain't no SDK is because it's in large part up to us to determine what will be in that SDK. DTG have asked us to help.

I think this is an assumption that is incorrect. DTG has a roadmap and it did not include airliners initially despite the HUGE outcry for airliners in the DTG forums. Real weather is another one of them "if it were up to us" points that makes it crystal clear its not up to "us". The community was "helping" DTG with suggestions upon the announcement of  FSX-SE long ago.   

DTG had a wish list topic packed with tens of thousands of requests several years ago and they have implemented so little of that list. There is 64 bit, a full world, and what? Missions? In plane avatars? Cold and Dark starts? That road map has not included any thing really new or exciting except the (I think) false perception that "we" are in control of the development some way.

I can understand slow and steady development for the sake of stability, but I will not believe that we have that much of a say as to what goes into the SDK to the point of such a long delay.

My theory is that the SDK according to DTG policy has to contain wording that developers have already protested about. So DTG is trying to figure out how to compromise, but their business model does not really allow for a compromise, hence the delay. Lawyers are trying to figure it all out, but the 3rd parties will not compromise or heed to certain DTG policies....they don't need to anyhow, they have other flight sims to work with. The quandary was made clear and public announcements have not denied this, only that DTG is willing to work with any 3rd parties, - but is the opposite true? Well that's what my theory is based on.

There is no good reason not to have 3rd parties very much involved upon or even before public EA release if a full world/full feature flight sim is going to be successful.  

[ca_metal 2,033]

3 minutes ago, pracines said:

I think this is an assumption that is incorrect. DTG has a roadmap and it did not include airliners initially despite the HUGE outcry for airliners in the DTG forums. Real weather is another one of them "if it were up to us" points that makes it crystal clear its not up to "us". The community was "helping" DTG with suggestions upon the announcement of  FSX-SE long ago.   

DTG had a wish list topic packed with tens of thousands of requests several years ago and they have implemented so little of that list. There is 64 bit, a full world, and what? Missions? In plane avatars? Cold and Dark starts? That road map has not included any thing really new or exciting except the (I think) false perception that "we" are in control of the development some way.

I can understand slow and steady development for the sake of stability, but I will not believe that we have that much of a say as to what goes into the SDK to the point of such a long delay.

My theory is that the SDK according to DTG policy has to contain wording that developers have already protested about. So DTG is trying to figure out how to compromise, but their business model does not really allow for a compromise, hence the delay. Lawyers are trying to figure it all out, but the 3rd parties will not compromise or heed to certain DTG policies....they don't need to anyhow, they have other flight sims to work with. The quandary was made clear and public announcements have not denied this, only that DTG is willing to work with any 3rd parties, - but is the opposite true? Well that's what my theory is based on.

There is no good reason not to have 3rd parties very much involved upon or even before public EA release if a full world/full feature flight sim is going to be successful.  

I'm sorry, but you are not part of DTG's staff and that's not what Stephen Hood is saying. He is saying just the opposite. You have an opinion, I can respect that, but you can't talk in their name.

Even about 3rd parties, I'm pretty sure some of them are already working with DTG(maybe not the mainstreams). He talked about it in a few words.  

[tonywob 4,770]

10 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Tony - I've heard you say this before and it surprises me.  XP11 is my current goto sim for a feel good flight with warm sunshine and nice cloud shadows.  Do you fly with real weather or do you set up a simple environment with good visibility and a nice layer of clouds?  I do the latter and I love it.

Well X-Plane 10 (with orthos and my autogen/forest sceneries) is still my preferred sim, as I find X-Plane 11 just doesn't do anything for me. Maybe because I develop scenery on it and don't see it as something I can relax and have fun with. Things like the glowing trees and really dark robotic autogen and the repeating water ruin any immersion I have in the scenery, and I find it frustrating that things like this made it through to 11.05 and don't look they're going to be fixed in 11.10 either. Most screenshots and videos you see of X-Plane 11 are dark, gloomy and done in sunset/sunrise, and I don't think that surprises anyone. I do use xEnviro (but for $70 you'd expect to be able to set your own weather!!!!) which does make the sky look better and more natural, but it doesn't give me seasons, snow, etc... I'm still very happy to see that they are continuing to update the sim with new things like landmarks, better performance, VR, but it's not the direction I'd like to see the sim concentrate on.

What I want in a sim is something that lets me do things like the following:

- Jump into a piper cub in snowy Alaska and fly over cold looking terrain looking for a strip to land.

- Start up at an airport that has life (e.g. People walking round, GA traffic landing and using radios), announce on the radio and leave in a traffic pattern. Fly to another airport, join a traffic pattern with other traffic, land and taxi to another airport that seems alive.

- Fly around places I've not been to in real-life and feel like I'm actually somewhere else. e.g. Flying around Papua New Guinea with authentic-looking (not flat orthos) scenery.

- Fly an instrument approach with good ATC, other traffic and realistic looking weather.

No sim seems to do any of this right. DTG seem to have a vision for their sim that I really like, and that's to make it appealing. ORBX also had really good ideas that don't seem to have come to life.

Flying a PMDG over the Atlantic doesn't interest me at all, and it's not something I look for in a sim. I actually hope DTG stick to GA and do a really good job of it.

 

 

 

 

 

[sightseer 895]

Tony - have you tried modifying the sunglow files to decrease tree glow at sunset?

 

I make my own sky textures and I find that changing the cloud lighting a bit and increasing the visibility in conjunction with using the developer menu to force one particular set of textures can produce a very enjoyable sunny non gloomy flight.

[G-RFRY 1,734]

The main criticism of FSW in the forums is , realweather engine , scenery , wide body airlines JETS ,realistic  ATC , airport scenery , in the default sim, the others sims have this in the default sim, HUH!!!! I think not.

Ray Fry.

[tonywob 4,770]

12 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Tony - have you tried modifying the sunglow files to decrease tree glow at sunset?

No, I wasn't aware you could. Do you know of any info on what to change?

P.S. Sorry to hijack, best to take this discussion to the XP forum ;-)

[sightseer 895]

1 minute ago, tonywob said:

No, I wasn't aware you could. Do you know of any info on what to change?

 

well I don't know if it solves what you are talking about but changing the files is as easy as any other alteration.

Make backups and then open 'sunglow_mount' for example.  On the top row is the halo effect behind the sun texture.  The far right is used for daytime and the next one to the left is closer to the horizon and the next one from that is sunset and the far left is post sun.   The postsun effects do not work as I would expect but as a trial just delete the top row of elements and see what you think.  I've changed the sun textures (the second row) and deleted the halos.  The bottom rows of the relevant sky textures also provide input to the color and I think there are datarefs also contributing but I have no experience with datarefs yet.

 

[Chock 17,769]

4 hours ago, pracines said:

I think this is an assumption that is incorrect. DTG has a roadmap and it did not include airliners initially despite the HUGE outcry for airliners in the DTG forums. Real weather is another one of them "if it were up to us" points that makes it crystal clear its not up to "us". The community was "helping" DTG with suggestions upon the announcement of  FSX-SE long ago.   

DTG had a wish list topic packed with tens of thousands of requests several years ago and they have implemented so little of that list. There is 64 bit, a full world, and what? Missions? In plane avatars? Cold and Dark starts? That road map has not included any thing really new or exciting except the (I think) false perception that "we" are in control of the development some way.

Well it's not really an assumption I'm making, nor is it that DTG have not responded to requests. Those responses might not always be the ones some would prefer, but in such cases it is always with a reasonable explanation behind any such decisions. For example, people might say they want airliners and helicopters, but when people say that, really what they want is airliners and helicopters which are the kind of thing that P3D FSX and XP11 doesn't have either by default either, i.e. complex study sim ones available as additional payware, which are more than mere lookalikes with shallow system simulation. And DTG were pretty clear on this from the off, they said they would leave that up to TPDs where FSW was concerned, since they did not have the expertise/time necessary to be developing these in addition to creating the base sim such add-ons would run in, and this incidentally, is exactly what Lockheed Martin have done too, by having included Just Flight/Aeroplane Heaven's Connie and Electra in there and Virtavia's Blackhawk among others. So what DTG did say they would do, is provide a much improved base simulation with the features necessary to facilitate that, and this is already apparent in their interactive Cold and Dark stuff, which absolutely does shift us forward from the tedious PDF-based tutorials we've tolerated in flight sim add-ons for literally years and is quite clearly an ideal system for teaching people how to fly complex aeroplanes, as anyone who has tried it knows.

Thus the notion that there are no airliners or choppers in FSW by default is neither here nor there to me, nor is it in any way indicative that there is no intent for them to be in there, because I know they will be able to go in the finished product, may well turn up in it as default anyway, but more importantly if they don't, be able to be produced by TPDs in such a way that genuinely does move how that is done along and precludes developers from having to jump through hoops to get things to work by having to rely on all kinds of routing shennanigans via things which are not part of the base simulation platform, i.e. FSUIPC etc, PDFs etc.

And in any case where airliners and choppers are concerned, how many flight simmers into airliners or whirlybirds in a big way ever crank up the default A321 or default Bell 206 in FSX? Not many, and even though P3D has the JF Constellation built in, people still buy the A2A one for it, just as they bought the Aerosoft and FSL Airbuses and Milviz Hueys and Dodosim Bell 206s, keeping those default birds in the hangar gathering virtual dust, which is a shame since some are pretty good, but there you go. Yet even if airliner buffs didn't want every system simulated, and not every avid flight simmer does, they still had a much improved lighter simulation of the A320 from Just Flight at a very reasonable price to replace the very basic default one in FSX. So who knows, DTG may strike a deal with JF to have that be a default jetliner in FSW. But regardless, I know I don't want DTG wasting development time and resources on making a half-arsed 737 or Q400 which I'd never fly, just so they could say it has one as a default aeroplane, when they can and are thinking about making the way stuff is simulated by TPDs itself far better and much less heath robinson than it is at the moment.

I've certainly had responses to things I've suggested for FSW and I can absolutely confirm that I've seen those show up in community updates too, so I genuinely do indeed feel involved and do absolutely know they are listening to me as they are to others who take the trouble to get involved. I'm not suggesting for one moment that what DTG do is completely at my command nor that they don't have a reasonably firm development plan, but I do feel that as an aeroplane and indeed train enthusiast, they are definitely on my side and are genuinely passionate about realising the desires of such enthusiasts in simulations which are more than mere rehashes of what has been the norm for the past decade or so. One only has to look at the Steam promo videos for CSX Heavy Haul, particularly where DTG founder Paul Jackson talks about wanting to feel like he was really driving a locomotive and says of that: 'Long before we set up the company, what I've dreamed about being able to do myself, is to be a train driver in the real world, which is what this is all about.' There is no way he's faking that enthusiasm for the genre of simulations, for if he is, then he is in the wrong business and should be acting in movies.

It was such desire and passion for the subject which led DTG to utilise Simugraph for the component modeling of their train sims. They could, if accusations leveled at them of solely being in it for the money were in any way true, have simply stayed with what existed and just knocked out some more DLC for the already extant train sim they had. But they did not do that, instead what they did was akin to what developers such as PMDG, FSL and A2A have done where they take stuff out of the base ESP sim platform and use custom software to achieve what they want. When developers do that in an FSX or P3D add-on, everyone is quite rightly blowing sunshine up their arses, yet many still try to crack on that DTG is a cookie-cutter company with no desire to do the same thing, when that is quite clearly bollocks if one watches the development diaries for utilising such techniques at DTG in CSX Heavy Haul. And it is clear they are of the same mind for pushing flight sims too, rather than just tarting up FSX as 64 bit, because even at the early access point in the proceedings, the desire to move things along is already right there on screen for us to see with trueSkies and interactive checklists in FSW. So how anyone can suggest that there is 'nothing new or exciting in there' is beyond me, because I can't see any of that stuff going on at LM, where they haven't even completed the ability to get rain on windscreens in P3D yet after several years of development and four main iterations of the sim, all of which one could be forgiven for thinking were one and the same sim when one sees the screenshots, whereas even that rain on the windows function was there from day one in FSW, and that's not even something they were touting as impressive.

[AOB 78]

Paul, thank you for responding to my question about VR and the future. I think I am a bit too set in my ways to get into that now but do appreciate your explanation. 

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

5 hours ago, pmanhart said:

IMHO, where DTG is going to go wrong is trying to replace the third party market with in-house development of licensed technology. They simply cannot take the place of an entire third-party market and hope to have FSW be as successful as FS9/FSX/P3D have been.

 

Again, one last time, we purchase and use FSX/P3D as the foundation of our simming experience and build upon it with additional purchased and free addons to suit it to our own individual needs. Not everyone wants a GA simulator with pretty clouds, but if you do, I'm happy that you are happy with what DTG is doing with FSW.

 

Did you just insist that we should never support a sim that gives us higher quality CORE components, than what we are used to paying for? That is so absurd and counterproductive to ever moving forward in this hobby that has been crippled in its growth since ACES shuttered the place.

• They arent trying to replace A2A planes, but they got some modern ones from them, unlike LM who has Carenados from 2009 in their sim.
• They arent trying to replace ORBX, they licensed their ground textures from the, unlike LM who just changed the LC years ago.
• They arent trying to put REX out of business, REX new airport and ground textures are desperately needed, but their clouds, which is their oldest product and handily beaten by TrueSKY are not. 

Stick to all your old vices if you please, but after 17 years of this game of stagnation, I am ready for the next generation and hope all of our old devs embrace truly new technology beyond just 64 bit. 

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

4 hours ago, pracines said:

DTG had a wish list topic packed with tens of thousands of requests several years ago and they have implemented so little of that list. There is 64 bit, a full world, and what? Missions? In plane avatars? Cold and Dark starts? That road map has not included any thing really new or exciting except the (I think) false perception that "we" are in control of the development some way.

Missions, In plane avatars, and Cold and Dark starts. Remind me, with all of those useful things, why doesnt LM have any of them in P3D? 

Now, without using the word "addon", please tell me what things FSW doesn't have that P3D does, even in early access.

Its laughable and I look forward to your response. 

 

p.s. Mods, sorry for the two separate posts, multiquote was broken.