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

[A32xx 129]

20 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

I've downloaded AirEd. Where would you find those tables within the .air file?

Sorry I'm at w*rk so can't check myself, but if you look at the title of each entry labelled Table for the words lift, drag, stall or something like AoA (Angle of Attack), you should find them.

[bonchie 2,305]

15 hours ago, switch686 said:

What is this P3D we are talking about? Also tweakable in FSW...In the .cfg file while in early access...

You are confusing LOD with draw distance of autogen. 

The autogen radius in FSW is the same as FSX, i.e. very small and it is hard coded until they change it. 

[bonchie 2,305]

14 hours ago, Chock said:

Personally, I don't mind the draw distance in FSW, the reality is that most of the time when you are flying an aeroplane for real, you lose stuff in the slant range of the haze out at about the range which is depicted in the sim. Having well defined autogen buildings depicted out to the horizon is just not what you see in reality.

It bugs the hell out of me. Trust me, in real life you can see depth of buildings and trees further than the 7km ring of FSX/FSW (and previously P3D). 

It's especially annoying to me in urban areas, where the draw distance line is very noticeable. 

I'm betting FSW will correct this as it's a big eye sore and they seem to have a focus on fixing that kind of stuff. Just go watch Froogle's video linked earlier in the thread where he's on approach into KLAX to see what I'm talking about. 

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, A32xx said:

Sorry I'm at w*rk so can't check myself, but if you look at the title of each entry labelled Table for the words lift, drag, stall or something like AoA (Angle of Attack), you should find them.

It may be that I'm just not familiar with the app but I can't find any of those terms for any of the table entries (lots of "unknown", though).

[A32xx 129]

16 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

It may be that I'm just not familiar with the app but I can't find any of those terms for any of the table entries (lots of "unknown", though).

Sorry about that vortex681, I was away from my Sim PC and couldn't remember the exact names - and I usually use AirWrench these days rather than AirEd. I've had a look just now though, and compared the default FSW PA28 .air file with the FSX PA28 .air file. Entries TBLDB 400 to TBLDB 473 are near identical in every way, from the number of entries, the entry names and even the table profiles. I don't see where there are two tables for any parameter in the FSW PA28 .air file, maybe AAM would show it better but at this stage I doubt it.

[vortex681 806]

3 minutes ago, A32xx said:

... compared the default FSW PA28 .air file with the FSX PA28 .air file. Entries TBLDB 400 to TBLDB 473 are near identical in every way, from the number of entries, the entry names and even the table profiles. I don't see where there are two tables for any parameter in the FSW PA28 .air file, maybe AAM would show it better but at this stage I doubt it.

Thanks for that. It'll be interesting to hear from DreadMetis (see earlier post) to find out where he got his information.

[Murmur 3,941]

2 hours ago, A32xx said:

I've had a look just now though, and compared the default FSW PA28 .air file with the FSX PA28 .air file. Entries TBLDB 400 to TBLDB 473 are near identical in every way, from the number of entries, the entry names and even the table profiles. I don't see where there are two tables for any parameter in the FSW PA28 .air file, maybe AAM would show it better but at this stage I doubt it.

Actually, it wouldn't be necessary to have two separate tables, even if the FSW flight model internally makes two separate calculations for the left and the right wing. Infact, if the two half-wings are symmetrical, just one table would be enough. It would be the internal calculations of the flight model (angle of attack for each half wing, etc.) that would take into account the differences between the left and right wing.

In any case, I'm curious to hear more from DreadMetis as well.

 

[pracines 823]

9 hours ago, Rimshot said:

You're kidding right? Nothing wrong with having doubts about the further development of FSW, but this statement is utter bollocks to me 

Edit; on second thought, I figure you mean the greater diversity in default aircraft?

I mean expecting more (immersive and realistic) features than FSX has in an initial offering. I realize its a work in progress, but to cut way back on such basic features, for example like cold and dark and then add it as an added feature is less than impressive to me. Cold and dark has been around since FS3.  

[pracines 823]

9 hours ago, Chock said:

DTG may not have had an plan to cancel Flight School after a certain period, but it's fairly obvious to me that Flight School was a (comparitively quick) R&D test run at making a 64 bit version from the ESP base sim platform. I don't think we'll ever see DTG admit that is what it was, but I remain convinced that was its main purpose. So, a bit like when PMDG made their DC-6 for XPlane, being primarily a stab at making something for that sim to see what could be done with it, but in doing so, also making a few quid off it along the way.

whatever it was, Flight School was a total failure and FSW is currently failing to captivate the masses. FSW will become a success when or if it exceeds the features of FSX-SE. It will become a "go to" sim when it exceeds the features of FS9,FSX,P3D,XP and AF2; I wonder if that will ever be possible at this rate.

I understand your PMDG analogy, but I disagree; putting PMDG even in the same galaxy with DTG is way off.

[scotchegg 4,166]

8 minutes ago, pracines said:

whatever it was, Flight School was a total failure and FSW is currently failing to captivate the masses. FSW will become a success when or if it exceeds the features of FSX-SE. It will become a "go to" sim when it exceeds the features of FS9,FSX,P3D,XP and AF2; I wonder if that will ever be possible at this rate.

To make such bold statements about success and failure you would need to know what DTG's goals for Flight School were and what their internal KPIs for FSW are in its current state, which I don't think any of us outside DTG know. 

I seriously doubt "captivate the masses by month three of early access" is one of their goals.

[switch686 50]

 

1 hour ago, pracines said:

I mean expecting more (immersive and realistic) features than FSX has in an initial offering. I realize its a work in progress, but to cut way back on such basic features, for example like cold and dark and then add it as an added feature is less than impressive to me. Cold and dark has been around since FS3.  

I'm confused. Been simming for a long time and don't ever remember cold and dark in FSX as a core feature. Can You enlighten me?

Didn't you have to shut the engines down and save a default flight?

Are you sure Cold and Dark was core? I missed that somehow...

[in2tech 588]

16 minutes ago, switch686 said:

 

I'm confused. Been simming for a long time and don't ever remember cold and dark in FSX as a core feature. Can You enlighten me?

Didn't you have to shut the engines down and save a default flight?

Are you sure Cold and Dark was core? I missed that somehow...

I am pretty sure that's what he means. Turning everything off and then back on. Only he knows, what he meant. But I think what he really  mean's is the PMDG aircraft, but I am not sure.

He just does not, nor will probably ever like FSW. Can't you tell that by all his post! He hates FSW, please stop try to convince him otherwise! Your in a no win situation replying to his post. He will fight you until his last breath!

[fs4fun 366]

37 minutes ago, switch686 said:

Didn't you have to shut the engines down and save a default flight?

Are you sure Cold and Dark was core? I missed that somehow...

Exactly. C&D in FSX (and also P3D I assume) is a total hack job. DTG appears to have done it properly.

Saving a C172 (or whichever aircraft) FLT file in shutdown state will not necessarily initialize variables properly in just any aircraft that you try to load. A proper C&D feature presented in the GUI would go and load predefined state vars including any custom Lvars for the particular aircraft. That's why each third party aircraft dev needs to roll their own implementation of C&D for FSX/P3D. What DTG has provided is a built-in framework that will allow C&D to work the same for all aircraft.

The checklists are another really nice new feature with lots of potential for extension.

[Chock 17,769]

30 minutes ago, pracines said:

whatever it was, Flight School was a total failure and FSW is currently failing to captivate the masses. FSW will become a success when or if it exceeds the features of FSX-SE. It will become a "go to" sim when it exceeds the features of FS9,FSX,P3D,XP and AF2; I wonder if that will ever be possible at this rate.

I understand your PMDG analogy, but I disagree; putting PMDG even in the same galaxy with DTG is way off.

It should be obvious that Flight School was primarily a test run for DTG, sales will have been a secondary goal. If anyone imagines it was a failure, they have failed to understand that rather obvious primary purpose.

Why do I know this is the case? Common sense mostly, but a little bit of deduction too. The fact they called it Flight School means it was only ever intended to perform one task, that is, teaching people to fly and not to serve as a sim with any notion of longevity to it, any more than the tutorial lesson PDF manual which comes with an add-on aeroplane is something one will ever read more than once. If the intent was otherwise, they'd not have called it Flight School. In other words, it was a demonstrator program which tested the feasibility of taking an ESP-based sim into 64 bit territory. There is, as I say, no way DTG would admit that was the case, but it is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

A company such as DTG would never waste resources on developing a new simulator which was not intended to surpass FSX-SE and other sims and not be suitable as a base for DLC. Anyone who knows anything about DTG will be aware their success has been built upon two things: creating decent base simulations in genres which are at least the equal or better of any competition, and creating DLC for it in order to have a revenue stream with longevity. It is what they do, it is what they have made work for years in both train and flight simulation, and it is obviously what they are going to do with FSW.

This is in fact another reason why we know that Flight School was never intended to be anything other than a developmental experiment, because nobody was ever going to buy another training aeroplane and keep on doing the lessons in Flight School, but when anyone who bought it got FSW for nothing, that was a smart move, because it put the market for a platform which will have DLC available for it into loads of people's Steam library, and this is before they've even started marketing FSW to anyone.

With regard to FSW surpassing the competition in order to succeed, we can already see the seeds of this even in its early access form. We've got a vastly more capable weather system built in with better snow and precipitation effects and better cloud and lighting effects, a superior training system built into it, better flight modelling than other sims, better default terrain than any other ESP-based sim and a built-in content creation tool, and it's not as if they've even finished yet.

So as far as putting DTG in the same league as decent add-on developers is concerned, absolutely I will, for all of the features I listed above, many of which have demonstrated that they are more than just big talkers, but are actually delivering on their statements concerning a genuine desire to move things along and do some new things. I am not in the business of blowing sunshine up anyone's arse unless they can deliver, and deliver is exactly what DTG appear to be doing with FSW.

[pracines 823]

1 hour ago, switch686 said:

 

I'm confused. Been simming for a long time and don't ever remember cold and dark in FSX as a core feature. Can You enlighten me?

Didn't you have to shut the engines down and save a default flight?

Are you sure Cold and Dark was core? I missed that somehow...

You enlightened yourself- in FSW one cannot even shut engines down and save a default flight, like you can in FS3-P3Dv4. At least MS Flight brought us to where we left off. Cold and dark does not need to be a default situation per se, but to have it added as a feature, and make a big deal out of it, is for folks who have no idea how ancient a concept that is in flight simming. 

But anyway the FSW cold and dark method is nice and the checklists are great.