3 minutes ago, pracines said:

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.

Fun fact is: an ancient concept that was never implemented in the core of any sim.

Come on, man, if you don´t like it you are on your right to do so, but you are being a bit annoying already. Everybody knows FSW lacks a lot of features that existed in FSX. DTG´s guys decided to redo most of the features, we were told they would do that, we are ok with that, as long as they give us improved features, for now they are doing that. 

Another fun fact is you´re talking about flight (I had some fun back there, didn´t hate it, just to be clear) as an improved FSX, one of the most hated sims in the history of this hobby. Maybe one day DTG will be less hated than now.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

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.

If by chance Flight School had 500,000 players a day it would never have been canceled, and no matter what they intended, they would gladly accept awards and credit for a huge success. It failed, its best to just face that fact. It could have been a success if its features exceeded FSX. A vastly more capable weather system is useless when its static. Have you tried using the flight planner to plot a course on lower airways? Look, we could go back and forth all year long, and in a sense we are both correct but, even Froogle recently put out a vid that tries to make the missions so great when they are not any better than FSX or MS Flight missions and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes to make this huge 180 in Froogle's assessment too. 

8 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Fun fact is: an ancient concept that was never implemented in the core of any sim.

Come on, man, if you don´t like it you are on your right to do so, but you are being a bit annoying already. Everybody knows FSW lacks a lot of features that existed in FSX. DTG´s guys decided to redo most of the features, we were told they would do that, we are ok with that, as long as they give us improved features, for now they are doing that. 

Another fun fact is you´re talking about flight (I had some fun back there, didn´t hate it, just to be clear) as an improved FSX, one of the most hated sims in the history of this hobby. Maybe one day DTG will be less hated than now.

For the record, I don't hate you, FSW, or DTG.

10 hours ago, pracines said:

If by chance Flight School had 500,000 players a day it would never have been canceled, and no matter what they intended, they would gladly accept awards and credit for a huge success. It failed, its best to just face that fact. It could have been a success if its features exceeded FSX. A vastly more capable weather system is useless when its static. Have you tried using the flight planner to plot a course on lower airways? Look, we could go back and forth all year long, and in a sense we are both correct but, even Froogle recently put out a vid that tries to make the missions so great when they are not any better than FSX or MS Flight missions and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes to make this huge 180 in Froogle's assessment too. 

Dude, sometimes you are just confuse.. You keep comparing FSW with completed sims (kind of selective comparison by the way.. You just compare what FSW doesn't have) and ignoring statements already made by DTG. Take the Truesky for example..

They already stated that the wheater system will not be static forever. And Truesky is by far the best solution in that matter in a sim. Think on the possibilities. On theirs last live on twitch they even mention eclipses simulation. 

The flight planner will not be VFR forever. Enventually we will have saved flights, live wheater, better ground graphics etc. Just understand that everybody has priorities and mine can be different than yours. And ours can be different from theirs.

To say that a saved game situation (in most cases full of bugs) is just like the C&D feature that we have now is at least lack of any programming knowledge. Or you are really resistant about this sim.

37 minutes ago, etopsbr said:

The flight planner will not be VFR forever. Enventually we will have saved flights, live wheater, better ground graphics etc.

There is no roadmap, so you dont know. You hope.

I hope it will have all bells and whistles. But not sure they will ever do that. Depens on sales I think.

1 minute ago, Johan_Dees said:

There is no roadmap, so you dont know. You hope.

There is an Airliner tailfin icon on the Aircraft Selection screen, greyed-out for now, and the GNS530 shows ILS approaches. DTG have confirmed that Live weather is in the pipeline during the trueSky Twitch webcast. The default scenery is ORBX FTX Global and the vector roads are indeed lower-res at this Early Access stage, but I doubt they'll stay that way in the finished product.

33 minutes ago, Johan_Dees said:

There is no roadmap, so you dont know. You hope.

I hope it will have all bells and whistles. But not sure they will ever do that. Depens on sales I think.

Yes, there is no roadmap but if you want to keep updated I advise to watch their twitch channel. There are good informations there. That's why I mentioned that they already stated a lot of things. 

21 hours ago, pracines said:

If by chance Flight School had 500,000 players a day it would never have been canceled, and no matter what they intended, they would gladly accept awards and credit for a huge success. It failed, its best to just face that fact. It could have been a success if its features exceeded FSX. A vastly more capable weather system is useless when its static. Have you tried using the flight planner to plot a course on lower airways? Look, we could go back and forth all year long, and in a sense we are both correct but, even Froogle recently put out a vid that tries to make the missions so great when they are not any better than FSX or MS Flight missions and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes to make this huge 180 in Froogle's assessment too. 

Flight School was not 'cancelled', it was retired when its features were moved to become part of the more expansive Flight Sim World. As a result, everyone who owned Flight School got FSW for free and lost nothing in the process. Thus FSW includes all of the lessons and features which were part of Flight School, so it ain't 'gone', it's just a part of FSW now, and that was very obviously always the plan since DTG wanted something with legs; i.e. a sim platform which moved on beyond the limited hardware utilisation and 32 bit software limitations of FSX-SE. This to allow them to continue developing and selling DLC which meets modern expectations. This is not guesswork nor speculation from me, here is exactly what DTG said on the matter:

'Our goals with Flight School were twofold: to create an entry level sim for people new to the hobby and to implement technical functionality to build upon in the future. Now, we have expanded our goals for our upcoming simulator, a platform we plan to expand upon and support for years to come. 

We will still retain the ethos of introducing beginners to the hobby, but without compromising on the depth and complexity demanded by more experienced flyers by implementing a much clearer curve to mastery in our upcoming sim. With this in mind, we have made the decision to retire Flight School. The sim and all of your saved data will remain in your Steam library, however it is no longer available for purchase.

As a way of showing our appreciation for your support, we will be gifting a copy of Flight Sim World to everyone who invested in Flight School. We can't wait to welcome you aboard!'

So it's right there in black and white what the goal of Flight School was: 'to implement technical functionality to build upon in the future', which is exactly what has occurred and exactly what I wrote in preceding posts on this thread.

Regarding the weather in FSW, yes, the weather system is currently in an early access state and is at present static, but it isn't going to remain static, that is going to change, DTG have been clear on that too. What we are seeing at the moment, is trueSKY being tested in FSW with some static set ups. But trueSKY is dynamically capable, so it can be linked to pulling data in from a METAR, and Simul, the creators of trueSKY, are working with DTG to make that happen. The good news on that score is, since both DTG and Simul are UK-based companies, located less than 250 miles from one another, collaboration is made even easier, with no language barriers and meetings between the two companies easily accomplished, which is a definite plus point where collaboration is concerned.

Have I tried planning a course on lower airways? Well again the flight planner of FSW is due to be expanded in capability, as indeed are most features of FSW, but as it happens, yes I have plotted a flight plan on low altitude airways, it is easily done with the assistance of a chart and some NOTAMS, this so I'd know about any current prohibited airspace restrictions and where the start and end points of a Victor Airway are located, which is how realistic flight planning should be done anyway and how I'd do it and have done it for real-world flights I've made. It should be obvious that with all the nav aids (VORs, NDBs etc) displayed on the FSW route planner at the moment, it is easily possible even now to plot such a route. You can currently have up to fifty waypoints on a plan, which meant I could even do this (below) with the flight planner, putting route points wherever I liked, and you can see the nav aids are indeed on that map:

If I can do the above, then I'm pretty sure I, or anyone else, can place a waypoint at either end of a Victor Airway without too much trouble. Victor Airways are defined by being a straight line between two VORs or a VOR intersection, and as noted, the flight planner has all the VORs on it, so it is easily possible to fly along a low altitude airway in FSW by simply plotting it. This is why low altitude airways are called Victor Airways, it begins with a V because it uses VORs. If you don't know how to cross reference your location by tuning two VORs to locate an intersection so that you can create a low altitude airway flight route, there is a lesson on the US PPL course in FSW which gets you to do exactly that in the PA-28 Cherokee, which is the same lesson that was in Flight School, you know, the sim which was 'cancelled', but rather obviously wasn't cancelled since you can still do that exact same flying lesson in FSW which was in Flight School by virtue of the fact that Flight School is now part of the expansion of it which is FSW.

As far as Froogle's, whoever the hell he or she is, or any other self-appointed expert's assessment or opinions are concerned, I couldn't give a flying toss what some nerd on youtube says, regardless of whether I happen to share the same opinion or not. It's facts I'm concerned with here in discussing whether FSW has merit or not. Youtube is not a news source. Comments on videos by Froogle or any other person on youtube are not the word of the Pythia Oracle at Delphi, they are one person's opinion on any video they care to post. They may or may not be relevant and may even have some traction with people, but they are no more valid than anyone else's opinion and certainly not able to change facts. Youtube is also full of morons posting conspiracy claptrap videos about the moon landings being fake and airliners spraying chemtrails etc too; are these opinions credible merely for having been on youtube?

So instead of treating someone's youtube opinion as gospel or supposing it points to something other than what is black and white, let's go with the facts; the facts are that the mission editor and its implementation with sharing missions via Steam is, by definition, vastly more capable than the set missions of either FSX or Flight, because a dynamic mission creator offers infinite possibilities for people, at either DTG, or as end users, to create an endless stream of content only limited by their imagination. So it is indeed more capable than what was in FSX or Flight.

I don't demand everyone agrees with me on what I like in comparison to what they like, nor am I expecting everyone to like FSW, they can make their own decisions on what they like or dislike. Nor am I in the business of blowing sunshine up DTG's rear end for no reason, trust me, if I think something they or any other flight sim developer does is garbage, I will say so. But by the same token of honesty, I will cheerfully point out when I think something is impressive and when a developer is making a genuine attempt to be innovative, which is exactly what DTG is doing with FSW at the moment, and that is something to look forward to.

Will FSW be the next 'go to sim'? I don't know, nobody does, and in any case all sims are my 'go to sim', because I buy them all in order to support development of them. Hell, I even bought Aerosoft's Ready For Take Off on the day it was released (probably about the only person on Avsim who did lol), and that was when I knew it was something I'd probably never crank up that often, but I still wanted to support a new sim, so buy it I did. Likewise I bought DCS World even though I'm not really that interested in shooting stuff down in a sim. But in being aware of where pretty much every flight sim, from Condor to AeroFly FS2, is at the moment in terms of what they offer and where they are going, I strongly suspect what DTG are up to at the moment has the developers of other sims taking note.

Because in a few months' time, when we can crank up FSW and have it displaying the exact weather outside our window, or anyone else's window for that matter, at that exact moment, then have it dynamically changing as the weather changes, and all this depicted using trueSKY's incredibly realistic clouds and lighting and very realistic precipitation and snowfall effects, that's going to make the default weather in any other flight sim look like a complete pile of. And that's not speculation, that is definitely what is coming, so if I was the developer of a rival sim, I'd be pretty worried about what that would make my sim look like in comparison. If nothing else, and whether one likes FSW or not, that's definitely going to give other developers a boot up the arse to make them start pushing the envelope too.

As good old Bob Dylan says, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

1 hour ago, etopsbr said:

Yes, there is no roadmap but if you want to keep updated I advise to watch their twitch channel. There are good informations there. That's why I mentioned that they already stated a lot of things. 

I will take a look. Thanks.

I still don't get why these conversations happen. Why can't people just enjoy and support the sim of their choice, and be nice to one another? I mean why try to get the people that hate a sim to like it, and a person who likes a sim to hate it. What's the point? No one is going to change their mind one way or the other. Let the people try all sim's that they want too and decide for themselves.

Wow...lots of time/effort spent over this thread. My "useless for anyone else" opinion is that the OP video is spot on.  DTG is playing out the perfect "Field of Dreams" scenario:  Build it and they will come.  You all just wait and see.  As for me, 95% FSX: still working at depreciating (read: getting tired of) that huge investment.  If it wasn't for the DX10 Fixer cloud shadows mod things would be different.

9 hours ago, Johan_Dees said:

There is no roadmap, so you dont know. You hope.

Even if there was a public roadmap that would not change.

All we really have to go on is that so far DTG is looking like they are serious about this and have been doing a pretty good job, which I think is also the main point of the OP's video.

I guess what really matters in the end is that Dovetail appear to be doing a decent job of the thing regardless of what any of us say about it, either positive or negative.

Skeptics can be skeptical, optimists can be optimistic and those of a bipartisan nature can wait to see what happens. In the meantime, we have quite a few other flight sims to play with if messing about with FSW whilst it is not yet finished is not what one cares for. Recall - not actually that long ago - when we were all to a man (and woman) united in depression at the news of MS bailing on Flight Sim development. What a contrast it is to now be in the position to choose between four or five decent civil aviation flight sims these days. Really, we should be very happy indeed, even if our wallets might be feeling the strain.

Incidentally, I understand the next update which is coming to FSW has some further tweaks to trueSKY, so that will be interesting to see.

I am getting a lot of reputation thing's lately on my post's. Whatever that is, once again old fart :) Give me a hallelujah or a +1 if I am right and it is the younger generation, or I guess just people that agree about the stop fighting and being mean to people stuff, and let's enjoy our sim's and respect one another. I guess that's why! I have no idea why I am all of a sudden getting them none stop?

Now, me has to do research on the.... inter web, about what a reputation thing is :) For all I know they are telling me to go to he.. double hockey sticks!

Old man talk, give me five, on the back side, ...sorry 1970's flash back :)

21 minutes ago, Learjet777 said:

Now, me has to do research on the.... inter web, about what a reputation thing is :) For all I know they are telling me to go to he.. double hockey sticks!

LOL, I think it's just a "Like" in Facebook parlance, but they accumulate. To what end I don't know, I doubt we'll be able to trade in "reputation" for a slice of pizza or a pint. It's just a "feel-good" thing I suppose.