Interesting topic.... the comments are even more interesting

[scotchegg 4,158]

I'm wondering how many times we're going to have this conversation over the next couple of years.

[HiFlyer 9,333]

53 minutes ago, skelsey said:

In any event, MSFS has had missions, adventures, challenges, lessons and rewards for completion (in the form of 'licences', badges etc) since at least FSW95, so what's the new concept? 

Well.... Those missions, adventures, challenges, lessons, rewards for completion etc, are attached to sims that barely pass muster graphically or in ease of use and reliability in today's market. (this very forum has years of daily pleading for help when experienced users encounter yet another problem that drags the whole endevour to an unsatisfying halt, and modern audiences aren't going to put up with that for long, nor should they) 

The "new" concept (kind of) is updating a civilian sim to a reasonably modern state of presentation, while not making the currently extant error of ignoring the needs/interests of the more casual users (the much maligned gamers) who need to buy into new offerings like FSW in enough numbers to actually make it profitable, and who will likely have little interest in making a sandwich while autopilot takes a few hours to take them from point "A" to point "B"

Its gotten to where things like P3D don't even bother with really basic lessons (not their market) to give newbies a leg up, and X-plane is little better: The experienced users have gone beyond that, and the enthusiast market often shows scant patience for those whose hearts desire is to fly a plane, but not necessarily to reach current community levels of expertise. (Go play GTA)

It's no coincidence that all new offerings, From FSW to AF, to Ready for take off, to Aerosoft's upcoming new sim, go back to the type of basics that were excoriated in MSFLIGHT, but are pretty much the only way to break into a mainstream profit Stream that makes the effort of creating a new civilian sim financially worthwhile.

A profit stream that's realistically probably the only thing that can actually make the rest of what the enthusiasts want to see ever actually financially feasible!

So........

As Rob Ainscough kind of mentioned in another thread, which do we want? exclusivity? Or growth?

[skelsey 765]

26 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

The "new" concept (kind of) is updating a civilian sim to a reasonably modern state of presentation, while not making the currently extant error of ignoring the needs/interests of the more casual users (the much maligned gamers) who need to buy into new offerings like FSW in enough numbers to actually make it profitable, and who will likely have little interest in making a sandwich while autopilot takes a few hours to take them from point "A" to point "B"

Its gotten to where things like P3D don't even bother with really basic lessons (not their market) to give newbies a leg up, and X-plane is little better: The experienced users have gone beyond that, and the enthusiast market often shows scant patience for those whose hearts desire is to fly a plane, but not necessarily to reach current community levels of expertise. (Go play GTA)

It's no coincidence that all new offerings, From FSW to AF, to Ready for take off, to Aerosoft's upcoming new sim, go back to the type of basics that were excoriated in MSFLIGHT

Oh sure. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that a new platform is a good thing, nor that it should cater for the casual user. Where I was confused was that the post I quoted came across to me as though MSFS had never had that, which is not the case.

However, I now understand. Thanks!

[G-RFRY 1,705]

Another lets bash DTG Thread they pop up all over the guys on youtube on approach channel said something about XPlane and the were bombarded with abuse by the word not allowed . 

[torium 207]

Earlier in this thread I asked a question:  "What should be included in the core sim?"

I discovered a similar question on Steam forum, where a user named Hartman suggests the following, quote:

Quote

There have been some complaints regarding the core sim vs. DLC.

I think we all want the individual's wishes and needs to be included in FSW. But that is not realistic. And Dovetail has emphasized that it will not happen, quote: "Some of these will be free, some of these will be optional. For example there will be free core updates to the simulation engine, then there will be paid updates which might only appeal to people who like a certain type of aviation."

What do you think are important features that should be included in their core sim?

My immediate wishes:

Smooth framerate.
Improved graphics (PBR, HDR, atmospheric light scattering, improved landclass, etc.).
Updated terrain and airport data.
Powerful weather engine (trueSKY technology) and Real Weather.
Decent flight planner /Flight generator /kneeboard flight briefing /go to Wayp./Appr./TOC/TOD.
GPS (Garmin, etc.).
Updated ATC.
Decent AI.
Cockpit Sharing.
Multiplayer.
Cold & Dark + Checklists (2nd pilot reads the checklists with voice).
Airports with animated jetways and ground services. Sloped runways.
Advanced Animations (wing flex, damage models, etc.).
Mission.
Powerful SimConnect API (no need for FSUIPC, etc.).
Free powerful SDK.
+
An ingame map (see flight planner data + nav log available in filght).

I can give my support to these good suggestions.

[A32xx 129]

2 hours ago, skelsey said:

In any event, MSFS has had missions, adventures, challenges, lessons and rewards for completion (in the form of 'licences', badges etc) since at least FSW95, so what's the new concept? 

The most recent MSFS is now 11 years old, which makes it older than than a lot of today's gamers. They couldn't care less for ancient history like MSFS, it doesn't have the 'Retro Cool' of Pacman or Super Mario. A modern game needs to pitched towards modern gamers AND modern developers, meeting the expectations of both, us old-timers won't be around forever.

[SamYeager 244]

16 hours ago, snglecoil said:

If all it does is produce a decent, accessible, and mostly enjoyable sim that ultimately doesn't really move flight simulation technology forward

So what in your opinion would move flight simulation technology forward? Please note that I'm not just talking about FSW here.

[theohall65 64]

44 minutes ago, torium said:

My immediate wishes:

Smooth framerate.
Improved graphics (PBR, HDR, atmospheric light scattering, improved landclass, etc.).
Updated terrain and airport data.
Powerful weather engine (trueSKY technology) and Real Weather.
Decent flight planner /Flight generator /kneeboard flight briefing /go to Wayp./Appr./TOC/TOD.
GPS (Garmin, etc.).
Updated ATC.
Decent AI.
Cockpit Sharing.
Multiplayer.
Cold & Dark + Checklists (2nd pilot reads the checklists with voice).
Airports with animated jetways and ground services. Sloped runways.
Advanced Animations (wing flex, damage models, etc.).
Mission.
Powerful SimConnect API (no need for FSUIPC, etc.).
Free powerful SDK.
+
An ingame map (see flight planner data + nav log available in filght).

In other words, a whole slew of things, almost all of which are actively being incorporated or have been listed on DTG's roadmap to incorporate.

This is where I get annoyed with folks complaining about the 3rd party stuff when someone picks one or two DLCs to bash, which I'm not buying because they add nothing from my perspective, and bashes DTG whose only involvement is giving that 3rd party early access to the SDK - which helps develop the SDK.  What's wrong with that?  

Haters going to hate while ignoring basic facts.

[torium 207]

16 minutes ago, theohall65 said:

In other words, a whole slew of things, almost all of which are actively being incorporated or have been listed on DTG's roadmap to incorporate.

This is where I get annoyed with folks complaining about the 3rd party stuff when someone picks one or two DLCs to bash, which I'm not buying because they add nothing from my perspective, and bashes DTG whose only involvement is giving that 3rd party early access to the SDK - which helps develop the SDK.  What's wrong with that?  

Haters going to hate while ignoring basic facts.

Agree. I still do not understand all the complaints about DLC we do not need to buy.
Some people are afraid that FSW has already been fully developed - despite Dovetail has repeatedly refuted this, quote:

Quote

• We know it will take years to build up this new platform and the infrastructure around it to match the current landscape of flight simulation. 
• We have some really big plans of what we would like to see in there both at the day of launch and five years from now. 
• We will be continuing to develop it and add new features for many years to come.

 

[vortex681 806]

Whilst it does just seems to be repeating what has already been repeated many, many times in numerous posts and in different forums, FSW is early access - it's not even in beta yet! You've only got to look at some other early access titles to see that they're often virtually unplayable, which is certainly not the case with FSW. You chose to buy it (or even got it free) knowing that it was at a very early stage of development without a target completion date - no one forced you to spend your money. There were no promises of particular features, just an aspiration by DTG for it to become a flight sim that people would want to buy when it was complete. There are many expectations here based on experiences with other sims which have taken many years to reach their current state and which initially had very few of the features which are being demanded from FSW from the outset. Apart from some missions, none of the DLC for FSW has been produced by DTG - it's been produced by 3rd party developers dipping their toes into the waters of what looks, to them, as if it may be a promising new product. Again, you don't have to buy it and FSW runs just fine without it.

As has already been pointed out, when FSW was first announced there were many comments about 3rd party add-ons and how FSW would be dead in the water without them. Now they're starting to appear people are complaining that they should either not be produced at this early stage or that they should be part of the core sim. No one seemed to make the same complaints about X-Plane or P3D. In those sims, 3rd party add-ons are seen as enhancements. Where are all of the cries of "Active Sky/PMDG/A2A/REX etc. should be part of the core sim!". There are none because not everyone wants the same thing and add-ons give you options which you can choose to have, or not. How many of you have installed a flight sim and never added anything to it? There are probably some who are happy with default aircraft, textures and so on but I would imagine that they're very few and far between - and they probably don't realise just how much better the experience could be by adding things to it (and I'm including freeware here). Those who are complaining that even FSX has airliners, helicopters and classic aircraft (to name but a few things) out-of-the-box forget the fact that they are really basic and, although they look different, fly nothing like the real thing and are just there to make the sim look more diverse.

Personally, I'm hoping for a really good base to which I can add my own choice of advanced aircraft and features. When FSW reaches it's release version, I can't imagine that new customers will want to pay an inflated price for the privilege of having many payware quality, default features they may never use. For example, I've never flown heavy metal in any flight sim and have no desire to do so, so filling them full of study-sim quality airliners would just be a waste to me. I want realistic weather (already well on the way), good global textures, good ATC, good AI, convincing night flying/lighting and shadows where they should be in a well-optimised sim which uses my hardware effectively rather than stretching it to breaking point (or beyond, in some cases) and I'll be happy. Adding what you want to the sim is part of the fun and makes it a much more personalised experience.

I'm the first to admit that DTG still has a long way to go, but I have other sims which I can use until they get there (which I hope they will). Like everyone else who downloaded FSW, I knew exactly what I was letting myself in for and I'm happy to be patient - at least for the foreseeable future.

[JSilva 42]

1 hour ago, theohall65 said:

In other words, a whole slew of things, almost all of which are actively being incorporated or have been listed on DTG's roadmap to incorporate.

This is where I get annoyed with folks complaining about the 3rd party stuff when someone picks one or two DLCs to bash, which I'm not buying because they add nothing from my perspective, and bashes DTG whose only involvement is giving that 3rd party early access to the SDK - which helps develop the SDK.  What's wrong with that?  

Haters going to hate while ignoring basic facts.

I agree with this. I'm already sick and tired of hearing the complaints for that reason. Even if the DLC was bad, Steam has a good refund policy, if you don't like the addon, it's not like you'd lose anything (except maybe for time). Lets not forget that DTG's team is not as big as, say, P3D, along with not as high of a budget, so they couldn't implement features that quick. We're talking about months, the things they plan to do in their roadmap, stuff like Dynamic and Real Weather, PBR on terrain, Dynamic Lights, and even jets, takes months, not days. It took two months for TrueSky to be implemented after early access, and the SDK is planned to be released to the public near the end of this year). Also, most of the DLC aren't even by DTG to begin with, making most of the complaints stupid and pointless. I feel like they actually want DTG to fail (I've seen comments like stop focusing on the SDK (TPDs are why flight simulators are kept alive), or pull the plug like FSc (the same lessons and aircraft in FSc are also in FSW, so by technicality they're sort of merged)), so they're looking for something to bash about, even contradicting themselves (or getting facts wrong), to prove their so called point. And about that 100 users using FSW, this is Early Access, right? Aerofly FS2, another Flight Sim in early access, has 40 users using it, and even have DLC (payware too), so why do they get a free pass? I've never seen anyone say the same thing to Aerofly (I don't have anything against Aerofly, just making an example of how ridiculous the basis of the argument is). I'm not saying this to excuse everything DTG does, they do have a long way to go, but stupid complaints like this is giving me a headache due to how nonsensical this is, and they seem to forget other factors too.

[FlyBaby 659]

23 hours ago, pracines said:

You don't owe me anything either, but I got your attention and time....it was easy too. 

Seems like I got yours as well...

[G-RFRY 1,705]

 

deleted.

[DTG_Cryss 244]

28 minutes ago, JSilva said:

Even if the DLC was bad, Steam has a good refund policy, if you don't like the addon, it's not like you'd lose anything (except maybe for time). Lets not forget that DTG's team is not as big as, say, P3D, along with not as high of a budget, so they couldn't implement features that quick. We're talking about months, the things they plan to do in their roadmap, stuff like Dynamic and Real Weather, PBR on terrain, Dynamic Lights, and even jets, takes months, not days. It took two months for TrueSky to be implemented after early access, and the SDK is planned to be released to the public near the end of this year).

2

Implementing larger features certainly does take time, especially when you're working in an environment where your team is highly specialized in certain areas. trueSKY was something we were looking into well before launch, though I'm excited when I look at some of the things we have planned for the future. 

[skelsey 765]

2 hours ago, A32xx said:

The most recent MSFS is now 11 years old, which makes it older than than a lot of today's gamers. They couldn't care less for ancient history like MSFS, it doesn't have the 'Retro Cool' of Pacman or Super Mario. A modern game needs to pitched towards modern gamers AND modern developers, meeting the expectations of both, us old-timers won't be around forever.

Of course. 

As I said - I misunderstood the earlier post.

Yes, we need a new modern sim and yes, I 100% agree with you, it needs to have things like missions etc and meet the expectations of casual users/gamers. But the concept of including missions, rewards, adventures etc in any such new sim is not in any way an innovation, which is what I incorrectly thought the earlier post was trying to suggest.