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

[ca_metal 2,021]

2 hours ago, JSilva said:

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).

I'm not sure if P3D team is that large nor if they have a large budget to work on. Sure Lockheed Martin is Huge, but I'm not sure about P3D's team size and budget. If you look P3D development, they have a really slow development. If I remember right, It took 6 years to get where it is right now.

[JSilva 42]

55 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

I'm not sure if P3D team is that large nor if they have a large budget to work on. Sure Lockheed Martin is Huge, but I'm not sure about P3D's team size and budget. If you look P3D development, they have a really slow development. If I remember right, It took 6 years to get where it is right now.

I should've phrased this part better, and I apologize for this. What I meant was DTG isn't as big as LM. While it's true that P3D isn't progressing any faster than DTG, it's still unrealistic to expect major improvements to come in days, they're mostly in months, given the size of DTG's team. While I'm not sure myself of P3D's team or budget, I was under the impression that it's bigger because LM is a large company. Once again, sorry for the confusion.

[WotanUK 289]

A good discussion on a very interesting topic.  On balance i don't think that FSW needs to become a version of P3Dv4, i think it needs to forge its own path.  I think it could do very well to follow the lead of Euro Truck, give us something to do and some structure.  Combine something like Air Hauler into the core package.  Personally, and i can only speak for me, this might tempt me to reinstall the sim far more so than a new ORBX airport or scenery area.

On the other hand, have any of you seen this sim:

http://deadsticksimulator.com/

Seems to actually be the Euro truck of flight; if / when it eventually gets released.

Also i am curious why DCS doesn't appear much in this discussion, it's free, it's pretty good out of the box and you get to shoot things.

[Boomer 1,619]

DCSW is an excellent combat some platform. As is Falcon BMS.  Why are they not being discussed?   Noone has the stones to fight?  ....heh..runs..errr. .flies away laughing

[pracines 823]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:25 PM, A32xx said:

It's becoming clearer to me that jets are for morons who've never attempted to create an add-on of their own and have no understanding of the processes involved. "Work on the core sim instead of the SDK" - seriously? Don't these idiots realise that the SDK is a result of core sim development? Let them play with their little jets somewhere else, I don't want them dumbing up my sim of choice.

Nothing wrong with GA - Nothing wrong with Airliners - Nothing to do with intelligence!  

[pracines 823]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:39 PM, WotanUK said:

Actually Paul, i think that this is a good move by DTG, i think that one of the most important missing features was the SDK.  DTG can't possibly develop everything that the simming or causal community want, this will allow them to 'outsource' the development of some of the requested things.

The risk to the FSW user is, ironically, exactly the same as the positive aspect; that FSW can outsource the development and sit back making only very minor changes.  I would argue that this was the exact strategy employed with Train Sim, up until Train Sim World.

I agree the SDK is very important. The process that DTG is doing for the development of FSW is a great idea and it could work great.

This potential problem is, when the SDK comes out, so much focus will be drawn to add-on development/outside developers while the core still needs the basics ( i.e. AI at an international airport environment). If people are going to switch from FSX-SE they will need to have a good reason to do so. To switch to FSW and buy a bunch of add-ons to have what they already enjoy in FSX has not happened yet and it will not happen if the SDK/add-on development over shadows the core development.

Now I never said that the core of FSW is not going to be further developed. I am saying that TSW is a train simulator that is extremely limited compared to MS TS and this business practice cannot be allowed to be spilled over to the flight sim market as an acceptable practice. We cannot accept getting so much less for about the same amount of money. Train simmers allowed it and they are suffering great loss for it. TSW is not really doing all that great, with about 120 players a day, one has to wonder if that franchise will succeed. Well, its more likely to hang on because there is not many widely known train sims out there....the flight sim market has many choices... even FS9 is still in the mix. 

So this risk to flight simmers you speak of is something that flight simmers cannot tolerate - thankfully so far they have not. This is why I implore Steven Hood to realize this and make sure this TSW business model is not attempted in the flight sim market, for this would doom FSW....I do not want FSW to be doomed.   

[pracines 823]

22 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I think it has worked far beyond their expectations as far as publicity is concerned.

Just let em go guys ... They will either succeed or self destruct all by their own selfs.

Nothing to lose here and everything to gain. Lets quit the bitchin and enjoy what we have, knowing that in twelve months, all will have changed anyway.

Regards to all

Tony

Hi Tony,

Publicity does not matter in the FSW case, the FSW stats make this clear. Free copies of FSW, free shirts, free hats; none of these have helped FSW. Something (core-features) for everybody is what will help FSW.  

FSW is in early access, so we voice our concerns now while DTG is wanting feedback, makes perfect sense to me.

Negative feedback is just as important as positive feedback....feedback is feedback, that's what DTG wants, simple concept. 

[vortex681 806]

4 hours ago, pracines said:

this business practice cannot be allowed to be spilled over to the flight sim market as an acceptable practice.

Why? Are you a shareholder in DTG? They can do whatever they like and the only thing we can do about it is to not buy their products.

4 hours ago, pracines said:

So this risk to flight simmers you speak of is something that flight simmers cannot tolerate - thankfully so far they have not.

There is no risk to flight simmers. We won't be the least bit endangered by whatever DTG do or don't do. We might be disappointed or excited but we're definitely not at any risk. Nor is the flight sim genre. The only risk is for DTG. People are getting much too emotive about what is, essentially, just a game. DTG have the fate of FSW entirely in their own hands. If they want it to be a commercial success they need to make something which is at least as good out-of-the-box as what the other flight sims have to offer (preferably better) and with some really original features to attract established enthusiasts. They know that and, so far, they seem to be on the right track. If they don't succeed, we won't all be sat staring at blank screens and bemoaning the end of the flight sim as we know it. We'll just go back to using FSX or P3D or X-Plane, dreaming wistfully about what might have been, and DTG will realise that they've missed a great opportunity. I'm hopeful that this won't be the case. They've done a lot in a short space of time and I suspect/hope the best is yet to come. I think we should stop making demands and let them show us what they can do.

[Boomer 1,619]

LOL."go back" to using P3D...many of us never left it and I've seen nothing in fsw now or in future plans published to imagine otherwise.

[pracines 823]

32 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

There is no risk to flight simmers. We won't be the least bit endangered by whatever DTG do or don't do. We might be disappointed or excited but we're definitely not at any risk.

A little yeast goes a long way, and tiny cancer cell spreads and destroys.

The death of MS Flight, DTG Flight School, and several others should be enough to convince developers that backwards thinking or these new gaming marketing strategies do not succeed in flight simulation. Yet, they keep trying the same cancer on this community. Eventually it will catch on because people won't see it coming, Just like what was tolerated with TS, and now look at them, a new 2017 train sim with 1 small route and that is all, the rest is DLC. The same will happen to flight sims and eventually we will have a choice between a "MS Flight style" (low on features) sim for $10-20 and pay $10,000 in DLC for what we have had available in FSX. Or maybe pay a few hundred dollars for an X-Plane/P3D academic that still needs lots of DLC to add the realism we have been accustom to the last decade.  

Yes, we communicate with our wallets, but this DTG situation is unprecedented in that users are invited to be a part of the actual development; a very welcome gesture on the part of DTG. If the development of FSW ends with True Sky or rain effects as the most major feature, we would have missed an opportunity, as a community, to take advantage of this situation for everybody's benefit, including DTG's. I would call this a potential risk, because of the great potential loss and because I think Steven Hood truly want's FSW to be the go to simulator.

So if one truly cares about flight simulation long term, there is a risk in just being satisfied with whatever is presented....quality will quantity will decrease for an even higher price.

 

[Boomer 1,619]

Well done, Paul.

Because the legitimate concerns many have, as evidenced on the steam reviews, is DTGs fetish for dlc.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, Boomer said:

LOL."go back" to using P3D...many of us never left it and I've seen nothing in fsw now or in future plans published to imagine otherwise.

You haven't been looking very hard then if you haven't seen anything which could potentially blow P3D out of the sky in FSW. The inclusion of trueSky and the possibility that it could be linked to real time weather downloading, presents the possibility of being very much more than the mere eye candy some people seem to think it is. The inclusion of physical clouds and air masses in the 3D flight sim environment, whereby their position and type directly affects how your aeroplane is flying and what conditions it is experiencing from moment to moment would mean a vast leap in the realism of how flight is simulated. To anyone who appreciates that an aeroplane is acted upon by the atmospheric condition it is in right at that moment, this is a very big deal, and so it should be if we really want a flight simulator and not just an eye candy simulator.

In all other flight sims, realistic depiction of atmospheric effects on your aeroplane at locations exactly related to the location of what you can see is not what happens at all, not even close; the clouds are eye candy which are loaded into the overall sky based on a snapshot of the METAR for the entire area your simulated aeroplane is in. Yes it looks like the METAR would, but the atmospheric effects the sim enacts on your aeroplane are from a look up table of that METAR snapshot, they are not directly related to the location of the clouds and air mass movement, nor the behaviour exactly where your aeroplane is at that moment. It might look like a real sky, but it sure as sh*t don't act like one. You will never experience a downdraft exactly on the edge of a CB cloud in FSX or P3D or XPlane so long as that is the system in use, nor a violent updraft exactly underneath of that cloud or upwind of it and inside it. But this is what really happens in the sky and it's what trueSky can depict because of the 3D positional data of the atmosphere it generates. 

So if DTG gets trueSky implementation right, having its 3D generated visuals allied to METAR downloads, it will literally be the best simulation of a flight environment we can have. We will actually have a reason to divert for weather, to steer around big towering Charlie Bravos in our airliner, cos if we don't, it will ice us up and shake us all over the place and have hailstones potentially smashing our radome and cracking our windshield exactly in the place in the sky where that would really occur. And we'll know exactly where all that stuff is, because we'll either see it, or being a genuine three dimensional presence in the simulation, our weather radar will actually be able to detect it at long range and pinpoint such atmospheric conditions correctly. 

This is a really big deal and is why when DTG say they want to move us on in terms of simulation, they really have the potential to actually do that. If I was a REX or HiFi Simulations developer, I'd be all over that potential like a cheap suit and begging them to get involved in it, because it could make every other flight sim weather program look like a joke.

 

 

[A32xx 129]

Very well said Alan, and I would add that no other flightsim developer has introduced PBR effects either, which is another first for DTG in the very short time that FSW has been available for public evaluation. What other flightsim developer, in all the time they've had to do so, has been as innovative as DTG? Most of them struggle to include all the features and stability of FS2004, never mind improve on them. If DTG and their development partners need DLC to fund their further development costs, so be it - and anyone who can't understand that and thinks it's all a conspiracy should simply be ignored. My theory is that the DLC released so far is as much for SDK development and market research purposes as anything else.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

24 minutes ago, A32xx said:

Very well said Alan, and I would add that no other flightsim developer has introduced PBR effects either,

X-Plane......

[mattyshigh 3]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

You haven't been looking very hard then if you haven't seen anything which could potentially blow P3D out of the sky in FSW. The inclusion of trueSky and the possibility that it could be linked to real time weather downloading, presents the possibility of being very much more than the mere eye candy some people seem to think it is.

The addition of trueSky was a very welcome move by DTG, no question about that. However they did not develop this technology. It was simply licensed and integrated into the sim. This means that any other simulator including P3D can implement this tech if it proves to be popular thus removing this as a USP from Flight Sim World.

Having said this they have now set a benchmark for weather simulation and textures which all other simulators now have to follow. Thank you DTG!  That's the great thing about having competition in the marketplace.