Some day you may get a flight simulator with everything you wish for included that's the day when third party developer`s are no longer needed and out of a job, they could go to truck simulator though over 4 million copies and climbing.

9 hours ago, pracines said:

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

If FSW was the only sim available, then I'd agree with you. But it's not, so it has to compete against other, well-established sims and it needs to be good to do so. DLC (or 3rd party add-ons) is nothing new. It's not as though DTG have somehow invented a new way to separate us from our money. More to the point, the very concept of 3rd party development means that, in the main, DTG won't be responsible for it. If the base sim isn't good, no one will want to sink their resources into developing for it - this alone should be sufficient incentive for DTG to get it right.

1 hour ago, mattyshigh said:

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

But the difficulty for the other sims is that this would probably take considerable re-writing of the base code to retro fit it. As we've seen already, trueSky changes not only the weather but also many aspects of the environment such as lighting and colours. Having just made major changes to their code to move to 64bit, I'd be very surprised if LM would want to do that again to incorporate trueSky (and at what cost to customers?). More to the point, because their primary focus is commercial aviation and the military, they will probably not see any cost benefit from changing what they have already - the lack of real-time weather being a case in point. FSX will not change and LR already consider X-Plane to be superior to everything else and have only recently released XP11 anyway - even fairly basic things like seasons are probably a full version change away.

The FSW team have cleverly incorporated trueSky at a very early stage of development so the sim will be built around it.

TrueSky needs to be improved.  I keep waiting for the haze and sun and shadow effects to be implemented because right now its all just too flat.  The ground appearance (which depends on haze and clouds) needs much improvement.

Theres just no sunshine...no warmth.  and the horizon isn't right.  It should change with the haze and visibility.  the whole sky should change.  and the clouds -- they are stuck at one altitude and have one layer.  It needs some work.

At the risk of severe irony..I would at this point pay for the TrueSky to be much better.  I figure I can spend another $30 and I will have spent what I usually spend on other sims from the start.  but it needs to be better.

Im enjoying XPlane and ATS.  Im looking forward to deadstick.

and on another note -- Steam statistics cannot be trusted.  Steam says I have 0.0 hours in the ATS New Mexico addon but I have nearly 8 actual hours with it.  I think its great.  I want to post a pic but I don't know if its allowed.

4 hours ago, mattyshigh said:

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.

Whilst that is true, until another flight sim actually does implement it, it remains a USP, and it isn;t simply a case of saying, 'let's go with that' and the work is done. At this stage FSW is more or less a blank canvas, which makes it far less problematic to implement something so fundamental in the core simulation than it would be for another sim platform.

Unlike other sim platforms, there are very few add-ons which require legacy support with FSW since there are hardly any DLC products at all at this point and the SDK is not finalised. This is not the case with for example, P3D and Active Sky, where detecting the Active Sky API was necessary to have the weather radar function in a number of aeroplanes, this required them all to be patched from the FSX incarnations which were mostly using ASN or AS16 in order to pick up the altered functions of the P3D-specific version of Active Sky.

XPlane 11 is problematic even with the inferior system FS and P3D use at the moment, particularly for developers such as Hifi and REX, since it isn't set up to handle multiple layers of weather, which is why they've not been easily able to create a port over of their add-ons.

DTG have had to do, and clearly still are in the process of doing a lot to shoehorn trueSky into the ESP flight simulator environment and have it work in a suitable fashion, and any other flight simulator developer is going to have to go through that process too.

7 hours ago, vortex681 said:

If FSW was the only sim available, then I'd agree with you. But it's not, so it has to compete against other, well-established sims and it needs to be good to do so. DLC (or 3rd party add-ons) is nothing new. It's not as though DTG have somehow invented a new way to separate us from our money. More to the point, the very concept of 3rd party development means that, in the main, DTG won't be responsible for it. If the base sim isn't good, no one will want to sink their resources into developing for it - this alone should be sufficient incentive for DTG to get it right.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I see FSW as having huge potential. DTG is getting many things right, for example the interactive checklists, up to date airport layouts, and trying to get that atmosphere as realistic as possible. My hope is to prevent the FSW business model from becoming the failure of MS Flight, so that it can be that healthy competitor that this community needs (a successor to FSX). Again I want to stress, I have no problem with 3rd party add-ons (DLC), I just don't want FSW to have to need DLC for features we have had for years. FSW is the new kid on the block and it needs to out shine the others from the start. The current feature set and the current goal set we know about for Oct., is not even close to what it needs, and its important to stress the need for more core features rather than let the discussion of DLC begin to dominate the news for FSW.

In starting this discussion, my hope is that DTG gets added incentive to "get it right".   

2 hours ago, pracines said:

Again I want to stress, I have no problem with 3rd party add-ons (DLC), I just don't want FSW to have to need DLC for features we have had for years.

Let us imagine that Dovetail planning to make a really decent flight planner. For practical reasons, they must postpone this until more important work has been completed. Meanwhile, they release their SDK for FSW. 

What happens if a 3rd party developer converts their "FSX Flight Planner" for FSW, and put it up for sale before Dovetail has successfully developed their own solution as part of their core sim?

Should Dovetail prohibit 3rd party developers to sell their product (DLC)?  Or maybe give a two-year quarantine?

If Dovetail does not prevent sales from 3rd party developers, many people will scream and complain that this product (DLC) should be part of the core sim.

What advice would you like to give to Dovetail?

Does not the customer have a responsibility to checking the product he/she buys?

There are product for sale for FSW that are not on steam DLC .

I've spent a ton on addons for FS7 ,8 ,9 ,and 10, over the years. 

2 hours ago, torium said:

Let us imagine that Dovetail planning to make a really decent flight planner. For practical reasons, they must postpone this until more important work has been completed. Meanwhile, they release their SDK for FSW. 

What happens if a 3rd party developer converts their "FSX Flight Planner" for FSW, and put it up for sale before Dovetail has successfully developed their own solution as part of their core sim?

Should Dovetail prohibit 3rd party developers to sell their product (DLC)?  Or maybe give a two-year quarantine?

If Dovetail does not prevent sales from 3rd party developers, many people will scream and complain that this product (DLC) should be part of the core sim.

What advice would you like to give to Dovetail?

Does not the customer have a responsibility to checking the product he/she buys?

You make a good point.

I encourage DLC fully, but if  DTG releases the SDK and FSW core features development slows to a crawl or stops altogether, it will not succeed. Flight simmers already went through the buying of add-ons twice between FSX and P3D, to go through that all again is not likely going to happen. This is why I have been advising DTG to cram in as many core features exceeding FSX, P3D, and X-Plane as much as possible, because anything less will likely result in failure. 

FSW came too late ( or at a less than ideal time in history). With XP11, P3D 4, and DCS/AF2, FSW has to exceed these existing sims or greatly set itself apart in a niche that can be worth the added expense and HD real estate. Currently FSW does not do this, and the talk of the development team mostly working on the SDK/3rd Party essentially communicates that DLC will be required to meet or exceed what we already have.

So the fact that P3D and XP 11 requires DLC is not the issue, the issue for DTG is that XP and P3D we here first, and add-ons have already been bought for them. DTG may have to make some sacrifices in order to succeed, but that is normal operating procedure for any company. For flight simmers to make sacrifices by buying the same kinds of DLC all over again ( the 3rd time in some cases) for DTG is backwards. But, If DTG makes the correct sacrifices, flight simmers will notice and they will reward DTG, I have no doubt about this.   

Having not been involved in Flight Sims for just over 20 years, FSW is at the right time for me.  I don't have any of the FSX, P3D, X-Plane, etc addons.  Don't even own two of those (P3D, X-Plane) and have no desire to own those based on how much it would cost, due to all the add-ons required, just to reach FSW's current level.  So the "having to buy stuff over again" isn't true for everyone.

17 minutes ago, theohall65 said:

Having not been involved in Flight Sims for just over 20 years, FSW is at the right time for me.  I don't have any of the FSX, P3D, X-Plane, etc addons.  Don't even own two of those (P3D, X-Plane) and have no desire to own those based on how much it would cost, due to all the add-ons required, just to reach FSW's current level.  So the "having to buy stuff over again" isn't true for everyone.

You mean something like this Theo?

 

Exactly switch!

 

I record some concern about DLC costs.
Again to make an example easy, we can imagine that MSFS costs $50.

Flight Simulator 96     = $50
Flight Simulator 98     = $50
Flight Simulator 2000 = $50
Flight Simulator 2002 = $50
Flight Simulator 2004 = $50
Flight Simulator X       = $50
----------------------------------------
Over a period of 10 years (1996 - 2006) = $300
FSX over a period of 10 years (2007 - 2017) = $0

I have "saved" $300 due to lack of further development from MS.

In the same period, I have chosen to use my "saved money" to pay 3rd party developers for an upgraded simulator (FTX Global BASE Pack, FTX Global VECTOR, DX10 Scenery Fixer, etc.).

For comparison, following the development of P3D is quite expensive at the moment.

Me FSX since release FSX GOLD EDT , plus update packs over £100 , PMDG 747 v1 , traffic packs , aircraft , scenery , AIRPORTS UK ,USA, EUROPE , and payware tools estimate =£1000

2x hand built flight sim PCs last one 2 months ago estimate with upgrades £6000 this is including GPU upgrades 8 I think.

Again this is only an estimate would not like to do a full inventory my blood pressure would not be able to stand it at my age.

Have done all the sims above this is only one. 

I and most on Avsim  are the why the third party industry is so healthy in flight sim.

I would like to emphasize that my example applies to the core sim and not addons that normally will not be part of the core sim (PMDG, etc.).

15 hours ago, pracines said:

You make a good point.

I encourage DLC fully, but if  DTG releases the SDK and FSW core features development slows to a crawl or stops altogether, it will not succeed. Flight simmers already went through the buying of add-ons twice between FSX and P3D, to go through that all again is not likely going to happen. This is why I have been advising DTG to cram in as many core features exceeding FSX, P3D, and X-Plane as much as possible, because anything less will likely result in failure. 

FSW came too late ( or at a less than ideal time in history). With XP11, P3D 4, and DCS/AF2, FSW has to exceed these existing sims or greatly set itself apart in a niche that can be worth the added expense and HD real estate. Currently FSW does not do this, and the talk of the development team mostly working on the SDK/3rd Party essentially communicates that DLC will be required to meet or exceed what we already have.

So the fact that P3D and XP 11 requires DLC is not the issue, the issue for DTG is that XP and P3D we here first, and add-ons have already been bought for them. DTG may have to make some sacrifices in order to succeed, but that is normal operating procedure for any company. For flight simmers to make sacrifices by buying the same kinds of DLC all over again ( the 3rd time in some cases) for DTG is backwards. But, If DTG makes the correct sacrifices, flight simmers will notice and they will reward DTG, I have no doubt about this.   

Words from the man, Stephen Hood himself, I hope you rest assured:

Quote

Of course, that doesn’t mean we’re no longer committed to developing the core sim. Far from it. There are no vital pieces of FSW which I foresee only ever being available as a 3rd party addon. That wouldn't be right.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/389280/discussions/0/3183345000083630410/

Let's just give them time and things will come.