I've been flying XPlane more lately and I like the way it doesn't argue with me.  I choose aircraft, location, time and weather and then I'm in the cockpit ready to go.  Its clean and not in the way.  It doesn't congratulate me when I land because it knows that the landing itself is congratulations.

I've been driving American Truck Sim a lot lately.  Its a game but it doesn't get in your way somehow.  You start and you drive and you look at maps and you can take a job or not.  You can free drive or you can take a job.

FSW seems to be caught in between game and sim.  It starts like a game but then its a sim for the most part.

I am hoping that there is a way that FSW can be both game and sim and get out of my way whichever direction I choose.  If there weren't so many 'Start' buttons maybe.  After you set up for your flight it should just put you in the cockpit.  walkarounds could be an option in the setup flight dialog.  and I really would like for the 'congratulations you've landed' messages and the gaminess behind that to go away.  It didn't bother me at first but it does now.

I'm still routing for FSW because we need as many sims as possible imo but I do think there is a better way to be what it wants to be - a sim-game.

 

 

The old discussion....It is what you want it to be.

For me subjectively perceived a simulator is just a genre of a game. It can be "gamey" or "real world simulated". Depends what are you doing. I don`t see any difference between x-plane, FSX, P3D, FSW, or even MS Flight. All of them are flight simulators, some with more procedure/real world simulation, some more arcade.

Some say if you use it for training it is a simulator, if you use it for fun it is a game.

 

I think once the SDK rolls out and DTG keeps getting feedback and responding to us like they do, you will see that. I imagine that part of the strategy has to be to bring in new simmers to the genre. I have accepted the fact that things are different now from when I started simming. I'm into the whole Steam thing, World of Tanks, Warthunder and such. They have captured my imagination. Hopefully DTG can bring a mix of the new way and the old way. I would hate to see Flight Simming die out. I can't get my Grandson to use X Plane 11 because he sees no point in it. My son won't fly X plane because he says he doesn't care to fly, just shoot down stuff like in Warthunder. Get the right balance and you may see a new generation of simmers, otherwise it will be only persons that want to learn how to fly. Just my 2 cents or 1/4 pound...

I like thinking of my FSX, FSW and AFS2 as games. To me calling them simulators gives an impression that they are real life related and that could lead to fatal overconfidence for budding real life pilots.There is no substitute for reality. Just imagine a scenario where the pilots of a 747 are incapacitated and the call comes for anyone who can fly a plane ...... YOU have 200 hours in a game/simulator..... it is up to you 

In that situation I think I would give it a shot, lol...

Isn't free flight one of the first options? It's faster to get to a free flight than in FSX. I don't remember any "Congratulations!" I see flight hours added in the log. Flight hours is actually a thing for real life pilots, so I don't see the gaminess there. This is the same code base as FSX. If you think FSX is a sim than this is too.

(And when I land in X-Plane I notice the wheels magically sticking to the ground with no bouncing (I'm not that good at landing every time), tires screeching when taxiing, and the lack of seasons or environment.)
 

Who cares what it's called pick the one that tickles your fancy and go with it. Not everyone wants a hardcore sim or a game and I think that's why FSX was so successful because it was both. Does it really matter if you enjoy it?

11 hours ago, Heimi said:

The old discussion....It is what you want it to be.

For me subjectively perceived a simulator is just a genre of a game. It can be "gamey" or "real world simulated". Depends what are you doing. I don`t see any difference between x-plane, FSX, P3D, FSW, or even MS Flight. All of them are flight simulators, some with more procedure/real world simulation, some more arcade.

Some say if you use it for training it is a simulator, if you use it for fun it is a game.

 

you speak the truth .... In consideration of "arcade" vs "sim" -  once in the sim there is no real difference between the current flight simulations 

Once in the sim it is a sim.  I said that.  Im not crazy about the interface between starting FSW and getting in the cockpit.  I feel it could be better.  I brought up ATS because its more of a game than FSW but yet it feels less gamey somehow.  I'm trying to figure out why FSW FEELS more gamelike and I believe it has to do with messages like "you must land at an airport for it to count" or "Congratulations, you've landed (or successfully completed the flight - whatever it says)"  and it does say those things.  Its part of the dialog. In ATS there is a 'drive' button and once you hit it, you are in the cab of your truck and its up to you to think about where you are and what you want to do and you bring up maps and look at possible jobs or maybe you just start your truck and drive.  It does say" Excellent" when you successfully deliver a cargo but that's about it.  I really don't know why FSW's interface bothers me lately but it does and it does not have to be that way just to bring in new people.  In fact it may deter new people.  The very opening screen with its choices are fine.  I select 'free flight' and then I select all my other choices.  That's good.  It then has a button you press and then it shows your plane from external view and you press another button and finally you are in the cockpit.  I feel they should eliminate one of the two start buttons after you setup a flight.  and they should eliminate the 'you must land at an airport' message.  and they should eliminate the 'congratulations, you've completed the flight' message.

The interface feels clunky to me and I think it could be better.

One man’s sim is another man’s game…and vice versa.

DTG is the last hope of any DEV taking a serious stab at advancing a flight sim to a whole new level; with a dedicated team making frequent updates and partnering with the best in the industry to offer major features in the core sim.

You didn’t get this level of innovation & progress with LR or LM in such a short time frame, and you only see a little more effort from these two DEVs because of DTG’s presence in the field.

50 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

DTG is the last hope of any DEV taking a serious stab at advancing a flight sim to a whole new level;

But if FSW is a success (and it deserves to be!) I hope DTG will be the first of many.

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

DTG is the last hope of any DEV taking a serious stab at advancing a flight sim to a whole new level; with a dedicated team making frequent updates and partnering with the best in the industry to offer major features in the core sim.

 

 

No I don't think so.  AFS2, XPlane and the upcoming Remex deadstick simulator could all be platforms of the future.

Dovetail needs to improve what it has - especially the ground scenery at this point.  Stephen Hood said they would be better at communicating but Ive asked Cryss a few times about the TrueSky update that disappeared and I still haven't gotten an answer.  If they can't do it then I think they should make it possible for FSX/P3D skies and clouds to work correctly and not hard code the sky.

I want them to succeed and I can wait because there are new offerings on the horizon.

8 hours ago, FlyBaby said:

One man’s sim is another man’s game…and vice versa.

DTG is the last hope of any DEV taking a serious stab at advancing a flight sim to a whole new level; with a dedicated team making frequent updates and partnering with the best in the industry to offer major features in the core sim.

You didn’t get this level of innovation & progress with LR or LM in such a short time frame, and you only see a little more effort from these two DEVs because of DTG’s presence in the field.

Yeah, DTG is my only hope to bring something really innovative to the scene (look what they did to the clouds). I say that based on what Stephen Hood says, not based on the current state of FSW.

If DTG brings to FSW everything Stephen hood has been envisioning, I'm sure we will have a really good flight sim. 

I'm not saying P3D or X-plane aren't good, but their developers are focusing in things I don't think will bring a major sense of innovation to our hobby.

15 hours ago, sightseer said:

 

No I don't think so.  AFS2, XPlane and the upcoming Remex deadstick simulator could all be platforms of the future.

Dovetail needs to improve what it has - especially the ground scenery at this point.  Stephen Hood said they would be better at communicating but Ive asked Cryss a few times about the TrueSky update that disappeared and I still haven't gotten an answer.  If they can't do it then I think they should make it possible for FSX/P3D skies and clouds to work correctly and not hard code the sky.

I want them to succeed and I can wait because there are new offerings on the horizon.

So where have these other DEVs really "advanced" their sims in the past 2 years? If you cant answer that, then there goes their future.

XPlane - has been in this business for over a "decade" with very little progress considering this time scale. Dynamic lighting is nice, until you get that cutoff in the near-distance. And lets not talk about their clouds. We are now living their future.

AFS2 - has vast flat lands including buildings etc, and now Orbx bite sized dlc. I hope this isn't the future, because you will need to spend $1,000s for decent world coverage.

Remex deadstick - If folk are impatient with DTG's progress...well, we will be in the year 2025 before this company gets to GA planes, Airliners and a world environment to fly in. And how much more advanced will DTG be by then?

DTG's progress, innovation, and commitment has not been matched by anyone else in this field...they are teaching a very old dog new tricks...withstanding a very pessimistic and impatient consumer base that doesn't appreciate the investment required to be the best.

 

 

 

On 11/30/2017 at 9:49 AM, FlyBaby said:

So where have these other DEVs really "advanced" their sims in the past 2 years? If you cant answer that, then there goes their future.

XPlane - has been in this business for over a "decade" with very little progress considering this time scale. Dynamic lighting is nice, until you get that cutoff in the near-distance. And lets not talk about their clouds. We are now living their future.

AFS2 - has vast flat lands including buildings etc, and now Orbx bite sized dlc. I hope this isn't the future, because you will need to spend $1,000s for decent world coverage.

Remex deadstick - If folk are impatient with DTG's progress...well, we will be in the year 2025 before this company gets to GA planes, Airliners and a world environment to fly in. And how much more advanced will DTG be by then?

DTG's progress, innovation, and commitment has not been matched by anyone else in this field...they are teaching a very old dog new tricks...withstanding a very pessimistic and impatient consumer base that doesn't appreciate the investment required to be the best.

 

 

 

I don't fully agree with your statements regarding X-plane

Strangely you left out P3D(EULA arguments aside) and combat sims like DCS, ROF and IL-2

Dovetail is a bit late to the game but they are making progress and IMO it  looks good, but few developers are biting on DFS - which is death in the long term of survival of that product.

The same could be said of DCS but there is no combat sim to match ED's  fidelity , period. 1C gets it and they are always pushing content for their platform.

1C, ED have implemented VR and LM partially on P3D. DFS is very lacking in hardware support, which is a strike against them.

P3D and DFS will always be compared because of their lineage, restrictions aside. LM is winning that battle , regardless of distinctions between game/sim.