Revisiting FSW...

[pmb 5,137]

1 hour ago, france89 said:

The problem with the aerosoft poll is simple. They mostly offer products for FSX/P3D, 

It's like if i was to go on x-plane.org and do the same polling options. Would i be surprised in finding out most are using XP11 and not P3D?

Aerosoft has a reputation as one of the earliest and biggest XP supporters for years.

Kind regards, Michael

[pmb 5,137]

52 minutes ago, Chock said:

Running a poll on Aerosoft's website related to FSW usage, is about as useful as stopping people who are pulling their car into a Ford service centre and asking them: 'What make of car do you drive?'; then claiming your survey result conclusively indicates that Fords are the car everyone drives.

But you can't deny that the other poll on an independent site supports the Aerosoft result. This is run by VFR-Flightsimmer who actually might be inclined to favor FSW based on its collection of light aircraft.

Kind regards, Michael

[ckyliu 1,749]

2 hours ago, flyforever said:

...newcomers will not think twice to go with FSW.  Simmers who have already a lot of money invested in legacy sims( I include P3dv4) have no reason to change. It's the newcomers that FSW appears to be attracting, given its low entry cost.

I think that's a fair point, whilst P3Dv4 academic remains mass-market priced, much of the addon content has a ridicolous markup that presents significant barriers to entry for newcomers.

[Chock 17,769]

31 minutes ago, pmb said:

But you can't deny that the other poll on an independent site supports the Aerosoft result.

Well, it supports the findings based on the question and the people polled, but in addition to the people being polled affecting the result, the question affects things too. What was that question?: What platform are you currently using?

If I want to fly an airliner with custom realistic weather, custom AI, custom ATC and a custom version of Manchester Airport, I've only got FSX, FS9 and P3D to choose from. So that's clearly going to be my current choice, but such a specific question and any answer to it says nothing about whether I would switch to using FSW or XPlane if all those options became available to me in those simulations, particularly since we don't actually even know yet what will be available in FSW when it is fully released, or how long it would be before any or all of those add-ons would be available for it.

Some people don't like buying into betas, some will wait for more products to be available, and so on. I didn't buy V2 or V3 of P3D and didn't use V1 much at all, because they didn't offer any clear advantage over FSX-SE and still do not, but V4 did, so I bought that and always intended to. So if you asked me do you use P3D? prior to May of this year, my answer would have been different to if you asked me the same question in June, but if you asked me will you use it, again, different answer. So we can only take a limited amount of knowledge from a question and its answers which are limited in what they ask, and in this case also when they are asked.

[Longranger 148]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Considering I've bought all three PA-28 variants for FSX and P3D which JF make (Warrior, Arrow and Turbo Arrow), and bought it for FSW too, I was a bit PA-28'ed out by the time it also became available for XPlane 11, so that's the only sim I've not bought that add-on for, but I understand from users who have got it for XPlane 11, that it has a bit more going on in terms of simulation, so really, I think in the case of that add-on at least, the one FSW has to match is not FSX-SE or P3D, but XPlane 11 (except where ground handling is concerned, because that is absolutely sh** in XPlane). I'm sure it will, but I guess we'll see.

Well, I don´t know h0ow good your German is or how good the autotranslations are today but exactly this was my question when i wrote this http://www.simflight.de/2017/11/18/justflight-pa-28-r-arrow-iii-fuer-flightsimworld-und-x-plane-11/  article.

Condiering your weather expecatations I always wonder if you ever looked at METAR files and if you ever thought about the problem of creating a real and expressive weather based on these informations. In my opinion this is one of the real tricky problems, so I am not sure if the weather of FSW will become as impressive as you think.

[Chock 17,769]

2 minutes ago, Longranger said:

I always wonder if you ever looked at METAR files and if you ever thought about the problem of creating a real and expressive weather based on these informations. In my opinion this is one of the real tricky problems, so I am not sure if the weather of FSW will become as impressive as you think.

Since I am a glider pilot, yes, I do look at weather METARS all the time and realise that weather has a big impact on all that acts on my aeroplane, and I am aware that wanting to make trueSKY read METARS and actually having it do that are two different things.

This is why I've commented frequently on it being a tricky proposition, which it clearly is, for if not, DTG would have already had it implemented in FSW, and the fact that they haven't done so yet and it is static is because if you look at its main intent, trueSKY provides cool looking realistic weather in simulations, but historically with its use in other mediums that's not been in the context of a flight sim downloading and updating the data on the fly for your aeroplane to fly through, more a case of having something look cool over your head in a shooter or RPG. Nevertheless, since the depiction of trueSKY is a 3D presence in the simulation, this is where it has the potential to completely outstrip other methodologies currently in use across the board by all other flight sims, whereby the conditions which act upon your aeroplane, and how they are displayed visually, are not one and the same. This is the big difference in the potential of trueSKY. But the operative word here is potential.

Potentially it could be impressive, and I think it will be if what lies behind how trueSKY gathers and implements things can be brought under the control of a METAR dynamically, but the notion that it is an easy proposition is not something I've ever advocated and I'm well aware they have their work cut out to achieve it. Nevertheless, since DTG are working with Simul to achieve that, like anything else, if you really want to do something, you can, and it seems they really want to do it, so I don't think my optimism on the matter is at all misplaced.

[pmb 5,137]

7 minutes ago, Chock said:

What was that question?: What platform are you currently using?

In the German forum the question was just: "Which flight simulators (maximum 2) are you mainly using?" As you see from the AS poll, people (those participating) are quite stable in their simulator usage.

I agree, newcomers may decide another way, but even they may glance through forums, read Steam reviews etc. before buying and investing into addons. And these reviews are written by .. you guess it.

I wan't sound too negative and will still follow development of FSW, maybe I'll be positively surprised, but it's mainly the history of that whole project - recall Flight School - making me suspicious.  

Kind regards, Michael

[flyforever 267]

Very good observation, Alan. What must be understood is that as a new technology, truesky may take a few years to become right.

Why is it that everyone forgets the many, many years and revisions that competing legacy weather systems have had to undergo?

If TrueSky is indeed "new technology", it will survive only by making it as real as it gets--- in due time.

 

[Boomer 1,619]

2 hours ago, france89 said:

 DCS, which in the modern combat sims environment has no competitionn

There you're incorrect. ..Falcon BMS is on a par with DCS and has a large online active community.

[flyforever 267]

3 minutes ago, pmb said:

In the German forum the question was just: "Which flight simulators (maximum 2) are you mainly using?" As you see from the AS poll, people (those participating) are quite stable in their simulator usage.

I agree, newcomers may decide another way, but even they may glance through forums, read Steam reviews etc. before buying and investing into addons. And these reviews are written by .. you guess it.

I wan't sound too negative and will still follow development of FSW, maybe I'll be positively surprised, but it's mainly the history of that whole project - recall Flight School - making me suspicious.  

Kind regards, Michael

We're all on edge. There's no question that DTG has to prove itself. I guess where I am willing to give them a thumbs up is the fact that they still consider the current version "an early access" and it's been only 7 months.

A year from now, I might reconsider DTG results.

[Boomer 1,619]

Decided against purchase. .won't fly it in its current state and i know it...

[A32xx 129]

Nor does anyone else (for any length of time...) because FSW isn't even a Flight Simulator - yet - it's just a Preview of a proposed future Flight Simulator, for evaluation purposes only.

That's why it doesn't score highly on usage polls, and that's why trueSKY, global lighting, jets and all the other teddies being thrown out of prams aren't going to be "fixed" yet either.

[jcomm 5,929]

Well,

it's inevitable I should know better, that this threads have to end up with comparisons. I tried hard not to mention P3D in any of my posts above, and comparisons were only made with FSX, MS FLIGHT, and refernces of DCS, IL2, Condorsoaring...

I don't think we should compare a Professional product like Prepar3d with a leisure flight simulator which is what FSW is after all.

If I were to compare anything, which I don't think is worth doing because it always ends up calling for "war", I would pick specific features like flight dynamics, weather modelling, systems modelling, etc...

For Flight dynamics my goto sims are DCS, IL2 Battle of... and Condorsoaring or even Silent Wings, and Aerowinx PSX if it comes to only the 744s... For detailled weather modelling, with specific use, nothing comes, even with any 3pd add-ons close to either Condorsoaring or SilentWings, systems modelling can again call for Aerowinx, DCS, BMS, or any detailed high standard add-ons for MSFS and derivates...  X-Plane too of course... and Aerofly FS, regarding some aspects of Scenery and Flight Dynamics too...

For IFR training I would still pick ELITE IFR...

It all depends on what we're up to.

I'm up for some good time playing plausible missions, in plausible scenery and non-combat environment... My choice was FSW right now. Just that :-)

[Boomer 1,619]

IBTL.

[torium 207]

I had not expected this so early:   Steamspy, Owners data:  approx 50 000.