Revisiting FSW...

[pracines 823]

10 minutes ago, jcomm said:

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 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...

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 :-)

Of course there will be comparisons. There actually has to be comparisons in just about everything - right or wrong/good or bad, we all do this every day. In the post above you say we should not compare a "professional product" (P3D) with FSW, but in the same post you bring in ELITE, a professional product! There are plenty (many more than FSW) of plausible missions in FSX-SE. With MS Flight using the jobs board, missions galore. In other words, (the point I was making is, there is) nothing much new.

However, I'm glad you are enjoying FSW.  

[pracines 823]

11 minutes ago, torium said:

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

Approximately  27,000 (DTG Flight School owners) of them got FSW for free.

And of all them 50,000 owners, less than 100 a day are actually running the game. They must be flying in P3Dv4/FSX/XP11 for the most part.

Realism is what matters most in flight simulation. 

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

1 hour ago, Boomer said:

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

Yes and no. I meant regarding multi-platform simulation. Besides, DCS doesn't have a F-16 so it's hard to compare.

Falcon BMS for now is the best F-16 simulation. 

[Chock 17,769]

28 minutes ago, pracines said:

Approximately  27,000 (DTG Flight School owners) of them got FSW for free.

And of all them 50,000 owners, less than 100 a day are actually running the game. They must be flying in P3Dv4/FSX/XP11 for the most part.

Realism is what matters most in flight simulation. 

True, but understanding statistics is what matters most in quoting them too. For example, how would anyone know which 100 a day are actually running the game? It could just as easily be 1,000 owners logging on to FSW every ten days to check progress, equating to an average of 100 per day for all we know, or 3,000 every month, or all 50,000 just checking in every so often. There is no way to know anything more from that number other than its average. Like they say, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics lol.

[scotchegg 4,186]

54 minutes ago, pracines said:

And of all them 50,000 owners, less than 100 a day are actually running the game. 

 

I don't think SteamSpy gives figures for how many players run the game a day. It gives a figure for peak concurrent players which is usually around 100 for FSW but that's not the same...

[Boomer 1,619]

21 minutes ago, france89 said:

Falcon BMS for now is the best F-16 simulation. 

Also the best dynamic war campaign engine.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

2 hours ago, pracines said:

Realism is what matters most in flight simulation. 

FSW uses the same engine as FSX and P3D. Most realism comes from addons with external components anyway. 

It's funny that the people who claim they prize realism fall for what's on the cover of the box. Missions don't exclude realism, for example.

[Boomer 1,619]

Enough. ..the topic now is Falcon BMS...heh

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

FSW uses the same engine as FSX and P3D. Most realism comes from addons with external components anyway. 

Very true and something worth noting in this regard is that, to get slightly better realism in FSX, you can add A2A's AccuFeel, which is certainly worth doing, whereas in FSW, it's not a required add on, it's in there by default since A2A are one of the development partners for FSW. Ironically enough, you can't get AccuFeel for P3D V4 (yet), so there's a slight argument for FSW having a bit of a better flight model by default, so long as you choose to regard what AccuFeel adds as being part of the flight model. Granted Accufeel is not as flexible in FSW as it is in FSX, where you can adjust the settings easily via a GUI, but it's certainly better than not having it at all, which is the case with P3D.

That's actually one of the things which made me laugh when people were claiming third party developers wouldn't be interested in working with DTG for the creation and content of FSW; that they'd be forced to sell things through Steam and be put off by that too. Both notions not only being completely wrong, but also completely overlooking the fact that four of the most high profile TPDs there are: Orbx, Just Flight, Carenado and A2A, were all pretty much involved with it from the outset, and of those four, it included the best TPD aeroplane maker there is - A2A -  the most respected TPD sales outlet there is - Just Flight - the most respected and prolific  scenery developer there is - Orbx - and the most prolific GA aeroplane developer there is - Carenado.

Regardless of all that, FSW is in a position to be the primary flight simulator for good many people out there not for what it does or does not have yet, nor what it may have down the line, but for another rather more prosaic reason, and it is a reason which a lot of people on sites such as Avsim occasionally tend to forget; there are thousands upon thousands of fight sim users and aviation enthusiasts out there who have literally never even heard of P3D, much less considered it, since they don't even know it exists.

This is because P3D isn't marketed widely and certainly is not marketed as a game to the general public at large, because LM aren't interested in doing that. Sure, they probably appreciate all us lot acting as unpaid beta testers for it, but they could care less about what home flight simmers spend on it compared to the kind of budgets they are normally used to dealing with.

MS Flight Simulator was always marketed as a game, it even had the Games For Windows tag line on the box. As such, it always benefitted from being promoted via new Windows updates and PC sales. This was certainly among the reasons why it became successful and ironically the success of P3D among those who use it outside of the military etc, is almost entirely as a result of that and FSX-SE to some extent too, since nearly all of P3D flight simmers are former FSX or FS9 users, who only found out about P3D's existence from frequenting places such as Avsim as a result of having used MSFS.

When FSW begins to be marketed on Steam with a truly concerted effort, which is not happening yet since it is only in early access of course, then you'll have it being brought to the attention of literally millions and millions of users (like MS did with Flight Simulator), and those users are exactly the same kind of people who made MSFS the success it became, i.e. gamers and regular PC users to whom it was actively marketed, not people who hunt down obscure pro-level simulators which are not really marketed at all. So having 50,000 owners of a product already, which DTG haven't even attempted to start seriously marketing yet, is not bad sign.

[pracines 823]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

True, but understanding statistics is what matters most in quoting them too. For example, how would anyone know which 100 a day are actually running the game? It could just as easily be 1,000 owners logging on to FSW every ten days to check progress, equating to an average of 100 per day for all we know, or 3,000 every month, or all 50,000 just checking in every so often. There is no way to know anything more from that number other than its average. Like they say, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics lol.

 

5 hours ago, scotchegg said:

I don't think SteamSpy gives figures for how many players run the game a day. It gives a figure for peak concurrent players which is usually around 100 for FSW but that's not the same...

 Simple graph reading (scroll down to see the graphs) is all that is required, and concise information can be gathered:

https://steamdb.info/app/389280/graphs/

Stephen, You can check the daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and yearly stats. The zoom selection at the top of both graphs are very easy to understand, just click to see the zoom level desired.

Alan, if the "stats" showed FSW having millions of players a day, you would suddenly call them the plain truth would you not?....don't lie LOL

There is no way to paint a successful outlook for FSW currently. One must ask, if the updates are making FSW better and better, then why the continued lack of interest?

I will say it again, I personally want FSW to succeed, and I will give DTG all the time it needs.

[pracines 823]

4 hours ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

FSW uses the same engine as FSX and P3D. Most realism comes from addons with external components anyway.

It's funny that the people who claim they prize realism fall for what's on the cover of the box. Missions don't exclude realism, for example.

Your point about realism coming from add-ons applies to FSW too. And my point is that there is less realism in FSW compared to what is available in the others. No FSW mission can come even close to the realism I can attain in free flight using my P3Dv4 with the add-ons I have had for years.  

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

13 hours ago, Chock said:

I regard FSW as being a bit like having made a nice casserole and shoved it in the oven. It's there, simmering away whilst I do other things, and every once in a while I can check on it and think, mmm, that's going to be nice, but one has to be careful not to burn it. 

Epic

[theohall65 64]

45 minutes ago, pracines said:

Your point about realism coming from add-ons applies to FSW too. And my point is that there is less realism in FSW compared to what is available in the others. No FSW mission can come even close to the realism I can attain in free flight using my P3Dv4 with the add-ons I have had for years.  

And how much did you pay for P3Dv4 and all those add-ons?  It's a valid thing to consider when one looks at the price of FSW in comparison.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

2 hours ago, pracines said:

I will say it again, I personally want FSW to succeed, and I will give DTG all the time it needs.

Considering not a single post you made in this thread was favorable to FSW and you were even as bold as to direct people to FSX/MS Flight as a better alternative to FSW, makes your "support" of DTG hard to believe.

You are just here to do what you always do, start a sim war and tell people how much you think FSW sucks and will be cancelled.

Also, in regards to your FSW Steam Stats. Its important to point out that FSW has 80% as many users as XP11 on Steam. XP11 also only has 2.5x the median playtime in last 2 weeks over FSW. The key issues there are 2 fold. 1: XP11 is in full release and is an iteration of a largely similar platform. 2: XP11 has jets which means the median play time should be through the roof vs FSW in early access. 

https://steamdb.info/app/269950/graphs/

[tonywob 4,769]

Bear in mind the stats for XP11 on steam probably represent a smaller number than actual users since it is also directly available from Laminar Research's website