Farewell FSW

[kingm56 1,023]

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

This is sad news, especially for the developers who have lost their jobs over this. Whilst many didn't like DTG's business model, it's not a good time in this hobby when a flight sim dies, and for people (and certain companies) who are using this as an opportunity to gloat and promote their own agenda, have a bit of respect and decency, one day it could happen to you.

 

Very well said, sir!  It amazes me that some people don't comprehend some developers true motivations, which is to sustain their current occupations/life styles via revenue generation.  Some developers have positioned themselves to inflate their price points, while simultaneously reducing their overhead costs (e.g. licensing fees).  That lack of licensing fees represents the antsiest to how other marketplaces operate.  It should be obvious why certain developers are opposed to changing this dynamic; after all, it would reduce their aggregate profits.  Also, it's doubtful the principle of equilibrium would allow them to pass those costs to the community; as stated, they already have pretty high price points.  In short, some developers are glad FSW failed, not because they represented a thread to the flight sim community (as the message was portrayed), but because they represented a threat to their unchecked business practices.  Think about it, most of these developers communicate with and/or don't directly compete against each other. It's this model that allows them to charge >$100 for a piece of software.  Flight/FSW threatened to challenge said model.  I'm not sure why we're all gloating; we're allowing the perpetuation of a marketplace that permits collusion and the unwarranted price escalation of products. The latter could explain why young people are not entering the ESP platform marketspace. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by kingm56

[fta2017 160]

26 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

ORBX has shut down any discussion of this on their forums.  John Venema states "It is sad to hear this news and we need to be considerate and graceful in remarks that we make around the internet. Seeing a sim platform close is never good for our industry and your hobby."

First, we don't need lectures about what kind of remarks to make regarding FSW's demise.  Secondly, I disagree completely with him that seeing a sim platform close is never good for the industry and our hobby.  Developers/vendors that make lots of promises, get folks excited about a new simulator, happily take their money, and then shortly thereafter close up shop without accomplishing very much and leaving those who bought the thing with a not-even-close-to-being-completed simulator aren't doing the flightsim community any favors and are just wasting all our time.

I'm disappointed that FSW failed as I was rooting for it, and I'm really sorry for all the good folks who have lost their jobs.  However, this doesn't mean that it's wrong to criticize DTG.

I think JV knows far more about the situation than most others in the business since DTG licensed Orbx for the base terrain. I think his approach to call for grace and consideration has more to do with his intolerance for the usual conspiracy theories and soapboxing that usually feed on events like these, as can be evidenced by numerous posts in this topic from people who have no clue what really went on.

The fact Orbx did not publish any DLC for FSW is telling. He was critical of MS when they closed their doors to third party with Flight and I expect he had the same personal views about DTG, but give the man his dues because he hasn’t said a negative thing about them despite being prodded in plenty of interviews about Orbx’s plans for FSW.

[fs4fun 366]

Too bad for Gibbage who did some great modeling work on some (intended) upcoming addons and was quite enthused about the potential for the PBR rendering in FSW in the hands of a professional developer. Same for Blue Sky and other third parties who stuck their necks out and made some good addons.

DTG did a nice job spiffing up the old FSXME tool to make its Pro Mission Editor. Quite a good and fun diversion. At least I learned how to make some missions. It would be nice if the mission editor could be rescued.

I certainly don't regret the $15 I spent on this venture (plus I bought the Arrow when it was on sale). I've spent a lot more on Carenado hangar queens with far less entertainment as a result. It seems DTG really had not figured out  a sustainable business model. I had been imagining that FSX:SE was the cash cow funding this but I guess not.

My enthusiasm for this project fell off considerable when they ended Early Access despite FSW still being grossly incomplete with still some nasty bugs and poor performance. I recently gave MSFlight a try for the first time and was struck by how much better it looked and performed compared to FSW. Realizing that DTG had the code for Flight and reading the technical articles by Stonelance on how Flight technology worked I was amazed that DTG had chosen to go with the FSX engine instead.

DTG also released a half-baked SDK and then went completely silent in terms of any developer community interaction. The latest was this career mode tangent when everyone was asking for jets, IFR and a weather engine. Seems they never really had a plan they could stick with. Oh well, life goes on. The DTG team had some talented people and I'm sure they will land on their feet.

[VS0 23]

1 hour ago, kingm56 said:

Very well said, sir!  It amazes me that some people don't comprehend some developers true motivations, which is to sustain their current occupations/life styles via revenue generation.  Some developers have positioned themselves to inflate their price points, while simultaneously reducing their overhead costs (e.g. licensing fees).  That lack of licensing fees represents the antsiest to how other marketplaces operate.  It should be obvious why certain developers are opposed to changing this dynamic; after all, it would reduce their aggregate profits.  Also, it's doubtful the principle of equilibrium would allow them to pass those costs to the community; as stated, they already have pretty high price points.  In short, some developers are glad FSW failed, not because they represented a thread to the flight sim community (as the message was portrayed), but because they represented a threat to their unchecked business practices.  Think about it, most of these developers communicate with and/or don't directly compete against each other. It's this model that allows them to charge >$100 for a piece of software.  Flight/FSW threatened to challenge said model.  I'm not sure why we're all gloating; we're allowing the perpetuation of a marketplace that permits collusion and the unwarranted price escalation of products. The latter could explain why young people are not entering the ESP platform marketspace. 

A very interesting take on things.

[torium 207]

"The Dovetail Games (DTG) Flight Simulator Forums" might never have had as much visits as now.

As the saying goes: They never came for a visit while he was alive - but at least they came to the funeral.

[Boomer 1,619]

DTG ...in and out for the buck and they don't take prisoners.

No way I bought into that.

[Orlaam 306]

I called this as soon as it was announced.  We all knew it would fail.  No 3rd party, open development support, geared towards novices, no true updated integration...

Only a fool would believe that taking a previously open development model and restricting it would work. 

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

17 minutes ago, torium said:

"The Dovetail Games (DTG) Flight Simulator Forums" might never have had as much visits as now.

As the saying goes: They never came for a visit while he was alive - but at least they came to the funeral.

Yup, a lot of people are pretty much here to say "I knew it" and "good riddance."

This genre needs competition and in general is ridiculously behind the times: the ESP platform is ancient and X-Plane still doesn't have nice skies and weather (you know, where flying takes place).

[MrSpeaker 121]

Be cool if truesky could come to p3d. It's the same engine. That's what made me slightly interested in fsw. 

 

[signmanbob 592]

As far as I'm concerned, this is sad news even though I hadn't used FSW yet.  Still, I actually bought the Carenado aircraft that was released for it, hoping that more aircraft and airports would be released in the future, then I would start using it.

I was really waiting for some good airliners to be released for it before I started using FSW.

Oh well....sad.

[RW1 615]

When you shut the door on 3rd party development and restrict freedom by a business model that is suited to benefit only DTG, then it will hit a brick wall eventually... P3d is 64bit now... so just watch it grow over the coming years... You can bank on that.!

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Good day to you all.

Just had to enter the fray here and I will do so with my warped sense of humor.

I wanted to say that I predicted (to myself) the day FSW was announced, that FSW would fail on the 24th of May 2018 I was slightly wrong in that I nailed it down to 0300z on the 24th May. I also predicted why and how this would fail and I will release those details the day after FSW or DTG announce the details. 

A couple of things in all seriousness though.

Firstly, my heart goes out to the staff (and at this stage it strangely appears to be only the ones who actually did the creating and the hard work and NOT the managerial or accounting staff) who appear to have been let go. I genuinely thank the former for their efforts and wish them well in the future. It has been said (many times here) that nobody appeared to be listening to the flightsim community but I believe that most of these creative decisions were generated by dollars and indeed a management that  was firmly ensconsed in the routine of maximising dollar income regardless of circumstances.  It has to be said that most of the creative staff did indeed, do a fine job with at least one hand tied behind their backs. So I say, "Well done you"  and what a pity Management did not do the same.

I would also like to say that at the outset, the community and Developers decried the lack of input avenues for 3rd party Devs to become involved, and many people on the forums predcicted this outcome.  I joined that chorus at the beginning and rejoin now with the observation that I think the lack of Developer input into this sim, at the very least, contributed to its downfall and lack of support from the community at large was the end result.

Their business model also garnered huge amounts of criticism and it appears that management of DTG did not listen to that either. It may appear odd that flight simmers, with their incredible diversity of backgrounds and experience are largely ignored.  It also appears rather strange that flight simmers may indeed know what they want in a sim (after all, they are the ones flying) and some developers are prepared to sacrifice this vast arena of knowledge and stick to the "Dollar is supreme'  concept.  The has to be a balance and it has to be very carefully weighed and processed before announcing a whole new world is about to unfold.

I guess all of this implies at the very least, that very, very few new sims, will ever succeed without third party support AND ignoring the pleas of the actual users. So ultimately, FSW was, in very real terms, doomed from the start by management and their combined decisions.  It is very rarely the people at the coal face who bring a company down, and in this scenerio, I think that the coalface people have done a remarkable job under fairly restrictive conditions.

I further think this failure is one that in the long term will be just another historic flight sim event that will be rejoiced or sadly remembered by the masses. I am one buyer who bought and hoped for the best. It did have (despite the ancient ESP engine) a considerable potential. I looked at it many times and actually flew it twice.  My thought at the time was that it could be used as a very nice stand alone GA platform only and leave the tubes etc to the big boys who do it so well (ie P3D, Xplane, with DCS and Aerofly  thrown into the mix)  

I now shed an unnecessary tear for the silliness and folly of those who ignore the community. DTG will undoubtedly not be the last to do so and certainly will not be the last to fail for this reason.

In the meantime, Long live the remaining sims, all of which still have a huge potential to progress and thrive in their efforts to actually fulfil the community wishes.

Thank you so much for listening and please bear in mind that these are personal thoughts and are largely driven by the information I have been able to glean.  I may well be very off the right track and have no intention of upsetting anyone with these views.

Regards to all

Tony

[Oliver Ooi 85]

Really speechless. Several months ago, they said they will have bigger update in coming months and this is what we get? We have Microsoft failed us several years ago and now DTG. I wonder which company would like to continue the project? Ubisoft?

[Boomer 1,619]

Ubisoft is hardly listening to its consumer base, so, no.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

1 hour ago, MrSpeaker said:

Be cool if truesky could come to p3d. It's the same engine. That's what made me slightly interested in fsw. 

 

Yeah, but the thing about P3D is the goal seems to be to just drag an outdated engine into the future with little changes aside from 64 bit. In other words, the goal is to just keep it going.

DTG wanted to bring more to the default game and reap rewards from the addons. Clearly they did not handle the third party developers very well. In hindsight, they could have just done what LM did for the Steam consumer market. Make FSX with 64 bit.. FSX: SE 64