hypercide

I voted glass just to mix things up. I agree with Kyle's response. In respect to DTG deciding where to allocate resources, I think the best bet is to give space to both. Considering that glass cockpits on new GA aircraft have been pretty standard fare for the last little while, the default hanger of the upcoming sim should show a mix of both types, so that the range of default aircraft can reward that, "What do I feel like today?" moment. Tim

This is a fascinating discussion; and it's interesting to see the tweak/no-tweak debate. For the anti-tweakers, consider that the SDK that came with FSX was essentially an open invitation to tweak; and it is certainly the case that in the interests of optimizing their customers' experience of their products, third party providers have been actively guiding the community under the hood of the fsx.cfg file for a pretty long time (I'm thinking of two of the best, PMDG and ORBX). However, I also think new customers aren't coming to the sim to fiddle with how it works; and indeed, I'm like a number of people in this thread who have grown tired of the necessity of tweaking altogether. I think in respect to the GUI, the best idea is that DTG should strike a balance that satisfies both camps. I think Paraffin's suggestion of an "Advanced" tab that opens up the sim on a granular level, like X-plane, is a really good idea. This would satisfy the sim-vets who do enjoy poking around under the hood . For the "basic" settings, maybe two or three presets that balance altitude, speed and amount of ai traffic (air, surface, and water). These presets might be further categorized by the complexity of the aircraft the user intends to fly; I can hurl around at a pretty maxed-out low altitude in Dino C's Goshawk, but in something like Aeorsoft's F16, I have to dial scenery complexity way back to do the same thing. (Perhaps, if you embedded aircraft complexity in the presets, it becomes your third-party providers' responsibility to test their bird in the sim and recommend the best preset(s)).

Another fellow loving the sim here. Mine has installed with maxed out settings and was running super smoothly in a little jaunt right through the middle of Toronto, Canada. Clearly Flight School is a sort of proof of concept, the infrastructure onto which the full sim will be loaded. Perusing the directories gives an interesting sense of where the sim has come from and where it's going (the Garmin 1000's in the gauges directory). I posted this on the Facebook page, but I'll repeat it here: I would be very interested in DTGFS/ORBX region-specific starter packs when the full sim comes out. I would be more than willing to drop $150 on such a package. And if a licensing deal with REX could be worked out, whoa daddy--such a package would be the beginning of the end of FSX. Tim

I'm another who agrees whole-heartedly with Josh's very thoughtful post. We keep faith with a very old program that has ultimately bred a very distinctive kind of user. It is, oddly, the very same user that DCS and P3D have gone after--the committed "specialist" pursuing the strange rabbit of realism in an illusion generated by thousands upon thousands of lines of code. We define ourselves by the "expertise" that has come to be required in order to a experience FSX "fully." (Even that's weird qualifier; the community even argues about what an authentically "full" experience of FSX actually is; the layers of meta-ness are wonderfully deep.) But what has been gradually draining away all the while from the experience is simple delight, and kudos to DTG for looking for a way of introducing that again. Tim

Martin, While there is a lot of talk of add-on's and the later DTG Flight Sim, I must say that I'm one of those who is eagerly looking for a more streamlined and satisfying flightsim experience. I've always loved aircraft and I really enjoy flightsimming, because that's as close as I'll ever get to flying. But the reality is that I have, at best, a few good hours a week to devote to this hobby. A significant obstacle to my enjoyment of FSX is that the add-on "eco-system" that has developed around the program in the last decade has increasingly made the time spent on this hobby less about simply flying and more about fussing over the eco-system (solving random CTD's after this or that new install, futzing with the cfg files, shader files, density settings, hi mem fixes etc etc etc). And forum activity here and elsewhere suggests that FSX:SE hasn't really changed any of that. Will the future DTG Flight Sim follow the DLC and update model you use for TrainSim? I can always sit down to that game, even after a very long hiatus, and be guaranteed it works. Might we look forward to something similar with DTG Flight Sim? (BTW I love the latest video). Tim

I am hoping and praying that once DTGFS launches, I will never have to edit another flightsim cfg file in my life or spend hours of my life browsing the internet trying to discover the reason why this thing, that thing or the other thing went boink and turned yet another flightsim session into a complete waste of time. Can I get a witness? Tim

I wandered over to this forum thread this evening because last night I started playing Flight after having put it aside a few years ago, and I wanted to see what was going on. What drew me back to Flight? The fact that probably 25% of my FSX sessions end in some sort of glitch. The issue isn't specs, the issue is tons of add-on''s piled on the old FSX; a unicycle holding up twenty+++ trained seals. Moreover, I'm the guy who maybe sims for an hour or two every weekend or two. When I sit down at the computer, I want an entertaining experience (probably a lot like all those people on FSX:SE), I don't want to waste that precious hour trying to figure out why this thing broke this way this time. SAs several people have mentioned in this thread, Flight, "out of the box" is massively more stable than FSX, and comes with a visual environment that I've paid $100's of dollars on ORBX to distantly replicate in FSX. Moreover, Flight's Stearman and Maule are still the most visually impressive iterations of those planes anywhere in flightsim-land. I for one am very interested to see that DTG does no matter the road it is taking to get there, and I'll certainly follow DTGFS before wasting time on another of those FSX/ORBX/REX/Carenado/PMDG/MilViz/Aerosoft/A2A-osaurus reinstalls. So until April, if not beyond, Flight is where all my flightsim time will be spent. Tim

Clearing cache doesn't work. I'll stick to IE or go in through google on FF. No biggy. Tim

For several weeks, the Library link on the main page is "dead" in Firefox (latest version on Windows 8.1) Reviews and Publications work. Library and Contact Us don't. I have to get into the library by googling it. Or using IE11. Tim

I have the "old" library bookmarked, so I can still get directly to it. As a longtime user of AVSIM, while I am grateful for the extraordinary service AVSIM continues to provide this community, I can't help but find myself continually frustrated by the endless cycle of front-page "redesigns" and "tweaks" that have plagued this site for what now seems many years. Perhaps the insidious culture of continuous updates created by Big Software has removed respect for the end-user from the values held by content-generators (as an example, consider the frustrations associated with trying to use Flashplayer). But hopefully, that's not true. Personally, with its combination of new and old, I had thought the AVSIM site was finally perfect again. (BTW, before this plague of redesign afflicted this site, it was always my first stop for browsing; in the past few years, that has no longer been the case) Tim

I bought the thing a few days ago. Not a good use of $40. Had to swap in the very satisfying Aaron Swindle sound set from elsewhere (there are in-cockpit videos of the Stearman where the engine sound is very apparent; it's not just the funny loop, but the absence of ROAR that disappoints with this model as delivered). And no, I do beg to differ: the 4096 set of textures are not "very high resolution" in comparison to anything else that retails for $40. I initially installed the 2048 set, but they were sub-sub-sub-standard, so I installed the 4096 set: detailing around outside of cockpit in VC view is most definitely not "very high resolution." And damn, that trailer was so cool (maybe Orbx scenery makes anything look good!)

Love the new logo, too. It ties the whole site together. Now I know where I am. Tim

Not terrible, but the AVSIM logo is one of the smallest graphical elements on the page. How do you communicate "brand identity" if a casual visitor is not immediately clear about the fact this is the AVSIM site? Like many of us, I've been visiting this site for more than a decade; when I first opened it a few days ago, it took a second or two to realize where I was. Shouldn't the logo be the strongest graphical element on your landing page? I'm surprised with such a vast community, you don't have a contest for these redesigns, with an opportunity for us to vote. What say? Tim

I'm another long time FS-er (FS98), and so like many of us, I've been through the numerous iteratons of the franchise and the passionate sharing of opinions that greets each one (if memory serves, the FS2004-FSX transition was heralded by many of the same apocalyptic musings about the I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!ization of the platform as we've been reading about Flight). But each time Microsoft actually learns from this community: the Maule that came with FSX began, if I recall, as one of the best and most popular of the FS2004 freeware offerings. How long before a Goshawk shows up in Flight, I wonder? Moreover, the Flight world has been clearly influenced by REX and Orbx. And the business model for Flight seems to come from both Capt Sim's frustrating stepped-release (or hook-line-and sinker) add-ons and Rise of Flight's in-game add-on purchase model.I wonder how Flight will eventually figure out how to create a revenue stream for freeware? Over at Amazon, there's a fairly complete digital self-publishing infrastructure for writers, might Microsoft go that route? (with the complexity of FSX, the very best freeware artists can now be counted on half the fingers of one hand--I'm sure it won't be too long before at least one of them is getting emails from Microsoft, with a pdf attachment: "non-disclosure agreement").From my perspective, Flight seems to offer nothing but great promise. Microsoft's "burden" is that each new iteration represents the state of the art largely in terms of what kind of world can be modelled by current levels of computing power, and it seems most of us go, "Looks pretty, but we'd like to see some more flutter before that stall, please." For now, I'd rather fly and see what turns up next; it's not like I deleted FSX is it?And so my wishlist--since Microsoft is watching--includes only a patch to produce a slightly brighter game world and a more useful default eyepoint. Oh yes, and this place called Canada, how about a little chunk of that to putter around in? Please.TimThe word that the prissy text editor flamed me on was not profanity. The French word is "saluad" so "salaudization," I guess. Puleez!! If we're going to monitor tone, let's do it with more care. Aargh!

I've been toying with Flight for a few days, having been simming since FS98. (I currently have FSX, Rise of Flight, and DCS A-10 on my hard drive). .My thoughts on what this version has going for it over FSX:It is fast. I have a year old HP Pavilion Elite that will make FSX stutter if I turn everything up with HD Carenado 'planes, and so I was worried about Flight. But I've got everything on High, Scenery Density on extreme, and I'm finding Flight very smooth and therefore very entertaining (tho' these first planes are slow; what will a jet do to my experience?). Plus, the program opens very quickly; I can play around with settings and tweaks, opening and closing the program like flipping a light switch off and on.With FSX I became an almost exclusively VFR pilot because I like to see the world I'm flying over. It's entertaining to watch. Flight seems to taken this aspect of the sim experience further (fly the west coast of Hawaii in both FSX and Flight and see a far far more detailed shoreline). The airports are lovely (landed at Ford Island this afternoon). As others have noted, Flight seems to be REX'ed and ORBX'ed right out of the box.The aircraft are beautiful but the virtual cockpit view, even with the camera tweak, is just plain wonky. The wings of the Stearman seem all wrong from that perspective. The VC lighting is a bit dark for my tastes; I'm using cockpit lighting all the tiime. In the Vans, I can't see the radio clearly enough for it to be useful (though, for now, that doesn't seem to matter). I bet the first patch will take care of these things.I must admit, I'm sold. I will get the Maule. And I suspect each new scenery will include an irresistable airplane, each new package released far enough after the previous one that it will be easy to say, "Another $25? What the hey!" Clearly, Flight will ultimately cost us hundreds of dollars. But surely for a goodly number of us, that isn't new. :wink:Tim

Another great AVSIM review. Jeff Shyluk's account of the Accu-sim add-on makes me want to shell out a few more pennies (but after I've recovered from Christmas). But I wanted to point out something about that door. You can close it with the mouse, but you have to "lean" out far enough to see the handle so you can "reach" it with the mouse. That's realism.Tim

Angelique,Thanks. Indeed, I dropped a note to JF's tech services just before I posted to this discussion. I'm interested in what they have to say. I can never quite decide whether to treat payware producers as "one of us," the people who really enjoy this hobby. Or "one of them," clever entrepreneurs who prey on our passion because by the time you've clicked "yes yes yes" on the eula, and downloaded the software, you've no recourse but flaming forums all over cyberspace. I've been simming MSFS since I discovered it in the late 90's, and I think there might be only 4, maybe 5 (far fewer than half of the total), addon producers who, a) produce a product that is really, really up to the standard of FSX (let's face it, cruising along in the default 172 over default scenery with all the sliders way up is a pretty enjoyable experience); b) are completely forthcoming about the strengths and limitations of the products they market, and c) price their product in a way that realistically reflects (a).My earlier mention of Mr. Cattaneo's work bears repeating in this context: he does flawless work and he is open about its challenges (see his blog about the upcoming F14). He does all this for free. Any payware company that makes excuses the pricey failures cluttering our harddrives, and then just carries on, should be boycotted out of business.All that said, I really enjoyed the long review of the CLS747. When reviews are often the only way a potential customer can size up the worth of an addon, reviews like yours are really important to the community; the software that brings these lovely illusions to life has become extraordinarily complex, and someone needs to take responsibility for honestly communicating both strengths and weaknesses. Plus, I think we simmers like tinkering with FSX, reading about FSX, watching FSX videos on youtube (new personal passion), as much as we do actually "flying" it; a long and detailed interview is as satisfying as a good flight.Tim

Buyer beware.I jumped on the JustFlight/CLS747 on the basis of the Avsim review. Whoops!: I'm getting, at best, 9-10fps (turning off all AI, scenery complexity at normal). I run FSXSP2 on Vista32. I own LevelD767 and Coolsky MD80 Pro and Aerosoft F16, Twotter, and Bush Hawk, and all run consistently at 17-24fps (planes and cockpits maxed; AI at 40%; scenery at normal). Because I enjoy that performance with those addons, I thought I could pop this "Lite" 747 onto my harddrive and go flying. Nope.My rig isn't a jet fighter, by any means; a DellE520, with nVidia 8600GT, all drivers always updated. But, on the basis of the comparisons in the review, and the performance of the aircraft in my hanger, I thought I was good to go. This isn't a criticism of the review, but of the product. In FSX, this JF/CLS747 has all the characteristics of a bad port from FS9 (for those who remember the JF "FSX" Tiger Moth, this 747 has the same sort of feel in FSX, very "stuttery" fps); suggestions that it will run smooth as silk in FSX should be accepted very guardedly. (not completely beside the point, but I downloaded the latest iteration of Dino Cattaneo's absolutely gorgeous Goshawak earlier today: why do so many of the payware guys still have so much to learn from this very generous and painstaking craftsman??)Tim

I love the survey, and I found the results interesting. But I didn't complete it as I was anxious about giving my email address to a third party market-survey firm. Can Avsim assure users--categorically--that chumpsoft.inc will not use email addresses they're gathering for chumpsoft's own marketing? (Yeah, I know that's pretty paranoid, but . . . )Tim

Thanks, Tingoose.I don't really think we should be wasting our time getting together signatures. As I wrote earlier, this is not a catastrophe, by any means; its the unfortunate consequence of market forces. Broadband and wireless move dollars as rapidly as they move data; I'm sure the bean counters at Microsoft have watched how rapidly their platform morphs once it hits the market and have been figuring out a way to harness that dynamic of development. Technology=money=more technology=more money: that's the wave we ride in 2009. I've got two sons with a shared xbox account; they're the future. As I said earlier, it isn't a really big leap to suggest you run FS and Train Simulator on the same "datascape" that you access through a paid account. (Really, why would you use TileProxy, if you could fly over a deep LOD version of Google Earth?).Here's the future: It's Winter 2010 (a cool number for marketers); my cutting edge computer runs at double digit GIGS, my video card is only slightly slower; I've got several terrabytes of RAM in my flash technology harddrive; my broadband connection is double what it is today (which is about 5Mps); I've just spent $100 to buy a Carenado C172 that has so much detail, I can watch the calipers on the disc brakes engage and disengage (I'm going to buy the PMDG 737 NGX, but they're promising that for Spring 2011, every wire in the cockpit responds realistically to gravitaional forces (like that little trick with Aerosoft's Bush XP, but better)); FSX+1 is a plugin for Internet Explorer; I subscribe to the plugin for $100 a year (because I need to "fly"); Microsoft Google Earth is a platform for all kinds of games relying on a simulated world environment; I take off into a "world" where every kind of vehicle imaginable populates the water, the roads, the rails, and the air; and this goes on. I use my FSX discs for coasters, and I don't look back.I have a good imagination, and I've read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. His vision of the internet is almost here. The death of FS as we have known it is one of the last stops before we get there.

Since "Black Friday" a couple of weeks back, I've been reading a lot about our hobby's miniature apocalypse. But maybe this wringing of hands about the apparent death of FS lacks some perspective. I've been simming for almost 2 decades but I know:1) for the "rest" of the world FS is a toy;2) the fact that it can provide a really complicated and hair-raising experience doesn't make it any less of a toy 3) the fact I spend hours reading hundreds of pages of manuals so I can get my 737/767/747/Black Shark/Mig29/Falcon off the ground from "cold and dark" doesn't make me any less of a--harmelss--fool (and I still can't use realistic targeting in LOMAC to save my soul);4) as "real as it gets" is a big act of faith (we all know that in 10 years FS9/FSX will look really bad);5) the idea we're somehow beyond the money angle is ingenuous; how many of us are happily (if grumpily) caught in the software/hardware upgrade loop?6) seriously, I can spend $100's of dollars on lines of code that, on the right machine, looks like an airplane, and I'm a victim?7) in a world of continual high tech development that has given us Google Earth, NASA World Wind, and Second Life, there's a certain amount (a large amount?) of short sightedness that thinks packing nearly a100 gigs of landscape on a DVD is still a practical idea (how much LOD do you really want?), when the internet can hold terrabytes of such data;8) I love this hobby, but the fact we're all so proud of it, so proud to see MFS used as a benchmark on hardware tests, so happy to see it being used by newsmedia to re-enact real life events, so quick to claim that "Yeah, I could really fly a plane if I had to," shouldn't blind us to how intimately it's tied to the development of computing; but computing is quickly leaving (has left) the disc drive behind and jumped down the rabbit-hole of broadband. The future of FS is not in the machines on our desks, but out in cyperspace. There's a vast generation of new computer users who would ask us why we don't get it.I sit squarely in middle age; I teach English; I've always loved airplanes. FS helps, but it's only a means to an end. Bring on the future.