Dereksmalls

Interesting to read the quote in the reply to the comparison video: "I expect that not many will want to fly over the visuals you show from 10:30 - 14:15. You would be asking a lot from our customers to expect them to accept that view from their aircraft as immersive and realistic, I'm sorry to say." The lighting settings for the first scenery shown in the video wouldn't suit the other scenery - one should really adjust the lighting to suit the product otherwise one will look unnaturally bleached out when compared to another. With the lighting set right I am sure "many would want to fly over that scenery rather... than... watch... the... immersive.... buildings.... flicking.... by....."

Try the demo? https://www.justflight.com/articles/vfr-real-scenery-nexgen-3d-vol-one-southern-england-and-south-wales-demo Use the 'download it here' link.

SRP is £24.99 per volume but existing owners of any JF VFR Real Scenery (boxed or download) get each volume for £19.99. If you haven't bought the JF version before and buy Vol 1 of NexGen, you get the £5 discount on 2, 3 and 4 as they are released. So, maximum £100, minimum £80. And Scotland comes with 5m mesh.

As you can see from some posts, AI traffic programs are a fairly subjective thing and, generally, compromises are made. It's impossible to simply replicate the World's air traffic 100% as it is in real life in any of the mainstream PC flight sims. However, in the case of an airport or an aircraft, there is much less subjectivity. People can have endless debates about flight modelling, but, otherwise, where everything is, how it works and what it looks like are pretty objective. Early Access would be no use (IMHO) for an airliner. The only option there would be maybe to release it in modular form and then fix bugs as normal. The main difference should be that in a beta the developer knows what the final product should be like and their beta candidate shouldn't require any major changes - just bug fixes. An Early Access product, on the other hand, should require some feedback from the users to help shape the final release. It may well have bugs, but the buyers are supposed to be helping with development, not just testing it. That was Valve's original concept and, although there have been some notable Mickey-takers in the EA category, I think JF seem genuine in wanting to model the product to suit the customer. Early Access is well suited to a traffic product - and to something like Air Hauler 2, which is also in Early Access. The feedback from those with a vested interest (because they've bought it) can help shape the final release and get the best compromise. One can be cynical and suggest it's simply a way of raising cash for an unfinished title, but the proof of that is how much the end product is shaped by the process or how much the user feedback is ignored. There is one very recent example of an Early Access title that didn't go so well, but I think the reasons for that prove the point. As you so rightly say, no-one is forcing us to buy it - although you'd think otherwise from some posts :-)

You are aware that 'Early Access' is a common term used in the world of computer games (which, like it or not, is the world you are in)? https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/275719/7_successful_Early_Access_games_that_all_developers_should_study.php Or, are you saying that Traffic Global is being mis-described and is not an Early Access product? As you don't seem to have bought it I am not sure how you presume to know the difference in this case? You said "your companies (sic) buzz word" - do you mean you think it's a word(s) invented by JF? Or that, despite not owning the product, you think it is mis-described? There is a well recognised difference between Early Access and a beta. As the article says: "Far and away the biggest lesson to take away from Early Access games is to take advantage of the user feedback as a plumbline gauging the progress of a game, allowing it to blossom to its fullest potential. To what degree and extent may depend on the strength of your original idea, but be sure to establish some form of self-sufficiency, come in with a strong playable build, make regular substantial updates with marketable themes, and manage player's expectations as you go." Chucking around words like 'integrity' and 'lie' at this stage of an EA release seems a little mean. If your idea of 'honest and straight' is Mr Farage, I would hope that Scott ignores you. Or maybe he could deliver his answer to you via the Ecuadorian Embassy on a flash drive and then deny it?

It sounds more like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" than a "Paxman" Presumably the only way to demonstrate 'integrity and honesty' would be to answer that one was being dishonest by describing a beta version of a product as Early Access? I should imagine DTG would have been discarding their microphones and storming out of your Newsnight studio over FSW.

The term has been in common usage from some years. It probably originated on Steam. I think they said the schedules are from March 2018.

The installer, seriously, allows you to locate the aircraft wherever you like. By default it will point it at My Documents, but this can be changed in the installer to whatever location serves you best.

When you buy TG (or Air Hauler 2 - another FS title in EA) you get access to an Early Access forum. Any issues, bugs etc can be reported there but the main purpose is for direct feedback to the devs so they can provide a final product that ticks as many customer boxes as possible. That's the point of Early Access. Sadly, the well has been poisoned in a few instances (mostly on mainstream games, once with an FS product) where EA has either been used as a shortcut to release a 'paid beta' or, in one notable case, to elicit suggestions and then ignore them. I don't think, given the success of the AH2 Early Access project, that Just Flight will take either of those unacceptable positions. For a refund I reckon the simplest course of action would be to ask? Not so much Caveat Emptor as Credite Factorem et petite astra - until you have proof to the contrary, of course.

And libel comes into mine :-)

Fact is there is a $140 discrepancy and that (IMHO) impacted on FSW. If it were a level playing field and FSW had lost out to, say, X-Plane 11 (in the same way Fly!, Fly!2, Flight Unlimited and X-Plane lost out to FS2000/2002) then fair enough. It's a given that X-Plane 11 and, to a lesser extent, Aerofly2 didn't help FSW - not to mention the vast quantities of hubris sloshing around at DTG. However, I am sure that after the Macbook has been dropped off at Ca$h Converters and they are nursing a lukewarm half at the Kipper & Powell Wetherspoons in Chatham High Street, they will feel justified in loudly voicing some disappointment that MS didn't insist that the barrier to entry was a bit higher for MS's other partner. Of course, if they'd asked us, we'd have told them, but what need had they of the 'community' - a handful of old clowns moaning about scalar values and dew points.

Careful mate. I got moderated for pointing out that it's a big risk for some developers to base their business model around an assumption that this situation will continue. DTG made the mistake of believing MS when they insisted that P3D is not an FSX (or FSW) rival due to the way it's sold. That may change if another (more FS-savvy) publisher acquires the rights to develop a new sim from FSX (or Flight).