Who else is excited about the new Dovetail Sim?

[Pete H]

I will be intrigued as to what DTG can come up with, but I won't hold my breath for this being a replacement for P3D.

 

I have DCS, X-Plane and Outerra all installed on my PC, but I still spend 99% of my time in P3D, for one simple reason: Versatility.

 

I love the new graphics engine in DCS 2, but I can only fly combat missions in very limited locations. I love many of the native features of X-Plane (such as "real" lights at night) but it has a very limited library of aircraft compared to FSX/P3D, and the scenery is nowhere near as good as Orbx, nor is the OpenGL rendering engine. Outerra looks great but it has no support for flight planning/navigation, instrumentation, etc.

 

In P3D however, I can fly combat missions anywhere in the world (via TacPack), I can fly airliners all around the world, I can fly GA aircraft over my own house, and everything in between.

 

The smartest thing Dovetail could do is to piggyback off of the well-established flight sim community and get well known players such as Orbx, REX etc. to work with them in the development of the sim. That way scenery, weather textures etc. could all be sold as DLC. Also, make the sim backwards-compatible with FSX/P3D aircraft, or at least provide an SDK that allows for easy conversion.

 

No matter how awesome looking or smooth a new sim is, it will only be a "toy" to me until it can replicate the scenery and aircraft that I regularly use in P3D.

 

Here is one positive thought though: Savour the moment, folks, because I really think we could well be living through the "renaissance" of flight simming right now. We've got the release of Oculus Rift just around the corner, P3D in active development, the newly announced sim from Dovetail, and the Next Generation Flight Simulator initiative underway. Never before has there been so many flight sims in development. It's a great time to be in this hobby, and although I have no idea what it will look like, I can't wait to see what the future will bring!

[macca22au]

For me, the recent changes to P3Dv3 have eliminated VAS and OOM problems, absolutely, so 64bit  would have to bring me other advantages.  Tessallation allows my high end  card  to do more work.  

 

As well the wait  for updated installers for FSX and 2.5 products has been longer than I would like.  I am reluctant to go through that again.

[Steve Colbert]

1 hour ago, Pete H said:

I will be intrigued as to what DTG can come up with, but I won't hold my breath for this being a replacement for P3D.

 

I have DCS, X-Plane and Outerra all installed on my PC, but I still spend 99% of my time in P3D, for one simple reason: Versatility.

 

I love the new graphics engine in DCS 2, but I can only fly combat missions in very limited locations. I love many of the native features of X-Plane (such as "real" lights at night) but it has a very limited library of aircraft compared to FSX/P3D, and the scenery is nowhere near as good as Orbx, nor is the OpenGL rendering engine. Outerra looks great but it has no support for flight planning/navigation, instrumentation, etc.

 

In P3D however, I can fly combat missions anywhere in the world (via TacPack), I can fly airliners all around the world, I can fly GA aircraft over my own house, and everything in between.

 

The smartest thing Dovetail could do is to piggyback off of the well-established flight sim community and get well known players such as Orbx, REX etc. to work with them in the development of the sim. That way scenery, weather textures etc. could all be sold as DLC. Also, make the sim backwards-compatible with FSX/P3D aircraft, or at least provide an SDK that allows for easy conversion.

 

No matter how awesome looking or smooth a new sim is, it will only be a "toy" to me until it can replicate the scenery and aircraft that I regularly use in P3D.

 

Here is one positive thought though: Savour the moment, folks, because I really think we could well be living through the "renaissance" of flight simming right now. We've got the release of Oculus Rift just around the corner, P3D in active development, the newly announced sim from Dovetail, and the Next Generation Flight Simulator initiative underway. Never before has there been so many flight sims in development. It's a great time to be in this hobby, and although I have no idea what it will look like, I can't wait to see what the future will bring!

 

Pete, I'm someone who spent his honeymoon dreaming of starting this hobby (saw the then-new FS98 at a software store), and once spent 4 hours walking an empty mall in Madison, WI with my poor wife waiting for a chance to buy FS2004.   When FSX came out I couldn't believe how fun it was, I was pumped.  

 

Somehow I lost my way and turned to die cast collecting, until only a few months ago when I decided to just try my boxed FSX on Windows 10 on our non-gaming PC to see if it worked.  It did!  Back to Orcas I, my old favorite airport in FSX.  Someone online had done an exclude file for me to get rid of a tree at the water end of runway.  Was it still online?  I searched, only to find a review of Orbx Orcas Island.  How did I miss these developments?!  Talk about excitement!  A gaming PC and a lot of $$$ to Orbx, Carenado and Alabeo and I'm still excited!  This is a great hobby - I just flew an A36 Bonanza with a newly installed repaint from an Orbx LAX in SCA that was heavily populated with AI airliner .bgls I just learned how to compile from plans and AI models (free, and fun!) all the way to Ontario, CA where I was greeted by more airliners (UPS was at passenger gates though...hmmm).   Along the way there was endless dry sprawl and freeways and airports and mountains - it looked like Southern California!  FPS was decent, no OOM, it was great!  

 

And as you mention there is more of all of this to come.  As long as John V's fine firm are involved with the new sim in content creation it'll be great.   I can't wait to see how archaic and primitive today's Orcas I looks someday when the new 4th generation Orbx version comes out on Orbx's own simulator platform (could happen?) - I'll be very excited and buy it and love it.  For someone who wanted to grow up and fly 727s but became a middle manager instead, flight simulation is important stuff and I'm glad others feel the same way and are serving our market - especially Orbx.

 

Steve

 

 

[jabble]

8 hours ago, Triplane said:

 

Not to mention the fact that none of the existing add-ons will work without a rewrite. Will I buy everything again just to get to a 64-bit process? Nope. For a thousand+ dollars I'll take the occasional OOM.

 

Doug

This brings up 2 problems.

 

1) As long as the marketplace demands back-compatibility, then it remains stuck with 2006 technology.  Our hobby gets increasingly dated, and will slowly wither.

 

2) A jump to modern technology means breaking that compatibility, but that means a transition period which is a tough time for addon developers, as people avoid/delay purchases.

 

I reckon it's better to face 2) sooner rather than later, and it's in our (customers) interest to keep our favourite devs in business.

 

Some will stay with FSX/P3D for ever, but I reckon most will slowly transition to the new sim, assuming it's good enough.  That means there will be an addon market for both sims for some time to come.  Maybe the purchasing power of FSX diehards will be enough revenue to see devs through the transition, and maybe 'sweetner discounts' could encourage people to keep buying for FSX if they know they'll get a discount on the future upgraded version.   There's bound to be some sort of solution.

[John Venema]

Couple of things... because conjecture irritates me!

 

- Flight School is what it is, no discussion is needed about it really, since we are not the target market for it. I wish DTG lots of success with it because it will bring new simmers into our community at long last

- It is logical that Orbx, REX, A2A etc and some other developers who have already sold DLC for FSX:SE are going to be involved with DGFS

- DTG have not announced an open SDK, and I doubt that they will, nor will there be a freeware community springing up around the sim

- Backward compatibility is neither assured or announced by DTG nor desired by Orbx; we WANT it to be broken so we can start to exploit new technology, finally. It's been too long since we began hacking an old 2006 engine

- You will likely have to purchase all your favorite addons again for DGFS; deal with it, it's going to cost developers a bunch of money to move them across.

- It will take quite some time for developers to port their content across, even with access to an early beta

[jabble]

16 minutes ago, John Venema said:

- DTG have not announced an open SDK, and I doubt that they will, nor will there be a freeware community springing up around the sim

That part is a real pity, but all the rest is looking good.

[Vasily]

Great news! 

Only one outstanduing question that remains in my mind. So whats next? What do I do now? Do i still continue to poor in money into the old FSX or do I wait till the new flight sim? Just dont want to be ending up paying twice for similar products. Im not only talking about the great Otbx planned releases such as the Open LC N/A, but also about Aerosoft and PMDG and the airport developers. Something for me to think about. 

 

[Rimshot]

35 minutes ago, John Venema said:

Flight School is what it is, no discussion is needed about it really, since we are not the target market for it.

 

Are 'we' advanced simmers? Judging by the questions floating the FS fora and flying seen in Youtube movies of 'advanced' simmers I would say a lot of 'us' could use a couple of flying lessons  Besides that, a small part of the target market may very well be these advanced simmers who are simply curious about this DTG project. I know I am.

[pmb]

6 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Are 'we' advanced simmers? Judging by the questions floating the FS fora and flying seen in Youtube movies of 'advanced' simmers I would say a lot of 'us' could use a couple of flying lessons  Besides that, a small part of the target market may very well be these advanced simmers who are simply curious about this DTG project. I know I am.

Add me, too, for both reasons.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[macca22au]

Serves me right, now I am lost.  Where can I find out more about DTG and its proposed architecture? Apart from XPlane, is this the new, all bells and whistles escape from FSX? When, where, how.  I don't mind losing backwards compatibility for a significant step forward, for me, that's the test.

[pmb]

7 minutes ago, macca22au said:

Serves me right, now I am lost.  Where can I find out more about DTG and its proposed architecture?

http://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/16/412446890550990408/

 

There are also some statements by DFS chief developer Martin further below in the discussion,

 

kind regards, Michael

[Griphos]

I appreciate JV's contribution. 

 

Yes, I'm more than ready for this new sim. i rarely fly FSX anymore. It's just such a pain to deal with, and after all the upgrades and tweaking, I still get barely acceptable performance on a very good system.  I've tried P3D at each major update, and the benefits are so small that I can't work up any motivation to start the HUGE migration needed to switch completely to it.  This old game engine has given us all she's got, and then some, but it's time to let her go.  

 

A new sim, 64 bit, built to take advantage of current and future hardware?  Yes please!  I've spent as much or more on FSX as anyone else but it's time to consider that investment amortized over my years of enjoyment and consider it done.  It's a small fraction of what I've spent on flying in real life and I don't have anything more to show for that than the enjoyment of it.  Have you guys considered what it would cost someone wanting to get into flight simming to buy P3D or FSX-SE and then bring it up to,the level we all enjoy with Orbx, addon aircraft, weather and other enhancements?  The base level isn't even worth considering, and someone sticking to that level won't likely stay very long. Orbx and A2A are the only reason I didn't give up on FSX a long time ago. In fact, I did give up for a long time, until I discovered them. 

 

We need to stop measuring the viability of any new flight simulation possibilities on whether we can keep all the goodies we've already bought and have them work in the new platform. 

 

This new sim is what the community needs, and I'm glad the major players will likely be involved, and I will give them all more of my money.  I will be a bit more selective this time around, but then I know what Is really good and what isn't now.  I'm so looking forward to starting fresh with something current and fresh and decent out of the box, that doesn't take half my time tweaking just to get it to work half-way decently. 

 

No no one will be forced to quit their current sims. But nothing lasts forever. The king is dead.  Long live the king 

[Vora]

Where are new designers supposed to come from if they won't publish an SDK?

Reminds me of Flight Unlimited and Fly!, both very advanced simulators of their time, both forgotten.

[Mikelab6]

Well said Griphos !

 

Keep in mind all, addons for the incoming new sim will takes years to come, so we will have some years to fly with our actual sims and actual addons. The money all have spent in their actual sims / addons is not lost because, you will enjoy it for some time before new sim addons be at level you want.  The pattern will be about the same as it is now. Simmers will run multiple sims on their PCs for some months or years before choosing and switching to only one of them, so I think it will be difficult to not buy any new addons for our actual sims.  It's not because a new sim is launched than our actual one is no more enjoyable.

[dave302]

I'm cautiously optimistic about DTGs new flight sim and will just wait patiently until it is released before making any judgements. I'm glad that they decided to keep FSX's core structure and didn't try to reinvent the wheel.  Actually, FSX has a pretty darn good scenery engine to start with, and it really just needs to be updated and improved. Anyone who doesn't believe that should take a gander at the older versions of MS flight simulator and see what some of us had to deal with back in the 80s and 90s.  This will also make it easier for developers to make existing addons compatible with the new sim.

 

It's good to know that running out of VAS should become a thing of the past, and hopefully some graphics effects can be added and improved using DX11.

 

It's great that a fresh team of developers has taken over FSX development and can hopefully provide bug fixes and feature enhancements that a lot of us have wanted for many years now.

 

Exciting times...

 

Dave

 

[magnetite]

I'm excited, but I'm not in a big rush to move to DGFS. FSX-SE works just fine for me. Maybe down the road when I build a new system.

[pmb]

14 hours ago, John Venema said:

- DTG have not announced an open SDK, and I doubt that they will, nor will there be a freeware community springing up around the sim

 

There has been an officially initiated and monitored 1500+ contributions wishlist thread on the DT Steam forum. One of the most required features - if not the most required at all - was an open SDK. They certainly can neglect this, Dovetail is free to do what they want - at the price of serious trouble with acceptance, which they rely on. And, didn't ORBX set out with freeware ages ago?

 

Kind regards, Michael 

[FalconAF]

I'm probably gonna upset some people with this post, but what the heck.  Some posters have "sorta" hit on the topic already, but not the way I'm gonna do it.

 

Traditionally, historically, whatever...most of us who use our flight SIMULATORS would HATE to be called a GAMER. Some of us would flat out be aghast at being called a "gamer".  Oh...the disrespect it implies!!!  

 

But one of the problems for any new flight simulator developer is in fact we DO use our flight "simulators" as "games".  We are the cause of many of our own problems, such as OOM's, CTD's, pauses, blurry textures, etc. 

 

What should a REAL flight SIMULATOR do?  Simulate real-world flying.  Period.  Any time we use the "simulator" to do anything a REAL pilot couldn't do, we are no longer simulating real-world flying.  We turn our "simulator" into a "game" instead.  What do I mean?  Well....

 

In my over 45 years of real-world flying, I have NEVER been able to magically transport myself outside of my airplane, float my butt in midair, circle around my airplane, and look at all the pretty scenery.  Amazingly, I've never been in a real-world airplane that had a Spot View, Tower View, Wing View, Landing Gear View, Nose View, Tail View, Flyby View, or anything OTHER than Cockpit View while I'm flying.  

 

Some flight sim users experience OOM's, CTDs, slow loading and blurry textures, and most of the plethora of other things that are "bad" because they don't fly the "simulator" as a real simulator.  Switching views increases the demands of ANY flight simulator.  It forces the sim to have to unload and reload textures all the time.  Most of the time I never "leave the cockpit" when I'm flying my simulator, especially when using complex scenery like ORBX products, and throwing a plethora of other complex addons in the mix too.  How do I avoid those frustrating OOM's at the end of a long flight approaching a complex airport?  Stay in the cockpit.  Land.  Stop on the runway.  THEN pause the sim, select the Instant Replay option, set the replay time for as far back as I want it, let the sim "jump" my airplane back there, THEN go to Spot View to "look at all the pretty scenery" and admire my piloting skills.

 

We can be our own worst enemies, regardless of how well a developer may improve a flight simulator.  The more we use the simulator in ways a REAL pilot could NEVER fly a real airplane, the worse we can make even the best flight simulator perform.

 

Am I interested in the new DG simulator?  Sure.  Do I think ANY new flight simulator will "solve" all the problems flight simulator users experience?  Hardly.  Many...most...flight simulator users don't use the simulator in ways resembling a true simulation or real-world flying to begin with.  Once you "leave the cockpit", it's no longer simulating ANYTHING relating to real-world flying.  But that's OK if you do it.  I even do it occasionally.  But just remember...in Spot View while flying, you now have a "game" instead of a "simulator". 

 

[Mickel]

On the other hand, a poxy 20 or 30something inch monitor doesn't remotely compare to the visibility from a real aeroplane for those of us who can't justify something like trackIR, so spot view could be considered a necessary evil in some cases.

 

I wonder if we 'gamer-simmers' complete more flights (PC crashes not withstanding) than 'proper-simmers' do, which after all is the entire point of a flight.  I suspect so.

[FalconAF]

Totally agree with your view, Mickel.  But just because a simulator user can't afford something like a TrackIR isn't the developer's problem.  A real world pilot HAS to develop Situational Awareness skills too, or they are gonna be a lousy real-world pilot.  They have to be able to determine where they are in relation to an airport or runway when flying in IFR conditions and can't see ANYTHING out the window, regardless of how small or big that "window" may be.  Can you fly an IFR approach to minimums and end up 1/2 mile from the end of the runway when you break out of the overcast, using JUST the instruments in your simulator's airplane Cockpit View?  If the answer is yes, then why SHOULD you really need something bigger than a 30" monitor to use those same instruments in the Cockpit View to figure out how to get lined up with a runway in VFR conditions in the simulator?  A pilot...real-world or in a virtual simulator...has to develop the same Situational Awareness skills.  If they don't (or can't, or aren't willing to take the time to learn how to develop them), they are going to be a "lousy pilot" in BOTH cases.

 

People complain every day that "somebody" should "fix" FSX and P3D by making it a 64-bit program.  Heck, there has been a 64-bit flight simulator available for well over a decade.  Why don't they just switch to that, if it's REALLY that important to them?  The developer made it, but the masses...for whatever reason they may have...haven't flocked to it in droves.  And that's OK too.  But it's ALL about the choices the flight simulator user makes themselves.  If they stay with a current 32-bit version, then they have to make choices while using it based on the current limitations of the simulator THEY choose to use.  It's not any developer's fault. Heck, if I was a developer, I'd be very hesitant to make a 64-bit flight simulator, let alone UPGRADE a current 32-bit one to 64-bit capability.  Historically, one of the FIRST things that would happen is I'd start hearing all the complaints about, "My current addons won't work anymore!  FIX YOUR SIMULATOR!!!"  

 

My post was just intended to try to get some people to think about WHY they may be experiencing the things they want to see "fixed" in our flight sims.  Are those things REALLY the fault of the simulator?  Or could it be the user is causing those problems themselves the way they are using the SIMULATOR as a "game" instead of as a true simulator?      

[sightseer]

post  #115  from MartinDTG http://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/16/412446890550990408/#c412447331647988450

 

We are committed to developing a cutting edge flight simulator which takes full advantage of modern PCs. We are in this for the long term and intend to support and expand upon DFS for years to come. We aren’t just going to make a new simulator – we intend to build a new simulation platform which grows with you, our players, over time.

Dovetail Games Flight Simulator will be a 64-bit simulator using DirectX 11 and take full advantage of modern GPU and CPU performance. The advantage of this updated technology is that we have been able to introduce a range of globally applied techniques such as dynamic range rendering (HDR), atmospheric light scattering and physically based rendering (PBR). This means that aircraft and the environment will have the potential to look better than they have ever done before.

The downside of all this new technology is that the code bases are quite different so add-ons from FSX will not just work “out of the box”.

Naturally we will provide developers with all the tools, documentation and support they need to create great new content for this new platform and will be working closely with them during that process.

- Martin

--------------------------------------------------------

 

This makes me feel very good about the future of FS. (in addition to his clearly stating the inclusion of SDK in an earlier post -- as well as here)

[Ken Terry]

I will be a "tough sell" to get people (existing simmers) to buy a new simulator software set that will not recognise any of their past purchased add-ons.

I hate to think how much I have spent on scenery and aircraft and to buy it all again is unlikely.  Perhaps it will only be done if the DGFS experience is far superior than my present experience - which is really good today.

Regards

Ken

[antonvs]

I'm probably gonna upset some people with this post, but what the heck.  Some posters have "sorta" hit on the topic already, but not the way I'm gonna do it.

 

Traditionally, historically, whatever...most of us who use our flight SIMULATORS would HATE to be called a GAMER...... In my over 45 years of real-world flying, I have NEVER been able to magically transport myself outside of my airplane, float my butt in midair, circle around my airplane, and look at all the pretty scenery.  Amazingly, I've never been in a real-world airplane that had a Spot View, Tower View, Wing View, Landing Gear View, Nose View, Tail View, Flyby View, or anything OTHER than Cockpit View while I'm flying.  .......  But just remember...in Spot View while flying, you now have a "game" instead of a "simulator". 

 

[emoji4]

Hi Falcon, I agree with you in principle about performance issues. But there is a major factor where a PC Simulator differs from the real world flying experience, we do not have the feedback to our brain of the sensation of movement nor do we have the same visual feedback (especially peripheral vision) as in real flight or the quickness of head movement even with devices as good as track IR so swapping views I feel was added as a tool (read compromise) for this deficiency and not with the intention of turning the Sim into a game. That said I personally also try to do most my simming within the cockpit for here I too have noticed performance suffers with view swapping.

As regard the fidelity of Flight Simming, I don't agree with you here. Look at the cheapest of modern cars and they at least have reversing cameras so I don't think for the sake of safety it is too much to expect that our planes (private or airliners) will not have multiple "spot" views of our control surfaces and undercarriage so that we can do real checks on our aircraft while airborne. I.e. Why not look at our undercarriage rather that just rely on three lights. With regard to performance issues caused by swapping views, this can be reduced significantly by networking a view out to another PC with the likes of Pete Dobson's WIDE PC.

So in summary as I started, I agree but also see we need to have extra tools in the sim as we lack all the extra feedback we have available in RL.

Cheers Anton. (via Tapatalk)

[kaboki]

Lol, this thread reminds me of the discussions awhile back(a year ago?) when Dovetail announced FSX:SE and most people where very sceptical of this 'republished' FSX that was coming. And a lot of people said they wasn't gonna touch this "evil" new ting coming from an evil company that made train sims with the only intention to suck money out of people pockets by releasing thousands of DLC's, and even worse it would be on steam(god forbid)... A few months later a lot of the same people was talking about how much they liked the small improvements they(dovetail) made to FSX. Now we have a brand new sim from the same company soon coming and her we go again:p, 'FSX:SE forever', 'Im Prepar3D', 'Oh no, 64 bit, now way I want something like that'(even it has been on the top list of what we want in a new sim for years)...etc etc. LFMAO:p

 

Im sure gonna be one of the first to dive into this new sim. After I few months break from FSX I started it up yesterday, after 15 minutes I was in OOM hell(and a lot of other .dll failures), arghh, bring it on Dovetail:D, Im all in no matter the cost of rebuying all my addons..

[allan prewett]

Yep, I am with you Kaboki, well said.

I only held of from Prepar3d and Steam FSX as it was old tech.

 

Allan

[antonvs]

If and when DG do get their planned Sim up and running and it is all we hope for I envisage we will be in a similar scenario to a distant time passed when most of the simming world was using MSFS 2004 and along came FSX. Look how many years some of us still used 2004 as their main Sim and only slowly took up the new one. I suspect some never changed at all. Personally I will embrace DG's new Sim if it measures up but I envisage sticking with fsx-se (which has given me a much more stable platform than Boxed fsx) for a long time and am especially glad I have held off trying P3D as I always rightly or wrongly thought that that platform never offered a significant advance. And I think I have a little more patience that the norm in this community, based on observations, so I will continue to FLY and enjoy what I have. And thanks to Orbx and the other great Addon developers like them we do have a fantastic simulated world in which to fly. So, back to some flying....

Cheers Anton. (via Tapatalk)

[Double J]

On 2/15/2016 at 2:29 PM, Ken Terry said:

I will be a "tough sell" to get people (existing simmers) to buy a new simulator software set that will not recognise any of their past purchased add-ons.

I hate to think how much I have spent on scenery and aircraft and to buy it all again is unlikely.  Perhaps it will only be done if the DGFS experience is far superior than my present experience - which is really good today.

Regards

Ken

Disagree, the problem is too many people want to cling to the past and stretch a 10 year old piece of software like Silly Puddy.  Let it go. ..money spent on software is not an investment but something used to pass the time.

[Ken Terry]

Double J, I have always been an "early adopter" of new things and technology, the point I am trying to make is when I read the hundreds of posts about how such and such "Add-on" is too expensive or "I can't afford to buy in that region I only fly in USA" I believe that DGFS will have to release something fantastic to get enough people to buy.

Add five years from now and FSX and P3D may well be the FS9 of today, but it did take a few years for people to do the switch.   I will switch if it is superior. 

The DGFS rock thrown into the pool however may cause enough waves so that some might hold off purchases in the months leading up to its release, "just in case I have to buy it again".

Regards

Ken

[Stewart Hobson]

6 hours ago, Double J said:

Disagree, the problem is too many people want to cling to the past and stretch a 10 year old piece of software like Silly Puddy.  Let it go. ..money spent on software is not an investment but something used to pass the time.

How can you disagree?  If I may jump in here for a second:  Ken isn't posting an opinion, he's stating his reluctance "to buy it all again...  Perhaps it will only be done if the DGFS experience is far superior than my present experience - which is really good today."  Simply put, Ken (and indeed many others) isn't going to jump into a new sim unless the new and superior experience far exceeds the investment of time and $$ already spent on the current crop of flight simulators.  And for what it's worth, I disagree with your statement that money spent on software is not an investment.  It most certainly is an investment, of both time and money, unless you happen to have oodles of cash lying around waiting to be wasted on frivolous "something to pass the time."

[Guest]

If Microscroft still exists and produice a new FS every 2 years, people on FS9 would have switched to FS10, then to FS11 and FS12 for long. Life is an eternal rebirth and rework. That reminds me of Amstrad, Sinclair and the numerous softwares I had on K7. I invested lots money (from my parents). In fact, you don't own a product. You pay to have a great moment of fun. All is lost now...no that's not true. The people that made them are now working for EA, US, LM or DTG. I hope they keep the passion like during 80 decads to create great products.

[Christopher Low]

You pay to have a great moment of fun. All is lost now...

 

....except the memories. I have very fond memories of Flight Unlimited 3 (which I used exclusively for nearly eight years), but I will never use it again.

[Voyager]

1 hour ago, Richard Bui said:

... You pay to have a great moment of fun. All is lost now...no that's not true. The people that made them are now working for EA, US, LM or DTG. I hope they keep the passion like during 80 decads to create great products.

 

I agree with you. FSX almost left us orphans!

 

Cheers,

Voyager

[wedge1047]

`Variety is the spice of life`

I like many others run FSX SE and P3D on my pc , why? because I like Flight Sims and  they offer some variety, like DCS and rise of flight.

 

I don`t see the DCFS as an alternative to my other sims but something that may bring more variety into my simming world.

 

I`m sure I will give in to temptation and buy the product as, I suspect, will many others here, but as an extra sim , not as a replacement to my two mainstays.

Should we not be thankful when companies try to make progress in our hobby, and who know`s one day we may even get that perfect flight sim.

cheers Reg

 

[jabble]

We have a problem.

 

Since FSX, the addon market has exploded, and most of us have sunk a lot of money into that sim (+ P3D).  There is a temptation to regard that as an investment.

 

However, we also know if we try to stay with the same sim forever, our hobby will wither and die, as the games market elsewhere makes use of the latest flashy technologies.  In comparison, our sim will increasingly resemble Pong from the '70s, and attract no new adherents.  So we know this leap to a new sim must happen sometime.

 

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is: we spend a certain amount on our hobby every year.  With a new sim available, we'll spend roughly the same.  We may decide to tentatively venture into the new sim, spending some of our money on that, or to go for it completely from the start.  We also know that it will take some time for the equivalent aircraft and scenery coverage to appear, so there will be no huge upfront expense.

 

In a few years time, we may find ourselves with a much better sim and an extensive range of addons, and wonder how we ever enjoyed its old clunky predecessor.  No going back then!

[sightseer]

 

My Model-T has GPS, lane correction and auto braking.

 

Its not really true that we will be paying for the same products twice.  calling the old products 'an investment' ignores what the new products have to offer.  DTG intend to provide new graphics and new physics.  The products may be basically the same but I think they could be quite different.

 

I, for one, have bought regions and airports that I have yet to even install.  Im busy enjoying other things.  whats the difference if I pay for a region or airport I never visit or pay for an updated, modern, and even more enjoyable copy of a product I really like now.

 

How many times have you seen Star Wars?  was the first time an investment and you wont pay again?  Its like Richard Bui said - you pay for the enjoyment...and Ive enjoyed what Ive had.  looking forward to updated enjoyment.

 

P.S: I can hear someone saying "well Ive invested a thousand dollars in hardware"...yes that is an investment.  but the software i think is different.  we're not losing what we have. we're gaining a new look approach, look and feel - which will hopefully be excellent.

[Christopher Low]

The relative stability of the flight simulation arena (for want of a better term) over the past decade has allowed us all to become used to the "status quo". That being the case, it will take a revolutionary flight simulator to shift many of us away from our heavy financial investment in P3D and/or FSX. To be honest, I am not convinced that DTG FS will be capable of delivering that. Let's face it, how advanced can it possibly be when it is based on the FSX engine? Yes, it has been converted to 64bit with DX11 support, but is that enough to transform the base simulator from a 2006 relic into a 2016 blockbuster?

[pmb]

I've followed development of this sim quite closely from the very first press release. Even I am somewhat surprised that the general response - often tending to be negative - is rather affirmative in most fora. I read from this we reached a point where a considerable percentage of simmers is ready for something new, even at the cost of having to spend new money.

 

This is of course bound to the proposition the sim(s) will hold what the makers promise today.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[be77solo]

17 hours ago, Richard Bui said:

 

If Microscroft still exists and produice a new FS every 2 years, people on FS9 would have switched to FS10, then to FS11 and FS12 for long. Life is an eternal rebirth and rework. That reminds me of Amstrad, Sinclair and the numerous softwares I had on K7. I invested lots money (from my parents). In fact, you don't own a product. You pay to have a great moment of fun. All is lost now...no that's not true. The people that made them are now working for EA, US, LM or DTG. I hope they keep the passion like during 80 decads to create great products.

Except when there was a new FS every 2 years, ORBX/PMDG/A2A/REALAIR et al didn't exist like they do now... we were too worried about what the next sim version would add/change/improve and looked forward to that.  There was great freeware and some payware, but it was nothing like we enjoy now.  While some call this stagnant, I see it as stability.  The fact FSX:SE and P3D improved things and kept backwards compatibility was why I jumped all over them.

 

Look how long the LC packages are taking to develop for example... once we finally get NA LC there's a new sim that's not compatible?  And they still had the rest of the world planned?  What am I to buy ha... I'm a bit lost at the moment lol  

[JasonW]

On February 17, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Double J said:

Disagree, the problem is too many people want to cling to the past and stretch a 10 year old piece of software like Silly Puddy.  Let it go. ..money spent on software is not an investment but something used to pass the time.

I don't really see what DTG can do by breaking compatibility with new software that LM aren't doing already. My sliders are almost maxed and I don't get OOMs with V3 on very moderate hardware. Why would I dump hundreds of dollars of purchased software for 64bit that I don't need?

 

I may not be the majority here but this is a hobby for me, a blue collar guy who can't afford to fly in real life. The software for me is an investment and part of my collection. I can't afford to buy it all again and would have to just stop flight siming all together if I had to start over.

[NoLonger]

I am very happy that I am not an add-on collector but that I try to simulate a real world private pilot as much as possible. I usually only fly (in P3D v3.1) ONE plane for MONTHS and do so in a small part of the world. Ever since FTX Norway has been released I have spend 99% of my flying time there and I only flew somewhere else to test things (performance of a new GPU and an ATC add-on). Add TrackIR, ASN and, since a few weeks, the Flight1 GTN 750 to this and I am happy as can be. (BTW I never EVER leave the cockpit when I am flying: I only leave the cockpit when my plane is parked. And I always take off from the airport I parked my plane after the previous flight.)

 

Advantage of my way of doing things is that a reinstall of everything is done within no time. And now an added advantage of all this is that a 'new' 64 bit sim, for which I have to by 'ALL' add ons all over again isn't a problem at all. One plane, one region scenery, a weather engine and I am good to go. Heck, with the 'new' sim I might not even have to buy additional add ons for starters at all!

 

I feel sorry though for everyone who spends more time buying add ons (and installing it all) than flying.  For me personally this new sim (the full blown one, not the school version) is very good news. Also because it (obviously) can be installed alongside P3D (or FSX) without any problems: you do not HAVE to buy all your add ons again... Why do people always think black and white, all or nothing, etc.