Who else is excited about the new Dovetail Sim?

[Jon Clarke]

Hi J van E: I totally agree that for your desired experience and usage of a flight sim that you are doing exactly what the Sim was designed for... flying in as near as possible real world environment from the cockpit. It would therefore logically assume that besides maybe a weather engine + any other hardware peripherals is all you need thus making any ORBX product somewhat unnecessary. After all hundreds of hours of development go into making one of their highly detailed sceneries to allow us to view their interpretation of  for example what Norway (in your case)  looks like. I, on the other hand like to fly with the aim of viewing the scenery, hence my large expenditure on FTX regions and airports !!!! It just goes to show us how our different uses of a flight sim vary, and long may it be so.

I guess it makes me more of a flight sim gamer than pilot and therefore just what the ORBX coffers require !

[Daveebee46]

I am at the moment exclusively a P3D (v2.5 and 3.1) pilot. I deleted FSX nearly 18 months ago. I will be very interested to see what the addition to the flight sim world of 2 64 bit flight sims (Dovetails and X-Plane) will do to Lockheed Martins future development . I would be happy to think it might cause them to ask do they want to be the meat in a 64 bit sandwich. I do believe that ultimately 64 bit is going to be the future of flight simming. Maybe in a year or two we'll have a choice of 3.

[NoLonger]

37 minutes ago, Daveebee46 said:

I will be very interested to see what the addition to the flight sim world of 2 64 bit flight sims (Dovetails and X-Plane) will do to Lockheed Martins future development . I would be happy to think it might cause them to ask do they want to be the meat in a 64 bit sandwich.

 

This is getting a bit OT but LM isn't in the same business as Dovetail Games and so I don't think LM cares at all what Dovetail is doing (from a commercial view point, that is). Yes, for us simmers and for developers (like Orbx) LM and Dovetail sort of seem to be in the same business (or are at least of use and interest) but from Dovetail's and LM's point of view they clearly aren't. Dovetail already said they aren't looking at what LM is doing and that's while Dovetail is a consumer oriented 'commercial' sim-game developer. If they don't look at LM already you can be sure LM isn't looking at Dovetail at all. 

 

For us simmers these are interesting times but we should keep clear what is what and who is who to prevent confusion and false expectations.

[aero-3fsx]

On 12/02/2016 at 3:19 PM, neucoas said:

What i'd like to know and see if the new DGFS - graphics wise, appart from better general FDE -  will come with upgraded textures, better vector data/autogen/Landclass, newer airport database and little things like new weather engine, volumetric fog etc etc etc

 

Imagine a world where Dovetail pays ORBX to do the general ground textures for the new sim 

I'm sure having OrbX standard textures would be very welcome but if you remember how much OrbX scenery is, how much do you think the new sim might cost. DTG are aiming at the entertainment sector and their price will have to be a lot less than P3D. They will have to sell to a much bigger market than P3D so I think they will not be able to cost effectively make the new sim much better than P3D

[aero-3fsx]

On 12/02/2016 at 3:44 PM, AnkH said:

 

This. And people tend to forget what kind of load is put on your system when flying around in P3Dv3. Comparisons with current games and their engines are always quickly done, but it is unfair. Even todays open world games do not have unlimited maps, there is no to little chance that even a 2016 flightsimulator will offer graphics far beyond that we already see inside P3Dv3. It is simply not possible. Sure, the Nevada Map in DCS 2.0 shows what might be possible, but covering the whole planet in such a quality? Even though the streaming capacities of todays engines are vastly improved, I really doubt to see a visual improvement on a huge scale. We will see...

High quality space sims like Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen are using procedural generation or a mix of it with modelled content to provide the graphics quality. I read somewhere hardly anyone has the massive RAM needed to load huge modelled areas to be playable. Read what John Venema wrote a couple of pages earlier. Have realistic expectations.

[aero-3fsx]

On 12/02/2016 at 4:11 PM, Juanvito said:

I'm intrigued by it. However, I'm still on good old FSX (I haven't checked if my addons are Prep3D-compatible, specially the freeware stuff), and it works nicely for me.

Take the plunge for P3D. Most of your addons are able to be used with 2 little apps, one of which is the Estonia Migration Tool

[aero-3fsx]

On 12/02/2016 at 5:56 PM, DylanM said:

 

Excellent points John. With DX11, I'm expecting performance to be on par with P3D; let's see if DTG can compete with LM in the eye-candy space.

 

I am disappointed that it isn't looking to leverage DX12. The command buffer and draw call optimization seem to be an excellent fit for a sim...

I have read that DX12 throws a lot more responsibility for performance & smooth running back onto the developer. Its a steep learning curve for the programmer. I too am eager to see DX12 supported but not "enough" people have Windows 10 yet to justify it according to one author.

[Mickel]

7 minutes ago, aero-3fsx said:

Have realistic expectations.

 

Good luck with that.  Not sure too many players notice when their village isn't depicted in Elite.  And the ports get very samey very quickly.

[aero-3fsx]

On 13/02/2016 at 1:09 PM, Vasily said:

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. 

 

As JV states a few posts above it will take a long time for things to be ported over to 64bit. Whatever you buy for FSX now will be useful for another couple of years. For the average aircraft under $30 you get plenty of good use before a replacement is even available. You will likely want to wait for content to be created after the new sim is released before buying it unless you are happy to fly with reduced content for it.

[aero-3fsx]

On 16/02/2016 at 3:13 AM, kaboki said:

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..

Every time MS released (or even announced) a new version of Flight Simulator the same flood of opinions for and against would spread across the forums. I remember the same happened when FS for Win95 arrived and every upgrade since. It is part of the FS evolution process. This time next year most of us will have decided to try it or not. Although I am very happy with P3D v3.1 and using VR, I think I will try the new sim but with content taking perhaps years to arrive it may be a while before I retire P3D. After my first couple of flights with P3D v2 I retired FSX gladly and never looked back

[aero-3fsx]

On 13/02/2016 at 6:23 PM, dave302 said:

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

 

DTG could have opted to use Unreal Engine as with their next Train Simulator instead of FSX base. I guess train sim is similar to most games in that there is always a very limited distance visible in the sim compared with flight which needs a far further distance covered. Likely too many features would have to be written from scratch basing the sim on Unreal making it economically nonviable.

[aero-3fsx]

22 hours ago, J van E said:

 

This is getting a bit OT but LM isn't in the same business as Dovetail Games and so I don't think LM cares at all what Dovetail is doing (from a commercial view point, that is). Yes, for us simmers and for developers (like Orbx) LM and Dovetail sort of seem to be in the same business (or are at least of use and interest) but from Dovetail's and LM's point of view they clearly aren't. Dovetail already said they aren't looking at what LM is doing and that's while Dovetail is a consumer oriented 'commercial' sim-game developer. If they don't look at LM already you can be sure LM isn't looking at Dovetail at all. 

 

For us simmers these are interesting times but we should keep clear what is what and who is who to prevent confusion and false expectations.

What the companies say and what they do may be different. DTG has likely been inspired by P3D success and see the potential from the gaming aspect hence bringing in new people by providing an attractive environment to compete with current eye candy in other successful games and sims. I fully support the concept of adopting new technology and leaving much of the old behind. As JV said we need to make a real break with FSX. It may give OrbX a chance to introduce groundbreaking ideas to make their sceneries even better. Having said that I will not likely jump into the new sim immediately. LM will now be encouraged to make even better improvements to P3D and will be seeing what ideas they can learn and copy from the new DTG FS. As mentioned by another poster, our hobby's future looks bright indeed.

[aero-3fsx]

Some very interesting posts both here and on Steams forums in regards to the new Flight Sim. I remember it took a while after LM announced what it was doing with FSX before it released P3D. DTG seem to be taking a longer route by upping to 64bit from the start before release. LM have repeatedly said they will eventually go this route but more useful improvements could be made to many elements of the sim beforehand. Likely LM have made their current improvements with the 64bit switch in mind so when it comes for P3D it will be easier to implement. When that happens all existing addons for P3D will also become obsolete. DTG are doing it with train Simulator so they have a bit more courage to apply the same plan to Flight simulator before release.

Very important to always keep in mind - LM & P3D market is professional & serious simmers whereas DTG is aimed at entertainment. There is a lot of overlap but the focus of each market will take the products in different directions.

[Jordan King]

2 hours ago, aero-3fsx said:

DTG has likely been inspired by P3D success and see the potential from the gaming aspect hence bringing in new people by providing an attractive environment to compete with current eye candy in other successful games and sims. 

 

DTG sold upwards of 600,000 copies of FSX Steam. I think that would be inspiration enough beyond any being needed from P3D, which there are no sales numbers for. Likely DTG realized how alive and well the field was for the flight simulation market and decided their strategy from there. 

 

2 hours ago, aero-3fsx said:

Very important to always keep in mind - LM & P3D market is professional & serious simmers whereas DTG is aimed at entertainment. There is a lot of overlap but the focus of each market will take the products in different directions.

 

P3D is for commercial, government, and academic use. There is not a segment for serious simmers in their product line. A simmer would fit in the entertainment category but I know that hasnt stopped many of us from using P3D

[aero-3fsx]

Moved to new topic

[Rodger Pettichord]

The nice thing is that whatever Dovetail does, we still have our current more than adequate ORBX world. It's easy to be patient about the future when you are content with the present.

[aero-3fsx]

9 hours ago, Rodger Pettichord said:

The nice thing is that whatever Dovetail does, we still have our current more than adequate ORBX world. It's easy to be patient about the future when you are content with the present.

And even though we are content for now, we know that OrbX are not resting. JV said in this thread he welcomes a break in FSX tech so they can move forward to take advantage of better things. If foveated rendering were to be implemented on normal screens as it is in VR (even mobile by SMI) then FPS could soar in all games. The future for FS is bright indeed. Procedural rendering of grass and leaf details of what you are near to is already implemented in some newer games. Its possible this may be announced in the coming week as per Martin's (DTG) comments. If that were the case it would encourage LM to implement the same concept

Q&A from DTG - http://www.avsim.com/topic/483642-ask-dovetail-games-about-dtg-flight-school-flight-simulator/page-9

Comments on DTG FS - http://www.avsim.com/topic/483828-discussion-about-dtg-flight-school-flight-simulator/

[Triplane]

"Procedural rendering of grass and leaf details"? "Foveated rendering"?  Does anyone remember when we used to talk about things like flight dynamics and FDE models? Sheeez.....

 

Doug

[Griphos]

Well, if all we really cared about were flight dynamics and FDE, we'd load our A2A Comanches into default FSX and be done.  And Orbx would never have made it!  

 

We've likely gotten about as good flight modeling as we're likely to get in any sim from a few third party developers for FSX and DCS.  There are limits to representing three-dimensional dynamics on a two-dimensional screen or even VR.  It is the desire to fly those faithfully rendered air vehicles over realistic terrain that pushes us and our machines and drives most after market purchases and keeps us chasing the perfect flight simulator.  

[jabble]

2 hours ago, Triplane said:

"Procedural rendering of grass and leaf details"? "Foveated rendering"?  Does anyone remember when we used to talk about things like flight dynamics and FDE models? Sheeez.....

 

Doug

 

Hey, I remember when we used to talk about having more than 2 colours, hidden line removal (for the wireframe models) and the ability to take advantage of a whole 32K of RAM.

 

Progress is never ending, and a good thing too!

[aero-3fsx]

26 minutes ago, jabble said:

 

Hey, I remember when we used to talk about having more than 2 colours, hidden line removal (for the wireframe models) and the ability to take advantage of a whole 32K of RAM.

 

Progress is never ending, and a good thing too!

I was still a kid when I saw the 16 colour and almost wire frame flight sim on a friends computer

32Kb RAM ! I just added more so I now have 32Gb of the stuff

By the time holographic capabilities come to computers we might need 32Tb of RAM  - along with a 32 Pb HD ...

or might that be 32Eb or RAM and 32 Yotta bytes crystal storage device   ... Progress, Yes!

[aero-3fsx]

1 hour ago, Griphos said:

Well, if all we really cared about were flight dynamics and FDE, we'd load our A2A Comanches into default FSX and be done.  And Orbx would never have made it!  

 

We've likely gotten about as good flight modeling as we're likely to get in any sim from a few third party developers for FSX and DCS.  There are limits to representing three-dimensional dynamics on a two-dimensional screen or even VR.  It is the desire to fly those faithfully rendered air vehicles over realistic terrain that pushes us and our machines and drives most after market purchases and keeps us chasing the perfect flight simulator.  

Let OrbX, LM & DTG keep chasing that realistic terrain ...  And many of us will gladly follow with our credit cards

[aero-3fsx]

Just discovered the Avsim forum post on the new DTG FS
Martin is also answering Q there as in Steam & Dovetail - Following details gleaned from the 9 pages of posts current as I write
Several of their planned features are already implemented in P3D
A balance of features needed to avoid a 5fps sim
Cooperation with third party developers is in progress but likely implementation similar to FSX-SE setup - freeware unlikely
Many features still being developed and certain information is not being released yet - closer to release is when
Focus is on a set of release features with other items considered later perhaps according to demand
It appears Steam and Microsoft websites will be the preferred shops for selling addons
Virtual Reality is a long term development item not for release
Rock solid stability is a top priority of the development team
Flight school based at specific airports with free flight elsewhere possible - seasons available
Copying the "living" world of aviation is long term goal
Something very exciting with scenery is coming but NDA ... When revealed we believe most simmers will be very pleased - Procedural generation ? - more news next week!
20 people are working full time on new sim with others in company doing specific tasks such as sound & model makers
Goal of DTG is not to make another flight sim "game" but create a whole new platform with growth & dev for many years to come
The sims core engine will eventually have all the necessary features for developers to create all existing aircraft types
It will take years to build up the new platform and infrastructure surrounding the new sim
No stated competition with anyone - Motivation for sim - What keeps us simming & what stops some people from continuing
FSX-SE is going nowhere but we remain deeply committed to it
P3D will offer simmers one experience and DTG FS will offer another
Flight School will have reasonable learning curve providing new simmers to dip their toes into flight simulation
Smaller range of aircraft than FSX on release - perhaps better detailed? More aircraft later
We want you to feel you are not just flying from A to B but that you are flying your own aircraft between locations - tracking of flights, age of aircraft etc
Multiplayer, Virtual airlines and economics are long term goals
Necessary rights being obtained to use real weather feed for weather engine
Aircraft damage is only an interesting idea at the moment and not yet a long term goal

[Tim Harris]

Please stick to the topic and in case you are unaware no Lockheed Martin P3D EULA discussions are allowed here on the Orbx support forums. Cheers!

[Juanvito]

On 19/2/2016 at 3:49 AM, aero-3fsx said:

Take the plunge for P3D. Most of your addons are able to be used with 2 little apps, one of which is the Estonia Migration Tool

 

 

Thanks for the tip, I might take the plunge once I have a bit more disposable income. What's the other app?

[jabloomf1230]

Heh heh, PayPal is the other app.

[SBonner]

People need to stop fooling themselves, P3D is not the future. I continues to be an ancient flight simulator held together with band-aids by a company that doesn't see customers like us as their main source of income. As for Dovetail; seriously?

 

No, I'm hoping for "nexgenflightsim" to become a success. Until then I'll continue to use FSX and refuse to invest a dime in P3D that seems to be going nowhere either.

[TBurd01]

If they can tie in modern performance (64 bit/DX 11), with better flight physics (especially helicopters), decent default scenery, and have a good platform for Oculus (meaning it will run fine and look great with Oculus recommended PC specs), then they'll be in business.

 

The flight physics in FSX/P3D are dated and don't feel very real, even the acclaimed A2A. The default planes in X Plane give me a way better sense of real flight than the best FSX/P3D can offer. Default P3D actually looks pretty decent, and I would expect either as good or better for this.

 

Waiting for eye candy should not be a problem if the base content is good and provides a leap into the modern era. I would kill for modern performance, X Plane caliber physics, P3D v3 caliber default scenery, and Oculus support.

 

VR in P3D is totally out of the question. Even Froogle said in one of his videos said it's not viable in P3D with the performance, and that guy has a pretty beefy computer.

 

The eye candy add ons will eventually come, and will look better, even if the same content is used. I can run highly detailed Orbx airports on max settings in P3D v3, and it looks amazing, we've all seen the screenshots posted here of maxed out Orbx. Problem is that that high of visual fidelity makes FPS non-playable. Even with lowered settings, FPS is playable, but still not desirable. I have a pretty good gaming computer, but P3D just doesn't utilize my hardware to give me the performance I expect from it. If I can have the same Orbx addons, but have them remain playable whist maxed out, then in effect they look better.

 

I know all the add ons will have to be re-done and require repayment, but I would expect developers to at least give discounts to people who already purchased them for FSX/P3D, at least on the account that models, textures, sounds, etc. may be reused.

 

It kind of seems like to me that people here are denying purchasing a 2016 McLaren P1 because they put thousands of parts and modifications into their 1996 McLaren F1. The F1 is still great, keep it and still use it, but I think it is kind of silly to pass over the P1.

[aero-3fsx]

16 hours ago, Juanvito said:

 

 

Thanks for the tip, I might take the plunge once I have a bit more disposable income. What's the other app?

I read on a forum some weeks ago there was another app in competition to the Estonia Migration tool but I never found out what it is. I just had a quick search and I cannot find anything. I can highly recommend the Estonia Migration Tool. Its possible to install manually and make adjustments but although I used to do computer programming years ago I hate wasting my time doing something a €12 app can do almost instantly.

[aero-3fsx]

15 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Heh heh, PayPal is the other app.

You might well be right there, PayPal is a great app on my computer and mobile phone

[aero-3fsx]

12 hours ago, SBonner said:

People need to stop fooling themselves, P3D is not the future. I continues to be an ancient flight simulator held together with band-aids by a company that doesn't see customers like us as their main source of income. As for Dovetail; seriously?

 

No, I'm hoping for "nexgenflightsim" to become a success. Until then I'll continue to use FSX and refuse to invest a dime in P3D that seems to be going nowhere either.

Please read some of John Venema's comments in this very thread about some implications of the new FS and P3D. The Avsim Forum goes into detail as to why Dovetail chose to use FSX as a base for their new sim. Return on investment for companies is important to justify their continued support for products. Hell, FSX was making money for MS but MS wanted far more return so they tried Flight and failed. Conflict of interest and greed IMHO. I also wish nextgenflightsim is a success and it likely will be if they work for a long time. They are still evaluating which game engine to use so I guess we will be waiting some years to come.

From first announcement to finished product, DTG is taking 2 years just to build on FSX. LM took over a year to adapt FSX for P3D v1. DTG is taking about 2 years creating a new Train sim using U4 with the benefit of converting the functionality of FS2016 (not the code) into the next (TS2017?) version

Starting completely from scratch will have to take much longer. Not only coding but methods for doing things without stepping on Copyright toes.

P3D is going to be around for a long time. LM have commercial customers with a lot more money to spend than we have and it is improving all the time. At worst, if you have P3D you will get some years use out of it before nextgenflightsim is available. Unlikely before 2020

P3D is so much better than FSX now. Please give it a try and be pleasantly surprised.

[aero-3fsx]

6 hours ago, TBurd01 said:

VR in P3D is totally out of the question. Even Froogle said in one of his videos said it's not viable in P3D with the performance, and that guy has a pretty beefy computer.

My experience is different. I use Oculus DK2 with OrbX regions and am very satisfied with the results (except resolution-CV1 will change that)

I cannot fly with my 32" 4K screen anymore since it lacks so much of the realism of VR. Just being able to look around normally with head movement to see things is unique to VR.

For most who have flown with VR, there is no going back so I will not be getting DTG FS till VR support is included. As for the nextgenflightsim I wish them every success

[aero-3fsx]

14 hours ago, SBonner said:

. As for Dovetail; seriously?

Yesterday on Avsim forum from DTG

Think of it like this. You are going to build a new house on a plot of land which already has a house on it. You knock down the existing house but the foundations beneath the ground are still good and will make for a great platform for building your new house on. What is the point of completely digging them up and replacing them with new ones which do the same thing? What will you gain by doing that? As they say, why reinvent the wheel just for the sake of it? 

- Martin 

[Griphos]

Because you want to build a different, and not the same, house!  You almost never leave the foundation.

[pmb]

A first few FlightSchool screenshots can be found here:

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/483642-ask-dovetail-games-about-dtg-flight-school-flight-simulator/page-15

 

While I've been interestedly following DT, I wouldn't say I am overwhelmed so far. Foundation aside.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[TBurd01]

12 hours ago, aero-3fsx said:

My experience is different. I use Oculus DK2 with OrbX regions and am very satisfied with the results (except resolution-CV1 will change that)

I cannot fly with my 32" 4K screen anymore since it lacks so much of the realism of VR. Just being able to look around normally with head movement to see things is unique to VR.

 

You also appear to have a super computer, way beyond the Oculus recommended specs. How many frames are you pushing? I'm curious if even you have to turn down your settings, and still can't push as many frames as you should be (75 FPS). The consumer version is going to require even more pixels be rendered.

 

Anyways, I should have specified saying that VR isn't realistically viable in P3D because of the performance. Recommended Oculus specs won't even get you 60 FPS at 1080p without turning all the settings down.

[aero-3fsx]

16 hours ago, TBurd01 said:

How many frames are you pushing? I'm curious if even you have to turn down your settings, and still can't push as many frames as you should be (75 FPS). The consumer version is going to require even more pixels be rendered.

I have most settings on maximum but very rarely fly around big cities. I love bush flying with max density of trees. FPS is around 30 which is enough but moving my head too fast sometimes is not a good idea. With new tech, it's often pushing limits somewhere and it takes time for supporting items to catch up. In any case VR is very much alive in FS and will only get better. Head over the FlyInside forum to get some opinions on how enthusiastic FS pilots are with VR despite any limitations.

I upgraded my computer specifically for VR so it should last me a few years with only an extra/new graphics card

[aero-3fsx]

22 hours ago, pmb said:

While I've been interestedly following DT, I wouldn't say I am overwhelmed so far. Foundation aside.

I have been following this very thread but it was good for others to keep up to date. Martin has been very clear in informing us DTG FS is an entirely new platform with no direct compatibility with existing addons. Developers will be provided with all the tools to port existing addons to the new sim. DTG are in this for the long run and know it will take years for it to develop into a thriving community that FSX/P3D has now. I admire them for their courage to take the breaking step so to speak. They are doing the same with Train Sim in using Unreal engine with no backwards compatibility. They have a good idea of the support and rejection they will get from different segments of the sim communities.

Hopefully LM will keep P3D on track with equivalent improvements to DTG FS so I may not ever have to get the new sim.

[TBurd01]

12 hours ago, aero-3fsx said:

I have most settings on maximum but very rarely fly around big cities. I love bush flying with max density of trees. FPS is around 30 which is enough but moving my head too fast sometimes is not a good idea. With new tech, it's often pushing limits somewhere and it takes time for supporting items to catch up. In any case VR is very much alive in FS and will only get better. Head over the FlyInside forum to get some opinions on how enthusiastic FS pilots are with VR despite any limitations.

I upgraded my computer specifically for VR so it should last me a few years with only an extra/new graphics card

That's what I'm saying. 30 fps is just unacceptable with the hardware you have, and it may work fine for you, but a frame rate that low will make many people sick. FSX/P3D just can't use modern hardware to push the frames. Your computer is well over the recommended VR specs.

 

That's why I'm so excited for this new sim, because VR in FSX/P3D really isn't viable for most people, even people with good computers who can play other games in VR just fine. The software is just too outdated. Having to re-buy third party add ons kind of stinks, but I'm happy to have a brand new sim with no backwards compatibility. If they wanted to keep backwards compatibility, then it would not really be a new sim, probably no better than P3D.

[Ken Terry]

4 hours ago, TBurd01 said:

That's what I'm saying. 30 fps is just unacceptable with the hardware you have, and it may work fine for you, but a frame rate that low will make many people sick

There must be a lot of sick people in the sim world, I think 30 FPS is quite Ok.    Some even lock their frames at 30.   Some would kill if they could get 30.

Regards

Ken