Who else is excited about the new Dovetail Sim?

[TBurd01]

For VR though it is unacceptable. And for his hardware to only be achieving 30 fps, it definitely is. Froogle Sim did a whole video on this.

[aero-3fsx]

Just now, TBurd01 said:

For VR though it is unacceptable. And for his hardware to only be achieving 30 fps, it definitely is. Froogle Sim did a whole video on this.

Technically it might not be up to standard but experience wise it is. Longest flight with VR has been 1.5 hours and I enjoyed every minute of it. Lots of flights around an hour and I have had a lot of excitement. Lets face it, VR is new tech and it comes as is at the moment with Development versions of hardware. It can only get better, a lot better!

[aero-3fsx]

5 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. 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 The software is just too outdated.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.

For role playing and fast action 30fps is too slow but for FS in a small slow plane its not. For many years I flew with around 20fps and opted to get the most eye candy possible. When I first tried VR it was nauseous but within days it went away. Same with the Paraglider, first couple of flights were uncomfortable then that went away. With this "aircraft" I can do weird things that are not possible in reality and I get lots of adrenaline but no sickness.  Lets see the results we get with consumer versions of Rift & Vive.

Depending on how P3D develops I may get the new sim but based on the months it took for OrbX to just redo their installers for P3D version 3, it will take years before there is a good quantity of content to make it worth the jump. As Martin said the existing sims are not going anywhere so it will be dual sim flying for a long while. Old for the content, and new for the experience of new tech. Either way I am looking forward to a great future in FS & VR flying

[TBurd01]

I have no idea how you can do VR at 30 fps then, because 30 fps on a monitor isn't good enough for me. It's not so much a question if you could have a solid 30 and never lower, but even micro seconds of dipped frames can make everything jerky. Jerky frames, even the smallest, with added in head movement would do a lot of people in, probably me too.

 

Either way, it's not so much about what frame rate you can play at, it's about what frame rate can be achieved. A computer as good as yours only getting 30fps should be very unacceptable to you.

 

P3D alone does, and especially with Orbx stuff maxed out looks great, but it isn't exactly modern day AAA spectacular either. Not to mention that you can't get playable frame rates with it maxed out. That's just limitations of the sim.

 

Do whatever makes you happiest. I just can't see myself staying with P3D once a more modern, better looking, better performing platform comes out. All DTFS has to achieve for me visually to be a winner is P3D v3 default looks. I'll take a more modern platform which should also have much better flight physics over the best 3rd party visuals.

[aero-3fsx]

20 hours ago, TBurd01 said:

Do whatever makes you happiest. I just can't see myself staying with P3D once a more modern, better looking, better performing platform comes out. All DTFS has to achieve for me visually to be a winner is P3D v3 default looks. I'll take a more modern platform which should also have much better flight physics over the best 3rd party visuals.

I always try to make the most of what I have. At the moment the resolution on the DK2 is annoying but will go away in June when the CV1 arrives. As mentioned above, the new sim with enough content may take a couple of years. I will see how the feature roll out goes and dip my toes in when there is a good enough reason to.

As for FPS most films and videos are 25-30 fps and I have got used to it for FS

[bonchie]

On 2/27/2016 at 8:56 PM, TBurd01 said:

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.

 

I still have a 2500k. Have a 970 4GB. 

 

I run P3D 3.1 and I'm routinely get 60+ FPS even in Orbx areas (45+ in the NGX). That's basically maxed out except water is on low (never saw a need to go higher). That includes Autogen and Scenery only one notch below the max, so everything is very dense. 

Not sure why some are still having performance issues. 

[antonvs]

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

You are right Ken, not to mention that not locking frame rates means that you are possibly wasting system resources that could be far better left to hand things like autogen.

Cheers Anton. (via Tapatalk)

[sidfadc]

19 hours ago, bonchie said:

 

I still have a 2500k. Have a 970 4GB. 

 

I run P3D 3.1 and I'm routinely get 60+ FPS even in Orbx areas (45+ in the NGX). That's basically maxed out except water is on low (never saw a need to go higher). That includes Autogen and Scenery only one notch below the max, so everything is very dense. 

Not sure why some are still having performance issues. 

Is that flying over the antartic at 35000?  What about coming into heathrow?

[TBurd01]

I'm guessing that this video seems acceptable to many people here. If you can fly like this, than I applaud you.

[John Venema]

Tburd, I've removed your video - you've taken the original topic on a tangent by making it about FPS for VR.

 

Please keep the discussion on topic.

[bonchie]

19 hours ago, sidfadc said:

Is that flying over the antartic at 35000?  What about coming into heathrow?

Which is your problem. You pick literally the worst place in the world for performance and think that's a good example of typical performance. 

And no, that's not "over the antartic at 35000" That's from KEGE or KSTS (right by SF and is a pretty heavy area). I also get 30+ in the NGX at DFW if you want a more populous place. 

Some of you need to get over the obsession of having good FPS in the few places in the world where it's just not possible. There are a million other places to fly that work well. You are never going to get 30+ at Heathrow or San Francisco bay. 

[sidfadc]

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

Which is your problem. You pick literally the worst place in the world for performance and think that's a good example of typical performance. 

And no, that's not "over the antartic at 35000" That's from KEGE or KSTS (right by SF and is a pretty heavy area). I also get 30+ in the NGX at DFW if you want a more populous place. 

Some of you need to get over the obsession of having good FPS in the few places in the world where it's just not possible. There are a million other places to fly that work well. You are never going to get 30+ at Heathrow or San Francisco bay. 

Sorry to jump on your comment but I constantly see people reporting insanely high fps and NOT stating the obvious, ie where exactly in the globe this is.  It just makes other people think their setup is under performing which is usually not the case.

[aero-3fsx]

Sometimes we just have to choose, high density scenery and low performance or low density scenery and high performance

I have chosen to fly mostly where there are lots of trees and few buildings

Each of us has the same choice

In any case as hardware improves LM & DTG will increase the possible scenery density for us to play with

[pmb]

Hi,

 

after > 300 Q&As over at Avsim, which I followed loosely, I start to scale down my initial hopes. Here are some facts:

 

- Both Sims (FlightSchool + DTFS) will be distributed via Steam as well as Windows Store exclusively. FlightSchool will have no 3rd party contents at all (which may be okay).  DTFS will have, and DT with work with Addon makers, but obviously you have to opt for one of the two platforms (if you are under WIn 10 - obviously no option at all for older OSs). It is unclear (and seems to be yet undecided) if 3rd parties will be forced to distribute over both channels or you as a user are just out of luck if the addon you want is available via the "wrong" channel only. Maybe they can streamline this. Maybe not.

 

- Given this environment, it's unclear how Freeware will integrate, if any. I still recall JV saying "there will no Freeware culture spring up". I am afraid he will be right - which would be a very serious drawback as it will limit enthusiastic starters to enter the addon business.

 

- The first few screenshots are underwhelming. Granted, they don't show much - but wouldn't you show off something spectacular initially, if you had it? 

 

- DT seems to be very busy with coding yet (so busy they didn't want to show videos of the present state so far). Now that's March, FligthSchool will appear in April, that means Beta testing of a brand new 64 bit simulator will be done within ... 4 weeks?

 

- Hardware support is completely unclear. I expect a stick/yoke/pedals might to work, but all beyond "DT will work with 3rd parties". Given the present flaky shape of Saitek I am pretty sure my Radio Panel, FIPs, TPM ... will not work at startup (say, Saitek is still in in business at all in fall, otherwise  DT had no one to work with anyway). Thus I could throw away my 3000 $ hardware panel and fly with an el cheapo stick. No way.

 

- DT mainly informs via their FB channel. Which stopped working for me on 18th Feb. (when they introduced a German language version; note I am not subscribed to FB and am not going to subscribe). Asking for this I was told I could go into my settings and that's the way FB works. That's NOT the way FB works. I don't care about language, but I can access ORBX, Aerosoft, Flightbeam... plus numerous movies' FB pages without subscribing. That's plainly Kindergarden.

 

- There will definitely be no or at best a few add on starters available when DTFS will become availabe. No 100+ ORBX sceneries and and even no 10, I think. It will take years until competitive contents will be available. 

 

This doesn't say DT will fail and they could indeed get fresh blood into the game. However, I doubt this will be a serious alternative for someone simming for 25 years with advanced hardware and an extensive software  collection - and a wonderfully working Prepar3d. I still will give DT a chance to convince me of the opposite, though.

 

Just my 2c.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[Jon Murchison]

I'm currently keeping an open mind.

 

For me the marketing so far has been less than exciting. After the initial announcement it seems to have gone quiet. For a title that is releasing sometime between 4 to 8 weeks I would have expected some kind of ramp up to fire demand and excitement. The lack of it seems odd to me unless I have missed something.

 

The screenshots I have seen were interesting and encouraging, but the latest I saw with buildings in the distance was underwhelming. If I was taking a new sim to an established audience, even if my intent was to bring in new comers, I would want to put my best foot forward. I'm simply not seeing that at this stage.

 

I'm like many who have made a significant investment in FSX and now P3Dv3. I'm certainly keen to see what DTG produce and will get both for the 'new and shiny' aspect. Supporting their main sim with add-ons will be a wait and see affair, but it will need to be compelling given my current set-up and investment. I don't mind it being Steam based, but being able to contribute from a Freeware perspective is important to me, if that is locked out then I will struggle to be excited by the sim.

 

I have never bought into the 64bit frenzy. Yes it has benefits but having run another 64 bit sim for awhile its certainly not a feature that made me go wow or had enough going for it to stop me going back to FSX.

 

Roll on April and then 'later in the year'.

[spiffy_malice]

For me, it's clear the next generation of flight sim, if it is to keep pace with technology, would have to move beyond autogen and generic (or generalized) texture maps as in the sims we have today.  If you have explored Google maps in 3d satellite mode, you will see perfectly accurate street-level 3D scenery extruded into the correct volume for every building and tree, replete with depth fading and atmospheric effects. It's breathtaking.  Clearly, a sim that can download photoscenery on the fly and extrude it into a 3D scene, is where the next piece of software has to go to be relevent for a satisfying new worldwide flight sim milieu.  Otherwise, we'd just be seeing a reskin of the same old thing we already have.

 

Preplaced accurate features like in TakeOn Helicopters is great for immersion, but not practical for the whole world; Actual photoscenery like MegaScenery requires too much disc space and lacks 3d features; a mixed FTX/Orbx approach is an ideal mix for what we have now, and why the next one needs to go the extra mile.

 

But that extra mile needs some very powerful servers for constant user streaming, a google-like cleaned up photo library as well as the means to auto-generate the 3d volumes quickly, at distance and on the fly, which I'm assuming is not a small technological ask.  So my guess is this won't happen yet, and doesn't seem the case with DoveTail, without being a google or microsoft joint venture, as they already hold so much of the data and capacity at hand, and that's extremely unlikely I'd say. 

 

Which is good news for FTX, yes? 

[pmb]

Spiffy,

 

add the prohibitive data cost to pay to Google, Microsoft, HERE, or Apple. Even when this might be technically feasible within 15(?) yrs, I doubt these data will be provided for free even then. Moving Map makers can tell you more about this.

 

But I think we'd better stay on topic here.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[sightseer]

 

Im less enthusiastic than I was - considering the screenshots - but Im still hopeful for the bigger sim.

 

It has occurred to me that I dont want the new sim as much as I think I do.  My hobby revolves around the FSX/P3D world.  My hobby has helped keep me sane over the years.

Some people paint.  Some people write.  Some people create repaints for aircraft and some people create scenery.  I create skies and clouds.  I have no idea if I could do that in a new sim.

 

I find it ironic that the flawed FSX is the main reason that the flawed FSX is so much alive.

[TBurd01]

They never said third party devs would be restricted to Steam and The Windows Store, only that those will be the distribution channels for the main game. I really wouldn't see a point in restricting third parties like that other than distribution royalties. Dovetail did FSX Steam Edition, and while they do sell Steam DLC for it, pretty much any other third party add on will work too.

[Jordan King]

Pretty cool interview with Stephen Hood (DTG Creative Director) and AviatorCast here. They mostly talk about Flight School but still interesting none the less: http://www.flyaoamedia.com/aviatorcast-podcast/aviatorcast-episode-83-flight-school-from-dovetail-games-w-stephen-hood/

[aero-3fsx]

14 hours ago, TBurd01 said:

They never said third party devs would be restricted to Steam and The Windows Store, only that those will be the distribution channels for the main game. I really wouldn't see a point in restricting third parties like that other than distribution royalties. Dovetail did FSX Steam Edition, and while they do sell Steam DLC for it, pretty much any other third party add on will work too.

FSX SE can be used with any third party because of FSX design. Steam & DTG want to make the most money so they may restrict payed content distribution. They will likely let freeware be installed in the new FS as long as it stays freeware. Lets wait and see.

 

20 hours ago, sightseer said:

I find it ironic that the flawed FSX is the main reason that the flawed FSX is so much alive.

It was MS idea to make the wrong political changes to FSX that caused MS Flight to fail

 

9 hours ago, Jordan King said:

Pretty cool interview with Stephen Hood (DTG Creative Director) and AviatorCast here. They mostly talk about Flight School but still interesting none the less: http://www.flyaoamedia.com/aviatorcast-podcast/aviatorcast-episode-83-flight-school-from-dovetail-games-w-stephen-hood/

Just listening to this podcast as I write. I hope Dovetail get a lot of new gamers from Steam which is their main ready made market. It seems I will be staying with P3D for some years till there is a good reason to change or as an extra to P3D flying. I might however get Flight School to fill in a lot of gaps of my knowledge of flying. I am willing to make the most of whatever is available at any given time.

[TimC340]

On 13/02/2016 at 8:24 AM, FalconAF said:

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". 

 

Interesting. There are 'purists' in all fields, but flight-simming requires enthusiasts of far more than just operating a fake aeroplane to make an environment in which such a passtime is convincing enough to satisfy you. Of course, it may not satisfy others, and for others yet the fidelity of the flying experience is nothing to do with their reasons for being involved with the field.

 

My own interest is rather like a railway modeller; I am trying to create a world with as much accuracy as I can, simply because I like looking at the view from an aviation perspective. Achieving AI that works reasonably realistically at airfields that believably represent the real thing (or sometimes somewhere fictional), in a world that surprises and delights with detail - something which Orbx have captured very well.

 

Incidentally, I also have been flying for around 40 years. And the aircraft I fly for my day job (A340-600) does indeed have cameras at various places around the outside of the aircraft which give me views not unlike those available in FSX/P3D. Some operators even make those views available to the passenger IFE system. So they are a perfectly valid aspect of the simulation experience.

[bonchie]

IMO, if the full flight simulator doesn't move to a global lighting engine (The one area X-plane continues to dominate) and much higher resolution default textures, then what's the point? That's the next big step that would take things to a more modern level. To release a sim with no global lighting in 2016 is just sad.

The areas that are ripe for improvement are global lighting, ATC, default textures, the flight model, and updated landclass/nav data. 

 

[Geezer]

What this looks like is a way DT thinks they will make a lot of money.  They will be the Microsoft OS of flight simulation.  Vendors who go along think that also.  All the old software will be obsolete.  Imo it will be a closed shop.  Well, steam.  It will eliminate freeware and vendors who don't toe the line ie pay DT for the privilege.  This will mean very limited software for a fairly long time.  I think I'll just stay with FSXSE and all the tons of software (most of it freeware) I've collected.   

[Ken Terry]

See ADX today for a video on a super resolution simulator

8k Laser Powered 3D Flight Simulator Projection demo by Boeing & JVC @ I/ITSEC 2015 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ppeZJed6I

 

Ken

[CathyH]

I ahve thier Train Simulator 2016 and love it. That allows payware 3rd party addons. Really excited by this

[mfastx]

I'll probably buy it day 1.  I barely use FSX anymore because the OOM errors are getting outta control.  Performance itself is great, but too many glitches and crashes.  

 

A new simulator is long overdue.  Dovetail would really help us out and save us a ton of money if they'd use decent mesh worldwide.  The ground scenery looks great in the screenshots.  Since Orbx textures are being used as a base, I don't anticipate spending too much on scenery in the first few years.  I just hope other developers like PMDG and ActiveSky are on the ball with this as those are really the only addons I want to have day 1.  

[Bermuda425]

Pre-Ordering is open!

 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/441920/

[JSilva]

Already preordered.

[Bermuda425]

I expected it to be more expensive. Very excited on release and visual performance.

[AnkH]

36 minutes ago, Bermuda425 said:

Very excited on release and visual performance.

 

Honestly, I am not. I bet this Dovetail "Flight School" will simply look like another improved FSX spinoff. I really doubt that although it will offer 64bit support and DX11, the visual performance and quality will reach a full blown P3Dv3.2 setup using REX and ORBX sceneries. Come on, on the screenshots over at STEAM, there are not even cloud shadows visible. And, what makes me really "angry": the preview video shows at the very beginning "not in-game footage" and this tells me, that the video shows anything but the real graphics to be expected. Obviously, because the sky and the clouds in the video look WAAAAAY better than those on the screenshots.

 

No, so far there is nothing really convincing about this Dovetail release for me. But lets wait and see how it performs in action. And how the full flight sim will look like when released end of the year.

[Bermuda425]

If you just compare the system requirements and price for P3D and Flight School, it becomes clear that Flight School is way less demanding. My excitement directs toward the literal flight school they created. And since it is the first professional flight sim release independent from previous other versions since X-plane I'm quite curious to see what Dovetail got. Moreover due to FTX Global we'll also be able to post screenshots on the forums

[pmb]

40 minutes ago, Bermuda425 said:

I expected it to be more expensive. Very excited on release and visual performance.

You hopefully noted parts of the video are not in-game recordings but real-world or whatever.

 

I pre-ordered it despite, Actually twice, once for me and one for my nephew who had an interest in simming but never would fiddle around with HT, AM, FFTF, NI, and whatnot. I hope it will do without this imbroglio.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[Bermuda425]

@pmb It won't be an alterative to P3D. But just like you say, it's a great opportunity for newcomers to get involved asily without the need of ultra high performing systems.

[Rimshot]

17 minutes ago, AnkH said:

 

Honestly, I am not. I bet this Dovetail "Flight School" will simply look like another improved FSX spinoff. I really doubt that although it will offer 64bit support and DX11, the visual performance and quality will reach a full blown P3Dv3.2 setup using REX and ORBX sceneries. Come on, on the screenshots over at STEAM, there are not even cloud shadows visible. And, what makes me really "angry": the preview video shows at the very beginning "not in-game footage" and this tells me, that the video shows anything but the real graphics to be expected. Obviously, because the sky and the clouds in the video look WAAAAAY better than those on the screenshots.

 

No, so far there is nothing really convincing about this Dovetail release for me. But lets wait and see how it performs in action. And how the full flight sim will look like when released end of the year.

 

You're right about the cloud shadows. These are not present in Flight School. That surprised me. DTG have stated that they are looking into cloud shadows for the flight simulator scheduled for release at the end of the year. Still, I'm looking forward to this release because I am really curious how DTG have managed to convert real world flight training to a PC flight simulator.

[AnkH]

Well, without cloud shadows, this "Flight School" Sim lookalike will even be closer to FSX with ORBX scenery. The only new thing will be DX11 and 64bit, it seems. Well, as I never had any OOM using P3D, this thing becomes less and less interesting...

[aero-3fsx]

13 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Well, without cloud shadows, this "Flight School" Sim lookalike will even be closer to FSX with ORBX scenery. The only new thing will be DX11 and 64bit, it seems. Well, as I never had any OOM using P3D, this thing becomes less and less interesting...

It will likely achieve its goal of getting a lot of gamers on Steam to give it a try. Existing Flight simmers will not find Flight School of great benefit and we are not their target. Best to wait for the full simulator later this year. Even then it will improve like P3D as time goes on. Lets wait and see. Either way flying will get better

[Rimshot]

29 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Well, without cloud shadows, this "Flight School" Sim lookalike will even be closer to FSX with ORBX scenery. The only new thing will be DX11 and 64bit, it seems. Well, as I never had any OOM using P3D, this thing becomes less and less interesting...

 

If you're already familiar with flight simulation you are not a part of the target market.  

[mjrhealth]

Not excited, not one bit, Was looking at P3d but not sure I can afford the addons at the price, which I cant understand.

[AnkH]

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

 

If you're already familiar with flight simulation you are not a part of the target market.  

 

I am aware of this fact. But for me, it is almost certain that "Flight School" will have and offer the identical basis as the "Dovetail Flight Simulator" being released later this year. There is little to no chance that those two products will use different engines etc. So, the limitations "Flight School" will show regarding engine, clouds, physics simulation, scenery and all this stuff will be found in the full flight sim as well, I bet on this.