A Comparison......FSX vs DG Flight School

[Caluma65]

Good Morning,

 

Recently, I have seen a lot of people (both on this forum and on steam) lambasting DG Flight School, with many people stating that it is worse than default FSX.  In my opinion, this is simply crazy and far from the truth.  I think that those who hold this opinion must have had vastly unrealistic hopes for this title.  As far as I am concerned - it is not perfect by any means, but it is a MASSIVE step forward from 'out of the box' FSX.

 

So, I thought I would post this screen-shot comparison between DGFS and FSX to show people (who perhaps have not purchased the title) that there is much to be positive and hopeful about.  As a starting point and base platform - I am encouraged.

 

This first screen-shot is from standard FSX with Global BASE, Vector, OpenLC Europe and FTX Scotland installed.

 

 

This second screen-shot is DG Flight School.  Both pictures are taken at the southern tip of Loch Lomond, about 15nm west of EGPF..

 

 

Thanks for your time.  Cheers,

 

Calum

[dominique]

Interesting. A remark first, if you have Scotland installed, you don't see Vector or OpenLC EU.in FSX, the fat region preempts the Global world.

 

Besides the obvious lack of a LC map in DTFS, the main differences are light and water. So :

 

- is the option chosen in FSX for the water  the same than in DTFS ?

 

- are the two pics shot at the exact same time of the same day, with the same weather and with the same visibility limit ?

[Caluma65]

1 minute ago, dominique said:

Interesting. A remark first, if you have Scotland installed, you don't see Vector or OpenLC EU.in FSX, the fat region preempts the Global world.

 

Besides the obvious lack of a LC map in DTFS, the main differences are light and water. So :

 

- is the option chosen in FSX for the water  the same than in DTFS ?

 

- are the two pics shot at the exact same time of the same day, with the same weather and with the same visibility limit ?

 

Hi Dominique,

 

Indeed - FTX Scotland supersedes both Vector and OpenLC EU.  Yes - both water options are the same and both pictures are shot at exactly the same time of day, with clear weather on both occasions.

 

I am unsure if one has the ability to alter the visibility range in DG Flight School.  Cheers,

 

Calum

[dominique]

The light rendering is definitely better except for the bluish tint of the background haze that I don't care for.  The FSX light "flatness" is one the reason I moved to P3D three years ago but there is still a lot of room for improvement in P3D in that regard. I'd give up any 64bits for a new, improved light engine !

[Caluma65]

8 minutes ago, dominique said:

The light rendering is definitely better except for the bluish tint of the background haze that I don't care for.  The FSX light "flatness" is one the reason I moved to P3D three years ago but there is still a lot of room for improvement in P3D in that regard. I'd give up any 64bits for a new, improved light engine !

 

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.  It's far from perfect but it is a massive leap forward from default FSX and dare I say a solid starting platform on which we can build.

 

I have been toying with the idea of moving to P3D for a while now and the only thing that has been making me hold off is the upcoming release of the full DGFS.  So for now, unfortunately, everything is on hold.  I don't see the point in moving over to P3D for what may only be a few months and similarly I don't see the point in continuing to buy add-ons for FSX when I may be moving on from this platform in a few months.  So sadly, it's a waiting game for me at the moment.

[dominique]

Something to keep in mind though, is that OrBX has marketed dumbed-down version of their sceneries for DTG FSX-SE  keeping the full blown version with ObjectFlow for themselves, if I am not mistaken.

[Caluma65]

7 minutes ago, dominique said:

Something to keep in mind though, is that OrBX has marketed dumbed-down version of their sceneries for DTG FSX-SE  keeping the full blown version with ObjectFlow for themselves, if I am not mistaken.

 

Ohhhhh really!?!?  This I did not know.  I really hope that is not the case - it wouldn't be a great advert for customers who have no experience of Orbx and are entering the market for the first time.  I could understand perhaps not including Object Flow but I sincerely hope that the Orbx don't intend to 'water-down' their sceneries for DGFS anymore than that. Cheers,

 

Calum

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, dominique said:

The light rendering is definitely better except for the bluish tint of the background haze that I don't care for.  The FSX light "flatness" is one the reason I moved to P3D three years ago but there is still a lot of room for improvement in P3D in that regard. I'd give up any 64bits for a new, improved light engine !

Lighting in MS FS is years behind what is possible with modern graphic cards - the whole sky texture system with its baked in haze color and sunset colors that don't fit the real weather situation is a set of fake solutions that were the only option 10  years ago due to lack of powerful shaders. But now, it is a shame that neither P3D nor Dovetail get it right. Have a look at the atmospheric light scattering shader framework and the cloudscape in Flight Gear and you know what is possible now (and this seems a minimum to me, as FG has really low hardware demands).

[Hobnobs]

All of these are built on the Microsoft ESP engine which is 10 years old. P3D has had the most work done to it but it still fundamentally an obsolete engine. DTFS is in the same boat (er, plane).

 

Until we get a new simulator built from the ground up we won't see any significant change.

[Benny]

Not sure what to think

 

Ben

[uncle_adolph]

Flight School is pretty much an irrelevance in the overall scheme of things. The fact that Dovetail do not intend to release add ons for it shows that they do not believe it to be a long term sim which also makes it obvious (reading between the lines) why it was released in the first place. Once the new sim comes out then anyone buying that is not going to buy Flight School as well.

 

So the real question is how FSX will compare to the new sim. Of course, we cannot answer that question yet but if we are having to have conversations, when it is released, to justify how it is better than a decade old sim then it will have failed.

 

Personally, I too would much prefer something brand new rather than a piggy-back onto an existing sim. Let's face it, we don't want another FSX clone so that is very much down to Dovetail to perform. We shall see!

[Maurizio Giorgi]

There is a strange thing in the two pics, with FSX you have 111,4 fps while in the other only 24. In my pc DTG is much more performant than FSX, pratically in every situation. Using DX10 the gap is reduced but always DTG is winning. Antialias instead can be improved according to me, it has an hit in performance more than FSX, at least on my pc.

I am agreed that the ambient lighting is not at the same level with other modern games, where with the existent hardware is already pratically perfect and very immersive. The difference is also that for instance in the consoles, games are able to use all the processors (8 in case of a PS4). I saw an interesting feature, like a compatibility with XBOX, where you can play these games also using a console, but i have to read better because i am not sure to have understood well the thing, i think it would be really a great feature. I would like for instance to play my DTG flight school or whatever simulator on a console (not only with an XBOX maybe  )

I also agree with the concept that a new flight simulator, has to be a NEW simulator. Totally different. I like a lot FSX but i know that a new thing would catch me totally if similar to some well know games (graphically, i mean).

 

 

[Caluma65]

23 hours ago, Hobnobs said:

All of these are built on the Microsoft ESP engine which is 10 years old. P3D has had the most work done to it but it still fundamentally an obsolete engine. DTFS is in the same boat (er, plane).

Until we get a new simulator built from the ground up we won't see any significant change.

 

Hi Hobnobs,

 

I agree with your point but the problem is that nobody seems to have the desire or skillset to build a new platform from the ground up.  Like you say, until such times as that happens - we won'y say any significant change but surely, until that day comes, any progress is a good thing!?  Cheers,

 

Calum

 

21 hours ago, Benny said:

Not sure what to think

 

Ben

Hi Ben,

 

Feel a bit like that myself but I remain hopeful.  Cheers,

 

Calum

2 hours ago, uncle_adolph said:

Flight School is pretty much an irrelevance in the overall scheme of things. The fact that Dovetail do not intend to release add ons for it shows that they do not believe it to be a long term sim which also makes it obvious (reading between the lines) why it was released in the first place. Once the new sim comes out then anyone buying that is not going to buy Flight School as well.

 

So the real question is how FSX will compare to the new sim. Of course, we cannot answer that question yet but if we are having to have conversations, when it is released, to justify how it is better than a decade old sim then it will have failed.

 

Personally, I too would much prefer something brand new rather than a piggy-back onto an existing sim. Let's face it, we don't want another FSX clone so that is very much down to Dovetail to perform. We shall see!

 

Hi Uncle Adolph,

 

Absolutely - it was never intended to be that way - they said so from the word go. No add-ons, limited aircraft/airports etc etc.  It has a very limited shelf-life but will serve a valuable purpose.  It's aim is to entice a new audience to the world of flight sim, with the ultimate aim of increasing the size of the market (which will be of huge benifit when they release the full title 'later in the year'.  It also serves to give experienced simmers a small snapshot of what is to come.

 

Agreed - how DG Flight School stands up to FSX is largely irrelevant it will be about how the full sim performs/looks in comparison but I don't imagine there will be whole-scale changes to the textures/scenery for the full release - therefore, I think it will be very similar to what you see above.  If we even have to have the discussion, it will indeed have failed.

 

I'm full of hope and backing Dovetail to pull a very much improved sim out the bag.  Cheers,

 

Calum

 

 

 

[dominique]

I really never bought that "attracting new blood to the hobby" argument. It sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo to me . Flight School  looks more like an early version of the final sim, bridge-financing the whole project. And if so, the intermediate sim (FS) cannot be too good lest it cannibalizes the final sim. It is not. Also where does DTG makes its money from ? DLC ! And there is no DLC for FS which will be thrown out as an used tissue in a few months.

 

Now, how  far can the old ESP be upgraded ? Who knows except for a few software gurus ? Maurizio brought an excellent point, can it be upgraded to support multi-processing ? If it can, the old horse has still a future. 

[Caluma65]

3 hours ago, Maurizio Giorgi said:

There is a strange thing in the two pics, with FSX you have 111,4 fps while in the other only 24. In my pc DTG is much more performant than FSX, pratically in every situation. Using DX10 the gap is reduced but always DTG is winning. Antialias instead can be improved according to me, it has an hit in performance more than FSX, at least on my pc.

I am agreed that the ambient lighting is not at the same level with other modern games, where with the existent hardware is already pratically perfect and very immersive. The difference is also that for instance in the consoles, games are able to use all the processors (8 in case of a PS4). I saw an interesting feature, like a compatibility with XBOX, where you can play these games also using a console, but i have to read better because i am not sure to have understood well the thing, i think it would be really a great feature. I would like for instance to play my DTG flight school or whatever simulator on a console (not only with an XBOX maybe  )

I also agree with the concept that a new flight simulator, has to be a NEW simulator. Totally different. I like a lot FSX but i know that a new thing would catch me totally if similar to some well know games (graphically, i mean).

 

 

Hi Maurizio,

 

Thanks for your post.  Yes you're right but it only dropped to this levely for one moment.  It is usually 45-60fps in DGFS but i'm not getting as good fps with DGFS as I thought I would.  I have anti-alias off in both.  I completely agree - That would be a great feature. I would love to be able to play a high quality flight simulator on my PS4 and if not a would buy an X-box.

 

I hope that they can work on the ambient light before the full release because it isn't great.  Like you, I would love someone to produce a new simulator, but it doesn't seem as though that's going to happen anytime soon sadly.  So until that day, to me, any progress is good progress.  I think the key will be how far things have progressed.  If, (with the addition of Orbx add-ons) DGFS (full release) produces a better result than we have at the moment - then that surely got to be a good thing - even if it isn't a totally new simulator.

 

Perhaps Orbx will also be able to work wonders in a 64 bit world!?  Cheers,

 

Calum

 

50 minutes ago, dominique said:

I really never bought that "attracting new blood to the hobby" argument. It sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo to me . Flight School  looks more like an early version of the final sim, bridge-financing the whole project. And if so, the intermediate sim (FS) cannot be too good lest it cannibalizes the final sim. It is not. Also where does DTG makes its money from ? DLC ! And there is no DLC for FS which will be thrown out as an used tissue in a few months.

 

Now, how  far can the old ESP be upgraded ? Who knows except for a few software gurus ? Maurizio brought an excellent point, can it be upgraded to support multi-processing ? If it can, the old horse has still a future. 

 

Hi Dominique,

 

I couldn't agree with you more.  Cheers,

 

Calum