dtrjones

Hello Martin. Should we expect to see any more videos or previews? Maybe some Twitch streams or "let's plays" of the sim?

I haven't forgotten about it. We are looking to cover this in more detail in a video, which is why I haven't spoken much about it here. 

- Martin

Yes then! :smile:

I made the switch to P3D in December and have been 100% happy about doing so. The increased performance and visuals have made it easily worth the cost to me. The only thing I really miss are the Reality XP GNS units.

 

Dovetail has no firm release date for their new flight sim, and LM hasn't even announced a 64-bit version of P3D, so playing the "let's wait for the next big thing" game should not be a factor in your decision in my opinion. Even if one or both does actually get released this year, you will need to wait months or years for there to be a sufficient number of compatible add-ons to raise the level of either of those sims to where P3D is today. It will take a bit of start-up cost to get going in P3D, and whether or not you can afford it is something only you can answer, but I can pretty much guarantee you by the time the next big thing comes along you will have more than gotten your money's worth out of P3D.

Good advice but "Dovetail has no firm release date"... It's widely known that Dovetail will release a product at the end of the year, and I don't see this as being particularly risky statement to make.

64bit version of P3D is unknown so it's too early to say if this could impact P3D in the long term and there isn't going to be much out for DGFS on launch... In fact it's debatable that the first release of DGFS will be better than P3D anyway - it could take several years for DGFS to catch up. What DGFS will having going is it's fresh approach, option of using 64bit which forces a break away from FSX compatibility which could reap dividends in future releases.

If you're not in a rush I would wait personally and see how DGFS is in 6 months time. Dovetail have promised to provide more coverage of this simulator with a possibility of an open beta, so if it turns out to be a dud, then P3D offers a nice safety net to fall back on.

Yes agree on that;

why lock it up ???

It is a game - and gaming mean having fun !! part of the fun is also to be able to mod a game !!

I think you've just answered your own question!

Dovetail games wanted to keep things simple. Mods require a simulator to be far more mature and open than they were willing to provide for Flight School - maybe they simple weren't ready. This is why we have Flight School now and Flight Simulator at the end of the year.

Re: DVNT28 DCS World Comparisons

Just wanted to comment on DVNT28 post in the Ask Dovetail thread.

Like Rimshot the tone of DVNT28 is not particularly clever and there isn't any value in pushing that stuff to Martin or DTG as I believe they get it already, I really do.

However I have always felt that Microsoft Flight Simulator has been behind the curve when it comes to graphic fidelity and I strongly believe that the immersive qualities of having a realistic looking simulation can only enhance the simulation experience. For me this means including first and foremost the correct colours - TLight is spot on here, nothing can kill immersion quicker than feeling you're looking at a cartoon. But I also see no reason why the effects and quality of a DCS World 2 "Map" can't be included in a Worldly flight simulator over time.

By effects and quality I'm really talking about the capabilities of the graphics engine and quality of the existing assets to make use of that engine. That does not mean however that you have more detail as that would require huge amounts of resources to create more content. But surely the existing content could be enhanced with DCS World 2.0 effects - that surely is possible.

I'm going to caveat this though. DCS World is a great example of why we shouldn't expect Dovetail to produce a high fidelity graphical simulation, at least not soon anyway. DCS World 2.0 if far from complete - creating the fidelity with just two relatively small maps has taken a very long time and there are a lot of features like weather, assets and effects which aren’t even close to being completed.

From the ground up, then maybe the graphic and simulation fidelity can be incorporated, but that’s a different proposition entirely and something Next Generation iNTERACTiVE Software are going to find out when they bring their product to market sometime in the next decade. Dovetail have taken a sensible approach - we shouldn't expect photo real scenery from day 1 or day 2 but if you saw the PC Pilot interview with Stephen Hood, then graphic fidelity and the immersive qualities this brings is at the forefront of Dovetails plans and given time will be something we can all enjoy.

Cheers,

Dave.

I'd love to know what Dovetails plans are for shadows in Flight School.

 

I've asked the questions in the main thread so hopefully we'll get an answer in the coming week.

 

In the latest screenshots, the light rendering is spectacular, the new engine is really showing its power, but I can't see a single shadow. On the Steam page they have small images, some of them show shadows on the aircraft. I wonder if they're still experimenting with the tech?

 

Would be nice if Flight School and Flight Simulator share the same rendering engine, it could mean any advances made to the main sim over the coming year would be pre-viewable in Flight School. Good for Dovetails marketing strategy and more cost effective than running two separate engines with different tech.

I can't remember where but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that cloud shadows wouldn't be included in Flight School but Dovetail would look at it again for Flight Simulator. I can't find this quote now though so maybe it's been retracted...

The bad news Flight Simulator will not share the same engine with Flight School, the good news is that's because it will be even better. Dovetail have confirmed that they are still evolving the technology which we can preview in Flight School for Flight Simulator. I guess we all have to be just a little more patient but they seem to be doing a good job so far.

Cheers,

Dave.

Thanks ca_metal, I like that answer better  :wink:

Me too! Thanks ca_metal!

All told, Flight School would be ideal for your daughter, you should support DTG and get her a copy as well!! :smile:

Cheers,

Dave.

Looks like they haven't fixed the autogen yet. You can tell because in the first shot you can see the autogen getting sparser as you go out, which is dead giveaway that FSX's popup issue is still there (as that's how it behaves). No cloud or ground shadows are in yet either. There's not even any shadowing on the airplane itself.

 

I really hope they do that in the bigger sim. The lighting is still insanely overdone. It looks a lot like X-Plane's scattering when you use the RTH plugin and max it out (not stock X-plane). You get the same blinding blue thing going on.

The first shot is sparse because it's water LOL!

I don't think there is conclusive evidence to support this as least to a point where it's a genuine issue like in FSX. Certainly in the videos shown so far I've never seen as many objects being displayed before. If autogen is still a problem and it well might be as it's based on FSX tech, then I would say it's much less of a problem now than it was back then.

UPDATE: looking again the scenery does tend to thin out a little, but the foreground does look fanstastic. I guess we'll just have to wait for some more videos.

Hi Martin

 

As this is on Steam, how would it work if there was more than 1 user on the PC?

Should they buy a copy each on a separate Steam account?

Will their progress be tracked separately?

 

Thanks.

Hi tbaac, to load a steam game you have to log into steam. So the game will only be available for that account. Even on the same machine. You can easily switch accounts on the same machine though by clicking on you username in the steam client and selecting Change User... Yes the progress will be tracked per user, this is basic steam behavour so I would expect this to be the same in-game.

One less for you Martin!

Cheers,

Dave.

Yeah, I think the camera is deceiving. I agree that in the first video it appeared to be asphalt, but in the other video you are referring to, you can see that they appear to be dirt/grass strips that are enhanced to make it easier for the user to see where to land. 

Holy smoke batman! I do believe they must have patched the release between videos or using two separate builds... I’ve seen both videos 3 times each and I’m convinced that it’s definitely asphalt on the original and dirt on the new or are we looking at different airfields... How can that be!

Just like to add also, the number of objects being rendered on the screen is impressive and the frame rate hardly seems to be affected, of course DTG could be using a meaty rig but Im hopeful for decent performance. Personally I don't like the horizon being that clear (this is England people) and would probably bring in visibility a touch.

This philosophy only works in a sim if there are enough addons available soon after release to keep interest up.

Hang on a minute... Dovetail Flight Simulator is going to be one of the most anticipated products in civilian flight simulation in the past 10 years, that alone should equate to sales or significant interest. It will have base scenery which will accomodate most users immediate needs and with the contacts Dovetail games have with 3PD I would imagine a DLC or two. I'm pretty certain interest will be there and it will only grow over time.

As for X-Plane which I like but the standard and variety of DLC comparied to FSX is rather poor. Carenado have some decent products on X-Plane but the scenery doesn't come close to the quality of FSX. The point being that X-Plane has survived as it is a good simulator and there's no reason not to believe Dovetail Flight Simulator will not be the same.

Cheers,

Dave.

The Flight School concept ist completely fine as such, I think. Even for DT as an entry point into 64 bits technology. Even Josh's price tag might well apply :-)

 

What worries me more is that JV's statement obviously includes the full-fledged DFS due at the end of this year (as that's the only one addon-enabled). I was in hope this one would qualify as an alternative for present "hard-core" simmers, too. 

 

Kind regards, Michael

Hi Michael,

I'm a little confused by your email. Are you concerned with the Flight School concept which is very much in Dovetails direction or are you unhappy with the Orbx pricing strategy for DTG Flight Simulator DLC which is something specific to Orbx, when other 3PD could follow a different path?

Cheers,

Dave.

I'm trying to figure out why people keep saying FSX today (at least with DX10/Fixer) doesn't do atmospheric scattering? It sure looks like it does to me! What am I missing?

FSX fudges it but applying some post processing around the horizon and overlays a shimmy pattern over the water, thats not 3D light scattering. The picture below shows what 3D light scattering is which is superbly demenstrated by the first few set of images Dovetail produced of Flight School. These images are quite old now so I would expect the tech to have advanced futher.

FYI the image below was taken from the website https://scrawkblog.com/tag/atmospheric-scattering/

Hi Martin,

Thank you again for your continued support and feedback to these forums. I've seen a few posts on different sites and I have to say Steve and yourself work tirelessly to answer our questions to the best you can at this stage in the development process and it's wonderful to have this level of engagement with DTG.

My question is related to a topic which I'm pretty sure has been discussed before but I can't remember where. This topic is 'Persistence' which I think could become a huge asset for DTG and it's something A. DTG can incorporate and add value to the Flight Simulator (or Flight School) simulators and B. As far as I can tell, no one really has got a handle on the use persistence in any field of simulation as far as I can tell.

So before I ask me question I just wanted to give you my impression of what I think persistence in DTG Flight Simulator is. Apologies if I have stolen Steve or your ideas but I want to be as complete as I can. Fundamentally persistence as you know is a persistent state which where information is saved when you last used the simulator so a pilot can continue from where they left off the next day which brings the immersion into play but also gameplay elements like maintenance of aircraft, exploration etc.

Flight Simulator ideas in the Persistence World

1. Persistent world which is online, always the correct time, weather etc. depending on where you are in the world.

2. Location always where your last landed which have controls so you can't just spawn at a random airport unless say you've been there or go to that airport first. Maybe going to the larger airports can unlock other locations or planes to use.

3. Avatar focused so you have to perform visual pre-flight checks on foot. Avatar's also introduce a social element with the simulation world, I.e. airport lounge for a chat.

4. Planes age overtime which could include visual ageing which would require a flight check to put right, but also to address system failures.

5. Planes need to be acquired, so you need to have travelled to an airport with a plane before you can fly that plane.

...Lots more, not mentioned missions, AI, user generated content - this could really be just the beginning especially when we're talking about an online world...

I see persistence as a game mode, but not by any means the only way for Flight Simulator to function - however it has the ability to add real authenticity as well and additional gameplay features. When going to FSX and selecting real world weather and the correct time and day - I see this as the building block for a much bigger world which I think would be exciting to exploit and definitely give DTG FS an advantage over it's peers. 

So finally my question. What plans to DTG have for persistence for DTG Flight School and Flight Simulator if any, thanks.

Cheers,

Dave.

This is not for you or I to determine, we are not lawyers and most important we're not judges that could make such a ruling.  This is why such discussions around P3D end user licensing (EULA) and who can do what, when and where are a ToS violation at AVSIM.  We are not to provide legal advice.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Hi Rob, I was stating a feeling about the license putting some people off P3D, I really didn't mean to offend. Maybe these forums have made you battle ready either that or you've been watching too much Game of Thrones LOL! Apologies again and thanks for your wisdom Rob, always good to chat.

Cheers,

Dave.

Thanks Rob, I think a lot of our sentences are saying the same thing but coming from a slightly different angle. I'm certainly with you on most of what you say!

The bit that makes me uncomfortable wasn't directly of growth or uptake, just fact the only legitimate license for P3D would be the Professional licence which is absolutely fine but that to me limits the use to enthusiasts and wouldn't bring in moderately skilled or new players. The Academic license is cheaper but does not seem to be viable to users who want to simply enjoy the product as a simulator.

Cheers,

Dave.  

Hi Rob, good answers as ususal! My 2 cent...
 

But if there is no backwards compatibility then the series isn't "continuing" ... it's a new product. Agree with stonelance on why pick FSX SP2 as a base engine if the product is essentially going to be a new product?

 
I think we need to be pragmatic here. There is no backwards compatibility, however with the skeleton of FSX there I'm sure a way can be found to reconstuct some add-ons which will not be too difficult for developers. I've discussed the merits for Flight or FSX as a base product before, so I don't want to go too much in that direction other than I favour Dovetails choice as they have worked with FSX, Flight would be a much more radical change.

For you're comment "product is essentially going to be a new product?" - Bringing up Flight to FSX fidelity would have been a poor business desicion even if it would have created a better simulator, the effort there is huge. Iterating on FSX was the only plausable solution and this allows the chance of some add-on at least to envolve through the Dovetail Flight Simulation creation experience...
 

Depends on how different it looks and how good the conversion tools ... immersion is the "Catch all" phrase ... we all use a "blind eye" regardless of platform, just not enough computational power for real time rendering (regardless of engine choice) to obtain "movie" quality image rendering. It's just a case of decide what you want to do with the blind spots (true for any platform).

 
Spot on there Rob. As you know Dovetail will begin the process of providing new content for Flight Simulator, be that navaids, textures. They will try and fill many blind spots I'm sure, but this will not be finished after the first release of Flight Simulator, far from it I imagine.
 

I've been hoping this to be true for over decade ... so far I've been wrong and/or no one has been able to provide enough initial content AND cover all the features. On the content front it's hard to go up against inevitable compares to content for FSX/P3D ... the content is staggering and development time invested in providing that content is staggering ... many many many 10,000's of work hours. How much new fresh content did DTG release for FSX-SE?

 
You say this yet you want Flight as the base product? - wow you really do want the whole cake LOL! Again I think we should cut some slack with DTG and not expect the world to change from the first release - this momentum to move Developers will take time. Remember we are facing a unique situation where a lot of investment has been thrown as one very old platform - in the history of gaming I'm not sure thats been done many times before and then have the series resurected. Unless anybody wants to release Falcon 5.0... 3PD will have a tough time and I would expect a trickle of titles for the new platform until the benfits are clearly seen by the community through the use of better tools and better realisation of products which will come eventually.
 

This approach has been tried and it has failed to gain majority FS share? I don't think repeating the same process but with more optimism is going to provide good results.

On a personal level, I'd love to move forward, but I know that moving forward visually doesn't come for free at a hardware level or at a software level ... I don't really have any issue with that, but I'm NOT the norm, nor the majority voice and cost isn't an issue for me (but it is a key issue for many).

If DTG is just another attempt at "well lets trying it again because we can do it better this time" and ignore the past, that will not succeed. I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG, but because of experience with this very quirky world of Flight Simulation. I post my opinion because I want to see long term success ... that success is hinged on conversion of the past. I "wish" people would be willing to just drop the past and move forward, but that's not going to happen.

Conversion tools are going to be key to success for ANY platform. You just can't ignore the existing content and have long term success ... history of FS over the past 15 years is the book to learn from.

 
It really is hard to argue convencingly eitherway right now. You're correct in what you are saying, but I think this is a slightly pesimistic and If I might say narrow view based on historical events. It would seem in your eyes the Wright Brothers would never have got off the ground! I think taking a step back and thinking about where we are and where we are going - if you don't see us at a crossroads now and just looking at the past then were really in trouble. The thread of FSX will not last forever, sooner or later we'll need emulators to run FSX LOL...
 
"I'm not posting my opinions to be negative towards DTG - Rob"
 
I'm afriad that's what it's sounding like. If DTG Flight Simulator doesn't take off, then may be another product will replace it, but more likely we'll lose Flight Simulator as we know it for the masses forever - it would be foolish to rely on P3D I think, the business plan for P3D shouldn't even let us partake but many simmers overlook the commercial arrangement to continue there past time - how long will that work? P3D doesn't sit comfortably with me and I would imagine many others let alone bring in a new fan base which lets not forget is whats really required here otherwise this hobby will definately wither and die.

So what I'm really saying is - I don't think it's a case of "repeating the same process but with more optimism is going to provide good results." I think for the sake of our industry as we know it - it HAS to work, so lets be a bit more positive in the knowlegde DTG, 3PD and the rest of the flight simulation community are in this together, so lets get behind them and see what happens.

Cheers,

Dave.

"But it will be interesting as far as add-ons go, & where they are to be found.

So, if we get the sim from Steam, are we then limited to Steam DLC's, & will the same apply to the Windows Store downloads?"

Hi Robin, some great points, especially regarding if we are compromised by choosing one platform over the other. I'm not sure this will necessarily limit us thought. I mean PMDG has FSX: SE installers even though the DLC content isn't bought from Steam, please anybody confirm, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Cheers,

Dave.

I hope they make the flight school a real training environment with IFR training and what not...

Hi Manny,

LAPL and PPL courses are supported, I've not seen any confirmation of Instrument Rating courses so I wouldn't get your hopes up with the two basic aircraft on offer!

But one would assume that they could grow Flight School with additional add-ons in the future although they have stated 3PD is not supported on Flight School.

I suspect you'll need to wait for DTG Flight Simulator which has been confirmed that training courses would be built upon, so IR sounds like is could be a candidate for this.

Cheers,

Dave.

This is a philosophy I totally disagree with. I always compare a new flightsim to what I currently have, not what it was like 10 years ago. If I am going to move to a new platform, I want to know that it's either an advancement to what I currently have, or at least that it has the capability to bring it up to that level or exceed it. This is why I haven't adopted X-Plane 10, because it still lacks major functionality that FSX does much better. Namely  it's AI and ATC systems, as well as it's weather system. Why would I want something that is less than I currently have available to me. This is the same methodology I use anytime I move to a new FS version.

Yes you're right that philosophy is right for YOU. Thats not necesserily right for me or anybody else. That's what makes it an unfair comparison. However you are right to bring up the question of comparing what you have with any new sim, as will be the challenge for all of us. As I've stated before this is all a moot point as Flight School is still in development and some new graphical features still haven't been exposed.

Hi Stonelance. fascinating reading some of your comments!

I loved MS Flight, the fidelity of the ground objects, the light scattering and those tree shadows... Despite what you have stated regarding MS Flight as a base simulator for Flight School, as much as I'd like to agree if I were in DTG's shoes I would have definitely also gone with FSX as the starting platform.

As you've pointed out Flight has undergone several changes and compatibility would have been more involved on the Flight platform - this alone would have killed the decision for me.

But if you need more reasons, well it's simple really - there is something which I'm sure you're very familiar with in software development and that's the iron triangle (time vs quality/scope vs cost). Choosing FSX is a business decision to give DTG a chance of getting a product to market with the most appeal to both newcomers and hard core gamers. This is where DTG Flight School comes in which is essentially a proving ground for some of the new tech and buying more time to refine the Flight Simulator when it eventually is released at the end of the year.

There is also the perception of image. Microsoft Flight was controversial when it came out, and to be frank about it, a lot of people without your insight would have raised a question or two about building a platform for the next "FSX 11" on Flight technology - if somebody would have raised that after the demise of Flight people (as in perception with the brand) this venture would have ended before it started. 

DTG have been unwavering with there commitment to simulation technologies and in particular with reaffirming there commitment to flight simulation. The changes that we know of may seem cosmetic to you, but they do one thing and that is push what was the FSX platform forward - for me that's enough. And I'm sure in the couple of years they've been developing, that systems have been iterated on to allow updates and upgrades to be provided more easily and it's a large part of there business model to maintain the sim and it's content going forward.

For the 64bit question, I can't really see how a new venture like this wouldn't involve 64bit at some point and if this was going to happen, then better they have it now. Compatibility could be compromised a little but there should at least be a reasonable 'path' for at least the third party developers to follow.

So there you have it, FSX a choice based on common sense, not very romantic but DTG need to earn a buck like the rest of us.

Thanks Brandon for these posts. Very revealing but I fear you'll need to do all of these again when Flight School is released! 

And as stated probably a little unfair to compare Flight School to these titles and it really should be DTG Flight Simulator. Interestingly or not as the case may be, DTG Martin recently put the following reply up to the Facebook picture of the San Francisco shot.

"...these screenshots are from the development build of DTG Flight School. Not all of the new and upgraded technology we are implementing has been 'turned on' yet, so to speak." - Martin

Furthermore, I don't see Flight School as being a simulator to show off 'increased levels of detail' however there will be a strong emphasis on upgrading the graphical prowess of the Simulator but the object world I would imagine would be largely the same as FSX. Maybe this will change for DTG Flight Simulator.

There will however be a lot of non functional improvements too to both DTG titles, performance being the main one at a cost of probably compatibility, but it will be interesting to see how Lockheed Martin react especially to the 64bit issue if scenery compatibility begins to 'catch up' on the new platform...

I'm really sorry but I have a newbie question or two.

1. How is San Fran available in Flight, I thought only Hawaii and Alaska was released?

2. My Microsoft Flight is broken as I don't have access to Microsoft Games Network or whatever thing that existed that is no more...

It would be fun to get into Flight again, is there an tutorial to get Flight working again on Windows 10, my Flight package was bought directly from Microsoft games website.

I don't have X-plane 10, but I've looked everywhere and I can't find an X-plane 10 screenshot of Innsbruck as good as the one posted. If this isn't out of the box, then I would suggest it is dismissed from any comparison as any refinement at all means it is no longer default global scenery. 

Hi Bill,

I'm not 100% sure. I've seen two distinct text from comments reported from Dovetail statements in the same article...

"The company is currently investigating new concepts in this area and is expecting to bring a release to marked in 2015."

"Dovetail Games will bring Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition to the Steam online gaming platform for first time in late 2014."

If FSX is coming out in 2015 then this is contradicting itself. So surely the 2015 release is a 'Dovetail' Flight Simulator. Seems completely implausible to release to market that soon, but that's what the comments have stated.

Cheers,

Dave.

 

Lets also not forget that Train Simulator, by it's nature is basically a graphics demo, trains only move in two dimensions.  

Hi mate, fellow UK simmer here, from what I've seen it's a bit unfair about the 2D quip. I know what your getting at, but obviously it's rendered in 3D and there is some lovely variety in some of the trackside visuals but the engine is clearly dated. However I'll admit I don't own the game.

As for the engine, aren't they using Unreal 4 for the next release of Train Simulator?

Not really sure how they are going to play it for there first proper Flight Simulator release, I've heard 2015 mentioned (FS2016?), which is barely a years development - pretty much enough time to update the shell I.e. maybe look at CPU utilisation, DirectX 12, Unreal 4 but The 'game' will essentially be the same - How else can they play it if they are not updating the existing code?...

You certainly couldn't develop a completely new Flight Simulator in 12 months, so all I can see happening is updating the original, maybe stripping it back and slowly building - which ever way you look at it, it could be a good few releases before we have another modern FSX which is still a long long long way away...

Cheers,

Dave.

That brings me to the 2nd question. SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MSFS?

Hi Kevin, Microsoft may have pulled Flight to resurect Flight Simulator... You never know...

I assume me meant he could not crack it.

Hi Fritz, maybe he was just after free DLC. FSX has tons of it available - ofcourse some free DLC does exist for Flight - redtails for example but it's really the lack of 3PD which are restricting this. I wouldn't like to think anybody would be advocating cracking on this or any other site but of course it does exists sadly...

Cheers,

Dave.

Hi poeple, found this link from an Xplane user which has a really good reflection of the Alaska pack and shows off areas which have good tree coverage I think - click on the video for the review.

http://xsimreviews.com/2012/07/01/ms-flight-alaska-overview-ep-1-seasons/

Cheers,

Dave.