PDA

View Full Version : First impressions



dhasdell
May 27th, 2016, 07:48
Let's just say I won't be pre-ordering the full sim which is promised for later in the year.

Daube
May 27th, 2016, 09:11
I've been reading the various feedbacks on FlightSchool, both on avsim and Steam forums for example.
The most difficult thing was to get past the useless feedbacks from users who just didn't understand what Flight School really was.
But some objective feedbacks could be found here and there.

The summary is:

Flight school is just FSX converted to 64 bits, with FTX Global and a new user interface. It's nothing more than this. It has the same folder structure, and it has a FSC.cfg instead of the FSX.cfg :D (and you can push the LOD_RADIUS to 12.50000 if your computer can handle it). Unfortunately, because it's FSX and not P3D, you still get the terrible autogen popping up too close.

The lessons seem to be quite good, and the performance also seems to be quite pleasant, even though there are still some bugs.

The two included aircrafts are beautifully modelled both inside and out; even though their virtual cockpits are not interactive enough for us (but they are more than enough for the target users). Also, the flight models seem to be quite interesting too, very far from being ridiculous.

The default sky and cloud textures are simply horrible, but they can be replaced because REX4 will work with Flight School (you just need to point the P3D path to FlightSchool and set the textures to DX11.

Some users are already trying to rectify the blueish daylight by editing the shaders (if I understood correctly), and the initial results are promising.

Some users are already trying to import FSX/P3D addons (sceneries and planes) into the sim, without success so far.

Some users reported using up to 6-7 GB of VAS without problems.... bye-bye, OOM crashes :)

Roger
May 27th, 2016, 11:34
I've seen that there are already tweaks available and Nvidia Inspector settings can help.

heywooood
May 28th, 2016, 09:04
it seems to be a mixture of Flight and FSX - the aircraft selection and GUI is more Flight than FSX

I haven't seen anything posted about this but I have a graphic artifact in all views. I think it is either the self-shadowing or the VC shadows feature that causes it but I have an extra 'ghost' aircraft and some autogen trees and buildings all around the user aircraft.

also - my FPS are generally lower than with FSX and nowhere near as smooth. This is both before and after tweaks to the FSC.cfg and Inspector.
the VC shadows are less jaggy with the tweaks but thats about all I see being affected here.

The experience for me so far is not great - at all. This is surprising to me. I know it is barely out of the gate so I guess I will wait and see but I don't think it will stay in my library much longer.
I will NOT pre-order the full simulator based on this experience though - that is certain

T6flyer
May 28th, 2016, 15:57
I'd like to know when the use of a GPS was part of the British PPL or NPPL syllabus? Some of the videos I've seen on the net are a little off putting...55 knts in the circuit in a 150hp Super Cub, no thanks!

Good as a product for people new to simulators but personally not that impressed. One of the title screens has the Cub with both ailerons lowered when think the Artist should have been thinking of the flaps!

Martin

dhasdell
May 28th, 2016, 23:03
I've seen that there are already tweaks available and Nvidia Inspector settings can help.
I've followed the tweaks suggested, and something in there actually made things worse, removing airport buildings! Anyway, there should be no need for tweaks to make the sim usable, especially if it is intended to lure a new generation of simmers from their X-Boxes, where things have stunning graphics and work right first time.

T6flyer
May 30th, 2016, 00:52
and no CAA Registration under the port wing of the Super Cub when as G-PUDL (and probably the Cherokee). Developers miss this time and time again and I thought Dovetail were a British company?

Martin

Naismith
May 30th, 2016, 12:00
I've followed the tweaks suggested, and something in there actually made things worse, removing airport buildings! Anyway, there should be no need for tweaks to make the sim usable, especially if it is intended to lure a new generation of simmers from their X-Boxes, where things have stunning graphics and work right first time.

I understand the point you make which on the surface makes total sense. But you must remember that PC's are not X-Boxes which by their nature are all identical whereas PC's have varying levels of power and different hardware installed. :untroubled:

dhasdell
May 30th, 2016, 12:31
I understand the point you make which on the surface makes total sense. But you must remember that PC's are not X-Boxes which by their nature are all identical whereas PC's have varying levels of power and different hardware installed.

I accept that, but my understanding is that Flight School was intended to be a straightforward teaching sim, to get newcomers to the hobby engaged through following a series of lessons, and not a full sim comparable with or superior to FSX. A full sim is under development, and the hope is that the newcomers, once hooked, will progress to that. The X-Box generation, however, will soon lose interest if what they get is something with poor graphics requiring a lot of tweaking to make it run successfully. Remember that Flight School is based on an engine which is a dozen years old. Surely it should be possible to have it working right from the moment of installation, particularly as it is, if anything, stripped down from earlier Microsoft sims. Following the lesson I have flown the same circuit from Love Field in Flight School, FSX and even FS9, neither of them relying on payware addons to improve them, and the newest is graphically the weakest of the three. As for lessons, people seem to be forgetting that both of the earlier sims included a flight tuition programme, so even in this respect Flight School is not ground breaking.

I bought Flight School in good faith, knowing that it was never intended to be comparable with FSX, feeling that any new developer deserved encouragement, and that for such a reasonable price one couldn't go far wrong, but unless it is patched and updated pretty fast I very much doubt whether I will be buying the full sim when it is launched.