First reviews?

[Daube]

Have you tried checking the CFG of the sim to search for any interesting parameter to modify ? I'm thinking the the LOD_RADIUS for example, or anything containing "autogen" in it ?

[griphos]

I have not. TBH, I'm pretty tired of all the .cfg tweaking involved in the FSX/P3D engine. Also, if it's like P3D, changing the LOD setting from the default 4.5 doesn't actually make any difference in that ring of autogen disappearance

I'll give it a try though.

[Roger]

It would seem that the lod tweak isn't active as no real change takes place when altered. Also the visibility slider seems non-functional.

[Naismith]

My mind drifts back to when MS let FSX out it's cage during August 2006 prior to the full release. It suffered some horrible graphical glitches if you recall.

[manfredc3]

So far, the "washed away" look of the scenery is holding me off. I will try the suggestion of setting the time closer to the end of the day.

And I will certainly have to give the mod for Manfred Jahn and Jan Vissers C-47 a go, as that is one of my most favorite aircraft.

[Mach3DS]

Can I ask a question? So, how does AIMEE's statement that they've gone "under the hood" to ensure that old products won't be compatible, play into this, if at all? Is the the thinking/feeling that we'll be able to keep this working as is? Or is the feeling that, now that DTG knows many products are working without any form of validation, will they squash that functionality in a future iteration? Or am I completely off my rocker?which has been known to happen!

[IanP]

Rick, please. What you have written is nonsensical.

Aimee did not say that they had "gone under the hood to ensure old content won't be compatible". DTG have rewritten the sim with a 64-bit architecture, different render engine and many other "under the hood" changes to make it not crash with modern content, on modern PCs and to make it a viable sim platform for future development. Are you saying that car manufacturers should never fit a more efficient body shape, or a more modern engine, into a car because old spares will no longer fit it?

Changing from 32-bit to 64-bit breaks anything that directly addresses the old 32-bit architecture (dlls, including any C++ gauges), it breaks anything that uses GDI rendering (many 2d gauges, particularly "glass cockpit" screens, but its not to harm you, it's so that bigger, better, add-ons can be made and so that you don't get the OOM crashes that people have moaned about since FSX was pretty much released.

32-bits is 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
64-bits is 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000

Where's the data that you were addressing at bit 2F? Is it stil at 2F or is it now at F0 or maybe even outside the memory range which could even be accessed by the 32-bit code? The change from 32-bit to 64-bit is not minor, it's a major step change and yes, it really does break things unless you hobble your software by not allowing larger addresses than 32-bit for existing code like, say, "textures" for example.

Yes, you are completely off your rocker. You are looking for reasons to complain about a product that is actually completely irrelevant to your FSX add-ons. They're for Microsoft Flight Simulator X, not for Dovetail Games Flight Simulator World. Do you expect to be able to use them on X-Plane 11, or in Flight Unlimited III, as well? That's how you have to look at it. It's a different sim. Any compatibility we get is a bonus, if you want to be held back to 32-bit architecture, which went out of date 20 years ago, then you'll have to stick with FSX and not get a 64-bit simulator platform.

Ian P.
Edited to add missing word, so a sentence makes sense...

[manfredc3]

Well rick,

First of all I do not recall Aimee stating anywhere that Dovetail went under the hood to "ensure" that FSX add-on's would be incompatible.

What I do think is that, with the work that Dovetail has done to the coding, it is not possible to confirm that any FSX add-on may or may not be working properly in FSW. Let alone benefit from the improvements Dovetail will/have incorporated in the new simulator.
Similar to some add-on's in FSX do or do not work with DirectX 10, and a lot of FS9 port-overs do FSX still have issues.

I am sure Dovetail does not want to spend their resources on compatibility issues with FSX add-on's, which would pretty much mean going backwards to the FSX experience, instead of moving forward to a sim which benefits from modern day technologies and hardware.

I am happy to see that Dovetail is willing to listen to the flight sim community for further development of the simulator, and am looking forward to seeing what they bring to the table in the next few months

Just my two cents.

[Bradburger]

Some interesting views from three longtime simmers on FSW : -

https://youtu.be/VE68mksuO-M

Cheers

Paul

[IanP]

That's a really good video - thanks for that link!

Ian P.

[Mach3DS]

My question was legitimate, and not sarcastic. I don't appreciate your condescending reply, IanP. Everyone makes mistakes. It's obvious I did!

I went back to try and find what I had read originally and I was referring to this statement by AIMEE:

"That's the point. We haven't left it untouched. Where do you think 64 bit came from?

We have done a lot of tinkering under the hood which prevents add-ons from being backwards compatible."

found here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/5...omment=3615911

Clearly, I misunderstood the "prevent" in her comment from being passive to active. But seeing as I don't speak 64bit, it was bound to happen.

[Desert Rat]

Chill out dudes. It's a new FS, we have it, and several years ago it was a pipe dream, but now reality. What's not to like?

Every iteration of FS has initially been met with the same IIRC, it doesn't run on my computer, it stutters, it lags, and so on and so forth. We ALL grew to love them in the end, otherwise we would not still be here.

We all share the same passion, maybe not to the exact tangent, but close enough to be a community. And that was what always drew me to SOH.....

What happened? I'm not as active in simming as I was in my CFS2 and FS9 days, but I still love this place enough to check in every day, and you all know why, because you do it too.

We seem to have driven many devs off, why? It used to be great to stop in and see the latest from many designers, it was exciting. Where is Lionheart, Colin, etc. I know some have collegues that come, but even those devs who do come, do so less often. Possibly due to longer dev time hopefully as I would hate to think that it was due to the site itself, it's not what Ickie would have wanted. We need to make this a place that the devs (Dovetail included) want to feel comfortable visiting, it's a win, win situation after all.

A big thank you to all the guys that still stick around, SSW, AH, JF, and those that I forget (did I mention I'm not really actively simming, lol). I still get a buz out of seeing what is coming.

Here's to keeping SOH a beacon in the fog of multiple sims, like it always was. One of a kind (Netwings the exception, RIP).

Jamie

PS. Bought and paid for just out of support for the cause.

[IanP]

Unfortunately Rick, you have written a number of posts where you have twisted what has been said in all sorts of convoluted ways and nor are you the only one here doing that. I was not being condescending, Everything I posted was either my clearly stated opinion, or fact which can be verified by other sources. If you choose to take it as condescending to correct you then that's your prerogative.

Yes, you did misread Aimee's statement. Can you please stop capitalising her name? I did actually paint the A2A Cub for her as AI-MEE at one point... I should really update that with the feedback she gave me!

Ian P.

[hairyspin]

Cough cough. Not twisted, rather "read too much into" online statements which could be interpreted more than one way. Especially with a good helping of DTG paranoia!

[Naruto-kun]

The read into part is due to both insider knowledge that devs have which made them voice their concerns as well as ambiguity after their concerns were voiced that has led to so much confusion. I can't say I like the twisting and false facts running around (and it is painful to me that I have had a part in this whole situation) but to set the record straight, there is no movement, as far as I know, on DTG's part to completely block getting these addons in. The move to x64 in and of itself breaks backwards compatibility with any addon that relies on C++ gauges/modules. The same will happen with P3D v4.

The concerns the devs had is more along these lines: Is DTG going to allow the freedom to sell a "unofficial" FSW addon on their own store without selling on DTG's channel or not? The barrier in this case is not including some special bit of code to allow FSW to load the addon but more a legal barrier. Going head to head with DTG in a court for refusing to sell an addon through their channel while selling it through another is not something any developer wants to experience. Only the top guns can afford the legal battle and even then the risk of losing to DTG is far higher than it is worth.

[IanP]

Just a few examples of how DTG "lock down" their sims and prevent external companies selling products...

https://www.justtrains.net/
http://steamsoundssupreme.com/
http://digitaltraction.co.uk/mainsite/ (That little Caledonian 812 looks rather nice!)
https://www.armstrongpowerhouse.com/
http://secure.simmarket.com/train-si...)-page-1.chtml (Click on a category...)

I can understand that developers are a bit tetchy about it, but DTG are very much aware that every product competing with them has open marketplaces. As I said above, though - if you sell at your own store, you're moving the liability for support and any legal/licensing issues from DTG to you. If you sell it as an "official" add-on, DTG become liable. No sensible company wants liability over things for which they have no support, which is why things happen like the DTG-distributed version of Armstrong Powerhouse's Class 90/DVT set for TS2016/2017 only having one livery set that DTG have a license for: Virgin Trains discovered and shall we say "strongly objected to" their liveries being in the pack. AP no longer sell Virgin liveried stock (but you can grab the liveries as freeware, of course... )

Ian P.