Is This The End?

[Tom Burnside]

Dovetail Games Flightsim World entered early access about a week ago correct me if im wrong. I have been on FSX SE since later 2015 and I really do love the sim and I have purchased a lot of aircraft scenery etc for it. Bus with FSW in early access and ive read the feedback has been mostly positive. Does this mean that the end of FSX is nigh. I really couldnt imagine getting FSW and end up loosing some of my beloved aircraft.

[txnetcop]

I am a member of DTG live and I have heard nothing that says Steam will do away with FSX. It takes a lot of computer to play FSW more than I am willing to dish money out for right now. I see potential in FSW but I am not a hard-core fan yet!
Ted

[blanston12]

That's a really good question. It's really up to DTG's marketing department. Do they want to discontinue FSX-SE once FSW is released in a final form or do they want to keep selling it. If they keep selling it they risk competing against themselves, discontinuing FSX would force everyone to either upgrade or switch, but then they are risking everything on the success of FSW.

If I were them I would keep selling FSX, but at the same price as FSW so they don't lose market share and keep the revenue coming in.

[Bradburger]

Tom,

I agree with Ted.

(I too haven't seen any mention of DT pulling FSX from Steam, and think that they would be rather foolish if that were to be the case).

I decided to take a look at FSW, and whilst it looks promising, it is still very early days yet, and many features are still not present, working, or enabled, so we will have to wait and see what the future holds!

As it is an 'early access' release, it is of course not a fully polished and finished sim, so FSX SE will be my main sim for now.

But like you (and many others), I have many hours and money spent on FSX, and I've got to say, with all the enhancements (AS16, DX10 Fixer, DX10 Clouds etc.) it looks fantastic, and generally runs very well on my system.

One thing Dovetail need to fix are the lighting/shaders, as at present, they cause the environment to look far to washed out, especially when using photo scenery.

(I'm using all of the UK/Scotland/Wales Horizon/Play Sim VFR Photo Scenery, and it looks stunning in FSX SE in comparison, using DX10 Fixer, DX10 Cloud Shadows, along with AS Cloud Art and Earth Simulations Treescapes).

I guess the good part about the early access of FSW, is that as longtime and hardcore simmers, we can give them our honest feedback on what's wrong and needs improving to make the sim something special.

I just hope they are true to their word, and will listen!

Cheers

Paul

[ncooper]

Hello,

The feedback has been mixed but a huge number of the negative posts have been from those who either don't have
FSW at all, or who have decided after a couple of hours,sometimes less, that it's rubbish.
To me neither of those opinions are worthwhile.

I have spent the better part of this afternoon and evening with FSW and I am beginning to sort the good bits from the bad.
I find that there are plenty of good bits, the scenery can look superb and I find that most of the ORBX regions, Vector and
OLC work very well indeed.
The default aircraft look very good, no idea if they fly that way as well, I have no expertise there at all.
The weather looks acceptable, especially considering that so far there are only presets.

I find however that none of the FSX addon aircraft that I have tried work as they should in any respect.
I find also that FSX addon airport scenery does not work as it should either, in particular, flattens and excludes seem not to work at all.
I find that the spring and summer shaders do nothing at all for the scenery which along with the aircraft, look like an over-exposed photograph
with oddly bright colours.

We were not promised backwards compatibility and it seems that in most respects this is the case, which leaves FSX as a viable
alternative for the often very expensive addons that many of us have bought.
I do not see an easy transition, such as was the case between Fs9 and FSX aircraft and I cannot forsee a great willingness to buy
large amounts of DLC to replace FSX versions, only to end up with the same images on the screen.
I would think that despite the prophets of doom, FSX has years of life left in it, for certain at my house.

[StormILM]

My current system is just below minimum specs so for now that precludes me from buying it. However, one of my local friends did and his system specs easily cover it. Overall, I'm not impressed and more inclined to go P3Dv3 to keep my 32bit addons and simply wait for the 64bit P3Dv4 or go with XP-11 (for the future benefit of 64bit addons) and be done with it. Does the wave of negative opinions mean FSW is going to be a flop. no, I don't believe so, it has plenty of room for improvement (much as FSX did) but the one shared concern is the control DTG is placing on addon development. That alone I believe runs the very high risk of killing the platform considering the open payware & freeware following P3D and XP-11 has.

[AusWilko]

So are we heading for a 3 way street
1. P3D 64bit
2. X Plane 11
3. FSW

Divide a relatively small community 3 ways and I don't see how a lot of marginally small developers could cover all 3 platforms and make enough to keep going, maybe PMDG and ORBX who charge like a wounded bull could do it but I don't see any others.

Then I spose there is the users who keep with FSX, they will be a shrinking base as they either retire from the scene or eventually switch to one of the 3 who I believe will slowly start to gain market share, the one who does will be the one who offers the most user friendly experience and best bang for buck, money is getting more scares as time goes on.

Will be a interesting journey ahead of us

[txnetcop]

By the way, I want to add something important about FSW. I have a background as a programmer and moved to the system/hardware side, but I can tell you that what DTG achieved taking 32 bit code and changing it to 64 bit code is nothing less than amazing in a short time. I guess everyone expected them to create something totally new from the ground up in less than a year...NEVER HAPPEN! P3D ver 4 and X-Plane 11 are going to be amazing sims but so will FSW if given time and dedication. We will have to upgrade to run these new 64 bit flight systems, but that is not the end of FSX. We have worked hard to make it awesome but at some time we will want to embrace the new. It has some great entrance screens, and flight planner, new trees, and aircraft. There is a lot to be done, but I hope everyone gives the guys at DTG a chance to show what they can do with the platform they bought from Microsoft, while holding them accountable to finish the job or don't buy it! FSX still has a long life ahead of it because of incredible developers both freeware and payware!
Ted

[b52bob]

doesn't fsx stuff run pretty well in P3D? I know a lot of my addons do, orbx, etc.

[blanston12]

doesn't fsx stuff run pretty well in P3D? I know a lot of my addons do, orbx, etc.
Most of it does. Native FSX stuff works pretty well, FS9 stuff, not quite as well, older gauges, forget about it.

[strykerpsg]

I've been watching their Steam forums with interest and too, noting some add-ons are able to be ported over and sadly, many are not. I too am at a decisive point, pondering the future of FSX-SE versus FSW and it's 64 bit architecture. I have so much invested in FSX in general regarding terrain, mesh, aircraft, weather and traffic that I am really torn about current new offerings and how long they will be relevant. Thankfully, FSX-SE will always be available to download, but as others have stated, how much longer with DTG support it? I love the thought of minimal OOM crashes, especially on longer flights, but really don't relish investing again in all the add-ons. This would also mean that P3Dv3 will only be relevant for how long before LM stops supporting in favor of P3Dv4 and it's 64 bit setup.

For me, on the one hand, exciting to see 64 bit but at a painful potential cost to my past purchases and some hesitancy on future purchases. Perhaps FSX will now transition to another HDD line many did with FS9 to keep their past purchases relevant. Anyway, I truly love the detail that has emerged both graphically and internally on FSX and P3D aircraft or rather, vessels, not forgetting the beautifully rendered surface ships coming out now too.

I am fortunate to have gotten FSW for free since I purchased Flight School. I just installed it this weekend and will just keep surfing the forums and tweaking to see where it will go. As TxNetCop stated, I am certain just the migration from a 32 bit to 64 bit architecture is huge, but not so obvious to those less tech savvy such as myself. Therefore, I will refrain from any tech savvy talk but just maintain a curious view to see how it compares to my FSX-SE and also keep my fingers crossed that some FSX add-ons will indeed become port over friendly, otherwise FSX will become my go to simulator for beauty, excellent models and local flying. I will keep the longer flights reserved for the 64 bit set ups.

[Tom Burnside]

Only way I will say its time for a change is if developers stop making add ons for SE or FSX in general. If I was to though I think I would go for P3D as I have heard a lot of good things about it and most of the add ons I have are also compatible with it.

[rvn817j]

Like many have expressed here, I am not all that anxious for FSX to go away and I don't think it will go away for at least 5 to 10 years. With the many FSX "add ons" that have been developed, FSX is presently a very capable simulation IF you have those "add ons" AND the hardware "horsepower" to properly drive those "add ons". It seems the horsepower has also been available for a couple years for those that have the means to acquire it. It also seems that horsepower is now becoming available at a lower cost and as more simmers get that horsepower where will they turn.

My perspective is based on having tried some of the other sims available and not having those sims deliver on the hype. (The exception is P3D, I have not tried it so I am not opining on that sim.) For example, last year (or was it before that), I purchased a DTG Flight School license, flew it a couple times and stopped. I will install the "free" DTG flight sim and evaluate, but it will be years before it beats FSX. (DTG has done a really good job with TS and I've run that for several years. It took DTG some time to get TS "up to snuff". I am sure they will do the same with Flight Sim World in time.)

For the foreseeable future and since I am fully invested in FSX and many, many FSX "add ons", I will focus on improving the horsepower I have to drive it and tweaking for smoother performance and more "eye candy". I would guess that there are others that will do the same.

[Edit - My reference point when I think the balance of power has shifted away from FSX will be here at SOH in the number of viewers viewing any particular forum. When the FSX forum starts to see fewer viewers than P3D forum or some other sim forum, you will know that FSX is in decline!]

[rcbarend]

For the foreseeable future and since I am fully invested in FSX and many, many FSX "add ons", I will focus on improving the horsepower I have to drive it and tweaking for smoother performance and more "eye candy". I would guess that there are others that will do the same.

Like you, and for the same reasons, I'm not ready to invest (or develop) yet in other flightsims then FSX.
But when it gets to "horsepower", people also need to be aware of this:

Like many, I'd like to stick to good-old Windows7 as platform for FSX, instead of Windows10, to avoid any potential compatibility problems (now, and in future).
To the extent that for the new PC I'm about to order, running Windows7 would be my first choice.
No problem if you only use Windows7 off-line, but when using it on-line too there's another thing to consider: Microsoft's policy to update Windows versions.
Especially wrt. critical and security updates; the recent worldwide WannaCry-ransomware attack has proven why this is important.

For Windows7, this "extended support" formally ends in 2020; but that doesn't apply to Windows7/8 PC's with the latest Intel CPU's (7th generation, like I5/I7 Core 7***): for those CPU's, security updates stop already in 2018.
So when investing in more "horsepower" (like new CPU's) when you use Windows7/8, be aware of this.

Rob

[UnknownGuest12]

Ok, been reading about these new simulators and made my decision...bought FSX and Acceleration a long time ago. P3D twice. A lot of add-ons. Today using only P3D last current version. And really don´t need more. Not going to spend more money on a new simulator and be the owner of a lot of useless material or start everything again...
so, I'll just keep what I have now. Obviously I'm aware I´ll be outdated but this is the way life is. Not going to buy everything again....
Regards

[hairyspin]

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/attachments/6a00d83452654869e200e55282a8928834-800wi-jpeg.9475/


No it isn't.

[blanston12]

Given the commonality in the structure of P3D and DTG, I would think it would not be too hard for developers to develop a product and port it to both of those platforms. The same version may not run but it would probably be just compiler options that would be different, that is as long as DTG does not get too strict about which add-ons the allow in FSW. X-Plane is a bit too different for much commonality between it and the other two.

[IanP]

I think it's fair to say that unfortunately P3D and FSW will not remain comparatively parallel for long and will diverge quite quickly as they develop in their own ways. The focus of the two sims is different; P3D aiming squarely for a professional market and FSW more accessible for an entertainment market.

Something else that may be interesting is how many people will pay P3D prices for a 64-bit version, now that there are two other 64-bit sims available? I think that'll be one of the big defining factors for this round of sims, as it will define the type of sim that people want to see. Regardless of the FSW/P3D split, XP11 users will always believe they are superior. ;)

Ian P.

[StormILM]

I don't think P3D and FSW will diverge too far apart (in general) as developers and resources to help develop models & scenery (for both sims) are few and far in between to push too much of a split. Again, performance issues with FSW will get sorted but the single biggest voiced concern is getting developers on board FSW if they insist on controlling development of addons to the point of taking a cut for themselves and Steam. If that ends up the being the case, FSW will die a fairly quick death (much as MS Flight and DTG Flight School did) and FSX/P3D will soldier on and both P3Dv4 and XP-11 will end up being our long term sims. After seeing the new Flight Factor Airbus A320 preview for XP-11. I am convinced completely that XP-11 is going to take over in terms of this type of Full-On Study Level Sims which are capable of being used for entertainment by hard core simmers and on a professional level.

[IanP]

DTG Flight School was always intended to be as limited as it was. They intended it to be an introductory sim for those entering the hobby, not for those already well embedded within it. That was possibly a mistake, but I, personally, don't think that closing it down was, as they have transferred all the same content into a better platform, which will allow the expansion that FSc didn't.

Flight, on the other hand, was a commercial decision. Microsoft wanted to get into the "microtransaction" market, whereby people constantly spend a little over a long period of time and, most importantly, they pay it to Microsoft, not to 3rd party stores like FSS or simMarket or even directly to the developers like Aerosoft or Orbx. From what I gather, although this is word of mouth and I have no evidence to support it, MS always planned to expand and expand Flight, by constantly adding little bits to the free platform and you pay for the bits you wanted, so VFR pilots didn't have to pay for FMCs, as an example. The plans were all there, but the massive negative response and blinkered attitude from many in the FS community killed off those plans at a commercial level. This is what many people are currently trying to do with DTG FSW - shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly to show how cool the are. The difference is that MS already wanted to ditch the simulator, because it no longer fitted with their corporate plan (aka "copy Apple, five years too late"!) whereas DTG are putting massive amounts of investment into the platform. It's not going to be Flight, which was absolutely locked down and they were only able to release the absolute bare minimum of DLC before they were shut down.

Again, personally, I think that the choice of DLC released, the 'cockpitless wonders' which were aimed at MS corporate's intended market of XBox gamers, where the significant improvements in the flight models of the RV-7 and Stearman, for example, were aimed at "us"... But we didn't look at that. We looked at a Mustang with no panel and declared the entire project to be the worst thing ever to have happened. When I asked, no-one believed me that you could actually spin the default aircraft in Flight. Properly spin, not a spiral dive. In a default aircraft. Incidentally, FSW aircraft can't be spun yet. We need to badger them about slipping, stalling and spinning during this Early Access phase.

The developers will follow the money, ultimately. Not many can afford to develop for an utterly niche sim. If being on Steam, which is a massive marketplace for PC users, brings in more money then they'll develop for FSW. If we as a community trash FSW to the point where very few people use it, then they'll support P3D or move to X-Plane. They have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay as well, but comparing FSW to Flight and Flight School is extremely disingenuous. For the record, again only my opinion, but I've had hints from within DTG that it's pretty much spot on, that they canned FSc for two reasons: Because it was going to cause confusion within the market and because it was basically a technology demonstrator/learning tool - for them, as well as new people coming into the hobby. They were assembling a new team, some of whom have never worked on sims before and you learn to walk before you learn to run... To me, that's sensible, not trying to "dumb down" the sim market, as many have suggested. It also explains why they're trying to get the basics right with FSW, before expanding it.

Right now, people are installing commercial FSX add-ons into FSW and they are, for the most part, working. As I said over on that forum, product specific applications and add-ons are already being developed, simply by people poking at what works and what doesn't. It's still based on Simconnect, it's still using the same folder structure. What's changed is the addressing - where add-ons have to look for information from the sim - and the way they render 2d graphics. We really need a SDK to get those right, but a surprising amount of add-ons already do work, or can be made to work very easily. Is that the sign of a sim that's going to be locked down and only accessible by an internal store? We already know - from Flight School - that they know how to lock a sim down. They haven't done it... Isn't that worth remembering?

Sorry about the epic post, I'm making a habit of these around here, right now, but the myths and "alternative facts" going round can't be addressed in a five line post!

Ian P.

[StormILM]

One thing for sure, time will certainly tell how things are going to go in regards to which sim's survive and which ones bite the dust in this niche and somewhat fragile market. In the end, the telling benchmark will be which developers (out of the current groups) buy into the up and coming platforms as time and information on them progresses. If/when that move is made, the market will be driven more by open ended development (as it has been) than anything else. Pay to Play (pardon the pun) simply won't fly (if the former in fact ends up becoming cemented reality).

The market as a whole has certainly gone through some incredible changes and forward leaps in quality since I first got into simming back in the 90's (which I did to augment my actual flight training at the time). For me it's going to be interesting to see where things go as my retirement from simming is all but imminent in the not too distant future as my time is going to be largely consumed in a couple of new ventures I'm heavily involved with and in those plans, I'm returning to RW flying after a long absence.

Fingers crossed!

[DennyA]

The thing is, just because something new and awesome comes along, it doesn't mean the old stuff will stop working. So even if AeroFly FS 2, P3D, or FSW start really getting momentum and support for the now-ancient FSX wanes, it doesn't mean your FSX investment will go away. Even if you start to build up a new sim, you can keep FSX around. Adding storage is cheap nowadays.

I kept FS9 around for years after FSX came out because I had a cool install and lots of neat stuff that sadly never made it to FSX. (Like that classic project with all of the 50s airliners and airports.) But eventually, I moved to a new PC and the FS9 stuff just felt too dated to go through the install again. (Still, I just deleted my FS9 downloads folder last month. : )

I have XP11, P3D, FSW, and AeroFly FS2 all set up on my sim rig now. (P3D doubles for FSX, as there's no FSX stuff that doesn't work in P3D that I found vital.) One may eventually win more of my time, but given the base sims cost only as much as many of you guys will spend on a high-end add-on, there's no reason not to at least try the new stuff. Even if you focus on one sim, there's still fun to be had in the others. (Like VFR flying in VR in AFS2, which is freaking amazing, even if P3D is my main platform right now.)

I'm just super-pleased to have a choice! I really hope that the market supports these sims enough to keep them going and in further development.

[BendyFlyer]

Interesting discussion but an important topic. I have been involved in flight simulation both as a hobby and as a teaching tool since the first arrived with micro-computers back in the 1990's. WE forget that the original simulator came about as solution to a problem, how to create visually on a computer screen moving objects in more that one apparent dimension (X+Y+Z). MS came to dominate because they were good at two things; they gobbled up any competitors but more importantly they used the sim as a tool to sell computers and Microsoft Windows, it was a fun add-on for your customers to play around with a bit like solitaire. They also had a crack at the gamer market via CFS, Train Simulators etc but eventually gave that away as well. To my mind the last incarnation Flight was an attempt to steer buyers into the pay as you go model, ala Apple and Itunes. But we also ignore two very other important things that happened. The first was mobile phones or hand held PC's and Laptops, both made serious inroads into the traditional PC or Tower Box. MS has also had to deal with the reality that Java and HTML revolutionised information processing and sharing via the WWW. Google stole everybody's lunch there.

Now, if you look at the two current updated and properly coded sim programs, they are targeted at different markets, P3D is a viable platform because it is being bolted into the world of defence training and simulation otherwise Lockheed Martin would not have bothered, they are probably subsidising it but they will get the return via integrated training and software platforms on military hardware and software. X-Plane is a serious software outcome but they have moved in a different direction providing a tool and system that aeronautical engineers and students can use to design and test ideas, which is why it is well supported across engineering faculties world wide. In the mean time PC gaming and game programs have exploded and are very very popular and good money makers, ala World of War Craft, Pokemon etc. Now lets all remember the elephant in the room, GOOGLE. Google have combined their amazing planetary coverage in pictures (pixels) in real world images, maps etc with the basics of a flight simulator and that includes the 3D object changes needed to give a solid or 3D appearance. Try the Google application you will be amazed because it offers a combined realism with the power of GOOGLE computing to give you the best scenery ever (its real). Now will there be a way to integrate or use simulator models such as FSX or X-Plane in the Google sim? Maybe maybe not but they are not going away.

From my perspective I am stuck with the hardware and software environment I currently have (a HP Tower and Win 7) but I have no interest in buying a new PC, why? because everyone else in this household uses an I-Phone or Android or I-PAD for their computing and entertainment needs, so I have no need for a new PC. Grandchildren can connect to the internet via the TV or Plasma screen and play very very complex and graphically amazing games that way. And lastly despite a life time in the aviation industry nobody in my family near or far has any interest in aviation what so ever, zilch, other than who has the cheapest ticket to wherever. I saw the same thing happen for real in aviation as the market vanished, light aircraft vanished and the major hull manufacturers consolidated down to a couple, in other words the Golden Age of Aviation is over as well. I have boxes full of disks of long gone flight simulator programs but at least FSX got to the stage where the graphics are great, the models are great and I can with a little work add in models from the past that I know will never be recreated in the future. I can probably keep that going for ten years plus by which stage I will be sufficiently aged to probably not be able to find the PC let alone see it (LOL). What I want is a new paradigm not just an improvement and only GOOGLE at the moment offers that tantalising prospect, they have the money, do they have the interest?

Now I am a serious simulator user and it is FSX-A. I see no benefit to me to move to P3D but I may consider X-Plane, maybe, as for DTG well good on them but they will find the market is not what they think so unless they can attract gamers it will be game over for them too. But and here is the big but, if I could use the current simulator models I have with Google Sim or there was a way to integrate into that system I would be into it like a shot, why because it makes obsolete scenery design, weather engines etc and the only thing it needs is a good user interface aka a sim model to really explore virtual reality.

[lliaghll]

As I was thinking about this discussion I took a look at the list of "outdated" simulators on this Forum. Many have current discussions going on. Is this the end? Given the evidence right here, I doubt it.

[IanP]

Exactly. Although there are potential issues with re-activation of FSX DVD installations, no-one is losing anything. It's the beginning of a new phase which people can choose to move forward into or not, it certainly is the end of anything.

Ian P.

[Daube]

FSW is clearly not the end of FSX.
P3D v4 though...
:redfire:

[xpelekis]

P3D v4 ?... well... :

https://img.ifcdn.com/images/c7ed3e23f9bc096f9f75c1498e62784268c8310f7134b1573b b36bac82cae902_1.gif

Ha, ha !... Are they kidding ?... I'll stick with FSX DX10 for at least 2 years...
Based on videos alone, FSW "wins" by far for me... but still ^^^

[StormILM]

LM has clearly stated they are not going to change anything regarding payware/freeware addon access in their P3Dv4 announcement and already, the major developers are offering both free and low fee upgrades to existing P3D users when v4 comes out (or shortly following release). I hope DTG is paying attention.

[AusWilko]

All I am seeing is the splitting of the community and the money they represent.

[crashaz]

You all crack me up....we went thru this with CFS2 back in the 2007 time frame when it was apparent that Aces was gone and there would be no more CFS series.... CFS2 is still one of the biggest forums here.

[Rami]

You all crack me up....we went thru this with CFS2 back in the 2007 time frame when it was apparent that Aces was gone and there would be no more CFS series.... CFS2 is still one of the biggest forums here.

Crashaz,

That's just because we're stubborn SOBs who don't know how to quit. :costumed-smiley-034

[txnetcop]

Heck I remember the stubbornness exhibited when FSX came out and so resource hungry...the arguments continue LOL!
Ted

[Navy Chief]

As mentioned in another thread (Flight Sim World), I had messaged with Aimee Sanjari just yesterday about FSX-SE support. They are NOT going to drop FSX-SE period! NC

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=50242&stc=1

[Bjoern]

Any 64 bit sim will require 64 bit .dlls. Which means that developers have to update their gauges and modules for their add-ons to work. Which on the other hand also means that stuff made by retired/out of business devs can not be used in FSW and P3Dv4.

So don't ask about EULAs, dig up your address book and ask devs if they can at least update their .dlls.

[IanP]

Just to add to Bjoern's statement above, it's worth remembering that any gauge coded in C++ (as oppose to XML) is also a .dll - so they'll need recoding, too, not just things that have ".dll" on the end!

Ian P.

[n4gix]

Any 64 bit sim will require 64 bit .dlls. Which means that developers have to update their gauges and modules for their add-ons to work. Which on the other hand also means that stuff made by retired/out of business devs can not be used in FSW and P3Dv4.
While that will work for P3Dv4, FSW not so much...

...since FSW has apparently dropped support for all C/C++ gauge .dll's. :pop4:

[Naismith]

While that will work for P3Dv4, FSW not so much...

...since FSW has apparently dropped support for all C/C++ gauge .dll's. :pop4:

Another reason to take the P3D route. :applause:

[GypsyBaron]

After reading a post in Pete Dowson's FSUIPC forum I can categorically say that when the time comes for me to abandon FSX, it will be a move to P3D x64.

There is absolutely NO way I will move to DTG FSW. The post I read referred to a DTG twitch broadcast in which they said they will NOT entertain the use of FSUIPC and the likes and that everything that interfaces with FSW must use simconnect.

That is a deal breaker for me as I have hundreds of hours invested in customization of my FSX install using FSUIPC4 and lua scripts.
An just on an emotional level, I resent any provider of any service that blocks control or customization by the user.

The DTG twitch broadcast is here (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/141791355)

Paul

[xpelekis]

A. P3D v4 is offered as a completed sim. It is what it is.
If you like it, you buy it.
But the "core" sim experience is no different from P3Dv3 or FSX.
Even the improved performance due to 64bits doesn't seem to be
optimized yet, from what I read for a finished product.

On the other hand, FSW is an open beta, still in development & progress
with a community channel opened for criticism and discussion for
forming up the final product, tailored to the community wishes (in the
degree that this can be achieved since it's FSX based).
But already, FSW comes with a refreshing experience and feel of something
"new" just out of the "box" compared to P3D :
- Far better modeled default (legacy) planes out of the box
- Enhanced virtual environment (ORBX)
- Enhanced flight model (Accufeel)
- Rain - bad weather flying
So, the "core" sim experience seems somewhat changed, improved and refreshing to me
compared to P3Dv4.

B. On another note, many people have criticised the marketing model of DTG,
that we don't actually know about that yet. Two points here :
- FSW world costs 20$ while P3D v4 costs ?...
- Why buy now P3D v4 and not P3D v5 after 8 months or so ?... Or even better,
why not buy P3D V6 after 1.5 year ?...
I mean LM's marketing model seems no better to me. At least, FSW will be just
one and only sim (I guess).

In conclusion, potential & future is with DTG (as opposed of a sim under development
compared to a finished product) and it's totally up to them how this bet will turn out in favor for them or not.

[MarkH]

I resent any provider of any service that blocks control or customization by the user.


I don't think that's what is happening, it seems more like a technical decision to formalise the use of the legitimate API. We might speculate that the confusion of back-door interfacing methods is one the things that has made FSX so unreliable, so I don't think we should write this off as anything sinister. From what I have read Pete has said he will not develop a new FSUIPC from scratch, not that he has been denied the opportunity. I too will miss the powerful Lua scripting but that's probably all. Other vendors are building tools to interface to FSW. SPAD.neXt is reportedly in beta, for example, and with the exception of the Lua engine (so far) it is shaping up to be a powerful FSUIPC stand-in.

[Daube]

B. On another note, many people have criticised the marketing model of DTG,
that we don't actually know about that yet. Two points here :
- FSW world costs 20$ while P3D v4 costs ?...

Most likely 60 dollars/euros, just like the previous versions.


- Why buy now P3D v4 and not P3D v5 after 8 months or so ?... Or even better,
why not buy P3D V6 after 1.5 year ?...

Let's not exagerate. P3Dv3 appeared in September/October 2015, not 8 months ago.


I mean LM's marketing model seems no better to me. At least, FSW will be just
one and only sim (I guess).

No better ? Certainly much better for the addon makers, at least. Let's not forget how concerned the addon makers are about DTG. Not about the possibility to release their products out of Steam, but more about prices and licences. This is a huge problem which might lead FSW in the same direction as MS Flight: early death.


In conclusion, potential & future is with DTG (as opposed of a sim under development
compared to a finished product) and it's totally up to them how this bet will turn out in favor for them or not.
I agree with you that FSW has a potentially interesting future, depending on what DTG is able to implement inside, and depending on what kind of policy they apply to the addon makers.
But for the moment, it doesn't look like it has a bright future at all.
Just look at the reactions from both the community and the addon makers.

[blanston12]

A. P3D v4 is offered as a completed sim. It is what it is.
If you like it, you buy it.
But the "core" sim experience is no different from P3Dv3 or FSX.
Even the improved performance due to 64bits doesn't seem to be
optimized yet, from what I read for a finished product.

On the other hand, FSW is an open beta, still in development & progress
with a community channel opened for criticism and discussion for
forming up the final product, tailored to the community wishes (in the
degree that this can be achieved since it's FSX based).
But already, FSW comes with a refreshing experience and feel of something
"new" just out of the "box" compared to P3D :
- Far better modeled default (legacy) planes out of the box
- Enhanced virtual environment (ORBX)
- Enhanced flight model (Accufeel)
- Rain - bad weather flying
So, the "core" sim experience seems somewhat changed, improved and refreshing to me
compared to P3Dv4.

B. On another note, many people have criticised the marketing model of DTG,
that we don't actually know about that yet. Two points here :
- FSW world costs 20$ while P3D v4 costs ?...
- Why buy now P3D v4 and not P3D v5 after 8 months or so ?... Or even better,
why not buy P3D V6 after 1.5 year ?...
I mean LM's marketing model seems no better to me. At least, FSW will be just
one and only sim (I guess).

In conclusion, potential & future is with DTG (as opposed of a sim under development
compared to a finished product) and it's totally up to them how this bet will turn out in favor for them or not.

I don't think I can agree with your conclusions. You seem to think that because FSW is still in 'beta' its potential is limitless while since P3D has had previous releases is static. I have the FSW beta, its really not that different from FSX. P3D has been in continuous development since they acquired it from Microsoft , and since LM hired most of the keep people from MS you could say its been in continuous development since 1982. And its now being run by a company that only has a few years experince in the aviation industry (since 1912 in fact). What aviation experience does DTG have?

But if you look at their business models, I think I would trust LM more, yes every 2+ years they come out with a new version, we buy it and that is the revenue stream that keeps them going, they don't charge extra for you to use a third party product and they have put almost no restrictions on who can create products for it. And yes we do know the price, its the same as they have been using for years.

DTG on the other hand is going to charge you once and then you get lifetime updates? Not likely, not unless they are getting money from some other source, like charging a fee on very thing you add to it, and no freeware btw, there has been much discussion about there very strict licensing required they are imposing on DTG.

Sure there default AC look nice, but there are only 7 of them, only GA. they are including some third party add ons as part of the default, which is nice but that's not revolutionary, I have the ORBX global base installed in my P3D V3 and it still looks better to me that what I see in FSW. LM has announced that they have a new New 3D Rain/Snow system, and its being released with a total of 140 aircraft and avatars. Including the Lockheed Martin F-16 and the Lockheed Electra.

Your comments remind me of posts by others who have commented that P3D is not a 'commercial product' and therefore our only choices are FSW and X-Plane, which is nonsense. I am not counting out FSW, they will have a marketing edge by having it on steam, and I hope they treat it for what it is, a 64 bit evolution of FSX and keep it as open as FSX was. I will keep an open mind to both, but right now I think the betting is favoring P3D as the future platform.

See more about the upcoming P3D release here;
http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6305&t=124599

[Bjoern]

While that will work for P3Dv4, FSW not so much...

...since FSW has apparently dropped support for all C/C++ gauge .dll's. :pop4:

I'll believe it when I hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

[xpelekis]

I'm not an addon maker, I'm an end user. Nor I think P3D is not for fun either.
Flight simming with no fun, doesn't worth it, for me.
I just added 2 points I haven't seen mentioned.
Apart of the 64bit upgrade, in P3D I see no much new elements. It doesn't impress me
enough, thus not motivating me for just another migration... Future will tell anyway.

[GypsyBaron]

-SNIP-
I too will miss the powerful Lua scripting but that's probably all. Other vendors are building tools to interface to FSW. SPAD.neXt is reportedly in beta, for example, and with the exception of the Lua engine (so far) it is shaping up to be a powerful FSUIPC stand-in.

I have 7259 lines in my current FSUIPC4.ini file and 40 Lua files, most containing multiple functions, and I am not looking forward to anything that will essentially erase hundreds of hours of customization. I don't think SPAD can do the sort of things that FSUIPC4 allows out of the box. Multiple levels of conditional assignments. My 10 switches on dual throttle quads control as many as 100 different operations for each of
the aircraft I fly. In many instances activation of 1 switch causes 3,4 or more operations to take place.

As long as there is an option for the use of FSUIPC in a sim, I'm there. Otherwise it is a pass. The power of FSUIPC4 and the embedded Lua capabilities are essential fo my flight sim experience.

Paul

[TuFun]

There will be an FSUIPC5 for P3D4. When will be the question.

http://forum.simflight.com/topic/82730-64-bit-compatibility/?do=findComment&comment=503252

[GypsyBaron]

There will be an FSUIPC5 for P3D4. When will be the question.

http://forum.simflight.com/topic/82730-64-bit-compatibility/?do=findComment&comment=503252

I am aware of that and looking forward to it when Pete finishes the new version. I need to ask him
about the inclusion of Lua capability as well.

. Paul

[MarkH]

I don't think SPAD can do the sort of things that FSUIPC4 allows out of the box. Multiple levels of conditional assignments. My 10 switches on dual throttle quads control as many as 100 different operations for each of the aircraft I fly. In many instances activation of 1 switch causes 3,4 or more operations to take place.

I think it can do these things, but I can't deny that you will have to put a lot of effort into re-coding your assignments.

[mal998]

Here's a screenie from the game. Although it looks different from FSX it's starting to grow on me. Hopefully they'll get all the bits and pieces together so we can get a more accurate picture of what the game will have to offer. Having said that, getting 3rd party aircraft into this sim is a real pain in the arse and requires several changes to the aircraft.cfg and texture files. :banghead:


Not a very good screenshot. The game looks a lot better than this. I need to find a better way to post screenshots.
50349

[IanP]

Simconnect is already the only way to communicate with FSX and P3D. FSUIPC provides an interface and additional functionality, which is then injected in... through Simconnect (which Pete helped write...)

Pete has said he wants to retire from developing FSUIPC for years now and said ages ago that he didn't intend to create or support any more versions after FSUIPC4, so obviously something convinced him not to quit again, which is nice. :)

Ian P.

[zswobbie1]

Erm, the same question was asked 10 years ago, about the end of FSX..

Pete Dowson has said.. 'There will be an FSUIPC5 for P3D4, but first release won't coincide with the rather rushed (in my opinion) release of P3D4 on Tuesday. And FSUIPC5 will be a new product, not an upgrade. It's been too much work to have it as just an upgrade. The user weather stuff is stripped out, and some other facilities do not yet work (mouse macros, menu diversion, frictions just to name three). They are dependent on further P3D development. '

So, there you are..