Dovetail Games Flight Sim World confirmed and releases Early Access in May

[Storm]

Testing today with Edd and Frequent, it seems the wings are individually simulated! (Test = outer wing drop, not inner, in climbing turning stall.) This is a first in desktop flight sims which normally seem to model the two wings as a single long wing. (Most people don't realize that as it normally doesn't matter.)

And the rudder is properly simulated, specifically with reverse air flow. (Test = tail moves to rudder kick side, not opposite, during a tailslide). Randy reports this is a first.

This realism of flight dynamics is a note of optimism for FSW's future. :eagerness:

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

~ msFLIGHTS.net ~ Flight Sim World experimental server is still functioning. As FSW only permits joining at the host airport, on the active runway (unless currently occupied), I have changed the host airport to Dovetail Flight School-Orbx rendered KPRC, Love Field, Prescott, Arizona, southwest USA. This host airport selection is at Travis's suggestion and explanation. Weather is set to light rain in deference to windscreen raindrops, a feature of FSW. Server time, when started, will always be dawn. Weather is building storms with rain customization. I dropped the "NA" North America designation from this FSW server name as not necessary. Traffic on the server is sparse. FSW servers are few. This server is unlocked.

I continue to solicit community input and also references to helpful FSW sim server info any of our pilots happen across. See my Post # 24 in this thread.

[Oz-Flyer]

Actually, you can.......check out this link.....

http://steamcommunity.com/app/389280...s/#scrollTop=0

Only move profile and ppl across.

EDIT looks like you have to earn one for them to show up.

It dose not move your achievements across.

On another note:
I have made some headway on moving the Basler BT-67 into FSW.
Still need to get the VC switches to work.

[WarHawK]

First reactions -

It's definitely still in development, I'm excited to see how they handle doing all the massive environment/mesh updates and how long it takes them.
I'm pleased with how it runs. Worth the 25 bucks IMO.

The interface seems like a problem at first but it's really a good culmination between MSFlight and what we know of FSX/P3D. A couple things i'd change with it would be the route planning. Right clicking is the only action to cancel a plot point which isn't clear off the gate.

It feels like this will be a platform that will eventually have everything that everyone is looking for, rather than branching out into 2-4 different platforms - it may be a good opportunity to bring people together.

Anybody planning a group flight for this?


---
Some info from their development team:
"I think it's easy to lose sight that we're working on an Early Access product and we have a pretty ambitious roadmap.
Some things are core to the simulation experience, cold dark starts, improvements to instrument reading etc.
Though we also have big changes planned for the sky and ground textures. Early Access is the start of the journey and it's a lot easier to work with constructive feedback (which we can collate and work on) than to be told that it's poo"

Early Access is the start of the journey for us, it's one step in a very ambitious plan that looks to bring the same level of quality to the world that you've seen in our default aircraft. (Sounds like global ORBX will eventually be standard)
---

[Novawing24]

It is less realistic than fsx(flight model).

Interesting Travis, what was incorrect? I found the flight model vastly improved. When stalling in a non-level wing scenario the wing that is supposed to stall first, does; unlike FSX/FS9/FSc where the whole aircraft simply stalled.

Storm has also pointed out this and the rudder behaviours which are not correctly simulated even in XP11 (from my brief testing in it).

You mention that you are willing to pay $60+ for LM's latest P3Dvxx. If the discussions are true [64-bit] then there will be a vast amount of work to bring existing content into it and make it compatible.... at least with ORBX they have already confirmed that will require payment. So difference between the two scenarios [FSW and P3Dvxx] is not that different.

I definitely agree that the lack of additional control functionality that I have become accustomed to with FSUIPC is frustrating, and one of the top things on my lists of improvements I would like to see. However FSW integrates a new version of SimConnect [have been spending a lot of time poking around inside the file structures] so once an SDK is released we will see how much different it is and we would start seeing more 3rd party development.

Speaking of, I do not blame many 3rd Party developers sitting on the sidelines for the moment. This title has been out for 4 days, and is not in a state for them to develop for. The platform is still evolving and developing, so if I was a developer I would not be prepared to commit to it yet [I have already had to rewrite 4 times how to install liveries I have created into the sim because of development changes].

I have major issues and one [the lack of night lighting and lighting source reflections on the ground] that has been an issue since FSc and was quite frankly disappointed was not fixed before EA. There are others, outdated NAV and airport data, lack of adjustable HDR settings, that DTG have committed to improving as development improves.

The reality is, the Flight Simulation Community has already killed off 1 sim (at least). This then locked us into 5 years of development vacuum, as we continued scratching around with our archaic platforms with no real commitment from the 2 development houses (LM and Laminar). DTG, if nothing else, has given a wakeup call to those houses and pushed them to start REALLY developing again. LM conduct a very limited and very closed beta for their product and when they update they drop it on the community and everyone has to scramble to update their product to suit them. X-Plane offers a more open Beta, but it is primarily a crowd funding tool, with some feedback being taken on during Beta, but mostly it is community ideas from the previous iteration that get put into new releases from Laminar. So with FSW and DTG, if you observe issues with it, then please report them. Embrace the opportunity we have all been given to genuinely shape a new platform.

Is FSW built on existing in place tech: Yes
Is XP11 built on existing in place tech: Yes
Is P3D built on existing in place tech: Yes
Will P3DvXX be built on existing in place tech? Yes
Is DCS built on existing in place tech: Yes [it's LOMAC with updates]

The reality is until we have people with far more money then most of us can even comprehend coupled with a passion for virtual aviation, getting a brand new sim from the ground up is a LONG way off. Instead developers, and I am including LM, Laminar, Eagle Dynamics and DTG in this, all take what works, strip away what doesn't work and puts in new parts to make it something new.

Does FSW have the potential to fail in a spectacular fashion? Absolutely. Does FSW have the potential to produce a top quality sim that leaves everything else in the dust? Absolutely. The difference between these two polar results is a mixture of DTG..... and US. It is up to the developers to make it happen, but we have been given an opportunity to take an active role in testing and setting out what we want to see in the sim.

As I said I have some serious issues with it as it stands right now, I've highlighted most of these in my first impressions video. https://youtu.be/fXdaocuvniY I know that development takes time, we all rave about P3D in its current version..... that has taken over 7 years to get where it is and still needs a bucket of 3rd party content to be what we want (The first version of P3D was litterally ESP with Microsoft removed and Lockheed's logo put in and that took a year). DTG have been working towards FSW for less than 2 years.

Should we make excuses for DTG? No. Should we hold them accountable? Absolutely! Should we just whinge, bitch and not provide constructive feedback? Depends... do you want to be stuck with the same sims we have right now or see something new and better come along?

Just my thoughts

Safe Skies

Novawing24

[Travis]

Without getting too deep, the drag was horribly wrong on one aircraft I flew, P-factor... That thing glided on forever! I cant remember which one off hand. And if you really want me to point out everything I feel is wrong(which I really don't have the time for, or care to do regardless), I can. Also, one positive does not make up for many negatives. Yes I realize these things need to and can be "polished". To make this very clear, I was not expecting a finished simulator, however, I was expecting it to be at least on an FSX(stock) level or better. With A2A supposedly in the mix, I was expecting a little more in this department. Now, I doubt A2A are doing any personal work/training, and just sold the license(which is fine i suppose). Yes, some things are better, but I think many things are worse. Keep in mind, I did not do major testing because I don't have the time to test everything out to see what is good or not. I am not going to beta test for them unless I somehow see it will be worth it to me.

If the next version of P3D doesn't have a bundle of new problems, the answer is yes. If not, then I wont buy it. This is the great thing about youtube! In fact, the comparison of the P3D worked on airports to the DTG worked on airports, the P3D looks way better. Now, I know this isn't what either of them are focusing on, but it is something to consider. I will agree FSW has potential, but it is a long ways away(like 1 year if they really work at it, or 2 years+ at normal dovetail speed). Like you said, it took a year or 2 for P3D to get what they have now from the same spot. Well DTG is doing almost the same exact thing! Sooo another version of P3D? Except already 64bit, stripped down here and there, + half dozen GA aircraft (That have half realistic flight model in my opinion, and some quirks) and everything else is pretty much the same correct?

There is much more I could discuss, but I don't feel it is necessary for here. Let's just say, I agree with many things you have to say in the following paragraphs. It is good that DTG is doing something, regardless if they are a success. If someone comes out on top, we are the only winners here! I would enjoy seeing more free tools to develop content for the simulators and a more seamless way to share this content. Right now, there is just too much crap floating around. We do need a fresh start simulator. 64 bit is a good reason to do one. For those that think 64 bit is going to be something that will make developers go out of control(VAS), I think you are wrong, Frame rates will do much of this work as well.

We can just wait and see what P3D does and have this discussion again(because it is inevitable). Hopefully something truly groundbreaking.

Anyway, If you(general public) want to pay for an unfinished product, go ahead, I can't stop you, but I don't want to hear any whiners out there when they purchase this and complain about all the things wrong and that they are an unpaid alpha/beta tester...

In the previous and current post, I am sharing my opinion/review to others so they can collect data to make a purchase decision.

[Travis]

You mention that you are willing to pay $60+ for LM's latest P3Dvxx. If the discussions are true [64-bit] then there will be a vast amount of work to bring existing content into it and make it compatible.... at least with ORBX they have already confirmed that will require payment. So difference between the two scenarios [FSW and P3Dvxx] is not that different.

So, the verdict is in...
In P3Dv4, Orbx is already compatible(I dont know about cost)
Real Air aircraft work out of the box
A2A will have immediate support and have already displayed a working C172 with no additional charge to P3D v3 purchasers
More to come I am sure...

Peter Dawson (FSUIPC) is known to be on holiday, he will be updating his software when he returns.
No known price on the new P3Dv4
The performance (FPS) is about the same as P3D v3. There will only be marginal difference


My initial opinions:
The distance and autogen rendering is fantastic. With no OOM's to worry about now, this will be fantastic for the simmers that like heavy duty add-ons.
I believe the challenges that were previously mentioned for years about this being a hard transition to 64 bit were really over exaggerated. Some things will probably take longer and be a challenge, but considering the simulator still has 7 days until it will be released, it looks very promising so far!

I will almost for sure be purchasing version 4 when, or shortly after it releases. The price points of 3rd party developers and P3D will be the final factor for this.

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

I will purchase P3D v4 Academic immediately upon release irregardless of price, irregardless of compatibilities, bugs, additional third party charges, irregardless of anything. I built my new client computer, the one currently hosting the community's Dovetail Flight Sim World, in anticipation of this release. Apparently, I'll continue to drive a marginally beat up ultra high mileage 2004 Honda Civic for another few months.

I'm looking forward to reading and hearing about what currently exists, freeware and already purchased payware, that will work with P3Dv4 early on after release.

Thanks, Travis, for this "find". I will continue to run FSW also. I have a big SSD on my client computer.