"Mystery" aircraft coming to FSW, A2A+FSW=true?

[Ian P]

all I expect from DTG is releasing a half made game (in my opinion no simulator what I have seen so far; early access has been stopped) and pulling money out of DLCs. Just what they have done with their interpretation of a train simulator.. The hype is marketing, nothing more..

I used to find that kind of ignorance funny, but these days, knowing what is really happening, I find it just very annoying.

You are entitled to your opinion - even when it is extremely flawed - but I'd like to see the evidence behind the assumptions you have made, please?

Ian P.

[crippy]

I do somewhat agree with the user who posted about dovetail games. At least with Train sim world I can't speak to flight sim world. The evidence is in the steam reviews. Mostly mixed with the majority of reviews being negative. I don't think the game has even been out over a year yet, and I remember seeing 5+ DLC's. I'm not saying having the DLC are a bad thing, but reviews of the base game continue to come in negative, something needs to be addressed there.

[Ian P]

For some reason, people have taken a dislike to DTG releasing DLC. Part of the problem is that they insist on using Steam, which is a gamer's platform and attracts gamers. The gamers see £5000 price tag for all DLC and whinge like mad, giving negative reviews and accusing DTG of "ripping them off" with DLC. One of their favourite complaints is is that some of the DLC costs more than the base sim and how can that possibly be right?

I guess those people have never looked at how long it takes to add-up £5000 worth of "DLC" at one of the FS stores. One single FS store, before you start adding in all the other FS stores and the software that only they sell. As for selling a £25 route for a £20 base sim... Well, has anyone seen PMDG, or A2A, or well, most developers, that sell FS add-ons for a lot more than the cost of FSX?

Another common complaint is that they remove insignia or liveries. Yup. That is a DTG choice, but not because they "don't allow military insignia" or anything like the usual accusations, it's because they're extremely hot on licensing. That's the choice that they've made. If they don't have written authorisation from the USAF, or American Airlines, or British Airways or the RAF, to use insignia, then the insignia won't be there. Ditto with Central Trains, BNSF or anyone else. Don't get started on the BNSF row, but that's a problem with BNSF, not with DTG.

The one thing that you can occasionally throw a brickbat at DTG for is that they try to keep standard pricing for new products, so a less complex one will cost the same as a much more complex one - that's because they decided to standardise the price of a loco or route. They do sometimes break that, but they also have very frequent sales and drop a lot of TS stuff into the "Classics" range on a regular basis, permanently dropping the price.

Lastly, "5+" DLC for TSW? Actually, the first "DLC" for TSW was released within a couple of days of its early access release - it was posted by a 3rd party dev on their own site and was actually their FSX product with a few text changes in it. There are actually two whole releases from DTG for TSW; both mission packs (one free, one paid) and all the rest of the DLC available is from 3rd parties. How many products did 3rd parties release for FSX in the last week?

So I still need to ask the same question. What evidence is the hatred of DTG based on? Lots of people come out with the same tired old complaints, but never back them up. Also, TS2018 has been out a few months, but the page actually dates back to Railworks, the first release from RSC (the real name of DTG, which is just a trading name) in... I can't actually remember, it was so long ago.

Ian P.

[crippy]

Part of the problem is that they insist on using Steam, which is a gamer's platform and attracts gamers. The gamers see £5000 price tag for all DLC and whinge like mad

Well I do respectfully strongly disagree with the quote, and I think it is unfair to assign an stereotype to a entire platform. You yourself could be considered a gamer just for using Flightsim.

Also I'm not really sure if you are referring to me specifically or to the other fellow who commented, but no where did I say I hated Dovetail. Like I said before:

I'm not saying having the DLC are a bad thing, but reviews of the base game continue to come in negative, something needs to be addressed there.

But I'm not going to pick a fight here nor follow this conversation any longer, and as I said I can only attest to TSW not FSW.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/530070/re ... _5_reviews_

[Ian P]

None of that was aimed at you or any other specific person.

By "gamers", I refer to people who are used to "games" (specifically) where you need all of the DLC content to fully use the title. Things like the Call of Duty series, or pretty much anything by Ubisoft. None of it was directly aimed at anyone here - it was all aimed at a type of person who thinks that you have to have everything to use TSW/FSW.

I am a gamer. I play many genres of game, from RTS and MMOs to casual, FPS and racing games. I also "play" simulators and have the ability to tell the difference between the two platforms. I need all the add-ons to use some things properly, but not others.

Rather than looking at the headline (which is "Mixed", not "Negative" for FSW and TS, "Mostly Positive" for TSW) of any DTG product, read the reviews. Just on the front page for TS right now: "Hahaha what the **** did i just play"; "Costs nearly 8k to get the complete game, need i say more"; "shell of a game, nothing more than a cash cow"; "There's dlc for over 5000$ for this game. And it's not even free to play"; "6 grand for dlc with a unfinished game no thanks."; "i thought it was fun. It was but you must buy DLC to do more things. And it is not cheap"

They all assume the same thing, that to use a simulator, you need to own EVERYTHING you can get for a simulator platform. That is why the Steam reviews you use as evidence are not at all helpful or even relevant. The only thing they say about the base platform is that you have to buy DLC for it.

The biggest complaints about TSW are that the routes are too short (reality: because they take so long to make right now, which will change as they improve the tools and the asset libraries available to them), that it crashes (it's actually a lot more stable than TS2018 and vastly more stable than FSX is these days!) and... oh look. "...more interested in putting out more OVERPRICED DLC, rather than fixing the core game."

Actually, every TSW DLC release has included a lot of core updates, whether you buy the new additional DLC or not. Who cares about that, though... let's rant about releasing new content. How dare they charge money for it!

I do think FSW was brought out of early access too early and I do think that they have created a rod for their own backs by releasing it without any mesh/vector/navdata updates, without IFR support and without the most popular feature of any flight sim platform, aka "commercial jets". The negative reviews on FSW seem a lot more fair now than they were originally, but yup, there are people complaining about "THEY ONLY WANT TO SELL U OVERPRICED DLC" again there, too.

Ian P.

[addman]

We're getting closer to the day when we can share all of our plans. We all hate being quiet, and we're pushing our partners to get to the point where they are able to publicly announce the projects. Notice, the plural. We're working on two projects simultaneously, one is an Accu-Sim airplane that will be released via traditional channels, the other is an Accu-Sim airplane that will be available via a different channel.

Either way, we are very eager to share our work with everyone. We will announce at least one of the projects in March. In the meantime, we are keeping our nose to the grindstone.

Scott.

FSW?

[crippy]

We're getting closer to the day when we can share all of our plans. We all hate being quiet, and we're pushing our partners to get to the point where they are able to publicly announce the projects. Notice, the plural. We're working on two projects simultaneously, one is an Accu-Sim airplane that will be released via traditional channels, the other is an Accu-Sim airplane that will be available via a different channel.

Either way, we are very eager to share our work with everyone. We will announce at least one of the projects in March. In the meantime, we are keeping our nose to the grindstone.

Scott.

FSW?

It does sound like it could be. I just hope the A2A aircraft isn't exclusive to another platform. I feel like that would be a big letdown given I cannot justify purchasing another simulator right now. Especially if it is an aircraft that I would really like to fly, but can't due to cost reasons.

None the less, exciting times!

[Aymi]

Yeah, as much as I love A2A, the sim is finally beginning to look like something on P3D4.

Years of sceneries, traffic, weather, clouds, add-ons finally working together smoothly

[Dogsbody55]

I wouldn't like to get my expectations up for an FSW plane at this stage. The release via a "different channel" could be one of a few things, including Boultbee, but if it is an FSW release, that would be a double bonus for me as I have both FSX and FSW, so I could take advantage of both, depending on what the new releases are. Scott told us last year that the next release would have a choice of 3 engines, and perhaps 2 tip tanks, so that's probably what's coming up for FSX. It got delayed by the "different channel" release. But FSW badly needs a decent plane. I added the JF Piper Arrow to my FSW install, and I'm not happy with it. Looks great, but runs out of stabilator authority especially in tight turns. So I don't spend a lot of time on that sim.

FSW is getting there, and an A2A plane would help.


Cheers,
Mike

[crippy]

Yes, an A2A plane would help FSW