-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement
- Thread starter fsafranek
- Start date
- Status
Maybe they must just stick to their Fishing & train apps.
In retrospect, in all the time they had the sim franchise, it was a beta version that they wanted their customers to buy.
Secondly, getting advice from their users, or target market to what they want is now seen to be very problematic... everybody has their individual requirements for what they want out of the sim.
Yes, they did try....
I'm sure that LM will not be interested in an entertainment game that parallels their professional & acedemic products. Why should they? Even more licensing issues.
I always wondered why a simmer would consider FSW, when there are 'complete' & far more supported products out there.
BTW, FlightGear should also be added into the alternatives.
Regards,
Robin
In retrospect, in all the time they had the sim franchise, it was a beta version that they wanted their customers to buy.
Secondly, getting advice from their users, or target market to what they want is now seen to be very problematic... everybody has their individual requirements for what they want out of the sim.
Yes, they did try....
I'm sure that LM will not be interested in an entertainment game that parallels their professional & acedemic products. Why should they? Even more licensing issues.
I always wondered why a simmer would consider FSW, when there are 'complete' & far more supported products out there.
BTW, FlightGear should also be added into the alternatives.
Regards,
Robin
BendyFlyer
Charter Member
No real comment on was it good or was it bad. Unfortunate because I am sure the code and rights did not come cheap from MS and they were basically restricted to the hobby-private market. From a business perspective two things stand out - the First is the you get a license to use but not the product, there is significant customer resistance to this in the consumer market but in the commercial world it is the way they operate, it is just another lease cost. Second, addons had to be a licensed after sale or no support. That killed addon developers interest too hard and DTG would not have had the resources to replicate what is done by thousands of keen amateurs in the spirit of communal collaboration and mutual interest and passion.
As for LM and P3D speculation, well I am currently doing work for a major international aerospace entity- future pilot training is all simulator orientated because that is what the military and the big end of aviation want and are introducing. LM upgraded P3D to 64 bit because of computer architecture and platforms not for hobby customers, as they say plainly the license is not intended for gaming purposes. What is really happening is that is cheap software development and so called student customers etc are actually helping them do the bug finding and get rid of other wrinkles, it is a win win for them but let us make one thing clear, LM is not in the consumer market it is a high tech heavy end of town aerospace company and that is the way it will stay - work it out - how many P3D licenses would you need to sell compared to say one F35? Sure they will probably turn a blind eye to the obvious interest from 'non' academics but P3D is a bolt on for the real world flight training sector not consumers. They might eventually flog it off to a business with that interest but not at the moment.
Sad to see the DTG folk lose out like this but the writing was on the wall generally just as it has been for a lot of folk trying to make money out of sim products. My money is on X-Plane for the future but as what I have is just fine I am not doing anything there either, so I am probably typical of the consumer market DTG faced, uncertain, not totally unsatisfied with what they have and not that impressed with what was on offer to go and buy. Why X-Plane, open source architecture, 64 bit and that will attract a lot more amateurs and enthusiasts than a pay as you go product after all most of us are cash stressed or broke these days anyway, I know I am. Have a look around the retail world the evidence is staring you in the face.
As for LM and P3D speculation, well I am currently doing work for a major international aerospace entity- future pilot training is all simulator orientated because that is what the military and the big end of aviation want and are introducing. LM upgraded P3D to 64 bit because of computer architecture and platforms not for hobby customers, as they say plainly the license is not intended for gaming purposes. What is really happening is that is cheap software development and so called student customers etc are actually helping them do the bug finding and get rid of other wrinkles, it is a win win for them but let us make one thing clear, LM is not in the consumer market it is a high tech heavy end of town aerospace company and that is the way it will stay - work it out - how many P3D licenses would you need to sell compared to say one F35? Sure they will probably turn a blind eye to the obvious interest from 'non' academics but P3D is a bolt on for the real world flight training sector not consumers. They might eventually flog it off to a business with that interest but not at the moment.
Sad to see the DTG folk lose out like this but the writing was on the wall generally just as it has been for a lot of folk trying to make money out of sim products. My money is on X-Plane for the future but as what I have is just fine I am not doing anything there either, so I am probably typical of the consumer market DTG faced, uncertain, not totally unsatisfied with what they have and not that impressed with what was on offer to go and buy. Why X-Plane, open source architecture, 64 bit and that will attract a lot more amateurs and enthusiasts than a pay as you go product after all most of us are cash stressed or broke these days anyway, I know I am. Have a look around the retail world the evidence is staring you in the face.
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
Sad to hear that - probably it was too ambitious for FSW to develop. But there were some thing they did right:
- The default aicrafts were actually pretty good. True, there were only GA planes - but in terms of quality they were probably the best around.
- The cloud technology was cool
- The idea of "reformatting" the XML gauges so that they can run through the GPU was good
- The adoption of ORBX Global textures and vectors meant that the base scenery was much better than FSX and P3D
- Some effects (like the rain on the canopy and the vibration of the needles) were well implemented
- The SDK did a good job in explaining the differences between FSW and FSX
Then, FSX/P3D developer the fact that P3D and FSW diverged was a burden - it would have been much better if they had a common format (dream world, I know).
- The default aicrafts were actually pretty good. True, there were only GA planes - but in terms of quality they were probably the best around.
- The cloud technology was cool
- The idea of "reformatting" the XML gauges so that they can run through the GPU was good
- The adoption of ORBX Global textures and vectors meant that the base scenery was much better than FSX and P3D
- Some effects (like the rain on the canopy and the vibration of the needles) were well implemented
- The SDK did a good job in explaining the differences between FSW and FSX
Then, FSX/P3D developer the fact that P3D and FSW diverged was a burden - it would have been much better if they had a common format (dream world, I know).
Naruto-kun
Charter Member
It’s not sour grapes on PMDGs part. There were other developers who wouldn’t go along with it because of the restrictions mentioned. When questions about unofficial payware addons were asked, they were either met with silence or that DTG would take the developer to court. I remember when Stephen and Amy were asked at FlightsimCon about restrictions on developers and they had a very long pause followed by a very careful answer. They wouldn’t restrict developers to sell on steam but they didn’t say whether there were other restrictions either. If there was nothing getting in the way they would have been perfectly straightforward. It is a common practice today unfortunately, to tell the straight truth but with lot of it hidden.
Yes. That's DTG policy for things distributed by DTG - they and the add-on author have to be licensed to use imagery and names.
The same does not apply if, like JustFlight/JustTrains for instance, you don't sell through DTG/Steam - then it's your decision what licenses you get and your head on the block of you don't get them. One of the most popular TS third party developers, Armstrong Powerhouse, got a very snotty letter from Virgin Trains a while ago, which forced him to stop selling products with their branding on it - he evidently hadn't licensed it. Other developers have sorted out their own licensing and are happily selling properly branded products through their own sites, with no DTG involvement at all.
The FSW team said that they were going to be using the same terms that the TS team used, so the same would apply there. It's this whole "Official" versus "Unofficial" add-on thing, still.
I do agree entirely that they clearly hadn't fully thought through what they were getting into with the flight sim hobby/industry. They might have had a roadmap, but they didn't communicate it clearly, they had an utterly pointless "early access" period, where the product barely changed from a consumer viewpoint from it entering and exiting the EA period, plus they knew exactly what had happened with Flight and yet they did almost exactly the same thing again. You cannot enter a marketplace that contains a number of fully-featured incumbents and expect to get away with an unfinished product. Again, I also agree that they should have started small and marketed differently - like the bush flying sim currently in development is doing - if they weren't going to put in what is considered "core" content (particularly jet powered flight) at the time of launch.
XP11 and AeroflyFS2 should, realistically, be what we as a community are now pushing to become what we want. Both have most of it already and add-ons that provide the rest, but both could be improved upon as core products. Unfortunately, because so many people choose to misinterpret or blatantly ignore the P3D licensing, they have invested heavily in "what they know" and now want that to become the default sim, even though L-M have no interest at all in supporting them and could cancel pretty much all of the licenses that people hold with a broad stroke. It wouldn't put a tiny scratch in their balance books to lose the consumer market that they specifically state the sim is not to be used in.
Ian P.
@Naruto_kun Yes and no. Yes, it was and still is sour grapes. Robert Randazzo demanded effectively partnership rights, with open access to the DTG development team, but nothing in return for DTG other than the PMDG developing for the platform. You are, though, entirely correct that the cageyness and lack of communication was one of the major problems. We really had to push and push and push to get them to admit that they were going to use the same arrangements as TS has regarding add-ons. How many months and repeatedly asked questions did it take to get them to say "yes we will support freeware".
That said, I don't think it was malicious as such. Yes, part of it was because they release their own content - which neither L-M nor Laminar research do - and therefore they do want to push developers to publish through them. That I think is one of their biggest mistakes, because if you create an open platform, but then pretend that nothing that isn't published by you specifically doesn't exist, then you create the kind of hate that DTG get. It's their own stupid fault, in that instance. Also, I still say that they hadn't got the slightest clue what they were getting into. I don't think they had the answers to most of the questions people were asking them. They're also exceptionally closed and cagey when it comes to future development. They say that it's because they've got burned in the past when they have announced content and then, for whatever reason, it hasn't been able to be released.
In my opinion, again, I think L-M and Laminar have got it right. Release and support only the core package and allow 3rd parties to build on that. Because DTG are trying to both be the core package developer and sell content for it, they're creating a massive rod for their own back. If they admit that other paths are available, which are inevitably going to be more lucrative for add-on developers, then why should those 3rd parties publish through DTG? They're stuck between the rock of needing to push people to release "official" content and the hard-place that people think that only "official" content exists and therefore DTG are just trying to steal all your money because, obviously, you have to buy all the add-ons available, don't you?
Ian P.
That said, I don't think it was malicious as such. Yes, part of it was because they release their own content - which neither L-M nor Laminar research do - and therefore they do want to push developers to publish through them. That I think is one of their biggest mistakes, because if you create an open platform, but then pretend that nothing that isn't published by you specifically doesn't exist, then you create the kind of hate that DTG get. It's their own stupid fault, in that instance. Also, I still say that they hadn't got the slightest clue what they were getting into. I don't think they had the answers to most of the questions people were asking them. They're also exceptionally closed and cagey when it comes to future development. They say that it's because they've got burned in the past when they have announced content and then, for whatever reason, it hasn't been able to be released.
In my opinion, again, I think L-M and Laminar have got it right. Release and support only the core package and allow 3rd parties to build on that. Because DTG are trying to both be the core package developer and sell content for it, they're creating a massive rod for their own back. If they admit that other paths are available, which are inevitably going to be more lucrative for add-on developers, then why should those 3rd parties publish through DTG? They're stuck between the rock of needing to push people to release "official" content and the hard-place that people think that only "official" content exists and therefore DTG are just trying to steal all your money because, obviously, you have to buy all the add-ons available, don't you?
Ian P.
Mach3DS
Charter Member
@IanP, out of curiosity, since there's a great many developers here at SOH, who/what products are you the developer for?
Also I agree with most of what you've said, but I have to respectfully disagree on one point. P3D would be the logical replacement for FSX users since most advanced FSX addons have been converted to 64 bit at this point and/or are in development by most developers. Such as A2A converting all their lineup to P3D. Also many developers have already stated that they are moving to P3D only.
LM is essentially ACES all over by again. Most guys went there from MS. I don't see any situation in which they would would wipe out the developers ability to produce content.
Also I agree with most of what you've said, but I have to respectfully disagree on one point. P3D would be the logical replacement for FSX users since most advanced FSX addons have been converted to 64 bit at this point and/or are in development by most developers. Such as A2A converting all their lineup to P3D. Also many developers have already stated that they are moving to P3D only.
LM is essentially ACES all over by again. Most guys went there from MS. I don't see any situation in which they would would wipe out the developers ability to produce content.
Two points from someone on the outside who has "blatantly ignored the P3D Licensing", (although in my defense I do use it for training purposes) P3D would be the logical choice to replace FSX were it not for the licensing restrictions already mentioned. That makes any thought of P3D ever being an "Official" replacement a mute point. . .won't happen.
Also, developers, especially those who are producing GA aircraft, would still have the ability to produce systems heavy versions geared specifically to Flight Schools with much higher price tags and probably not lose any sleep over loss of revenue from those of us who are using the Sim for Entertainment purposes and don't want or need something that detailed. JMHO
Mach3DS
Charter Member
I don't understand why the argument as to why we are no longer able to use P3D all of a sudden? What is happening to cause the users that are using it now to be required to stop using using it? Are you guys saying that LM will just in a while decide to make all licenses"professional"? For what purpose? They already have set their licensing. And have it approved under contract from MS as valid. There's literally no reason for them to change it. Especially if they don't"need" our revenue, then there's really no need at all to change from what they have now. At any rate. I see just the opposite. LM has been making huge strides to increase the features and improve the development for developers. I don't see that as a step toward alienating single users.
Good points Rick. I also believe LM have the elephant in the room that is the fact they know perfectly well what P3D is used for by some of its customers from USN down - they have pitched the licences perfectly as they are.
I will only make this observation, it appears from your post that you are unaware of the licensing restrictions for P3D and everything that surrounds that as it pertains to our use of that program. Early on in the P3D Forum it was stated that no discussions would take place concerning the P3D EULA in that Forum. We have stuck to that and it probably shouldn't be discussed here either.
Thanks Falcon. Noted.
Oh, I agree completely, but it was brought up and I decided to elaborate in my previous post. Rick asked questions that made it appear (to me at least) that he was unaware of the EULA and it's obvious restrictions so I elaborated. . .again. I agree though, it's out there, it's being done on a daily basis, get over it and move on.
Mach3DS
Charter Member
I'm fully aware of all their licenses. Me mentioning that LM has licenses is not the same thing as asserting what each represents or which one applies to an individual circumstance. That's clearly NOT what is being said in my post. It's no secret that LM has 3 options, Professional Plus, Professional and Academic. Yup I mentioned them again, by name this time (Voldemort!) I was asking if the reasoning behind the arguments, is that you guys think that at some point they will abandon the Academic and stick with only the remaining (and factually more expensive options)? This in no way is a discussion of what option is best suited for whom. It's a clarification of the process in which the argument is based. That is all. I don't want to break any forum rules, and I don't think any have been...I agree, we can move on....I think it's a moot point anyway. I think we're actually all on the same page.
000rick000: I've been involved in the FS community since FS4 and Compuserve FS Forum, during which time I have worked with, tested for, advised and done background work for a large number of developers, including a number who post here. I've not exactly been quiet over the past 25-odd years of involvement in this hobby and industry, including making my fair share of enemies and friends amongst commercial developers. I've reviewed FS products for Avsim, I was one of the editorial team at simFlight until health forced me to step down. For the past ten years or so I have produced freeware sceneries - something I started doing as far back as FS5, with the UKDT team, but it's mainly been for organisations I've been involved with, such as VAs or bush flying groups. I've never bothered Googling myself because I'm not that self-centred, so have no idea how easy it is to find mention of me, but I'm in a dozen or so commercial product manuals, have published around 100 reviews and have run or helped run a large number of websites throughout the hobby. I have been around a lot in the background, just not usually standing up and shouting about it, unless I get wound up about something. I've also been called all sorts of rude and derogatory names by people who disagree with me, so if anyone thinks they can come up with new combinations, feel free... No rewards for coming up with them, unfortunately, except maybe a congratulatory emoticon. Sorry! 
A number of people I know, including a few I count as friends, have been involved with DTG FSW, either as part of the DTG team or with 3rd party developers. I met Aimee, for example, when she worked at Flight1. I've communicated with Dan Dunn on and off for donkey's years and finally got to meet him at last on the DTG stand at the JF/F1 Cosford flight sim show last year. While I am no longer involved in any commercial activities, on a personal level, I was constantly hassling members of the DTG team for answers to questions both because I wanted to get my own developed (yes, it's pretty low quality but it exists) freeware into FSW and because I personally wanted DTG to actually produce a viable sim. I'm also - just full disclosure, as it's irrelevant to this thread - a moderator on Matt Peddlesden's* personal Twitch stream and, as a result of that, got co-opted as a moderator on DTG's official Twitch stream. I don't envy anyone that job - the sheer hate that DTG generates, usually based on evident fallacies and partial information**, is incredible! When people on a FSW stream chat asked why I had a sword when I wasn't a DTG employee, Cryss's response was that my sword was forged in the fires of hell and that no mere human could take it off me, which was quite amusing. I guess it's up to the TS team to decide whether they're more than mere humans now, although I was invited told that I was free to wield the sword as necessary on the last TSW stream, too. I only swung it once, to give someone posting obscenities 10 minutes on the naughty step.
Doug actually offered me a job with DTG at one point, which I declined. I'm glad I did, given what has transpired since then. While I still have a huge amount of time for DTG's staff, my opinion of their senior management has taken a lot of dents recently, for a variety of reasons.
I've had my say on PMDG's statement anyway and have nothing more to add on that. The evidence that supports what I've said is all public domain, although as I said before, some of it has only been in the public domain since October/November last year. In fairness to PMDG, they had already decided to look no further into working with DTG, so may not have known that. In reality, they have enough contacts in the FS world who are aware of what DTG are announcing, that I very much doubt they were unaware of the answers that a lot of people - including me - worked for so long to extract, yet they still rolled out the same - already privately and now publicly - proven untruths to gloat about the failure of the product. That makes me angry, both because it's childish and unprofessional, but also because their previous statements have been widely used as reasons not to support DTG's efforts in any way. "Robert Randazzo said it, so it must be true" - even though he never actually said a lot of the things that have been attributed to him.
I think most of us agree that DTG engineered their own product's downfall by not learning from the mistakes of others and not listening to advice. My only contact with anyone in the FSW team since the announcement has been via social media to a friend, asking if they're OK (I haven't received a response yet).
I'm going to be quiet on this thread now unless summoned, because I think I've said everything I want to and I'm more than aware that I'm typing way too much.
Ian P.
* - The Senior Developer for Train Sim World.
** - Pretty much entirely DTG management's own fault!
A number of people I know, including a few I count as friends, have been involved with DTG FSW, either as part of the DTG team or with 3rd party developers. I met Aimee, for example, when she worked at Flight1. I've communicated with Dan Dunn on and off for donkey's years and finally got to meet him at last on the DTG stand at the JF/F1 Cosford flight sim show last year. While I am no longer involved in any commercial activities, on a personal level, I was constantly hassling members of the DTG team for answers to questions both because I wanted to get my own developed (yes, it's pretty low quality but it exists) freeware into FSW and because I personally wanted DTG to actually produce a viable sim. I'm also - just full disclosure, as it's irrelevant to this thread - a moderator on Matt Peddlesden's* personal Twitch stream and, as a result of that, got co-opted as a moderator on DTG's official Twitch stream. I don't envy anyone that job - the sheer hate that DTG generates, usually based on evident fallacies and partial information**, is incredible! When people on a FSW stream chat asked why I had a sword when I wasn't a DTG employee, Cryss's response was that my sword was forged in the fires of hell and that no mere human could take it off me, which was quite amusing. I guess it's up to the TS team to decide whether they're more than mere humans now, although I was invited told that I was free to wield the sword as necessary on the last TSW stream, too. I only swung it once, to give someone posting obscenities 10 minutes on the naughty step.
Doug actually offered me a job with DTG at one point, which I declined. I'm glad I did, given what has transpired since then. While I still have a huge amount of time for DTG's staff, my opinion of their senior management has taken a lot of dents recently, for a variety of reasons.
I've had my say on PMDG's statement anyway and have nothing more to add on that. The evidence that supports what I've said is all public domain, although as I said before, some of it has only been in the public domain since October/November last year. In fairness to PMDG, they had already decided to look no further into working with DTG, so may not have known that. In reality, they have enough contacts in the FS world who are aware of what DTG are announcing, that I very much doubt they were unaware of the answers that a lot of people - including me - worked for so long to extract, yet they still rolled out the same - already privately and now publicly - proven untruths to gloat about the failure of the product. That makes me angry, both because it's childish and unprofessional, but also because their previous statements have been widely used as reasons not to support DTG's efforts in any way. "Robert Randazzo said it, so it must be true" - even though he never actually said a lot of the things that have been attributed to him.
I think most of us agree that DTG engineered their own product's downfall by not learning from the mistakes of others and not listening to advice. My only contact with anyone in the FSW team since the announcement has been via social media to a friend, asking if they're OK (I haven't received a response yet).
I'm going to be quiet on this thread now unless summoned, because I think I've said everything I want to and I'm more than aware that I'm typing way too much.
Ian P.
* - The Senior Developer for Train Sim World.
** - Pretty much entirely DTG management's own fault!
Mach3DS
Charter Member
Very Good! It's just nice to try and place people with a face of some kind since there's no human interactions here. It's sometimes easy to forget that we're all real humans that if we met in person we'd likely treat with more respect that is sometimes shown in forums. I appreciate getting to know you better! It helps me understand context in what is usually a very poor form of linear communication (forum threads). All the best,
Not to defend Robert's position, but DTG themselves were very ambiguous with their initial statements regarding 3rd-party participation. That history is still preserved at AVSIM in their forum postings. Their original statements did in fact imply that all sales would have to be made via the Steam platform. My own initial contacts corroborate this position as I was being told that ~60% of the sales price would be divided up between Steam and DTG, with the remaining ~40% being remitted to our company on a quarterly basis.
It was only about nine months later that this position was softened when DTG began insisting that there was no requirement that 3rd party sales had to be exclusively available via the Steam channel, but could also be sold via the developer's existing sales channels. That was a significant change in policy, but still not good enough in my considered opinion.
About seven months later, their position changed yet again with the requirement for the Steam portal being abandoned, and it was now apparently okay for anyone to sell for the FSW platform through their own existing outlets. At this juncture I'd not yet seen the numbers of active users DTG had forecast, so I pretty much lost immediate interest in developing, especially so since the (partial) SDK had yet to be released. It was pretty much impossible to develop for FSW without the tools, so I adopted a wait and see attitude.
Nonetheless, I did experiment with trying to get our C310R Redux Edition into FSW with limited success absent the SDK, but was not terribly impressed. I am hugely disappointed at the apparent failure of the management of DTG, and in no way cast any blame whatever on the passionate and dedicated development team they'd assembled. I do hope that they all find gainful employment elsewhere soon, especially where their talents are better appreciated!
It was only about nine months later that this position was softened when DTG began insisting that there was no requirement that 3rd party sales had to be exclusively available via the Steam channel, but could also be sold via the developer's existing sales channels. That was a significant change in policy, but still not good enough in my considered opinion.
About seven months later, their position changed yet again with the requirement for the Steam portal being abandoned, and it was now apparently okay for anyone to sell for the FSW platform through their own existing outlets. At this juncture I'd not yet seen the numbers of active users DTG had forecast, so I pretty much lost immediate interest in developing, especially so since the (partial) SDK had yet to be released. It was pretty much impossible to develop for FSW without the tools, so I adopted a wait and see attitude.
Nonetheless, I did experiment with trying to get our C310R Redux Edition into FSW with limited success absent the SDK, but was not terribly impressed. I am hugely disappointed at the apparent failure of the management of DTG, and in no way cast any blame whatever on the passionate and dedicated development team they'd assembled. I do hope that they all find gainful employment elsewhere soon, especially where their talents are better appreciated!
- Status