by aurel42 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:07 am
I totally appreciate the challenges facing a company that produces an add-on that can quickly be made obsolete (or turned from a "must-have" for VR pilots to a "nice-to-have" product that just provides some additional features for convenience) if (or when) Lockheed-Martin, Dovetail or Austin Meyer decide to put effort into their native VR solutions, and I understand the need to diversify.
Yet, I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone could create a flight sim in such a short time that could rival the established products in functionality, realism, coverage and depth, let alone in third party support.
Aerofly offers great performance, native VR support, great looking ortho and autogen, yet I refunded it because I don't like its flight model, the regions I actually want to fly in are not covered by Aerofly's small patches of nice ortho and I can't use it with all the third party tools, scenery and aircraft that make my flight simming experience what I want it to be. I've noticed the claim that FSX aircraft can be used with FFS, but I'm having a hard time imagining how all the interesting aircraft which I like to fly (and which often rely on a DLL, an EXE or an external process to provide the most interesting features) can fully work in a sim with a new codebase. And what about FSEconomy (or similar meta games), flying online, route planning tools, updated navaids, all my favorite obscure airfields with their sloped runways? I guess it remains to be seen what FFS can bring to the table.
What has already been seen, though, especially by beta testers, is the change of pace for the add-on development.
Sorry for being a grinch.
Surprise me.
i7-4790K/4.0; GTX1080; 16GB; SSD; Win10/64; before: FSX:SE, now: P3Dv3; CV1