HelloJust out of curiosity , Why do Developers get bent out of shape by simmers using Prepar3D ?This is not the first time that a user has been jumped on for suggesting he may run Prepare3D at home and worse still do it for fun.I think I may buy a copy just to have a currently supported sim with ongoing improvements.

The reason should be quite obvious. If a developer, has an issue with Prepar3d he'll dig into the settings do some testing based on in-depth knowledge of the architecture and either propose a fix to Lockheed Martin or fix it himself. If the average simmer, such as the OP, has an issue they will call Lockheed Martin and complain because he cannot draw from a wellspring of product knowledge. Lockheed Martin therefore becomes a surrogate product support structure in place of Microsoft thereby taking the intent for the product into a whole new direction.1. Does Lockheed Martin wish to open a support department for casual simmers who have no real interest in developing?2. Does Lockheed Martin wish to sell a product that is seen as a "game" and is used by casual users?3. Can Lockheed Martin position a product primarily used by casual gamers as a serious Military or Commercial product?4. If Prepar3D is to become primarily a casual "game" what is the reason to separate it from FSX in the first place?5. Is it Lockheed Martin's intention to provide nothing more than a "supported" version of FSX?I think that as simmers try to make Prepar3d a "supported version of FSX" they may not like the end result and I can bet that wasn't LM's intent.

The reason should be quite obvious. If a developer, has an issue with Prepar3d he'll dig into the settings do some testing based on in-depth knowledge of the architecture and either propose a fix to Lockheed Martin or fix it himself. If the average simmer, such as the OP, has an issue they will call Lockheed Martin and complain because he cannot draw from a wellspring of product knowledge. Lockheed Martin therefore becomes a surrogate product support structure in place of Microsoft thereby taking the intent for the product into a whole new direction.1. Does Lockheed Martin wish to open a support department for casual simmers who have no real interest in developing?2. Does Lockheed Martin wish to sell a product that is seen as a "game" and is used by casual users?3. Can Lockheed Martin position a product primarily used by casual gamers as a serious Military or Commercial product?4. If Prepar3D is to become primarily a casual "game" what is the reason to separate it from FSX in the first place?5. Is it Lockheed Martin's intention to provide nothing more than a "supported" version of FSX?I think that as simmers try to make Prepar3d a "supported version of FSX" they may not like the end result and I can bet that wasn't LM's intent.

Hello Mike1. Does Lockheed Martin wish to open a support department for casual simmers who have no real interest in developing?They already have its called a forum where simmers serious enough to spend out on Prepar3D can ask questions.2. Does Lockheed Martin wish to sell a product that is seen as a "game" and is used by casual users?Well they were happy enough to sell me a subscription, but then I don't see myself as a casual user What is a casual user by the way? just so I can check my credentials again.3. Can Lockheed Martin position a product primarily used by casual gamers as a serious Military or Commercial product?Again define a casual gamer4. If Prepar3D is to become primarily a casual "game" what is the reason to separate it from FSX in the first place?Mike if I build my home cockpit around Prepar3D is it now a game?5. Is it Lockheed Martin's intention to provide nothing more than a "supported" version of FSX?Mike you had best pop over to the forum and ask them, they seem to be developing a simulator for serious simmers be that the military, flight schools or someone such as myself who has thousands invested in flightsim hardware.

Jeff,Please ask him what he will be developing for LM/P3D.

I am not even going to bother with you, reply deleted :(

Wow, your name is Jeff also?

Wow, your name is Jeff also?

Whats your point, did you ask somebody else to ask me something or not? If you have nothing constructive to add to this thread then why are you bothering?

Enjoy your 10$ a month simulator!

Enjoy your 10$ a month simulator!

Oh your just trolling and trying to start a flame war, ok, thanks, merry xmas

Oh your just trolling and trying to start a flame war, ok, thanks, merry xmas

I wonder why the devs don't get it.. thier attitudes don't help sell products.

I hope everyone buys a license for P3D, I really, really do!! LM is keeping the flight sim market alive and up to date for everyone! :( :( :(

What an excellent product. For 10 bucks a month, I'll buy it. Great idea. It's the future man. Long live the L1011.JimCYWG

Hello kand. I am bulding the A320 cockpit and i have read your post and i want to ask you some questions if you don't mind about Prepar3D. You said that this platform has many optimizations for cockpit builders. Can you please describe which optimizations they have done there? Also about the platfoem itfself does it support SLI or XROSSFIRE or multi cores or even multi cpu? It is x86 only application or there is also a x64 version as well? Can it run to another platform except windows? About the scenery does prepar3d has a better scenery than fsx acc offers? Does it supports features like wideview e.t.c.? I am asking you these things beacause i think that lockheed has bought fsx core from microsoft to produce something better than fsx so you as an allready user of prepar3d i assume that you have been allready noticed all these issues. Thanks in advanced.

No SLI, x86 direct9.0c binary, Windows Only of course, bathymetry data added to scenery and some upgraded terrain files I believe from ESP, Supports EasyBlendFX for wide fov, FSUIPC compatible just for you! all that was available from the Lockheed martin site, I don't actually use it. Prepar3d will get interesting if and when it supports the standarized FBW databus for flight controls and flight computers.

Hello kand. I am bulding the A320 cockpit and i have read your post and i want to ask you some questions if you don't mind about Prepar3D. You said that this platform has many optimizations for cockpit builders. Can you please describe which optimizations they have done there? Also about the platfoem itfself does it support SLI or XROSSFIRE or multi cores or even multi cpu? It is x86 only application or there is also a x64 version as well? Can it run to another platform except windows? About the scenery does prepar3d has a better scenery than fsx acc offers? Does it supports features like wideview e.t.c.? I am asking you these things beacause i think that lockheed has bought fsx core from microsoft to produce something better than fsx so you as an allready user of prepar3d i assume that you have been allready noticed all these issues. Thanks in advanced.

Separate multi channel views from within the main app, no undocking required, some type of compatibility for geometric correction for fish eye projection systems, enhanced input output channels for hooking up hardware, directx gaugeshere is a quote from a LM devThat said, we also added bathymetry (underwater terrain) and a refraction rendering pass to support transparent water as well as a pilotable Submersible. We added a high resolution pictometry based scenery area around Norfolk. This area uses 4096 textures where FSX/ESP maxed out at 1024 textures. If you have bathymetry enabled, or are in the pictometry area, maxing out your setting will take an additional hit on performance to what you would expect in FSX. Other features added included, multi-channel support, DirectX gauges, IR Sensors and Render-To-Texture views. I personally, haven’t run performance tests on enough hardware to answer your question regarding specs for max tweaks. My suggestion would be to follow the same guidelines you would use for FSX but factor in more RAM and Video RAM if you want to keep performance up near the pictometry.Regards

As a developer I will simply add this: Any addons developed for FSX may be restricted by license and thus not allowed in Prepar3D. One can not legitimately expect any form of support for FSX addons moved over to Prepar3D unless the addon was released for use in Prepar3D.

Out of interest I downloaded the P3D SDK. At first sight, it seems to be the same as the ESP SDK but with the air file compiler (asm2air.exe) included. This does compile a sample to an .air file but I haven't tried it in FSX. Has anyone noted other differences?What are the advantages of using P3D to create objects for FSX? It seems inevitable that P3D will develop by offereing new features that are not in FSX. Models developed to use such new features will at best run in FSX but without the features, and at worst not run or even crash FSX. If that's the case, I can't see why FSX commercial developers should develop for P3D because the installed base must be tiny compared with FSX - especially with Flight on the way.