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.

HelloWell they may be able to get away with charging more for P3D products as the target market is used to paying higher prices.They will also benefit from the built in DRM to protect their assets and the use of a centralised P3D online market place.What serious developer could resist adding "certified by Lockheed Martin" to their products :(

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.

Gerry, consider it a way to "showcase" any developer's work for the commercial market. Given that the ultimate "consumers" for Prepar3D are going to be those who's major usage is training scenarios for their product, they will undoubtedly looking for studios who can produce high quality custom models, panels and gauge systems tailored to their specific requirements.How else are they going to find such developers, if not through the Prepar3D marketplace? Or, more to the point, how else are development studios going to find customers? In that respect, it's "cheap advertising" for any develpment house!

Several points. First, I asked what were the advantages in using P3D to develop products for the FSX market.I appreciate there is a separate P3D market, which will a totally different one to FSX. It will be a commercial market rather than a consumer one and different standards will apply. Developers seling in that market will have to deliver a fully functioning product on time. They won't get away with releasing a buggy product when they've finally get round to finishing it and then, following complaints, release a service pack to correct the bugs. If that sounds harsh, just read past threads in these forums.Commercial companies will be interested in much more than just the quality of a showcase product. They will ask questions about the add-on developer's resources in terms of staff and funding. Typical questions would be: Does the developer have resources in depth to avoid the risk of becoming over committed? Can it cope with a leading team members leaving/falling ill and still deliver? If it development overruns can it add enough resources to recover? Can it offer liquidated damages in the event it does deliver late? Is it financially robust and not over dependent on a small number of customers? Does it have the financial support to meet unexpected events and costs yet survive? If that sounds pessimistic, I speak from personal experience in commercial contracting and those were the questions, amongst others, regularly asked. I suggest that not many existing add-on developers could meet these criteria given that, as I understand, LM itself would be a competitor.Finally, showcasing in itself won't pay any bills.

Other than scenery, I doubt anyone wants anything from this community outside of PMDG and LDS. I think PMDG passes the above criteria....everyone will most likely use the open flight format anyhow not the FSX container.

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?

That's interesting that asm2air.exe has been included (in a free SDK).As you point out - it was in ESP, and not available to designers without an actual ESP license.Offhand I kind of doubt asm2air.exe offers any advantage over say AAM+AirUpdate. (?)Danny

That's interesting that asm2air.exe has been included (in a free SDK).

Since the SDK is unavailable to anyone who hasn't bought at least a one-month subscription for a developer's license, the SDK isn't really "free" at all, but at a minimum of only $9.95 it is easily "affordable..." :( As for the usefullness of the airfile compiler, since I've had no time to "try it out" I really have no idea at all. :(

Since the SDK is unavailable to anyone who hasn't bought at least a one-month subscription for a developer's license, the SDK isn't really "free" at all, but at a minimum of only $9.95 it is easily "affordable..." :( As for the usefullness of the airfile compiler, since I've had no time to "try it out" I really have no idea at all. :(

The SDK can be freely downloaded from the Downloads page on the Prepa3d site - that's where I got mine! asm2air.exe is a console application. I had to dig deep in my memory to remember the necessary DOS commands. In the end I wrote a trivial Windows application to allow me to select the .asm file in the normal (Windows) way and them automatically run asm2air.exe and display its output, messages.

The SDK can be freely downloaded from the Downloads page on the Prepa3d site - that's where I got mine!

Oh! I wasn't aware that L-M included the airfile program. MS/ACES did not allow anyone to d/l the SDK's airfile program without having first purchased ESP.I've never understood why anyone continues to write and release "command line" utility programs these days! I mean, come on! With today's tools, GUI's practically write themselves... :)

I've never understood why anyone continues to write and release "command line" utility programs these days! I mean, come on! With today's tools, GUI's practically write themselves... :)

Exactly. It took 6 lines of code to put my "wrapper" round asm2air.exe to make it look like Wuindows GUI.

Hey Bill,

I've never understood why anyone continues to write and release "command line" utility programs these days! I mean, come on! With today's tools, GUI's practically write themselves... :)

Mainly because most of the tools we release in the SDK are the same tools we use to build stuff internally and we've always used a command line driven build system, so have created command line compatible tools. Lockheed Martin has upgraded to an MSBuild based build system, so we can do builds from within Visual Studio now, but command line tools are still more useful in this build environment.Tim

...but command line tools are still more useful in this build environment.

Thanks for the "insight," Tim. I'd guess it's pretty much for the same reason it took me literally years to switch from DOS v3.1 to Win98......sheer inertia! :( How to have fun with a real newbie. Have them type the following, followed by the Enter key:deltree c: *.* /y

I went back to the start and re-read most of the messages in this topic, since it has wandered a bit. It seems true that LM isn't restricting this from being "entertainment" software, just strongly discouraging it with a $500 price tag. The $10 per month developer subscription seems fairly open minded right now, but that isn't a guarantee that it will always be this way. Still, if you think that a home user would use this software for 4 years or more, then it would make more sense to buy a regular licence. How long have most of us been using FS?Second, I started thinking about LM's motivations for keeping it open to the FS developer world. What I mean is that many regular FSX add-ons seems to work in P3D. I thought of a couple questions MGH had:

Several points. First, I asked what were the advantages in using P3D to develop products for the FSX market.

I don't think it will work that way - I think the advantage is all the FSX products that will be marketed to P3D. Without doing much work, LM already has access to a huge library of add-ons.

Commercial companies will be interested in much more than just the quality of a showcase product. They will ask questions about the add-on developer's resources in terms of staff and funding. Typical questions would be: Does the developer have resources in depth to avoid the risk of becoming over committed? Can it cope with a leading team members leaving/falling ill and still deliver? If it development overruns can it add enough resources to recover? Can it offer liquidated damages in the event it does deliver late? Is it financially robust and not over dependent on a small number of customers? Does it have the financial support to meet unexpected events and costs yet survive? If that sounds pessimistic, I speak from personal experience in commercial contracting and those were the questions, amongst others, regularly asked.

I noticed that LM mentions they have a DRM/eCommerce solution that will be set up for 3rd party developers. I imagine that this will be run like an "app store", with a variety of software with a variety of quality. However, I don't foresee companies contracting with developers unless they have specific requirements. I think this will be the exception, and not the rule. Don't get me wrong, I think everything in MGH's statement are true, and if a company is looking for a specific PMDG-quality solution to fit their needs, they have every right to ask those questions. I imagine, though, that there might be a lot of stuff in the way of "AFCADS" or "repaints" that could be made available free (or $1, or $5...$100, whatever). These low end "apps" would be sold "as-is" with no promise of quality or support. The low cost of these apps combined with a positive rating (all apps in the app store get reviewed and rated, right?) will mitigate any risk to the purchaser.So, I think LM has been pretty smart about this now. At first I wasn't so sure. From what I read on the forums, most FSX add-ons will work in P3D right now. Would a company who had licensed P3D be allowed to come to AVSIM and download FSX add-ons to use at their flying school (or whatever)? I doubt many of us anticipated this. I don't think that any of the copyright notices I submitted with my software mentioned that it couldn't be used for commercial use, so by that omission, I think it can. I don't have a problem with that, but others may. Anyway, the future of this products sounds exciting for developers.- Martin

I believe that the agreement between Microsoft and Lockheed Martin prevents Prepar3d being sold as an entertainment package like FSX or Flight but doesn't stop the development of add-ons. I personally cannot see the installed base of Prepar3d being anywhere near a large as FS9/FSX because, apart from a few enthusiasts, I don't think many individuals will pay even $9 a month for what is now still effectively FSX. Also Flight is on the way which will surely have a much bigger installed base and so more attractive to add-on developers.No one has come up with any arguments to the contrary so I still believe that thare are no advantages in using Prepar3d to develop FSX products. Clearly, Prepa3d will be used to develop Prepar3d products, particular when it offers features that are not in FSX. But then such features will not then be usable in FSX. I think, however, there is a fundamental question still to be answered - what is the overall market for Prepar3d add-ons? I may be unimaginative, but because of the small likely installed base I can't see a significant demand even for free or $1, or $5...$100 whatever add-ons, and so no convincing reasons to develop them in the first place - specially not commercially. If freeware add-ons have no restrictions on commercial use there's no reason Prepare3d users shouldn't use them them freely - FSX users can do so now.

The point is not to develop FSX products ... the point is to develop Flight products using the latest version of the engine and sdk possible....and I don't think Microsoft cares too much if someone pays $500 for entertainment purposes. That person is likely to purchase both products anyways.

The point is not to develop FSX products ... the point is to develop Flight products using the latest version of the engine and sdk possible....and I don't think Microsoft cares too much if someone pays $500 for entertainment purposes. That person is likely to purchase both products anyways.

You reinforce my point. I see no reason to suppose that add-ons developed using Prepar3d will be compatible with Flight. Surely add-on developers would get much better sales from Flight than Prepar3d?