Some thoughts on Flight...

[JasonD210 0]

P3D is a piece of commercial software, that for a variety of reasons is also of interest to home simmers. That could change at any time though. Not because LM actively decides to shut out home users, but because they decide to move in a direction that home users don't want. Maybe that will never happen, or maybe it will happen tomorrow, there simply are no guarantees

Are there ever any guarantees? MSFS was a consumer product and now that has moved in a direction we don't like.The only thing that would worry me with Prepar3d is the cost of future add-ons for it. For example, if an add-on developer makes something solely for Prepar3d, how can they market that? Will they be able to market it towards us, with pricing similar to FSX add-ons?It's all quite depressing, I must say. Perhaps it's time for me to start winding down this hobby. Edited January 8, 2012 by JasonD210

[WotanUK 289]

Will they be able to market it towards us, with pricing similar to FSX add-ons?

Doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment, Aerosoft are doing just that. But yes i agree, how long will this continue, Prepar3d (and i really want to like it) has a rather unclear license and attitude towards simmer's.

[FaxCap 13]

Robert, I read my way through the many replies to your post. Many of the posts mention the costs. Your origianl post mentioned profit for your company and MS. Nothing wrong with making money. But all this brings back a point raised the early FS2004 days. That point being...."If Microsft wants to make good money on MSFS why don't they charge more money for it?" Let's face it....I bought FSX the day it came out for $29CAD. My buddy bought it 6 months later and paid the astronomical sum of $34.99. Most of my payware aircraft and scenery cost more than that!!!I would have been happier if MS had taken a business model where they charged vendors 3 to 4 times what they did. I would have gladly paid between $99 and $120 for FSX if it meant a constant stream of updates much like Windows Update. If all aircraft and scenery had a 5% license fee to MS I wouldn't have minded as long as we saw constant improvements.I was told by an ACEs programmer to move beyond FSX they knew the graphics engine would need more than just an overhaul. He said it needed a total re-write.So be it....If it was just coming out now and they wanted $125 for it I would be at the vendor's door cash in hand.Ken

[Houghton11 12]

This is very unfortunate news Robert.Personally, my options are being culled fast. MS Flight's closed architecture is not for me, so I will not be moving forward with it. Most third party developers already have tight margins, and the new DLC concept will make it even tougher. It will relegate add-on's to only the ones that can cover costs. This will leave a huge hole in the content that is less popular and hence cost recovery impossible.X-Plane has been around a long time and those that use it will continue to do so, and it may even pick up a few more users in the near future, but it is not in line with what I look for in a simulation, and I have my reservations on how it creates it's flight models and dynamics. Being a Mac based platform will hold it down to available Mac hardware in my opinion, which will keep it crippled for PC users or at the least, not optimized. Yes, I have tried it.Prepar3D I have found, offers thus far nearly all that I am looking for. It's rock solid, and most of the code has been re-worked to have little resemblance to the original ESP content. I own every PMDG product that functions in FSX that I know of, and in particular I have continual difficulties with the MD-11, 747-400, and the 737 NGX causing the FSX app to crash. I do not blame PMDG. I do not think your products are flawed. I do blame FSX though. It's old and tired and is having the bile squeezed out of it to perform in a way it was never released for. Prepar3D has not had a single failure in over 37 hours of flight. Something I have never achieved with FSX. Sometimes I get through a flight, sometimes I don't, but I don't have to go through 2 hours of flying to find out that I won't. If something is present in Prepar3D that it does not like, it causes problems right off the start up, no waiting, no surprises. The developer support I have witnessed is second to none that I have seen for any platform.Given the high level of quality and fidelity of PMDG products I find the divorce from Prepar3D as rather puzzling, but I respect your reasoning's. I may be the few, but I certainly will not be rooted on a platform for the content of one developer even if it is superior to any current offerings. To me, the content is just as important as the platform and vice versa. I understand that FSX will be around for much time to come, but for me, it's lack of stability has relegated it to useless. I do hope you are correct that you will be able to create for it for many years to come, but FSX is always one updated driver or O.S. away from destruction that developers will have no control over. Prepar3D is backed by a group of developers to work through these issues. Since I already have 3 expensive and worthy aircraft from PMDG that I can not utilize within FSX, and have not ported over to Prepar3D, I can only conclude from your statement that sadly, I will not be purchasing any more of your offerings, as I will be bound by the same difficulties. Again, I am but only one, but I want to put it "out there". I believe a developer has the right to know why they lose some clients.Thank you for some great products and your great technical support. I hope someone else with your standards will be up to picking up what you have laid down for Prepar3D.

I don't want things to get testy...but I think it's worth explaining.Look,PMDG won't support P3D with their existing consumer licenses for their products. Simple as that.You/Whoever pays for a developer license/whatever the license is. The P3D is a commercial platform. It allows one to seek remuneration or reward for its use. That's why it cost's the big bucks.If PMDG were to officially support P3D...they have to work within the confines of the P3D EULA and other legal mumbo-jumbo. This means commercial licenses, which means one can seek that said remuneration/reward granted to them within the P3D legal framework. This is what Rob is talking about above.

I've received a forum PM from the fellow at P3D and we'll have a discussion related to PMDG's Commercial Licensing division

(the bold is by me)He's talking about a commercial license for a PMDG product. Basically were talking about something along the lines of a Computer Based Training set-up similar to what we see with avionics trainers/FMS trainers currently in the real aviation world. These things cost big bucks, and have huge liability concerns; hence the large cost. PMDG has to assume that whoever is using P3D is using it within the capitalist/commercial realm; that is, they are using it to make money. If somebody pays a training provider to provide home-based 737 training via the NGX and P3D, they expect it to be accurate, they expect it to be legally sound, and they expect it to cost a lot. PMDG is entitled to this cut of $$$ as well.Now it's true other dev's have begun to embrace the P3D platform, the most visible probably is Orbx. In their case we are talking about scenery. Now, the liability concerns within a commercial simulator regarding scenery is much less of a problem than it is simulating an entire aircraft/vehicle. So let's break it down further, using this completely hypothetical scenario:PMDG announces it will support P3DPMDG develops commerical license- above said license is written by expensive legal team to account for all liability issues etc.- above said license takes into account liability insurance for a aviation training product or anything the commercial P3D license allowsIf you haven't noticed by now, the PMDG product is already many times more expensive that it's consumer equivalent.PMDG rebuilds installers/products to support P3D - In order to protect itself, PMDG prohibits the use of consumer installers/products within P3D (so one can't use the consumer license to make money - In order to do the above, PMDG makes consumer installers/products incompatible with P3D.So.Does this make sense to everybody? Like if we keep harping on P3D here we are slipping down a slippery path. The only way for PMDG to not get burned by this is to force their products not to be compatible with P3D.So for the P3D users out there, it's best you keep your request for complete PMDG support within P3D at a dull roar...or you risk losing the ability to get any kind of PMDG functionality within P3D. As it stands at the moment, the PMDG EULA and P3D EULA simply don't jive, and it could be construed as a EULA violation to use a PMDG product within P3D.I will end this though with a statement: I am no way a legal expert, and can't speak for PMDG of course. All the above is just what I have gleamed from all the discussions/my own experience.

[moish 0]

Does this make sense to everybody?

I have to agree with this, sometimes we forget flight simulation for our community is basically aimed to be fun. I already experience very complicated manuals, vivid realistic scenery, extremely detailed cockpits, 3D vision glasses, controls which takes 15 minutes to setup on the table and after I fly an online mega event I have enough adrenalin for a month. So what do I need more? Guys like me would never consider to look for more other than interesting FSX addons and have their FSX run smoothly. It's not that we fly FS5 and need better graphics. Flying PMDG or Carenado on FTX scenery, 3D with a ButtKicker shaking your butt, what can possibly get better?! I would say save your big money guys, changing the FS platform is not the answer here. Get yourself the Ivy with PCI-E 3.0 and let FSX rock forever, that is what I plan anyway. Need more? Build your home cockpit or go be a real pilot :( Edited January 9, 2012 by moish

[Eraser74 35]

It´s a shame, because Flight performs so much better than FSX. I get 60 fps and + with high detail and the game looks awesome! Much better than X-Plane 10 and the flight model is better than in FSX.But if MS really does sell EVERY addon or livery then the product is doomed. PMDG stepping away from Flight is already the deathblow.Such a shame, I want FSX to look and run like Flight does, but with all the addons and stuff.And before anybody asks, I am in the beta, therfore I know the performance and flightmodel of Flight.

[Kosta 122]

and the flight model is better than in FSX.

I dunno, how can you judge the flightmodel by the usage of one or two simple aircraft, without even knowing how it performs in real life and make comparisons? Are you a real pilot?Not saying anything else but are you qualified to make such a statement?

[JasonD210 0]

It´s a shame, because Flight performs so much better than FSX

Perhaps that's got something to do with the fact that they've removed a lot of stuff and given us a game instead of a simulator.

[JasonD210 0]

Thought I'd share this. Probably most have seen it, and it is biased I guess, but generally I found it to be a good and comprehensive review:http://www.technologetic.com/2011/12/x-plane-10-review/The chapter on the sky is interesting. One of the bigger disappointments of Flight for me was the weather system.Notice also the part about ATC. I have read in X-plane forums that the ATC is very buggy. It seems that X-plane 10 is still in Beta....BUT, X-plane 10 has almost all the features now that one would expect of a good simulator. I think it has good potential.Also, take a look at post #176 in this thread:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/351464-avsim-exclusive-screenshots-for-x-plane10/page__st__150I've heard a lot of people moaning about frame rates, but if X-plane 9 is anything to go on, X-plane is going to be around for a few years and during that time frame rates will improve as more powerful computers come out and and as X-plane itself is tweaked and updated.I think X-plane 10 has a lot of potential, and I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with it now that PMDG and other developers are turning towards it.

[windshearDK 52]

Dear PMDG.It's been great reading your stand on this. I must say that your honest clear statement finally made it clear to me, what to expect from flight.As flytampa pointed out, outerra sounds and looks amazing, have you also got your eyes on that one?By the way:

they simulate sloped runways IE Luka in the Himalayas Edited January 9, 2012 by windshearDK

[Kosta 122]

This has been beaten to death - also commented by Orbx, one of the leader scenery designers for FSX, Outerra is looking good, but it has severe limitations as I hear. Orbx said FSX basically has one of the best engines for whole world simulation to the date - just the engine hasn't been worked on or improved. And that's what P3D is attempting to do. We'll see how far they come. V2 is a long way to go yet.PMDG is looking at X-Plane - we can do hardly anything about their decisions.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Kosta

[m_av 0]

PMDG needs to develop it's own flight model and/or marry the flight gear flight model with something like Outerra.So does ORBX.ORPMDG + ORBX, now there's a thought !It's really quite clear and simple. M$ has in no mistakable terms made it clear that 3rd parties are out - unless they play ball with Microsoft.Here's a chance for TPD's to band together and do something about it.

Edited January 9, 2012 by m_av

[Kosta 122]

Both PMDG and ORBX have no experience in making a flight simulator engine. And it's not something anyone can do... as someone stated, you would need millions for that. I think there was a thread somewhere where Orbx stated even how much it would cost them to make something like that.

[MarkW 1,500]

Call me cynical but I think PMDG does not want to develop for P3D because all existing products will work in that program, there is no money in it, at least short term.

[japascoe 98]

Both PMDG and ORBX have no experience in making a flight simulator engine. And it's not something anyone can do... as someone stated, you would need millions for that. I think there was a thread somewhere where Orbx stated even how much it would cost them to make something like that.

$30 million is the figure I saw in that thread.On the Aerosoft forums Matthijs Kok (of Aerosoft) said they looked at Outerra as a basis for the flight simulator they were thinking of developing, but it was found unsuitable.