Does that mean its aim is to be as realistic as possible in order to attract said market? If that is the case, then by default it attracts many who are reading these forums too, wouldn't you say?

 

I don't think it it is. It's aim will be to be a realistic as that market requires. For example in full-motion simulators there's little eye-candy. No need for external views of the aircraft. The scenery is only as good as it needs to be - showing only what pilots need to see out of the window.. .

I don't think it it is. It's aim will be to be a realistic as that market requires. For example in full-motion simulators there's little eye-candy. No need for external views of the aircraft. The scenery is only as good as it needs to be - showing only what pilots need to see out of the window.. .

 

I have always shaken my head at that. Even now, with all the capabilities of modern computers, if you look at professional simulators, government or civilian, graphically at least, they tend to be basic almost to the point of being outright primitive. All the bells and whistles are not necessary in that market, and the processor(s) is/are apparently devoted primarily to systems and physics calculations.

 

Probably great for real pilots, and a thrill to try a few times, but any trace of fun has been surgically removed. I can't see such an approach working well in the consumer market.

 

We could turn the graphics off in a sim we already have and get approximately the same effect if that's all we wanted.

I have always shaken my head at that. Even now, with all the capabilities of modern computers, if you look at professional simulators, government or civilian, graphically at least, they tend to be basic almost to the point of being outright primitive. All the bells and whistles are not necessary in that market, and the processor(s) is/are apparently devoted primarily to systems and physics calculations.

 

Probably great for real pilots, and a thrill to try a few times, but any trace of fun has been surgically removed. I can't see such an approach working well in the consumer market.

 

We could turn the graphics off in a sim we already have and get approximately the same effect if that's all we wanted.

 

I think you've missed the point. Professional simulators are intended to be used in the real world and not for fun - they are tools. Does you expect airline manufactuers to build "fun" in the aircraft for the amusement of the flight crew?

I thinkyou've missed the point. Professional simulators are intended to be used in the real world and not for fun - they are a tool. Does you expect airline manufactuers to build "fun" in the aircraft for the amusement of the flight crew?

 

Absolutely. Why shouldn't life be fun?? Why shouldn't using tools be fun for that matter?? We are human beings rather than mindless machines.

I think you've missed the point. Professional simulators are intended to be used in the real world and not for fun - they are tools. Does you expect airline manufactuers to build "fun" in the aircraft for the amusement of the flight crew?

 

But my point was that in the quest to build the ultimate "Realistic" sim, we run the risk of it all becoming as technical an exercise as a commercial sim; and just about as much fun. (without the pay)

 

Prepar3d may be willing to let this community hitch a ride, but is it heading to the same place this community wants to go?

 

Any new sim needs balance, above all. Technical and fun.

But my point was that in the quest to build the ultimate "Realistic" sim, we run the risk of it all becoming as technical an exercise as a commercial sim; and just about as much fun. (without the pay)

 

Prepar3d may be willing to let this community hitch a ride, but is it heading to the same place this community wants to go?

 

Any new sim needs balance, above all. Technical and fun.

 

Agreed. That's why this is a hobby after all. If I really want to fly in one of those ultra-realistic sims all I have to do is book a 1 hour session in the fully certified 737NG sim that lives in my city somewhere. Costs the same as a lesson in a 172.

Absolutely. Why shouldn't life be fun?? Why shouldn't using tools be fun for that matter??

I want my pilot concentrating on flying, not being distracted by having "fun".

 

Prepar3d may be willing to let this community hitch a ride, but is it heading to the same place this community wants to go?

 

Prepar3D is heading where LM's major customer's want it to go. They, as you suggest, are certainly not us.

I want my pilot concentrating on flying, not being distracted by having "fun".

 

Well I can only speak for myself but personally I'm having a lot of fun when I'm focusing/concentrating fully on what I am doing =).

As an aside, dont forget that many of the newer sims have incredibly detailed airport (*airport*) scenery. If I recall correctly from an article I read a couple of years ago, basically the sales model for these high-detail areas are very similar to what we do in the "entertainment" sector; you purchase a 3rd party airport/scenery package for only the areas you desire/require. Who knows if they are developed by 3rd parties or by the same software dev that creates the core system for FSI, CAE, etc. but at any rate, the out-the-window view has improved a bit. As others have mentioned though, imagine being the Purchasing Director for XYZ Training Department. If you are based out of Seattle, I can see having your simulator having high-detailed KSEA, but not every other airport available out there. Makes lots of sense.

I was contacted by LM asking if they could link to my propliner models. I asked why, and they said they thought they would be fun!

I was contacted by LM asking if they could link to my propliner models. I asked why, and they said they thought they would be fun!

 

Well one of the quotes from the interview with Avsim from a Prepare3d representative was:

 

Our focus is on learning and training. The bottom line is that it depends on how the software will be used. What it can’t do is support just-for-fun simming.

 

Given their stated commercial aim, that request sounds slightly strange. It certainly is interesting watching the oh, so indirect flirtation, though.

 

I repeat, I have no idea what to think, and that keeps me at a distance until the dust settles.

Just don`t understand it really . Why would they not support fun simming? If they want their product to be a success that is surely the way to go.

Because Joe Average simmer is nothing compared to a single commercial user. A thousand simmers aren't really either.

Just don`t understand it really . Why would they not support fun simming? If they want their product to be a success that is surely the way to go.

 

In LM's case, "success" is measured in the number of commercial users they have. Not a lot of fun simmers would be willing to drop $500 (the original Prepar3D price) on what is basically FSX with a few enhancements. With the price now at $200, more simmers would be willing to buy. Personally, I'm waiting for version 2 and expecting lots of enhancements and fixes. I can justify $200.

 

The reason they don't support "fun simming" is because that's how it's specified in the contract under which they acquired the code. The pertinent parts of the contract have been published, either here or on the Prepar3D forums.

 

There's a developer's license available at about $10 per month. I'm a developer; it says so right on my retirement certificate from over 20 years of professional programming. Most readers here are probably developers as well, if you think about it. If you've ever downloaded an aircraft, either free or payware, and discovered it was a dog but could be quite good with about 40 hours worth of work, that counts. Whether you publish your changes, or send them to the original developer, doesn't really matter. Some lawyers might say otherwise, but I'm keeping my own legal council, and do you think LM might go after you? Besides, every time you dig into the files, you're learning something new which can eventually be used for something anyone would consider development.

 

As for Microsoft ever doing another flight simulator, I'm going to go with the original poster and say it's pretty unlikely.

 

Hook

i think one thing that needs to be considered is that a LOT of us have sunk quite a bit of cash into MSFS and various addons to just say "hey look new shiny flightsim" and expect everyone to migrate to it. Yes Xplane is growing its addon community, but the experiences i have had with that sim range from frustrating to worse. LM's P3D, while being the spiritual successor to FSX turns me off simply because it is NOT a retail product, and LM could choose at any time to pull the rug out from everyone. And their pricing model is not ideal IMO. I think it would be ideal for ORBX to maybe give it a shot, but thats asking for a lot.